Home Explore Help
Sign In
github-mirrors
/
mirror-epstein-docs
1
0
Fork 0
Files Issues 0 Pull Requests 0 Wiki
Branch: main
Branches Tags
mirror-epstein-...
/
results
/
IMAGES005
/
DOJ-OGR-00012367.json

DOJ-OGR-00012367.json 4.1 KB
Permalink History Raw

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354 
  1. {
    2. 

  2.   "document_metadata": {
    3. 

  3.     "page_number": "82",
    4. 

  4.     "document_number": "747",
    5. 

  5.     "date": "08/10/22",
    6. 

  6.     "document_type": "court transcript",
    7. 

  7.     "has_handwriting": false,
    8. 

  8.     "has_stamps": false
    9. 

  9.   },
    10. 

  10.   "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 747 Filed 08/10/22 Page 82 of 228 758 LC2Qmax3\n1 MR. PAGLIUCA: Okay. Ms. Pomerantz.\n2 MS. POMERANTZ: That question seems fine, your Honor.\n3 I think the government agrees with your Honor that the\n4 other questions were beyond the scope.\n5 MR. PAGLIUCA: May I? As long as we're on this topic,\n6 your Honor. I would like to preview another area from this\n7 article that I think is within this, but I want to make sure\n8 that the Court agrees with me before I go down this road.\n9 THE COURT: Go ahead.\n10 MR. PAGLIUCA: The article that we're talking about\n11 which is at 3502-018, the government's disclosure, the study\n12 that was done in this particular article, and which I believe\n13 this is the basis for her testimony about this grooming the\n14 environment, and so the study that she is referring to\n15 factually, there were 395 undergraduate students at John Jay\n16 College here who were given the five vignettes, I will call\n17 them, of this grooming behavior and asked in a sixth vignette\n18 which was non-grooming behavior, and they were asked to predict\n19 prospectively whether or not that was grooming behavior, and\n20 they couldn't. And the conclusion of the study was the five\n21 factors that she was talking about cannot be used to\n22 prospectively predict grooming behavior. And I would like to\n23 bring out those facts on cross-examination.\n24 THE COURT: Sure. I mean, that's consistent with her\n25 testimony.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00012367",
    11. 

  11.   "text_blocks": [
    12. 

  12.     {
    13. 

  13.       "type": "printed",
    14. 

  14.       "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 747 Filed 08/10/22 Page 82 of 228 758 LC2Qmax3",
    15. 

  15.       "position": "header"
    16. 

  16.     },
    17. 

  17.     {
    18. 

  18.       "type": "printed",
    19. 

  19.       "content": "1 MR. PAGLIUCA: Okay. Ms. Pomerantz.\n2 MS. POMERANTZ: That question seems fine, your Honor.\n3 I think the government agrees with your Honor that the\n4 other questions were beyond the scope.\n5 MR. PAGLIUCA: May I? As long as we're on this topic,\n6 your Honor. I would like to preview another area from this\n7 article that I think is within this, but I want to make sure\n8 that the Court agrees with me before I go down this road.\n9 THE COURT: Go ahead.\n10 MR. PAGLIUCA: The article that we're talking about\n11 which is at 3502-018, the government's disclosure, the study\n12 that was done in this particular article, and which I believe\n13 this is the basis for her testimony about this grooming the\n14 environment, and so the study that she is referring to\n15 factually, there were 395 undergraduate students at John Jay\n16 College here who were given the five vignettes, I will call\n17 them, of this grooming behavior and asked in a sixth vignette\n18 which was non-grooming behavior, and they were asked to predict\n19 prospectively whether or not that was grooming behavior, and\n20 they couldn't. And the conclusion of the study was the five\n21 factors that she was talking about cannot be used to\n22 prospectively predict grooming behavior. And I would like to\n23 bring out those facts on cross-examination.\n24 THE COURT: Sure. I mean, that's consistent with her\n25 testimony.",
    20. 

  20.       "position": "main"
    21. 

  21.     },
    22. 

  22.     {
    23. 

  23.       "type": "printed",
    24. 

  24.       "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
    25. 

  25.       "position": "footer"
    26. 

  26.     },
    27. 

  27.     {
    28. 

  28.       "type": "printed",
    29. 

  29.       "content": "DOJ-OGR-00012367",
    30. 

  30.       "position": "footer"
    31. 

  31.     }
    32. 

  32.   ],
    33. 

  33.   "entities": {
    34. 

  34.     "people": [
    35. 

  35.       "MR. PAGLIUCA",
    36. 

  36.       "MS. POMERANTZ"
    37. 

  37.     ],
    38. 

  38.     "organizations": [
    39. 

  39.       "John Jay College",
    40. 

  40.       "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    41. 

  41.     ],
    42. 

  42.     "locations": [],
    43. 

  43.     "dates": [
    44. 

  44.       "08/10/22"
    45. 

  45.     ],
    46. 

  46.     "reference_numbers": [
    47. 

  47.       "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
    48. 

  48.       "747",
    49. 

  49.       "3502-018",
    50. 

  50.       "DOJ-OGR-00012367"
    51. 

  51.     ]
    52. 

  52.   },
    53. 

  53.   "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
    54. 

  54. }
    55.