DOJ-OGR-00005798.jpg
610 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / court document (case 1:20-cr-00330-pae)
File Size:
610 KB
Summary
This document is page 15 of a legal filing from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It argues for the admissibility of testimony by expert witness Dr. Rocchio, distinguishing her clinical, academic-based conclusions from those of an FBI agent in a precedent case (*Raymond*) whose testimony on child molester profiles was found unreliable. The filing emphasizes that Dr. Rocchio will testify on psychological underpinnings rather than offender profiling.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Dr. Rocchio | Expert Witness/Clinician |
Proposed expert witness whose testimony is being defended as grounded in academic literature and clinical practice, u...
|
| Veteran FBI Agent | Expert Witness (in precedent case) |
Unnamed agent in the 'Raymond' case whose testimony on child molester profiles was deemed unreliable.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government |
The party presenting the expert testimony.
|
|
| FBI |
Employer of the expert witness in the referenced 'Raymond' case.
|
|
| DOJ |
Indicated in the Bates stamp (DOJ-OGR).
|
Timeline (1 events)
Relationships (2)
The document argues in favor of admitting Dr. Rocchio's testimony.
The text notes that 'the defense does not contest that Dr. Rocchio is qualified to be an expert'.
Key Quotes (4)
"Dr. Rocchio’s conclusions are not anecdotal; they are grounded in the academic literature and her formal and informal education."Source
DOJ-OGR-00005798.jpg
Quote #1
"Again, the defense does not contest that Dr. Rocchio is qualified to be an expert on this subject."Source
DOJ-OGR-00005798.jpg
Quote #2
"And Dr. Rocchio’s opinions are not an attempt to offer a “profile” of perpetrators of child sexual abuse or their activities."Source
DOJ-OGR-00005798.jpg
Quote #3
"“data is not the plural of anecdote”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00005798.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,747 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397 Filed 10/29/21 Page 15 of 84
testimony in this case is readily distinguishable from that in Raymond. There, the government
gave notice of expert testimony about the “behavior of child molesters” from a veteran FBI agent
who had reviewed case studies of child abuse and had written one book and one article. Id. at 143,
145, 147. The purported expert’s book, in turn, merely made assertions about the “profile” of child
molesters, with no information about how his experiences reliably led to his conclusions. Id. at
147-48. In the same breath, however, the book “disavow[ed] [its] reliability . . . for legal use,” and
his article similarly offered generalized views on what “many” offenders were “more likely or less
likely to do.” Id. at 148 (emphasis omitted). Accordingly, at bottom, the purported expert’s
testimony was based only on his subjective conclusions after reviewing case studies. See id. at
147 n.5 (explaining that the expert “troubling[ly]” wrote that “data is not the plural of anecdote,”
but “the information and opinions are based primarily on the totality of my acquired knowledge
and expertise”).
gave notice of expert testimony about the “behavior of child molesters” from a veteran FBI agent
who had reviewed case studies of child abuse and had written one book and one article. Id. at 143,
145, 147. The purported expert’s book, in turn, merely made assertions about the “profile” of child
molesters, with no information about how his experiences reliably led to his conclusions. Id. at
147-48. In the same breath, however, the book “disavow[ed] [its] reliability . . . for legal use,” and
his article similarly offered generalized views on what “many” offenders were “more likely or less
likely to do.” Id. at 148 (emphasis omitted). Accordingly, at bottom, the purported expert’s
testimony was based only on his subjective conclusions after reviewing case studies. See id. at
147 n.5 (explaining that the expert “troubling[ly]” wrote that “data is not the plural of anecdote,”
but “the information and opinions are based primarily on the totality of my acquired knowledge
and expertise”).
The situation here is quite different. Dr. Rocchio’s conclusions are not anecdotal; they are
grounded in the academic literature and her formal and informal education. Moreover, she will be
testifying about concepts she regularly employs as a practicing clinician. Again, the defense does
not contest that Dr. Rocchio is qualified to be an expert on this subject. And Dr. Rocchio’s
opinions are not an attempt to offer a “profile” of perpetrators of child sexual abuse or their
activities. Instead, Dr. Rocchio will testify about the psychological underpinnings of an
grounded in the academic literature and her formal and informal education. Moreover, she will be
testifying about concepts she regularly employs as a practicing clinician. Again, the defense does
not contest that Dr. Rocchio is qualified to be an expert on this subject. And Dr. Rocchio’s
opinions are not an attempt to offer a “profile” of perpetrators of child sexual abuse or their
activities. Instead, Dr. Rocchio will testify about the psychological underpinnings of an
14
DOJ-OGR-00005798
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document