diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156241/EFTA00156241.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156241/EFTA00156241.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f02e432357d48edeaffb4f6de4f8e0cb6d610021
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156241/EFTA00156241.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,101 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00156241.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 1,
+ "chars": 981,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 174.75,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT 609",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 689.91,
+ 22.049999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 769.2099999999999,
+ 22.049999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 769.2099999999999,
+ 62.99999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 689.91,
+ 62.99999999999999
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 222.04000000000002,
+ 327.6
+ ],
+ [
+ 555.1,
+ 327.6
+ ],
+ [
+ 555.1,
+ 359.0999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 222.04000000000002,
+ 359.0999999999999
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00156241"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156242/EFTA00156242.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156242/EFTA00156242.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..539b70e898297e74f24a45bb7c95e99b3a73b2f9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156242/EFTA00156242.md
@@ -0,0 +1,210 @@
+
+
+01116/202017:46 EST
+
+# U.S. Customs and Border Protection U.S. Department of Homeland Security TECS - Person Encounter List
+
+Generated By: Page 1 of 5
+
+| Last Name | First Name DOB Doc | | | | | | | |
+|-----------|--------------------|--------------|-------|---|--------------|-------------|---------|-----|
+| | | | | | VO Site Insp | Type Status | Ref Arr | |
+| MAXWELL | GHISLAINC | 12/18/1999 | | | | | | |
+| | | | | | A511 | AIRLINE | | |
+| MAXWELL | GHISLAINC | 10/02/1999 | | | | | | |
+| | | BA | 3 | I | 4701 | APIS | JFK | LHR |
+| MAXWELL | GHISLAINC | 09/10/1999 | | | | | | |
+| | | AF | 6 | I | 4701 | APIS | JFK | COG |
+| MAXWELL | GHISLAINE | 08/14/1999 | | | | | | |
+| | | PV | 9083E | I | A511 | AIRLINE | | |
+| MAXWELL | GHISLAINE | 08/01/1999 | | | | | | |
+| | | AA | 412 | I | A511 | AIRLINE | | |
+| MAXWELL | GHISLAINE | 07/15/1999 | | | | | | |
+| | | BA | 3 | I | 4701 | APIS | JFK | LHR |
+| MAXWELL | GHISLAINE | 04/28/1999 | | | | | | |
+| | | BA | 113 | I | 4701 | APIS | JFK | LHR |
+| MAXWELL | GHISLAINE | 03/25/1999 | | | | | | |
+| | | AA | 412 | I | A511 | AIRLINE | | |
+| MAXWELL | GHISLAINE | 01/17/1999 | | | | | | |
+| | | SA | 203 | I | A524 | AIRLINE | | |
+| MAXWELL | GHISLAINE | 9 12/13/1998 | | | | | | |
+| | | BA | 1 | I | 4701 | APIS | JFK | LHR |
+| MAXWELL | GHISLAINE | 11/07/1998 | | | | | | |
+| | | AA | 412 | I | A511 | AIRLINE | | |
+| MAXWELL | GHISLAINE | 10/03/1998 | | | | | | |
+| | | AA | 412 | I | AS11 | AIRLINE | | |
+| MAXWELL | GHISLAINE | 08/30/1998 | | | | | | |
+| | | AA | 672 | I | A511 | AIRLINE | | |
+| MAXWELL | GHISLAINE | 07/24/1998 | | | | | | |
+| | | AA | 1672 | I | A511 | AIRLINE | | |
+| MAXWELL | GHISLAINE | 07/20/1998 | | | | | | |
+| | | BA | 113 | I | 4701 | APIS | JFK | LHR |
+| MAXWELL | GHISLAINE | 06/07/1998 | | | | | | |
+| | | AA | 5567 | I | A511 | AIRLINE | | |
+| MAXWELL | GHISLAINE | 05/30/1998 | | | | | | |
+| | | AF | 8 | I | 4701 | APIS | JFK | COG |
+
+
+
+01116/202017:46 EST
+
+| lest Name | Flattimme DOB | Doe | | | | | | |
+|-----------|---------------|-----|---------------|---------|----|-----------|-------------|---------|
+| | | | | | VO | Site Insp | Type Status | Ref Arr |
+| MAXWELL | GHISLAINE | | 05/17/1998 CO | 29 | = | A103 | AIR:.:,, | |
+| | | | 14:13 | | | | (NOT | |
+| MAXWELL | GHISLAINE | | 03/20/1998 BA | 1 | I | 4701 | APIS | JFK LHR |
+| MAXWELL | GHISLAINE | | 02/28/1998 00 | 90 | I | A523 | AIRLINE | |
+| | | | 20:29 | | | | (NOT | |
+| MAXWELL | GHISLAINE | | 01/19/1998 00 | 9 | I | A523 | AIRLINE | |
+| | | | 17:39 | | | | (NOT | |
+| MAXWELL | GHISLAINE | | 12/25/1997 00 | 0000001 | I | A523 | AIRLINE | |
+| | | | 18:14 | | | | (NOT | |
+| MAXWELL | GHISLAINE | | 22/23/1997 00 | 1 | I | A523 | AIRLINE | |
+| | | | 17:36 | | | | (NOT | |
+| MAXWELL | GHISLAINE | | 22/06/1997 RG | 0000868 | I | A472 | AIRLINE | |
+| | | | 18:34 | | | | (NOT | |
+| MAXWELL | GHISLAINE | | 21/10/1997 00 | 1 | I | A523 | AIRLINE | |
+| | | | 17:08 | | | | (NOT | |
+| MAXWELL | GHISLAINE | A | 20/17/1997 VS | 0000001 | I | A103 | AIRLINE | |
+| | | | 18:15 | | | | (NOT | |
+| MAXWELL | GHISLAINE | | 08/06/1997 | | I | A520 | AIRLINE | |
+| | | | 15:07 | | | | (NOT | |
+| MAXWELL | GHISLAINE | | 06/23/1997 | | I | A475 | AIRLINE | |
+| | | | 17:41 | | | | (NOT | |
+| MAXWELL | GHISLAINE | | 05/31/1997 | | I | A523 | AIRLINE | |
+| | | | 18:52 | | | | (NOT | |
+| MAXWELL | GHISLAINE | | 05/27/1997 | | I | A520 | AIRLINE | |
+| | | | 16:50 | | | | (NOT | |
+| MAXWELL | GHISLAINE | P | 03/19/1997 8A | 3 | I | 4701 | APIS | JFK LHR |
+| MAXWELL | GHISLAINE | A | 02/06/1997 SA | 3 | I | A472 | AIRLINE | |
+| | | | 18:03 | | | | (NOT | |
+| MAXWELL | GHISLAINE | | 01/25/199- | | I | A523 | AIRLINE | |
+| | | | 18:56 | | | | (NOT | |
+| MAXWELL | GHISLAINE | | 12/18/1996 VS | S | I | 5206 | APIS | MIA LGW |
+
+# U.S. Customs and Border Protection U.S. Department of Homeland Security TECS - Person Encounter List
+
+Generated By: KIMBERLY MEDER Page 2 of 5
+
+
+
+01/16/2020 17:46 EST
+
+| LastName | First Name DOB | Doc | | | | | | | | |
+|----------|----------------|-----|------------|-----|----|-----------|-------------|-----|-----|-----|
+| | | | | | VO | Site Insp | Type Status | Ref | Arr | |
+| MAXWELL. | | | 08/09/1996 | | | | | | | |
+| | | | | | | A520 | AIRL:N. | | | |
+| MAXWELL | GHISLAINE | | 06/17/1996 | | | | | | | |
+| | | | BA | 3 | I | 4701 | APIS | INS | JFK | LHR |
+| MAXWELL | GHISLAINE | | 02/21/1996 | | | | | | | |
+| | | | VS | 1 | I | A103 | AIRLINE | | | |
+| MAXWELL | GHISLAINE | | 12/22/1995 | | | | | | | |
+| | | | 01 | 107 | I | 2720 | APIS | | LAX | SYD |
+| MAXWELL | GHISLAINE | | 12/05/1995 | | | | | | | |
+| | | | BA | 293 | I | MIA | APIS | | MIA | LHR |
+| MAXWELL | GHISLAINE | | 09/19/1995 | | | | | | | |
+| | | | | | I | A476 | AIRLINE | | | |
+| MAXWELL | GHISLAINE | | 09/19/1995 | | | | | | | |
+| | | | AF | 2 | I | 4701 | APIS | | JFK | CDG |
+| MAXWELL | GHISLAINE | | 07/08/1995 | | | | | | | |
+| | | | | | : | 7076 | AIRLINE | | | |
+| MAXWELL | GHISLAINE | P | 12/18/1994 | | | | | | | |
+| MAXWELL | GHISLAINE | | 12/18/1994 | | | | | | | |
+| | | | | | = | 7072 | AIRLINE | | | |
+| MAXWELL | GHISLAINE | | 09/09/1994 | | | | | | | |
+| | | | DL | 43 | I | | APIS | | CVG | ORY |
+| MAXWELL | GHISLAINE | I | 07/01/1994 | | | | | | | |
+| | | | | | I | A476 | AIRLINE | | | |
+| MAXWELL | GHISLAINE | | 05/19/1994 | | | | | | | |
+| | | | | | I | A103 | AIRLINE | | | |
+| MAXWELL | GHISLAINE | | 05/19/1994 | | | | | | | |
+| | | | | | I | A103 | AIRLINE | | | |
+| MAXWELL | GHISLAINE | | 05/19/1994 | | | | | | | |
+| | | | | | I | A103 | AIRLINE | | | |
+| MAXWELL | GHISLAINE | | 02/01/1991 | | | | | | | |
+| | | | | | I | A471 | AIRLINE | | | |
+| MAXWELL | GHISLAINE | | 11/06/1993 | | | | | | | |
+| | | | 8A | 189 | I | 5401 | APIS | | IAD | LHR |
+| MAXWELL | | | 07/20/1993 | | | | | | | |
+| | GIIIsLAINE | | AA | 51 | I | 5501 | APIS | | DFW | LGW |
+
+# U.S. Customs and Border Protection U.S. Department of Homeland Security TECS - Person Encounter List
+
+Generated By: KIMBERLY MEDER Page 3 of 5
+
+
+
+**U.S. Customs and Border Protection
+U.S. Department of Homeland Security
+TECS - Person Encounter List**
+
+01/16/2020 17:46 EST
+
+Generated By: KIMBERLY MEDER
+
+Page 4 of 5
+
+| Last Name | First Name | DOB | Doc Type | Document Number | Date - Time (Eastern) | Carrier Code | Carrier Num. | I/O | Site | Insp | Type | Status | Ref | Arr Loc | Dep Loc |
+|-----------|------------|-----|----------|-----------------|-----------------------|--------------|--------------|-----|------|------|-------------------------|--------|-----|---------|---------|
+| MAXWELL | GHISLAINE | | | | 04/20/1993 GENERAL INFORMATION DATE 7/6/2019 CASE ID 316-NY-3027571 LOCATION 9 EAST 71ST STREET NEW YORK, NEW YORK (Complete if applicable) SITE# _____ TEAM# _____ GRID# _____ REMARKS _____ GENERAL INFORMATION (Complete if applicable) The increased oversight of Blue Cross/Blue Shield of RI by the office of the Insurance Commissioner. Changes to the RI licensing law for psychologists The inclusion of psychologists in corporate practice of medicine legislation Ensuring that psychologists' scope of practice was not restricted by the passage of statutes related to the practice of applied behavioral analysis Local mental health parity legislation Marriage equality in the state of RI.
14:02 | | | I | A472 | | AIRLINE
(NOT
API) | | | | |
+| MAXWELL | GHISLAINE | | | | 09/28/1991
09:44 | | 0000000 | I | A472 | | AIRLINE
(NOT
API) | | | | |
+| MAXWELL | GHISLAINE | | | | 08/30/1991
20:34 | | 0000000 | I | A273 | | AIRLINE
(NOT
API) | | | | |
+| MAXWELL | GHISLAINE | | | | 06/13/1991
20:19 | | 0000000 | I | A476 | | AIRLINE
(NOT
API) | | | | |
+| MAXWELL | GHISLAINE | | | | 05/20/1991
18:03 | | 0000000 | I | A472 | | AIRLINE
(NOT
API) | | | | |
+| MAXWELL | GHISLAINE | | | | 12/04/1990
19:50 | | 0000000 | I | A471 | | AIRLINE
(NOT
API) | | | | |
+
+Total Number of Records: 58
+
+| Legend | |
+|--------------|------------------------|
+| Loc | |
+| Codes | Value |
+| LAX | LOS ANGELES, CA INTL |
+| MIA | MIAMI INTL, FL |
+| DFW | DALLAS/FT WORTH INTL |
+| CVG | CINCINNATI |
+| LHR | LONDON / HEATHROW INTL |
+| CDG | PARIS, CH. DE GAULLE |
+| ORY | PARIS, ORLY |
+| LGW | LONDON / GATWICK INTL |
+| IAD | DULLES INTL |
+| JFK | JOHN F KENNEDY INTL |
+| SYD | KINGSFORD SMITH-SYDNEY |
+
+| Doc Type | |
+|----------|----------------------------------|
+| Codes | |
+| P | P - PASSPORT |
+| A | A - U.S. ALIEN REGISTRATION CARD |
+| I | I - INSPASS DOCUMENT |
+
+| Site Code | |
+|-----------|--|
+| | |
+
+
+
+# U.S. Customs and Border Protection U.S. Department of Homeland Security TECS - Person Encounter List
+
+01116/202017:46 EST Generated By: KIMBERLY MEDER Page 5 of 5
+
+| .: _ ; | Value |
+|--------|---------------------------------------|
+| MIA | MIA - MIA |
+| AS24 | AS24 - CBP-MIAMI, AIRPORT CNTRL TERML |
+| AS11 | AS11 - CBP-CYRIL E KING, INTL AIRPORT |
+| AS23 | AS23 - CBP-PALM BEACH INTERNATIONAL |
+| AS20 | AS20 - CBP-MIAMI, AIRPORT N TERMINAL |
+| A476 | A476 - NEN YORK, JFK AIRPORT, TERM 4W |
+| A103 | A103 - CBP-NEWARK, INTL AIR TERM B |
+| A475 | A475 - NEN YORK JFK AIRPORT, TERM 3 |
+| A472 | A472 - NEN YORK JFK AIRPORT, TERM 7 |
+| A471 | A471 - NEW YORK, JFK AIRPORT, TERM 4 |
+| A273 | A273 - LOS ANGELES, BRADLEY AP LAX |
+| 2720 | 2720 - 2720 |
+| 5401 | 5401 - 5401 |
+| 5501 | 5501 - 5501 |
+| 5206 | 5206 - 5206 |
+| 4701 | 4701 - 4701 |
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156242/EFTA00156242.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156242/EFTA00156242.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8043b740d75dac872435467b919da1c21f58105b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156242/EFTA00156242.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,344 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00156242.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 5,
+ "chars": 15885,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 6.88,
+ "image_assets": [
+ "_page_0_Picture_0.jpeg",
+ "_page_1_Picture_0.jpeg",
+ "_page_2_Picture_0.jpeg",
+ "_page_3_Picture_12.jpeg",
+ "_page_4_Picture_0.jpeg"
+ ],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "U.S. Customs and Border Protection \nU.S. Department of Homeland Security \nTECS - Person Encounter List",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 281.952,
+ 29.61
+ ],
+ [
+ 509.0265808105469,
+ 29.61
+ ],
+ [
+ 509.0265808105469,
+ 68.68353271484375
+ ],
+ [
+ 281.952,
+ 68.68353271484375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "U.S. Customs and Border Protection \nU.S. Department of Homeland Security \nTECS - Person Encounter List",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 281.952,
+ 29.61
+ ],
+ [
+ 509.0265808105469,
+ 29.61
+ ],
+ [
+ 509.0265808105469,
+ 68.68353271484375
+ ],
+ [
+ 281.952,
+ 68.68353271484375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "U.S. Customs and Border Protection \nU.S. Department of Homeland Security \nTECS - Person Encounter List",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 281.952,
+ 28.98
+ ],
+ [
+ 509.0265808105469,
+ 28.98
+ ],
+ [
+ 509.0265808105469,
+ 68.68353271484375
+ ],
+ [
+ 281.952,
+ 68.68353271484375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "U.S. Customs and Border Protection U.S. Department of Homeland Security TECS - Person Encounter List",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 281.952,
+ 29.61
+ ],
+ [
+ 506.88,
+ 29.61
+ ],
+ [
+ 506.88,
+ 67.41
+ ],
+ [
+ 281.952,
+ 67.41
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "U.S. Customs and Border Protection \nU.S. Department of Homeland Security \nTECS - Person Encounter List",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 281.15999999999997,
+ 29.61
+ ],
+ [
+ 509.0265808105469,
+ 29.61
+ ],
+ [
+ 509.0265808105469,
+ 68.68353271484375
+ ],
+ [
+ 281.15999999999997,
+ 68.68353271484375
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 184
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 92
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 140
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 69
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 199
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 99
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 50
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 24
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00156242"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156242/_page_0_Picture_0.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156242/_page_0_Picture_0.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..af9b40279acfaefe5b28b2a5ac6be69b6b961795
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156242/_page_0_Picture_0.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:ed8beac225464ef021beade1a937f9d42cb867acbd90e416c456c96ba40d192f
+size 3906
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156242/_page_1_Picture_0.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156242/_page_1_Picture_0.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..953a4f97bc852b7c5b7dd8824ed8bc6f451a8600
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156242/_page_1_Picture_0.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:85086d303fca143d02280ee8098d8c66a021c55cbb44ac900d43062b0a7c9402
+size 3900
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156242/_page_2_Picture_0.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156242/_page_2_Picture_0.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bb5776ad3346efb8bc97245ed576e7ef9d67e94b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156242/_page_2_Picture_0.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:e5699271584e0d9b9e4c44a9b232757a988ef1f4afcb6fda4aea29e224ad1acd
+size 3875
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156242/_page_3_Picture_12.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156242/_page_3_Picture_12.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6931c56a8469e4912d73f1d60919b70940051c4d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156242/_page_3_Picture_12.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:093526049c660a2d130a3d272ed2ba451ab6f67cb6ee98dd66004abe086b0359
+size 3898
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156242/_page_4_Picture_0.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156242/_page_4_Picture_0.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7d8abe55f730a14bed5dcde5804a02403613fa99
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156242/_page_4_Picture_0.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:76b24b0f747621f73f8e9081af7b15d029932ca7f107d2f5a572f8fdef01fc96
+size 3919
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156247/EFTA00156247.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156247/EFTA00156247.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ffa9ed49432c6d1bb55f8d796bf7f8343278c900
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156247/EFTA00156247.md
@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+To:
+
+Cc:
+
+Subject: Malcolm Grumbridge
+
+Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2021 21:47:55 +0000
+
+Importance: Normal
+
+Attachments: Malcolm\_GRUMBRIDGE.docx
+
+Good afternoon,
+
+Attached is a work up for Malcolm Grumbridge.
+
+Thanks,
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156247/EFTA00156247.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156247/EFTA00156247.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..62ef6c437a60eaee1fd3409cbe3200f558398271
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156247/EFTA00156247.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00156247.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 1,
+ "chars": 208,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.59,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 21
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00156247"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156248/EFTA00156248.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156248/EFTA00156248.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fabb6e0e9566adb65b960f16b05a5b872475347e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156248/EFTA00156248.md
@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+## Malcolm Grumbridge
+
+## (U//FOUO) Travel Checks
+
+- (U//FOUO) According to travel records, Malcolm Grumbridge, DOB: traveled OUTBOUND from the United States/JFK to London on 10/27/2019. o Gumbridge flew INBOUND on 10/24/2019 from London to JFK. o As of 12/14/2021, his OUTBOUND 10/27/2019 is the last known US travel identified
+- (U//FOUO) Between 1/1/2000 and 12/14/2021 Grumbridge traveled 17 times
+- (U//FOUO) Malcolm Grumbridge has Passport # Kingdom that expired on 8/31/2021.
+- (U//FOUO) Passport Photo: last issued from GBR-United
+
+
+
+Last Name: GRUMBRIDGE First Name: MALCOLM CHRISTOPHER Birth Date: Encntr Date: 10/27/2019
+
+## (U) Open Source
+
+- Ghislaine Maxwell still has connections despite link to Prince Andrew and Jeffery Epstein sex scandal I Daily Mail Online o Cited as a Maxwell family associate and involvement in the Hogarth Group (a company that runs health clubs in West London)
+- Where on earth was the British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell? At last, we know I Tatler o Listed s legal advisor to the Hogarth Health Club in Chiswich o Referenced as a lawyer
+
+- Disgraced solicitor Malcolm Grumbridge's links to the Maxwells I Business I The Times o Quit the legal profession last year (2020) after admitting "reckless" conduct, set up several companies register to The Hogarth Group with minimal or no trading activity. Several are licked to Kevin and Ian Mazxwell.
+- Grubby Malcolm Grumbridge & Mucky Ghislaine Maxwell 2021 (thesteepletimes.com) o Found guilty in 2020 "of a string of rule breaches" o More than 4 decade legal and business career o Has been at the heart of the Maxwell's finances o Established around 150 companies in total o Acted as custodian of 44 Kinnerton St in Belgravia, London
+- Financial dealings of Hogarth Club director Malcolm Grumbridge in the spotlight Chiswick Calendar News o Removed from the Roll of Solicitors after an investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority because they identified "areas of concern in relation to compliance with Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing, The SRA Accounts Rules 2011, the Solicitors" Accounts Rules 1998 and the SRA Code of Conduct o Lax accounting practices amounted to a failure of due diligence o He was accused of failing to check the source of where money was coming from and failing to verify the identify of clients o SRA found Grumbridge had "failed to behave in a way that maintains the trust the public places in him"
+- Maxwell firms to be struck off register I This is Money o Involvement with two companies with Kevin Maxwell after being bailed out by a "mystery benefactor over payments due on his home" o Listed as Maxwell family friend and lawyer
+- Malcolm Grumbridge (@rotewand) /Twitter o Twitter account
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156248/EFTA00156248.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156248/EFTA00156248.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..67129d94b67b4e1617ec7fd2c71cde9267d998df
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156248/EFTA00156248.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,176 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00156248.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 2,
+ "chars": 2750,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.51,
+ "image_assets": [
+ "_page_0_Picture_3.jpeg"
+ ],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "Malcolm Grumbridge",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 72.08999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 181.4259490966797,
+ 72.08999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 181.4259490966797,
+ 85.7005615234375
+ ],
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 85.7005615234375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "(U//FOUO) Travel Checks",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 110.97
+ ],
+ [
+ 197.71778869628906,
+ 110.97
+ ],
+ [
+ 197.71778869628906,
+ 125.4505615234375
+ ],
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 125.4505615234375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "(U) Open Source",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 534.6
+ ],
+ [
+ 156.50811767578125,
+ 534.6
+ ],
+ [
+ 156.50811767578125,
+ 549.9505767822266
+ ],
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 549.9505767822266
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 54
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00156248"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156248/_page_0_Picture_3.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156248/_page_0_Picture_3.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..41c33bb6cffed4a65f02ce4b48403a039ba9a944
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156248/_page_0_Picture_3.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:cbd496ad22b4e38b612481ceae804efbbb09fcf7b264f14c9730092a7a5947b4
+size 11389
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156250/EFTA00156250.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156250/EFTA00156250.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0191af2d9cf503f13772303078c62a6f86284c8e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156250/EFTA00156250.md
@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+To:
+
+Subject: [EXTERNAL EMAIL] - FW: U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) -- Letter re Witness Order
+
+Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2021 17:14:27 +0000
+
+Importance: Normal
+
+Attachments: 2021.12.14\_Letter\_to\_Judge\_Nathan\_re\_Witness\_Order.pdf
+
+Inline-Images: image001.gif; image003.jpg
+
+From:
+
+Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2021 12:07 PM
+
+To:
+
+Cc:
+
+Subject: FW: U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) -- Letter re Witness Order
+
+From: Christian Everdell
+
+Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2021 12:04 PM
+
+To: Nathan NYSD Chambers
+
+Cc
+
+• Laura Menninger
+
+Subject: [EXTERNAL] U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell S2 20 Cr. 330 (MN) -- Letter re Witness Order
+
+; Jeff Pagliuca
+
+Chambers —
+
+Please see the attached letter regarding the tentative order of defense witnesses. We are submitting this letter under temporary seal due until the issue of witness anonymity is resolved.
+
+Respectfully submitted,
+
+Christian R Everdell
+
+COHEN & GRESSER LLP
+
+800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022
+
+I view bio www.cohengresser.com
+
+
+
+review. dissemination or copying of this e-mail or the information contained herein is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error. please immediately notify the sender by telephone and permanently delete this e-mail. Thank you.
+
+PRIVACY: A complete copy of our privacy policy can be viewed at: LI V.siAinvw.cohenoressercom/privacK-policx
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156250/EFTA00156250.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156250/EFTA00156250.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f7703e0d0751ffccb5832573c3fa70c75630af64
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156250/EFTA00156250.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,90 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00156250.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 2,
+ "chars": 1381,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 1.31,
+ "image_assets": [
+ "_page_0_Picture_28.jpeg"
+ ],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 67
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 34
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00156250"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156250/_page_0_Picture_28.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156250/_page_0_Picture_28.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1526da72c4bc72624205d45fad297bafceb1de9f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156250/_page_0_Picture_28.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:4aa2cb9d4d3a8a6c34334eb21bbb357b32b600096c6d18e3cc9db5a0379a5bca
+size 1232
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156252/EFTA00156252.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156252/EFTA00156252.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..002e47b01d3ff56bb8464d8a72b0fe13b16006ab
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156252/EFTA00156252.md
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+To:
+
+Subject: [EXTERNAL EMAIL] - Fwd: defense witness list
+
+Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2021 20:28:02 +0000
+
+Importance: Normal
+
+Attachments
+
+Begin forwarded message:
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156252/EFTA00156252.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156252/EFTA00156252.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..521730cc3dd26262f638e52b07d4dfa53a76e9e6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156252/EFTA00156252.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00156252.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 1,
+ "chars": 156,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.56,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 15
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00156252"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156253/EFTA00156253.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156253/EFTA00156253.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..77670cea114c631760fac9d55075312e71d57ef4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156253/EFTA00156253.md
@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+## Table of Contents
+
+| Subject Information | 2 |
+|------------------------------------------|----|
+| Potential Subject Photos (None Found) | 3 |
+| Possible Criminal Records (None Found) | 3 |
+| Possible Employers (None Found) | 3 |
+| Address Summary (16 Found) | 3 |
+| Address Details (16 Found) | 3 |
+| Cities History (5 Found) | 7 |
+| Counties History (3 Found) | 7 |
+| Driver's License Information (1 Found) | 8 |
+| Professional Affiliations (None Found) | 8 |
+| Professional Licenses (None Found) | 8 |
+| Bankruptcy Records (None Found) | 8 |
+| Liens (2 Found) | 8 |
+| Judgments (1 Found) | 8 |
+| Current Property Deeds (1 Found) | 9 |
+| Past Property Deeds (None Found) | 13 |
+| Property Foreclosures (None Found) | 13 |
+| Property Assessments (1 Found) | 13 |
+| Evictions (None Found) | 19 |
+| Current Vehicle Information (None Found) | 19 |
+| Past Vehicle Information (None Found) | 19 |
+| FL Accidents (None Found) | 19 |
+| Global Watch Lists (None Found) | 19 |
+| US Business Affiliations (None Found) | 19 |
+| UCC Filings (None Found) | 19 |
+| US Corporate Affiliations (None Found) | 19 |
+| Aircraft Records (None Found) | 20 |
+| Pilot Licenses (None Found) | 20 |
+| Voter Registrations (1 Found) | 20 |
+| Hunting Permits (None Found) | 20 |
+| Weapon Permits (None Found) | 20 |
+| Possible Relatives - Summary (44 Found) | 20 |
+| Likely Associates - Summary (19 Found) | 21 |
+| Possible Associates - Summary (4 Found) | 21 |
+| Neighbor Phones (30 Found) | 22 |
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156253/EFTA00156253.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156253/EFTA00156253.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3cce00117523f253c3bc121f9b8a05ada2af45ba
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156253/EFTA00156253.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,684 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00156253.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 24,
+ "chars": 1821,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 1.15,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "Table of Contents",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 235.00799999999998,
+ 59.996826171875
+ ],
+ [
+ 378.29144287109375,
+ 59.996826171875
+ ],
+ [
+ 378.29144287109375,
+ 79.85406494140625
+ ],
+ [
+ 235.00799999999998,
+ 79.85406494140625
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 78
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 39
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "TableOfContents",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 8,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 9,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 12,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 13,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 14,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 15,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 16,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 17,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 18,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 19,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 20,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 21,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 22,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 23,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00156253"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156277/EFTA00156277.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156277/EFTA00156277.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cac4c9ece5ec2e4e3d897e35908cb75bfdc00301
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156277/EFTA00156277.md
@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+## Table of Contents
+
+| Subject Information | 2 |
+|------------------------------------------|----|
+| Potential Subject Photos (None Found) | 2 |
+| Possible Criminal Records (None Found) | 2 |
+| Possible Employers (None Found) | 3 |
+| Address Summary (14 Found) | 3 |
+| Address Details (14 Found) | 3 |
+| Cities History (10 Found) | 5 |
+| Counties History (7 Found) | 5 |
+| Driver's License Information (2 Found) | 5 |
+| Professional Affiliations (None Found) | 5 |
+| Professional Licenses (None Found) | 5 |
+| Bankruptcy Records (None Found) | 5 |
+| Liens (None Found) | 6 |
+| Judgments (None Found) | 6 |
+| Current Property Deeds (2 Found) | 6 |
+| Past Property Deeds (None Found) | 11 |
+| Property Foreclosures (None Found) | 11 |
+| Property Assessments (2 Found) | 11 |
+| Evictions (None Found) | 25 |
+| Current Vehicle Information (None Found) | 25 |
+| Past Vehicle Information (None Found) | 25 |
+| FL Accidents (None Found) | 25 |
+| Global Watch Lists (None Found) | 25 |
+| US Business Affiliations (None Found) | 26 |
+| UCC Filings (None Found) | 26 |
+| US Corporate Affiliations (None Found) | 26 |
+| Aircraft Records (None Found) | 26 |
+| Pilot Licenses (None Found) | 26 |
+| Voter Registrations (3 Found) | 26 |
+| Hunting Permits (None Found) | 26 |
+| Weapon Permits (None Found) | 26 |
+| Possible Relatives - Summary (61 Found) | 26 |
+| Likely Associates - Summary (26 Found) | 28 |
+| Possible Associates - Summary (16 Found) | 28 |
+| Neighbor Phones (30 Found) | 29 |
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156277/EFTA00156277.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156277/EFTA00156277.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f0c456d185d27216da0b1f797b752f770080f438
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156277/EFTA00156277.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,866 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00156277.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 31,
+ "chars": 1821,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 1.41,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "Table of Contents",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 235.62,
+ 60.61907958984375
+ ],
+ [
+ 378.2264099121094,
+ 60.61907958984375
+ ],
+ [
+ 378.2264099121094,
+ 79.2489013671875
+ ],
+ [
+ 235.62,
+ 79.2489013671875
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 78
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 39
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "TableOfContents",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 8,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 9,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 12,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 13,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 14,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 15,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 16,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 17,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 18,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 19,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 20,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 21,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 22,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 23,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 24,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 25,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 26,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 27,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 28,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 29,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 30,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00156277"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156308/EFTA00156308.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156308/EFTA00156308.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0974af6e77dd669b889467b48d9890c265e2efdc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156308/EFTA00156308.md
@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+## Table of Contents
+
+| Subject Information | 2 |
+|-------------------------------------------|----|
+| Potential Subject Photos (None Found) | 3 |
+| Possible Criminal Records (5 Found) | 3 |
+| Possible Employers (None Found) | 5 |
+| Address Summary (20 Found) | 5 |
+| Address Details (20 Found) | 5 |
+| Cities History (12 Found) | 7 |
+| Counties History (6 Found) | 7 |
+| Driver's License Information (None Found) | 7 |
+| Professional Affiliations (None Found) | 7 |
+| Professional Licenses (None Found) | 8 |
+| Bankruptcy Records (None Found) | 8 |
+| Liens (1 Found) | 8 |
+| Judgments (None Found) | 8 |
+| Current Property Deeds (None Found) | 8 |
+| Past Property Deeds (2 Found) | 8 |
+| Property Foreclosures (None Found) | 16 |
+| Property Assessments (1 Found) | 16 |
+| Evictions (None Found) | 22 |
+| Current Vehicle Information (None Found) | 23 |
+| Past Vehicle Information (None Found) | 23 |
+| FL Accidents (None Found) | 23 |
+| Global Watch Lists (None Found) | 23 |
+| US Business Affiliations (None Found) | 23 |
+| UCC Filings (None Found) | 23 |
+| US Corporate Affiliations (None Found) | 23 |
+| Aircraft Records (None Found) | 23 |
+| Pilot Licenses (None Found) | 23 |
+| Voter Registrations (3 Found) | 23 |
+| Hunting Permits (None Found) | 24 |
+| Weapon Permits (None Found) | 24 |
+| Possible Relatives - Summary (75 Found) | 24 |
+| Likely Associates - Summary (27 Found) | 25 |
+| Possible Associates - Summary (42 Found) | 26 |
+| Neighbor Phones (24 Found) | 27 |
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156308/EFTA00156308.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156308/EFTA00156308.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c2e78839007bcfc09a1b3b7bdc1dd2440bba7379
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156308/EFTA00156308.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,814 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00156308.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 29,
+ "chars": 1857,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 1.3,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "Table of Contents",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 235.00799999999998,
+ 59.996826171875
+ ],
+ [
+ 378.29144287109375,
+ 59.996826171875
+ ],
+ [
+ 378.29144287109375,
+ 79.85406494140625
+ ],
+ [
+ 235.00799999999998,
+ 79.85406494140625
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 80
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 39
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "TableOfContents",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 8,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 9,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 12,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 13,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 14,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 15,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 16,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 17,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 18,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 19,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 20,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 21,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 22,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 23,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 24,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 25,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 26,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 27,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 28,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00156308"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156337/EFTA00156337.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156337/EFTA00156337.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..133edea6129d85fd5417efc5e078f066196e1239
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156337/EFTA00156337.md
@@ -0,0 +1,324 @@
+#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+
+x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x
+
+S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+
+### 11ENIORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF HER OBJECTIONS TO THE PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION REPORT
+
+Christian R. Everdell COHEN & GRESSER LLP
+
+
+
+Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim
+
+
+
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menninger HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C.
+
+
+
+Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
+
+# TABLE OF CONTENTS
+
+| | | Page |
+|------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|------|
+| I. | The 2003 Guidelines Apply to the Offense Conduct | 1 |
+| | A. A Jury Must Determine the End Date of Criminal Conduct that Dictates | |
+| | Which Guidelines Book Applies Consistent with the Er Post Facto Clause | 3 |
+| | B. The Trial Record Is Insufficient to Support a Finding that the Offense | |
+| | Conduct Continued Past November I, 2004 | 4 |
+| | C. The Goals of Sentencing Are Not Served by Applying the More Onerous | |
+| | 2004 Guidelines Based Solely on Epstein's Conduct | 8 |
+| II. | The Five-Point Adjustment Under USSG § 4B1.5 Does Not Apply | 10 |
+| | A. Ms. Maxwell Does Not Present a Continuing Danger to the Public. | 11 |
+| | B. Applying § 4BI.5 Would Lead to Absurd Results. | 14 |
+| III. | Ms. Maxwell Does Not Qualify for an Aggravating Role Adjustment Under USSG | |
+| | § 3B1.1 | 16 |
+| | A. Ms. Maxwell Did Not Supervise Another Criminal Participant | 16 |
+| | B. The Criminal Activity Was Not "Otherwise Extensive" | 19 |
+| IV. | The Two-Point "Undue Influence" Enhancement Under USSG § 2G1.3(b)(2)(B) | |
+| | Does Not Apply. | 20 |
+| V. | The Correct Sentencing Range is 51-63 Months Under the 2003 Guidelines | 22 |
+| | CONCLUSION | 23 |
+
+# TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
+
+| Cases Apprendi v. New Jersey, | Page(s) |
+|--------------------------------------------------------------|---------|
+| 530 U.S. 466 (2000) Blakely v. Washington, | 4 |
+| 542 U.S. 296 (2004) Kimbrough v. United States, | 4 |
+| 552 U.S. 85 (2007) Peugh v. United States, | 15 |
+| 569 U.S. 530 (2013) Stinson v. United States, | 1, 4 |
+| 508 U.S. 36 (1993) United States v. Bennett, | 14 |
+| 37 F.3d 687 (1st Cir. 1994) United States v. Booker, | 8 |
+| 543 U.S. 220 (2005) United States v. Broxmeyer, | 4 |
+| 699 F.3d 265 (2d Cir. 2012) United States v. Cavern, | 12, 13 |
+| 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008) United States v. Cordoba-Murgas, | 15 |
+| 233 F.3d 704 (2d Cir. 2000) United States v. Dorvee, | 7 |
+| 616 F.3d 174 (2d Cir. 2010) United States v. Gigante, | 15 |
+| 94 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 1996) United States v. Harris, | 7 |
+| 79 F.3d 223 (2d Cir. 1996) United States v. Julian, | 3 |
+| 427 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2005) | 3, 4 |
+
+| United States v. McGrain, | |
+|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------|
+| No. 6:20-cr-06113 (EAW), 2022 WL 287350 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 1, 2022) United States v. Patterson, | 13 |
+| 576 F.3d 431 (7th Cir. 2009) United States v. Pope, | 21 |
+| 554 F.3d 240 (2d Cir. 2009) United States v. Reuter, | 14 |
+| 463 F.3d 792 (7th Cir. 2006) United States v. Sanchez, | 9, 10 |
+| 30 F.4th 1063 (11th Cir. 2022) United States v. Santos, | 13 |
+| No. 21-10381, 2022 WL 1196761 (5th Cir. Apr. 22, 2022) United States v. Skys, | 13 |
+| 637 F.3d 146 (2d Cir. 2011) United States v. Suarez, | 16 |
+| No. 21-1721, 2022 WL 1449174 (3d Cir. May 9, 2022) United States v. Torres, | 13 |
+| 901 F.2d 205 (2d Cir. 1990) United States v. Tykarsky, | 3 |
+| 446 F.3d 458 (3d Cir. 2006) United States v. Watkins, | 3 |
+| 667 F.3d 254 (2d Cir. 2012) | 20 |
+
+# Statutes
+
+# Other Authorities
+
+Ghislaine Maxwell respectfully submits this memorandum in support of her objections to the Presentence Investigation Report ("PSR") and her claim that the correct sentencing range under the United States Sentencing Guidelines ("USSG" or the "Guidelines") is 51-63 months, not the 292-365 month range calculated by the U.S. Probation Office ("Probation") in the PSR. As set forth more fully below, the lower range is correctly calculated because (1) the 2003 Guidelines apply to Ms. Maxwell's offense conduct, not the 2004 Guidelines; and (2) the enhancements under § 4B 1.5 (repeat and dangerous sex offender against minors), § 3B1.1 (aggravating role), and § 2G1.3(b)(2)(B) (use of undue influence) do not apply.'
+
+#### ARGUMENT
+
+# I. The 2003 Guidelines Apply to the Offense Conduct
+
+Before determining the applicable sentencing range, the Court must first resolve the threshold issue of whether the 2003 Guidelines or the 2004 Guidelines applies to the criminal conduct in this case. It is well-settled that it is a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause for a sentencing court to apply a version of the Guidelines that did not come into effect until after the criminal conduct was complete if it provides for a higher sentencing range. See Peugh v. United States, 569 U.S. 530, 532-33 (2013) ("[T]here is an ex post facto violation when a defendant is sentenced under Guidelines promulgated after he committed his criminal acts and the new version provides a higher applicable Guidelines sentencing range than the version in place at the time of the offense.").
+
+There is no dispute that the 2004 Guidelines, which took effect on November 1, 2004, call for a much harsher sentence than the 2003 Guidelines. If the Court applied all of the same
+
+This memorandum sets forth arguments concerning the proper Guidelines calculation. Ms. Maxwell's arguments for why the Court should grant a substantial downward variance from the advisory Guidelines range are addressed in a separate submission entitled Sentencing Memorandum on Behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell.
+
+enhancements that were applied in the PSR, the recommended sentencing range under the 2003 Guidelines would be roughly 75% less than the recommended sentencing range under the 2004 Guidelines: 168-210 months based on a Combined Adjusted Offense Level of 35 under the 2003 Guidelines versus 292-365 months based on a Combined Adjusted Offense Level of 40 under the 2004 Guidelines.2 The parties dispute, however, whether the offense conduct ended before or after November 1, 2004, and whether a court or a jury must make that finding. See USSG § 1B1.11, cmt. n.2 (the "last date of the offense of conviction" is the "controlling date for ex post facto purposes").
+
+Probation and the government assert that the 2004 Guidelines apply because the second superseding indictment (the "S2 Indictment") generally alleges that the criminal conduct ended "in or about 2004" and the Court should find based on the trial testimony and other evidence that the offense conduct continued "through the end of 2004." See PSR at 58. That is legally and factually incorrect. For the reasons set forth more fully below, the Court must apply the 2003 Guidelines in this case because (1) the jury, not the Court, must determine the end date of the criminal conduct when that fact dictates which Guidelines book applies consistent with the Ex Post Facto Clause; (2) even if the Court may make that determination, the trial record is insufficient to find that the offense conduct continued past November 1, 2004, the effective date of the 2004 Guidelines; and (3) it would not serve the goals of sentencing to apply the harsher 2004 Guidelines in this case when the record is clear that Ms. Maxwell was no longer actively participating in the offense conduct by 2002 or 2003 at the latest.
+
+2 The five-point difference in the total offense level is driven by the base offense level. Under the 2003 Guidelines, the applicable base offense level is 19. See USSG § 2O1.1(a)( I) (2003). Under the 2004 Guidelines, the applicable base offense level is 24. See USSG § 2O1.3(a) (2004). Ms. Maxwell disputes the application of many of the enhancements as discussed in Sections 11-IV, infra.
+
+#### A. A Jury Must Determine the End Date of Criminal Conduct that Dictates Which Guidelines Book Applies Consistent with the Ex Post Facto Clause.
+
+As set forth above, it would be a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause for the Court to sentence Ms. Maxwell under the 2004 Guidelines absent a finding that the offense conduct continued past November 1, 2004. That finding must be made by a jury, not the sentencing court. Because the jury never made such a finding here, the Court cannot apply the 2004 Guidelines and must instead apply the 2003 Guidelines.
+
+Several appellate courts, including the Second Circuit, have held that if the end date of the offense conduct dictates whether, consistent with the Ex Post Facto Clause, a harsher penalty may apply to the defendant, then that fact must be resolved by a jury. See United States v. Julian, 427 F.3d 471, 480-482 (7th Cir. 2005) ("As it is the lifespan of the conspiracy that determines whether, consistent with the Ex Post Facto Clause, the defendant may be subject to the enhanced penalty [of 18 U.S.C. § 2423], the question whether the alleged conspiracy continued beyond the effective date of the new penalty is one that must be submitted to the jury."); United States v. Tykarsky, 446 F.3d 458, 478-480 (3d Cir. 2006) ("[B]ecause the communications spanned two different versions of the statute [18 U.S.C. § 2422] with different minimum penalties, the question of whether the violation extended beyond the effective date of the amended version was one that had to be resolved by the jury."); United States v. Harris, 79 F.3d 223 (2d Cir. 1996) (noting that when the offense conduct for a continuing criminal offense is alleged to straddle the date when the applicable penalty increased, the jury must determine whether the criminal conduct continued past the date of the change for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause); United States v. Torres, 901 F.2d 205, 226-27 (2d Cir. 1990) (same), overruled on other grounds as recognized by United States v. Marcus, 628 F.3d 36 (2d Cir. 2010).
+
+In each of these cases, the ex post facto violation resulted from an increase in the applicable statutory penalty, as opposed to the applicable sentencing range under the Guidelines. However, the Supreme Court has clearly held that it is also a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause to apply a later version of the Guidelines that increases the recommended sentencing range if the criminal conduct was complete before the later version took effect. See Peugh, 569 U.S. at 532-33 ("[T]here is an ex post facto violation when a defendant is sentenced under Guidelines promulgated after he committed his criminal acts and the new version provides a higher applicable Guidelines sentencing range than the version in place at the time of the offense."). An ex post facto violation is an ex post facto violation regardless of whether the increased penalty resulted from a change in the statute or a change in the Guidelines. Hence, if the end date of the offense conduct dictates whether it is permissible to apply a later Guidelines book consistent with the Ex Post Facto Clause, the jury must find that fact.
+
+Here, the S2 Indictment alleges only that the criminal conduct ended "in or about 2004" and does not specify whether the conduct continued into November and December 2004. Nor was the jury asked to make a specific finding as to the end date of the offense conduct. Because the jury did not make the necessary factual finding, the Court cannot apply the 2004 Guidelines and must instead apply the 2003 Guidelines.'
+
+### B. The Trial Record Is Insufficient to Support a Finding that the Offense Conduct Continued Past November 1, 2004.
+
+Even if the Court can determine the end date of the offense conduct for Guidelines purposes, the record does not support a finding that the conduct extended past November 1,
+
+3 Although the issue is properly framed as an ex post facto issue, it would also violate Ms. Maxwell's Sixth Amendment rights for the Court, and not the jury, to determine when the offense conduct ended. See Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000); Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004); United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005); see also Julian, 427 F.3d at 482 (failure to have the jury determine the end date of the conspiracy for a post facto purposes was a violation of the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights).
+
+2004, as the government asserts. The government's claim is based solely on (I) vague recollection that she stopped performing sexualized massages for Epstein in 2005 when she was 18 years old (Tr. 1525, 1549), and (2) two message pad slips that were never admitted in evidence. (GX 4-B, GX 4-F). Such meager and unreliable evidence is insufficient to support a finding that the offense conduct continued into the last two months of 2004, especially when that determination has such a significant effect on the recommended sentencing range. Instead, the credible evidence in the trial record established, at most, that Epstein was receiving sexualized massages in his Palm Beach residence through the summer of 2004, before the 2004 Guidelines took effect.
+
+recollection that she was 18 when she stopped seeing Epstein cannot be credited. (Tr. 1525, 1549). memory of the timeline of events—in particular, her age at the time of the relevant events—was demonstrably inconsistent and unreliable. For example, initially testified that she was 14 years old when first took her to Epstein's Palm Beach residence, which would have been in 2001. (Tr. 1518-19, 1525; GX-11). However, when was confronted on cross-examination with her prior deposition testimony in 2009, she agreed that first took her to Epstein's house in May or June 2002 when she was 15 years old, as she stated in her deposition. (Tr. 1570-73). Then on redirect changed her testimony yet again and testified that she first went to Epstein's house when she was 13 years old, which would have been in 2000. (Tr. 1693). also testified that she was "15, going to be 16" when she recruited her friend to give Epstein massages, which would have been towards the end of 2002 or early 2003. (Tr. 1544). However, according to the message pad slips that were admitted in evidence, the earliest of which dates to January 2003, did not begin calling the Palm Beach residence until April 2004 when was
+
+17. (GX-3-B). further testified that she had trouble remembering details of the events in question and affirmed that she "[doesn't] remember the times and dates" of her visits to Epstein's Palm Beach residence. (Tr. 1525, 1559).
+
+The government asserts that recollection can be credited because even if she cannot recall the year that an event took place, she has been consistent about how old she was when the event took place. (PSR at 53). As set forth above, this claim is flatly contradicted by the record. If could not accurately remember how old she was when she first met Epstein, the Court should not credit her recollection of how old she was when she last saw him.
+
+memory of when she stopped seeing Epstein was not only unreliable, but also contradicted by the other evidence in the record. herself testified that her last interactions with Epstein were when she returned from Georgia after giving birth to her son on (Tr. 1548-49). stated that she went back to Epstein "four or five times" because she needed money to buy things for her son, but eventually gave up when it became clear that she was too old for Epstein. (Tr. 1549).4 The message pads that were admitted in evidence corroborate that these interactions occurred from approximately late spring through summer 2004, when was 17 years old. (See GX-3-E (undated message from "; surrounded by messages dated April 29 and May 2 and included in a book of messages from 2004); GX-3-I (July 6 message from a '; included in a book of messages from 2004); GX-1-B (July 30 message from 1 r; next to a message dated August 12, 2004 and included in a book of messages from 2004). Accordingly, the trial
+
+memory of her interactions with Epstein around the time of the Georgia interlude was also inconsistent and contradictory. On the one hand, testified that she left Florida in 2003 "to escape the traumatic events" that had happened in Palm Beach and traveled to Georgia where she became pregnant with her child. (Tr. 1548-49, 1617, 1668). On the other hand, testified that she continued to visit Epstein in Palm Beach while she was pregnant. (Tr. 1549).
+
+evidence indicates that stopped performing sexualized massages for Epstein at the latest in the summer of 2004, not in 2005.5
+
+The two message pad slips cited by the government (GX 4-B, GX 4-F) do not support a finding that the offense conduct lasted beyond November 1, 2004. Although these two messages were labeled as government exhibits along with the rest of the message slips in the same book (GX 4-A-K), these messages were never admitted in evidence. The Court admitted the message slips from three other message books (GX 1-3) because Juan Alessi and recognized their signatures and/or handwriting in those books and could establish a business records foundation for their admission. (Tr. 877-889, 1772-1790). The government presumably did not have anyone who could do the same for GX 4 or it would certainly have admitted the message slips from that book as well. The Court should not rely on two isolated, unauthenticated documents in determining when the offense conduct ended, especially when they would almost single-handedly increase the recommended sentencing range by over 10 years. Cf. United States v. Cordoba-Murgas, 233 F.3d 704, 708 (2d Cir. 2000) (acknowledging that enhancements based on relevant conduct may result in sentences that are "excessive, inappropriate, and unintended under Sentencing Guidelines" when imposed "without regard to the weight of the evidence proving the relevant conduct"); United States v. Gigante, 94 F.3d 53, 56 (2d Cir. 1996) (holding that, for sentencing purposes, "the preponderance standard is no more than a threshold basis for adjustments and departures, and the weight of the evidence, at some point along a continuum of sentence severity, should be considered") (emphasis in original).
+
+5 In her 2007 interview with the FBI, which the government cites in its own objections to the PSR, stated that she went to Epstein's residence "over 100 times fora proximately three years beginning when she was 14 years old." See PSR at 54. According to that timeline, last visited Epstein when she was 17.
+
+Furthermore, it would be improper for the Court to rely on recollection and the message slips to find that the offense conduct lasted until 2005 because the government alleged in the S2 Indictment that the offense conduct ended "in or about 2004," not "in or about 2005." The initial indictment charged Ms. Maxwell with offenses that lasted "up to and including in or about 1997." (Ind. ¶¶ 9, 13, 15, 19). The S2 Indictment, which the government filed after it had located and interviewed =0, charged offense conduct that lasted "up to and including in or about 2004." (S2 Ind. ¶¶ 11, 17, 23, 27). The expanded end date of the S2 Indictment was based solely on anticipated testimony and corroborating evidence. Yet the government alleged that the offense conduct ended in 2004, even though the government knew recollection of when she last visited Epstein and was aware of the two message slips when it filed the S2 Indictment. The Court should hold the government to its allegations and not allow it to expand the end date of the offense conduct for purposes of sentencing. See United States v. Bennett, 37 F.3d 687, 700 (1' Cir. 1994) ("In determining 'the last date of the offense of conviction' for a post facto purposes and ... Application Note [2 of § 1B1.11], it is only reasonable to hold the Government to its own alleged dates.").
+
+For these reasons, the record is insufficient for the Court to find that the offense conduct continued past November 1, 2004, the effective date of the 2004 Guidelines. The Court must therefore apply the 2003 Guidelines to avoid an ex post facto violation.
+
+### C. The Goals of Sentencing Are Not Served by Applying the More Onerous 2004 Guidelines Based Solely on Epstein's Conduct.
+
+If the Court finds that the offense conduct continued past November 1, 2004, it should nevertheless vary downwardly and sentence Ms. Maxwell as if the 2003 Guidelines apply. The variance would account for the fact that Ms. Maxwell had stopped actively participating in the offense conduct by 2003 at the latest, when the earlier Guidelines were in effect. Such a
+
+variance would provide just punishment for the offense and promote respect for the law because it would punish Ms. Maxwell only for the conduct for which she was directly responsible, rather than artificially inflating her sentence based on two months' worth of Epstein's criminal conduct in which she was not involved.
+
+There is no evidence in the record that Ms. Maxwell did anything in furtherance of the conspiracy in November or December 2004. In fact, the evidence clearly showed that by that time, Ms. Maxwell was in a committed relationship with another man and had taken over responsibility for scheduling the massage appointments at the Palm Beach residence. Ms. Maxwell's assistant testified that by 2002 Ms. Maxwell had "moved on" from Epstein, had stopped coming to the office, and had begun a long-term relationship with Ted Waitt. (Tr. 2370-71, 2374, 2378-80). Juan Alessi testified that whom he recalled seeing for the first time towards the end of his employment in 2002, "immediately took over" responsibility for answering the phones and scheduling the massage appointments at the Palm Beach residence as soon as she was hired. (Tr. 832-33). testified that Ms. Maxwell called her to schedule massage appointments only in "the first year or two" and that called her thereafter. (Tr. 1527). In sum, the record is clear that by 2002 or 2003 at the latest Ms. Maxwell had stopped actively participating in the offense conduct and had been replaced by
+
+Applying the 2004 Guidelines would significantly increase Ms. Maxwell's sentencing range based on a finding by a mere preponderance that her co-conspirator Epstein engaged in offense conduct in the final two months of 2004 that Ms. Maxwell had nothing to do with and was not personally responsible for. That result would be fundamentally unjust and contrary to the purposes of sentencing. See United States v. Reuter, 463 F.3d 792, 793 (7th Cir. 2006)
+
+(Posner, J.) ("A judge might reasonably conclude that a sentence based almost entirely on evidence that satisfied only the normal civil standard of proof would be unlikely to promote respect for the law or provide just punishment for the offense of conviction."). Accordingly, the Court should exercise its discretion to vary from the 2004 Guidelines and sentence Ms. Maxwell under the 2003 Guidelines. See id. (the § 3553(a) sentencing factors "are broad enough and loose enough to allow the judge to dip below the guidelines range if he is justifiably reluctant to impose a sentence most of which rests entirely on a finding of fact supported by a mere preponderance of the evidence").
+
+# II. The Five-Point Adjustment Under USSG 4 4B1.5 Does Not Apply.
+
+Probation and the government seek to substantially increase Ms. Maxwell's Guidelines range by adding a five-point adjustment under USSG § 4B1.5 applicable to a "Repeat and Dangerous Sex Offender Against Minors." That one adjustment increases Ms. Maxwell's advisory sentencing range from 168-210 months to 292-365 months — a roughly 75% increase. But § 4B1.5 was intended to apply only to habitual sexual offenders who present a high risk of recidivism and pose "a continuing danger to the public." USSG § 4B1.5, cmt. background. The facts of this case fall far outside the scenarios that Congress and the Sentencing Commission were trying to address with § 4B 1.5. Here, the government concedes that the defendant is not a danger to the public, there is no evidence that the defendant herself is sexually attracted to minors, the conduct that gives rise to the adjustment ended almost 20 years ago, and there is no evidence that the defendant has re-offended and no concern that she will ever re-offend. Moreover, the application of § 4B1.5 to Ms. Maxwell would lead to absurd results that the Sentencing Commission did not contemplate. Section 4B1.5 therefore does not apply.
+
+# A. Ms. Maxwell Does Not Present a Continuing Danger to the Public.
+
+It is clear from the Guidelines commentary and the Congressional intent underlying the creation of § 4B1.5 that the adjustment does not apply to Ms. Maxwell. The Sentencing Commission created § 4B1.5 after the passage of the Protection of Children from Sexual Predators Act of 1998 (the "Act"). See Pub. Law 105-314 (Oct. 30, 1998). As part of the Act, Congress directed the Sentencing Commission to review and amend the Sentencing Guidelines applicable to several offenses involving child sexual abuse and exploitation, including the enticement and transportation offenses charged in the S2 Indictment, to ensure they were "appropriately severe." Id., Section 502. Congress also specifically directed the Sentencing Commission to review the guidelines applicable to these and other sexual abuse offenses and promulgate amendments "to increase penalties applicable to the[se] offenses ... in any case in which the defendant engaged in a pattern of activity involving the sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor." Id., Section 505. In response, the Sentencing Commission created § 4B1.5, which was added to the Sentencing Guidelines on November 1, 2001. See USSG, App'x C, amend. 615.
+
+The legislative history of the Act makes clear that the purpose of the law, and § 4B1.5 specifically, was to protect children from habitual sexual predators and to inflict severe punishments on repeat (and often violent) offenders who present a significant risk of recidivism. Congress was particularly concerned about the danger these defendants pose to the community because they are typically far more likely to re-offend than other criminal defendants — a fact which numerous members of Congress cited as a primary justification for the passage of the Act.
+
+- "Constituents deserve to be protected from society's worst offender-- the repeat sexual predator.... [T]he recidivism rates of sex offenders are astonishingly high — released rapists are 10 times more likely to repeat their crime than other criminals. The Congress has a responsibility to address the issue by passing a bill that would put an end to this cycle of violence repeated by a single perpetrator." Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act of 1998, Hearing Before the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Crime, 105th
+
+Cong. (Apr. 30, 1998) (testimony of Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY)), available at 1998 WL 210930.
+
+- "These strong sentencing provisions are important because the recidivism rates for sex offenders and pedophiles are 10 times higher than that of other criminals. Frankly, chances are that these predators will strike again." Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act of 1998, Proceedings and Debates Before the House of Representatives, 1056Cong., 2 nd Session (Jun. II, 1998) (comments of Rep. Deborah Pryce of (R-OH)), available at 144 Cong. Rec. H4491-03, 1998 WL 306835.
+- "Sentences for child abuse and exploitation offenses will be made tougher. In addition to increasing the maximum penalties available for many crimes against children and mandating tough sentences for repeat offenders, the bill will also recommend that the Sentencing Commission reevaluate the guidelines applicable to these offenses and increase them where appropriate to address the egregiousness of these crimes." Protection of Children from Sexual Predators Act of 1998, Proceedings and Debates Before the Senate, 1056 Cong., 2nd Session (Sept. 17, 1998) (statement of Sen. Orrin Hatch of (R-UT)), available at 144 Cong. Rec. SI0518-02, 1998 WL 636904.
+
+The Congressional intent underlying the Act was clear: the criminal statutes and the Sentencing Guidelines needed to be amended to impose harsher sentences on these sorts of dangerous, repeat sexual offenders to make sure that they do not "strike again."
+
+The Sentencing Commission adopted this rationale in promulgating § 4B1.5. The commentary to the guideline explains that the adjustment should only apply to defendants who present a continuing danger to the community because there is a significant risk that they will reoffend if they are released from prison. See USSG § 4B 1.5, cmt. background ("This guideline is intended to provide lengthy incarceration for offenders who commit sex offenses against minors and who present a continuing danger to the public." (emphasis added); see also United States v. Broxmeyer, 699 F.3d 265, 285 (2d Cir. 2012) ("We further note that this guideline [§4B1.5] is intended to identify `repeat sex offenders,' who pose 'a continuing danger to the public.' (citing USSG § 4B1.5 cmt. background)). The title of the enhancement itself reflects that it should only be applied to "Repeat and Dangerous" sex offenders. USSG § 4B1.5.
+
+The case law bears this out. The adjustment is typically applied to defendants (virtually all of whom are male) who repeatedly and often violently sexually abuse or exploit children for their own sexual gratification and who are caught soon after or while still engaging in that behavior. See, e.g., Branneyer, 699 F.3d at 284-88; United States v. Suarez, No. 21-1721, 2022 WL 1449174, at \*1-\*2 (3d Cir. May 9, 2022); United States v. Santos, No. 21-10381, 2022 WL 1196761, at \*1-\*3 (5th Cir. Apr. 22, 2022); United States v. Sanchez, 30 F.4th 1063, 1067-76 (11th Cir. 2022); United States v. McGrain, No. 6:20-cr-06113 (EAW), 2022 WL 287350, at \*1- \*6 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. I, 2022).
+
+In sharp contrast, Ms. Maxwell has never been accused of any sex offenses—or any crimes, for that matter—in the almost 20-year period since the conduct at issue in this case ended. There is absolutely no evidence that Ms. Maxwell is attracted to minors or has the sort of uncontrollable impulses that would compel her to re-offend. According to the trial record, it was Epstein who had such proclivities, whereas Ms. Maxwell's role was to facilitate Epstein's sexual abuse. Indeed, after she moved on from Epstein in the early 2000s, Ms. Maxwell was involved in two long-term relationships with men who had young children and was actively involved in their lives without even the slightest hint of impropriety. Most importantly, the government concedes that Ms. Maxwell is not a danger to the community. The government never made that assertion in connection with Ms. Maxwell's numerous bail applications and there is no evidence whatsoever to support such a claim. Put simply, Ms. Maxwell is not "dangerous" and there is no risk that Ms. Maxwell will ever "repeat" the offense. Accordingly, there is no basis to apply § 481.5, which is meant to apply only to "Repeat and Dangerous" sex offenders.
+
+The government asserts that § 4B1.5 should apply as long as the offense conduct fits within the text of the guideline, to which it claims to be faithfully adhering. See PSR at 60. It is
+
+not. The government ignores the background commentary to § 4B1.5, which explicitly states that the adjustment only applies to sex offenders "who present a continuing danger to the public." USSG § 4B1.5, cmt. background (emphasis added). In doing so, the government rejects an authoritative statement from the Sentencing Commission about the proper interpretation and application of § 4B1.5. See Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36, 38 (1993) ("[C]ommentary in the Guidelines Manual that interprets or explains a guideline is authoritative unless it violates the Constitution or a federal statute, or is inconsistent with, or a plainly erroneous reading of, that guideline."). The government is not at liberty to reject the Sentencing Commission's instructions, and neither is the Court.
+
+Applying § 4B1.5 to Ms. Maxwell would directly contradict the intent of Congress and the explicit instructions of the Sentencing Commission and would improperly add over 10 years to her sentencing range. It was not meant to be applied in cases where the defendant is not a danger to the community and poses no risk of recidivism. It should not be applied here.
+
+# B. Applying § 4B1.5 Would Lead to Absurd Results.
+
+Applying § 4B1.5 would also yield a sentencing range for Ms. Maxwell that is significantly higher than the range for a proven recidivist sex offender — i.e., the type of defendant that Congress and the Sentencing Commission were so clearly targeting with § 4B1.5. The Court should not interpret a guideline in such a way that it would lead to such obviously absurd results. See United States v. Pope, 554 F.3d 240, 246 (2d Cir. 2009).
+
+Section 4B1.5 contains two prongs — one that applies to defendants who have been convicted of at least one prior sex offense (USSG § 4B1.5(a)) and one that applies to defendants who have not been convicted of a prior sex offense (USSG § 4B1.5(b)). As discussed above, the purpose of the Act and § 4B1.5 was to increase the sentences given to repeat sex offenders. It follows that convicted sex offenders who re-offend after being released from prison should
+
+receive more serious punishment than those defendants who have never been convicted of a sex offense. In this case, the reverse would happen. If we assume for the sake of argument that Ms. Maxwell had been convicted of a prior sex offense and that § 4B1.5(a) therefore applied, Ms. Maxwell's recommended sentencing range under the 2004 Guidelines would be 262-327 months based on a Combined Adjusted Offense Level of 35 and a criminal history category of V. See USSG §§ 4B1.5(a)(1)(A) & (a)(2)(B) (2004). By contrast, if we assume the facts—i.e., that Ms. Maxwell has never been convicted of a prior sex offense and § 4B1.5(b) therefore applies—her recommended sentencing range under the 2004 Guidelines is 292-365 months based on a Combined Adjusted Offense Level of 40 and a criminal history category of I. See USSG §§ 4B1.5(b)(1) & (b)(2) (2004). Accordingly, Ms. Maxwell is subject to a substantially higher Guidelines range than a defendant who had been previously convicted of a sex offense. Such a result would be unjust and contrary to the express purpose of § 4B1.5.6
+
+Furthermore, by applying § 4B1.5 Ms. Maxwell would face the same sentencing range that Jeffrey Epstein would face for the same offenses, even though he was indisputably the more culpable offender. It would be fundamentally unjust and contrary to the goals of sentencing for the Court to apply the Guidelines in a way that would create no meaningful distinction between the most serious offenders and those with lesser culpability. See United States v. Dorvee, 616 F.3d 174, 186-87 (2d Cir. 2010) ("[A]dherence to the Guidelines results in virtually no distinction between the sentences for [less culpable] defendants ... and the sentences for the most dangerous offenders.... This result is fundamentally incompatible with § 3553(a)."); see also United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180, 191 (2d Cir. 2008) (citing Kimbrough v. United States,
+
+6 A similar disparity would occur under the 2003 Guidelines, which should apply in this case for the masons already discussed.
+
+552 U.S. 85, 108-09 (2007) ("[A] district court may vary from the Guidelines range based solely on a policy disagreement with the Guidelines, even where that disagreement applies to a wide class of offenders or offenses."). Section 4B1.5 should therefore not apply.
+
+### Ms. Maxwell Does Not Qualify for an Aggravating Role Adjustment Under USSG § 3B1.1.
+
+# A. Ms. Maxwell Did Not Supervise Another Criminal Participant.
+
+Under the plain language of USSG § 3B1.1 and its commentary, Ms. Maxwell does not qualify for an aggravating role enhancement. The Guidelines are clear that for any of the three aggravating role enhancements to apply, the Court must first find that Ms. Maxwell supervised at least one other criminal participant in the offense. USSG § 3B1.1, cmt. n.2 ("To qualify for an adjustment under this section, the defendant must have been the organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of one or more other participants." (emphasis added)); United States v. Skys, 637 F.3d 146, 156 (2d Cir. 2011) (citing USSG § 3B1.1, cmt. n.2). A "participant" is defined as "a person who is criminally responsible for the commission of the offense, but need not have been convicted." USSG § 3B1.1 cmt. n.1; Slcys, 637 F.3d at 156.
+
+There is no evidence in the trial record that Ms. Maxwell supervised another criminal participant in the offenses against'" , or which form the basis for the three offense groups in the PSR. See PSR ¶¶ 89-90.7 According to the trial testimony, the only criminal participants in the offenses involving 'W and were Epstein and Ms. Maxwell. There is certainly no support in the record that Ms. Maxwell supervised Epstein. In fact, the record is clear that the opposite is true: Epstein directed and managed Ms. Maxwell,
+
+7 Because the Court ruled that' is not a victim of the offenses of conviction, Probation and the government agree that the conduct related to ' ' cannot be treated as a separate offense group and is not subject to a Guidelines analysis. See PSR at 58-59. We therefore do not address the application of any enhancements or adjustments based on evidence related to MI." Regardless, there is no evidence in the record that Ms. Maxwell supervised another criminal participant in her offense conduct.
+
+who was his employee. According to the record, there were several people employed by Epstein who interacted with `'M" and and whom Ms. Maxwell supervised in her role as manager of Epstein's properties in the mid-late 1990s — e.g., Juan Alessi in Palm Beach and various unnamed employees at Zorro Ranch. The record also reflects that Ms. Maxwell had some role in coordinating payroll and expenses for Epstein pilots, Larry Visoski and David Rodgers, who transported "M'' on Epstein's private planes. But these people had no knowledge of the criminal conduct and do not qualify as criminally responsible participants for the purposes of the aggravating role enhancement.
+
+Similarly, there is no evidence in the trial record that Ms. Maxwell supervised another criminal participant in the offenses against Apart from Epstein, was the only other person identified in the trial record as a criminal participant in the offenses against . Among other things, testified that scheduled massage appointments for her and took nude pictures of her at the Palm Beach residence on one occasion. (Tr. 1527-28; 1538-39). The record is clear, however, that Ms. Maxwell did not supervise . Rather, was hired by Epstein as his assistant to replace Ms. Maxwell and take over responsibility for scheduling massage appointments and other property management tasks at a time when Ms. Maxwell was moving on from Epstein and was no longer actively managing the day-to-day affairs of his residences.
+
+For example testified that was hired sometime between 2000- 2002 to be Epstein's assistant and that she, and not was Ms. Maxwell's assistant from when she was hired in 1996 up through the end of her employment in 2002. (Tr. 2332-33, 2376-77).8 Espinosa further testified that in the last two years of her employment (2000-2002),
+
+8 Larry Visoski initially testified that he thought was Ms. Maxwell's assistant. (Tr. 139-40). But he later clarified on cross-examination that he "didn't know what her exact job" was and did not know whether
+
+Epstein and Ms. Maxwell ended their romantic relationship and "went their separate ways": Ms. Maxwell "moved on" from Epstein, stopped coming into the office, started dating other men, and eventually entered a long-term, committed relationship with Ted Waitt. (Tr. 2370-71, 2374, 2378-80). Juan Alessi testified that "immediately took over" responsibility for answering the phones and scheduling the massage appointments at the Palm Beach residence as soon as she was hired. (Tr. 833). herself testified that there was a clear break in time between when Ms. Maxwell called her to schedule massage appointments and when called her. (Tr. 1527) (Ms. Maxwell called her in roughly "the first year or two" of her visits to the Palm Beach residence-2001-2002, according to and called her thereafter). recalled seeing Ms. Maxwell in the kitchen office of the Palm Beach residence during the period when scheduled her massage appointments. (Tr. 1527). But nothing in her testimony indicates that Ms. Maxwell supervised or directed or that Ms. Maxwell had anything to do with the massage appointments at that time. (Id.). Accordingly, there is no basis in the trial record to conclude that Ms. Maxwell supervised in connection with the offense conduct and therefore no basis to apply the aggravating role enhancement.
+
+Both Probation and the government contend that the aggravating role enhancement applies because Ms. Maxwell was the organizer or leader of criminal activity relevant to each victim that was "otherwise extensive." (PSR at 58-59). But this position ignores the first step in the analysis. Regardless of whether the criminal activity was "otherwise extensive," no aggravating role enhancement applies unless Ms. Maxwell supervised another criminal participant in the offense. USSG § 3B1.1, cmt. n.2. The record does not contain any evidence
+
+was iin's assistant or Ms. Maxwell's assistant. (Tr. 204). He further conceded that his best recollection was that was "an employee who worked with Epstein." (Id.).
+
+that she did so in connection with the offense conduct related to "M," =IM, or . The aggravating role enhancement therefore does not apply to any of the three offense groups.
+
+# B. The Criminal Activity Was Not "Otherwise Extensive"
+
+Even if the Court finds that Ms. Maxwell supervised another "participant," the record does not support a finding that the criminal activity related to "M," or was "otherwise extensive," as the government contends.' Under the Guidelines, the Court must treat each minor victim separately and consider whether the enhancement applies based solely on the criminal activity related to that minor victim. See USSG § 2G1.3, cmt. n.6 ("[S]ubsection (d)(1) directs that if the relevant conduct of an offense of conviction includes travel or transportation to engage in a commercial sex act or prohibited sexual conduct in respect to more than one minor ... each such minor shall be treated as if contained in a separate count of conviction."). For example, the government cannot use conduct from the 2001-2004 time period related to to justify applying the aggravating role enhancement to the criminal activity in 1994-1997 related to `M" or in 1996 related to
+
+The government nevertheless attempts to justify the enhancement as to each of the three minor victims by making a broad assertion about the nature and scope of the conspiracy as a whole, rather than making an individualized determination that the criminal activity was "otherwise extensive" as to each. (See PSR at 59). Because that is insufficient to establish that the criminal activity was "otherwise extensive," Ms. Maxwell should, at most, be subject to a two-point enhancement under USSG § 3B1.1(c).
+
+9 The government does not argue that the aggravating role enhancement applies because the criminal activity involved "five or more participants," conceding that the trial record does not support the conclusion that five or more people criminally participated in the offense conduct.
+
+#### IV. The Two-Point "Undue Influence" Enhancement Under USSG § 2G1.3(b)(2)(B) Does Not Apply.
+
+Finally, it would be improper for the Court to apply a two-level enhancement on the grounds that a participant in the criminal activity "unduly influenced a minor to engage in prohibited sexual conduct." USSG § 2G1.3(b)(2)(B). First, it would constitute impermissible double-counting to apply § 2G1.3(b)(2)(B) to the offense conduct related to "Mr and because it would punish Ms. Maxwell for the same harm that was fully accounted for in the base offense level for Counts Three, Four, and Six. "Impermissible double counting occurs when one part of the Guidelines is applied to increase the defendant's sentence to reflect the kind of harm that has already been fully accounted for by another part of the Guidelines." United States v. Watkins, 667 F.3d 254, 261 (2d Cir. 2012). Ms. Maxwell was convicted of conspiring to "entice" and "coerce" minors to travel to engage in prohibited sexual conduct and "enticing" minors to engage in commercial sex acts. (S2 Ind. 11112, 24, 27).1° Webster's Dictionary defines the word "entice" to mean "to attract artfully or adroitly or by arousing hope or desire; tempt" and the further explains that the word "tempt" "implies the presenting of an attraction so strong that it overcomes the restraints of conscience or better judgment."11 Similarly, Webster's Dictionary defines the word "coerce" to mean "to compel to an act or choice" and further explains that the word "compel" "typically suggests overcoming of resistance or unwillingness by an irresistible force.s12 Accordingly, the base offense level for
+
+I° Count Three charged a conspiracy to transport minors with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity. S2 Ind. ¶I 16-19. Although this offense does not contain an element of "enticement" or "coercion," the offense conduct for Counts One, Three, and Five (the three conspiracy counts) was consolidated under Count Three for the purposes of sentencing, pursuant to the Court's order. See Dkt. 657.
+
+" Available at Meriam-Welistercom Dictionag, Merriam-Webster https:/Avww.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/coerce (accessed June 15, 2022).
+
+12 Available at Meriam-Wehrtercom Dictionag, Merriam-Webster https://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/compel (accessed June 15, 2022).
+
+Counts Three, Four, and Six already includes the concept of "unduly influenc[ing] a minor to engage in prohibited sexual conduct." The enhancement therefore should not be applied to any of the three offense groups.
+
+Second, under the 2003 Guidelines, which should apply in this case, the analogous twopoint enhancement only applies if "a participant otherwise unduly influenced a minor to engage in a commercial sex act." USSG § 2G1.1(b)(4)(B) (2003) (emphasis added). There is no evidence that "M" or engaged in a commercial sex act. Accordingly, the enhancement should not apply to their two offense groups (Groups 1 and 2).
+
+Third, the evidence does not support that was "unduly influenced" to provide sexualized massages to Epstein. The "undue influence" enhancement applies when "a participant's influence over the minor compromised the voluntariness of the minor's behavior." USSG § 2G1.3(b)(2)(B), Appl. Note 3(B). "[T]he defining characteristic of undue influence is that it involves a situation where the influencer has succeeded in altering the behavior of the target. " United States v. Patterson, 576 F.3d 431, 443 (7th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). Apart from initially offering the opportunity to massage Epstein, the record indicates that sought out additional massage appointments herself and recruited other minors to perform sexualized massages to make more money. (Tr. 1527-28, 1543-46). further testified that after she became pregnant, she returned to Epstein without being contacted to earn additional money. (Tr. 1548-49). In addition, was not so influenced by Epstein or Ms. Maxwell that she did whatever they asked of her. testified that she refused their offers to have her travel with them to Epstein's island. (Tr. 1534- 35). In sum, the record does not support the conclusion that Ms. Maxwell or anyone else
+
+compromised the voluntariness of behavior. Accordingly, the enhancement should not apply to offense group (Group 3).
+
+### V. The Correct Sentencing Range is 51-63 Months Under the 2003 Guidelines.
+
+By applying the 2003 Guidelines and eliminating the enhancements under §§ 4B1.5, 3B1.1, and 261.3(b)(2)(B), the correct sentencing range is 51-63 months, based on a total offense level of 24 and criminal history category I, calculated as follows:
+
+# Group 1: Offense Conduct Related to "="
+
+Base Offense Level: Because the offense involved a minor, the base offense level is 19. USSG § 2G.1.1(a)(1). 19
+
+Specific Offense Characteristics: Because the offense involved a victim who had attained the age of 12 years but not attained the age of 16 years, a twolevel enhancement is warranted, pursuant to USSG § 2G.1.1(b)(2). +2
+
+Adjusted Offense Level (Subtotal): 21
+
+# Group ?: Offense Conduct Related to
+
+Base Offense Level: Because the offense involved a minor, the base offense level is 19. USSG § 2G.1.1(a)(1). 19
+
+Adjusted Offense Level (Subtotal): 19
+
+# Group 3: Offense Conduct Related to
+
+Base Offense Level: Because the offense involved a minor, the base offense level is 19. USSG § 2G.1.1(a)(1). 19
+
+Specific Offense Characteristics: Because the offense involved a victim who had attained the age of 12 years but not attained the age of 16 years, a twolevel enhancement is warranted, pursuant to USSG § 2G.1.1(b)(2). +2
+
+Adjusted Offense Level (Subtotal): 21
+
+#### Multiple Count Adjustment
+
+| Group/Count | Adjusted Offense Level | Units |
+|-------------|------------------------|-------|
+| Group 1 | 21 | 1.0 |
+| Group 2 | 19 | 1.0 |
+| Group 3 | 21 | 1.0 |
+
+Total Number of Units: 3.0
+
+Greater of the Adjusted Offense Levels Above: 21
+
+Increase in Offense Level: +3
+
+Combined Adjusted Offense Level: 24
+
+Total Offense Level: 24
+
+#### CONCLUSION
+
+For the foregoing reasons, the Court should apply the 2003 Guidelines, which yield a properly calculated sentencing range of 51-63 months. Should the Court apply the 2004 Guidelines, it should not apply the enhancements under §§ 4B1.5, 3B1.1, and 2G1.3(b)(2)(B).
+
+Dated: June 15, 2022 New York, New York
+
+Respectfully submitted,
+
+Is/ Christian R. Everdell
+
+Christian R. Everdell COHEN & GRESSER LLP
+
+
+
+Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim
+
+
+
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Laura A. Menninger
+HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C.
+
+![]()![]()*Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell*
+
+#### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+
+I hereby certify that on June 15, 2022, I served by ECF the within memorandum upon the following:
+
+
+
+Is/ Christian R. Everdell
+
+Christian R. Everdell
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156337/EFTA00156337.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156337/EFTA00156337.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8df68ea46885ef50c7acfcd9782d127793f20b9f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156337/EFTA00156337.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,1613 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00156337.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 29,
+ "chars": 52019,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 5.54,
+ "image_assets": [
+ "_page_0_Picture_5.jpeg",
+ "_page_0_Picture_7.jpeg",
+ "_page_0_Picture_9.jpeg",
+ "_page_26_Picture_13.jpeg",
+ "_page_26_Picture_15.jpeg",
+ "_page_28_Picture_2.jpeg"
+ ],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 72.08999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 281.8328552246094,
+ 72.08999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 281.8328552246094,
+ 99.7330322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 99.7330322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "11ENIORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF \nHER OBJECTIONS TO THE PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION REPORT",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 102.81600000000002,
+ 289.98
+ ],
+ [
+ 509.8869323730469,
+ 289.98
+ ],
+ [
+ 509.8869323730469,
+ 320.2330322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 102.81600000000002,
+ 320.2330322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 238.68,
+ 71.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 374.138671875,
+ 71.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 374.138671875,
+ 86.853515625
+ ],
+ [
+ 238.68,
+ 86.853515625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "TABLE OF AUTHORITIES",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 229.5,
+ 83.42999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 383.96685791015625,
+ 83.42999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 383.96685791015625,
+ 98.9830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 229.5,
+ 98.9830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Statutes",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 506.25
+ ],
+ [
+ 116.69366455078125,
+ 506.25
+ ],
+ [
+ 116.69366455078125,
+ 521.9830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 521.9830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Other Authorities",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 583.2
+ ],
+ [
+ 166.91055297851562,
+ 583.2
+ ],
+ [
+ 166.91055297851562,
+ 599.2330169677734
+ ],
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 599.2330169677734
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "ARGUMENT",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 267.44399999999996,
+ 303.75
+ ],
+ [
+ 344.6179504394531,
+ 303.75
+ ],
+ [
+ 344.6179504394531,
+ 318.6035461425781
+ ],
+ [
+ 267.44399999999996,
+ 318.6035461425781
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "I. The 2003 Guidelines Apply to the Offense Conduct",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 330.48
+ ],
+ [
+ 371.10772705078125,
+ 330.48
+ ],
+ [
+ 371.10772705078125,
+ 346.3535461425781
+ ],
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 346.3535461425781
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "A. A Jury Must Determine the End Date of Criminal Conduct that Dictates \nWhich Guidelines Book Applies Consistent with the Ex Post Facto Clause.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 105.26399999999998,
+ 72.08999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 526.1041259765625,
+ 72.08999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 526.1041259765625,
+ 99.603515625
+ ],
+ [
+ 105.26399999999998,
+ 99.603515625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "B. The Trial Record Is Insufficient to Support a Finding that the Offense \nConduct Continued Past November 1, 2004.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 104.652,
+ 538.6500000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 505.1511535644531,
+ 538.6500000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 505.1511535644531,
+ 569.1035461425781
+ ],
+ [
+ 104.652,
+ 569.1035461425781
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "C. The Goals of Sentencing Are Not Served by Applying the More Onerous \n2004 Guidelines Based Solely on Epstein's Conduct.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 105.26399999999998,
+ 566.1899999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 517.1975708007812,
+ 566.1899999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 517.1975708007812,
+ 596.8535461425781
+ ],
+ [
+ 105.26399999999998,
+ 596.8535461425781
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "II. The Five-Point Adjustment Under USSG 4 4B1.5 Does Not Apply.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 13,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 289.98
+ ],
+ [
+ 448.72265625,
+ 289.98
+ ],
+ [
+ 448.72265625,
+ 306.97357177734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 306.97357177734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "A. Ms. Maxwell Does Not Present a Continuing Danger to the Public.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 14,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 105.26399999999998,
+ 70.47
+ ],
+ [
+ 486.3038024902344,
+ 70.47
+ ],
+ [
+ 486.3038024902344,
+ 86.103515625
+ ],
+ [
+ 105.26399999999998,
+ 86.103515625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "B. Applying \u00a7 4B1.5 Would Lead to Absurd Results.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 17,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 105.26399999999998,
+ 428.49
+ ],
+ [
+ 400.38824462890625,
+ 428.49
+ ],
+ [
+ 400.38824462890625,
+ 444.6035461425781
+ ],
+ [
+ 105.26399999999998,
+ 444.6035461425781
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Ms. Maxwell Does Not Qualify for an Aggravating Role Adjustment Under USSG \u00a7 \n3B1.1.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 19,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 152.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 540.6129150390625,
+ 152.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 540.6129150390625,
+ 182.853515625
+ ],
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 182.853515625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "A. Ms. Maxwell Did Not Supervise Another Criminal Participant.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 19,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 105.26399999999998,
+ 191.96999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 469.60540771484375,
+ 191.96999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 469.60540771484375,
+ 208.353515625
+ ],
+ [
+ 105.26399999999998,
+ 208.353515625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "B. The Criminal Activity Was Not \"Otherwise Extensive\"",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 22,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 105.26399999999998,
+ 153.09
+ ],
+ [
+ 428.2442932128906,
+ 153.09
+ ],
+ [
+ 428.2442932128906,
+ 168.7330322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 105.26399999999998,
+ 168.7330322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "IV. The Two-Point \"Undue Influence\" Enhancement Under USSG \u00a7 2G1.3(b)(2)(B) \nDoes Not Apply.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 23,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 71.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 518.5493774414062,
+ 71.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 518.5493774414062,
+ 100.7335205078125
+ ],
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 100.7335205078125
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "V. The Correct Sentencing Range is 51-63 Months Under the 2003 Guidelines.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 25,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 125.55000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 496.0577392578125,
+ 125.55000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 496.0577392578125,
+ 140.853515625
+ ],
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 140.853515625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Group 1: Offense Conduct Related to \"=\"",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 25,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 108.93599999999999,
+ 245.43
+ ],
+ [
+ 345.78,
+ 245.43
+ ],
+ [
+ 345.78,
+ 264.603515625
+ ],
+ [
+ 108.93599999999999,
+ 264.603515625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Group ?: Offense Conduct Related to",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 25,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 108.93599999999999,
+ 412.29
+ ],
+ [
+ 382.5,
+ 412.29
+ ],
+ [
+ 382.5,
+ 428.4735412597656
+ ],
+ [
+ 108.93599999999999,
+ 428.4735412597656
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Group 3: Offense Conduct Related to",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 25,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 108.93599999999999,
+ 521.64
+ ],
+ [
+ 351.9,
+ 521.64
+ ],
+ [
+ 351.9,
+ 537.6035461425781
+ ],
+ [
+ 108.93599999999999,
+ 537.6035461425781
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Multiple Count Adjustment",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 26,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 108.93599999999999,
+ 71.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 257.0893249511719,
+ 71.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 257.0893249511719,
+ 86.103515625
+ ],
+ [
+ 108.93599999999999,
+ 86.103515625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CONCLUSION",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 26,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 261.936,
+ 303.75
+ ],
+ [
+ 349.4627990722656,
+ 303.75
+ ],
+ [
+ 349.4627990722656,
+ 318.60357666015625
+ ],
+ [
+ 261.936,
+ 318.60357666015625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 28,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 222.768,
+ 71.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 388.00800000000004,
+ 71.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 388.00800000000004,
+ 86.2230224609375
+ ],
+ [
+ 222.768,
+ 86.2230224609375
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 42
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 20
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 41
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 21
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "TableOfContents",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 63
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 32
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "TableOfContents",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 66
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 34
+ ],
+ [
+ "TableOfContents",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 50
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 51
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 67
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 8,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 49
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 9,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 51
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 51
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 12,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 51
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 13,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 51
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 24
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 14,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 57
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 29
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 15,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 83
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 33
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 16,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 62
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 17,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 51
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 18,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 51
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 19,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 61
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 20,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 21,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 49
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 22,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 23,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 71
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 29
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 24,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 48
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 24
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 25,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 65
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 31
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 26,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 47
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 24
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 27,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 28,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00156337"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156337/_page_0_Picture_5.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156337/_page_0_Picture_5.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2c5f29c8eb30420e9f1a658bff9836a9f7a2d488
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156337/_page_0_Picture_5.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:4b24e75e2ab520dea4d2bbbb7dd76b32529cda69092c8ec2aec0e175de7bdd67
+size 3078
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156337/_page_0_Picture_7.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156337/_page_0_Picture_7.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7bbab443b27e608dc8242d61a6ebbb030bc2bf66
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156337/_page_0_Picture_7.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:6bf282058e9fdb00a7b722a63293a1a2b810055607a5a312a654d9c7f91d8560
+size 2846
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156337/_page_0_Picture_9.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156337/_page_0_Picture_9.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..31226b5c2e982962e32b6efd280964a5984e3cc4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156337/_page_0_Picture_9.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:6ffc570d5801d2239db77198a392a3543a807580339d83ab923c81fea7079a9a
+size 1883
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156337/_page_26_Picture_13.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156337/_page_26_Picture_13.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ff9147ed80055479c331754972170e562b99ff1c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156337/_page_26_Picture_13.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:0d607332fffbf1972b2e11855efa63d36714924ee66fede4c9fe59233bc25018
+size 2690
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156337/_page_26_Picture_15.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156337/_page_26_Picture_15.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0bb6f69497ae369928193e3d400b4c9ff12afc1a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156337/_page_26_Picture_15.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:77e73f15e8ef1491152ea912180642c9ff379755067c6be33b5c89da56e0a1b2
+size 2424
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156337/_page_28_Picture_2.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156337/_page_28_Picture_2.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7f6d36fec647aa4d86dcc81812363380887d9b95
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156337/_page_28_Picture_2.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:967bc57448fcb5d4bb8ca870eccf2fad3f7b8a39bf9b2ae624aa4c606b534b34
+size 7072
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156366/EFTA00156366.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156366/EFTA00156366.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..86fde88dd2304cc28e477dbdc2610f616e8200fd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156366/EFTA00156366.md
@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+Prefix Mr.
+
+First Name Stephen
+
+Middle Name James
+
+Last Name Bolin
+
+Suffix
+
+Email [REDACTED]
+
+Phone [REDACTED]
+
+Location United States
+
+Domestic Address
+
+Address Line 1 [REDACTED]
+
+Address Line 2
+
+City
+
+State
+
+Postal
+
+Agreement to Pay
+
+How you will pay I am limiting my request to the free two hours of searching and 100 duplicated pages. I am not willing to pay additional fees.
+
+Deceased Individual
+
+Prefix
+
+First Name Jeffrey
+
+Middle Name
+
+Last Name Epstein
+
+Suffix
+
+ARN
+
+SSN
+
+FBI Number
+
+Date of Birth 2000/01/01
+
+Place of Birth
+
+Date of Death
+
+Additional Information
+
+
CASE ID 31E-NY-302757
LOCATION 9 EAST 71ST STREET
NEW YORK, NEW YORK | SITE# _____
TEAM# _____
GRID# _____
REMARKS _____ |
+
+| SEARCH TEAM PERSONNEL | | Print | | Time In | Time Out |
+|-----------------------|-----------|----------------------------------|----------|----------|----------|
+| Print Full Name | Signature | Agency/Division/Office and Phone | Initials | | |
+| | | FBI | | 9:55 am | 5:30 am |
+| | | NYPD/FBI | | 2238 am | 6:24 am |
+| | | NYPD/FBI | | 12:06 am | 6:20 am |
+| | | FBI | | 12:15 am | 6:20 am |
+| | | FBI | | 5:43 am | 6:38 Am |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156619/EFTA00156619.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156619/EFTA00156619.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1e380a3033ca1d6a2f5d0fd032a8ba1c090ee2ac
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156619/EFTA00156619.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,147 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00156619.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 2,
+ "chars": 6847,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 47.98,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION *** Crime Scene Sign-In Log ***",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 285.12,
+ 20.16
+ ],
+ [
+ 479.952,
+ 20.16
+ ],
+ [
+ 479.952,
+ 63.0
+ ],
+ [
+ 285.12,
+ 63.0
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION *** Crime Scene Sign-In Log ***",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 289.87199999999996,
+ 34.650000000000006
+ ],
+ [
+ 472.032,
+ 34.650000000000006
+ ],
+ [
+ 472.032,
+ 74.33999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 289.87199999999996,
+ 74.33999999999999
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Form",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Form",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00156619"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156621/EFTA00156621.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156621/EFTA00156621.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..335d9617dde8bb5043ecc6892fc399deb1db8920
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156621/EFTA00156621.md
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+From: IMIMMIE=I=Mill>
+
+To:'
+
+Subject: FBINET to UNET Uploaded Files
+
+Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2023 01:00:07 +0000
+
+Importance: Normal
+
+Attachments: EpsteinSearch9\_East\_71st\_St\_7-11-19.pdf
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156621/EFTA00156621.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156621/EFTA00156621.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1c39eae5a74b9163653cff61b2d1281f11194559
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156621/EFTA00156621.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00156621.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 1,
+ "chars": 184,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.37,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 13
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00156621"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156622/EFTA00156622.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156622/EFTA00156622.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..42fb1249f1ff9c36f53eb88acda3b0541787e739
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156622/EFTA00156622.md
@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+NOTE: Hand print names legibly; handwriting satisfactory for remainder.
+
+Indices: Negative See below
+
+Subject's name and aliases
+
+Joffrey Epstein
+
+Character of case
+
+Child pornography
+
+ Complainant Protect Source
+
+[Redacted] [Redacted]
+
+Complaint received
+
+ Personal Telephonic Date \_\_\_\_\_ Time \_\_\_\_\_
+
+Address of Subject
+
+Complainant's address and telephone number
+
+[Redacted] (unpub)
+
+Complainant's DOB
+
+SSAN
+
+Race
+
+Sex
+
+| Subject's Description | Race | Sex
Male
Female | Height | Hair | Build | Birth Date and Birthplace |
+|-----------------------|-----------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|------------|------------------------|---------------------------|
+| | Age | Weight | Eyes | Complexion | Social Security Number | |
+| | Scars, marks and other data | | | | | |
+
+Facts of complaint
+
+Complainant stayed that she is a professional artist and took pictures of her sisters 12 and 16 yrs for her own personnel Art Work. EPSTEIN state the photos and illustrations and is believed to have sold the pictures to potential buyers. EPSTEIN at one time requested [Redacted] to take pictures of young girls at swimming pools. EPSTEIN is now threatening [Redacted] that if she tells anyone about the photos he will burn her house down
+
+(p)
+
+(7) C-20
+
+1-66F-10119-sub-B
+
+[Redacted]
+
+Do not write in this space.
+
+145C-0-343 TH
+
+SEARCHED INDEXED FILED TH
+
+SEP 3 1966
+
+[Redacted]
+
+BLOCK STAMP
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156622/EFTA00156622.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156622/EFTA00156622.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..12a53622ec1678889bf1a5fa0b10de921b820e44
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156622/EFTA00156622.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00156622.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 1,
+ "chars": 1867,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 6.78,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 31
+ ],
+ [
+ "Form",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00156622"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156623/EFTA00156623.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156623/EFTA00156623.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d80406b75ba10b994536a2e4b55d2bb734404d1d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156623/EFTA00156623.md
@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+Ti
+
+Subject: [EXTERNAL EMAIL] - Fwd: FBINET to UNET Uploaded Files
+
+Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2023 17:41:45 +0000
+
+Importance: Normal
+
+Attachments: EAN\_Request\_Form\_HQ\_Approval\_10.17.23.docx
+
+Begin forwarded message:
+
+From:
+
+To:
+
+SuMer : o p Oa e es
+
+CAUTION! EXTERNAL SENDER
+
+STOP WHEN UNSURE. Never click on links or open attachments if sender is unknown, and never provide user ID or password. Suspicious? Please report to this email address: reportphishing®nypd.org
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156623/EFTA00156623.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156623/EFTA00156623.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c929c9f709cdcf60d0aca36b682fd077c9d58a2e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156623/EFTA00156623.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00156623.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 1,
+ "chars": 466,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.66,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 29
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 14
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 13
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00156623"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156624/EFTA00156624.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156624/EFTA00156624.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..14d5892461398ecdc25a7b3ec50aa322085b514e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156624/EFTA00156624.md
@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+To: ' ,
+
+Subject: RE: Maxwell
+
+Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2023 16:37:46 +0000
+
+Importance: Normal
+
+Attachments: GM Government Letter reMEDRAFT.pdf
+
+did testify regarding metadata. USAO gave notice to the defense regarding his testimony. I've attached the draft they sent to us regarding his proposed testimony. While did testify regarding the metadata, the court would not allow him nor any law enforcement officer to give opinion testimony under Rule 702 as an expert.
+
+Hope this is helpful. Let me know if you have any further questions.
+
+Special Agent FBI New York Field Office Child Exploitation/Human Trafficking Desk: 212-384-8241 Cell: 917-692-0853
+
+From:
+
+Sent: Friday, August 25, 2023 9:48 AM
+
+To:
+
+Cc:
+
+Subject: Re: Maxwell
+
+Thanks
+
+Hi SDNY is looking for a government witness who previously testified as a "Metadata expert" in order to introduce that same person as an expert in the FTX case. believes he may have filled this role in your case, but can't confirm. Do you have any recollection of this? Thanks,
+
+SSA
+
+New York CART
+
+From:
+
+Sent: Friday, August 25, 2023 9:06:33 AM
+
+To:
+
+Cc:
+
+Subject: Re: Maxwell
+
+From:
+
+Sent: Friday, August 25, 2023 9:05:26 AM
+
+To:
+
+Subject: Maxwell
+
+Morning did your squad handle the Maxwell case? If so, who was the case agent? USAO is looking for case precedent to support the FTX case. Looking to confirm specific testimony from
+
+SSA
+
+New York CART
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156624/EFTA00156624.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156624/EFTA00156624.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6bd3c6f62995f29f7ae366b3b9bb9402e014ad69
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156624/EFTA00156624.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,88 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00156624.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 2,
+ "chars": 1387,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 1.16,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 71
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 35
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 19
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00156624"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156626/EFTA00156626.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156626/EFTA00156626.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8ac926b803d58076c1747e4ecb1a873b2a533ba0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156626/EFTA00156626.md
@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+
+
+United States Attorney Southern District of New York
+
+The Silvio J. Mob Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. Neu• York 10007
+
+November 25, 2021
+
+## BY ELECTRONIC MAIL
+
+Christian Everdell, Esq. Cohen & Gresser LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022
+
+Laura Menninger, Esq. Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq. Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C. 150 East Tenth Avenue Denver, CO 80203
+
+Bobbi Stemheim, Esq. Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 33 West 19th Street-4th Fl. New York, NY 10007
+
+Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+
+Dear Counsel:
+
+The Government expects to offer testimony fro of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's ("FBI") Computer Analysis Response Team ("CART"). As noted in the Government's September 15, 2021 letter, although the Government believes that testimony will not require admission through Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Government provided ex rt notice. In an abundance of caution, the Government is providing additional description of anticipated testimony.
+
+The Government anticipates that will testify regarding the forensic examination of the devices marked for identification as Government Exhibits 54 and 55, and his determination that those exhibits are clones. He is ex ted to testify that a clone is an exact copy of one piece of media to another. is expected to explain that he connected Government Exhibits 54 and 55 to a write blocker and subs uentl ima ed, or made an exact copy, of the exhibits. The Government anticipates that will explain that the images of Government Exhibits 54 and 55 are exact copies of the original devices because he ran a hash, or mathematical algorithm that uniquely identifies data, on the original devices and the images, which are identical.
+
+The Government further anticipates that will testify that Government Exhibits 405 and 419 reflect registry software information for Government Exhibits 55 and 54, respectively. will explain that such registry software information includes several fields, including registered organization and registered owner, which are user input data. He is expected to explain that Government Exhibits 405 and 419 were generated by Access Data AD Lab.
+
+The Government further anticipates that will testify that he examined certain exhibits contained on the devices marked for identification as Government Exhibits 54 and 55. In particular, he is expected to testify that Government Exhibits 412, 415, 424 are emails on Government Exhibit 54; Government Exhibits 418, 420, 421, and 422 are Word documents on Government Exhibit 54; and Government Exhibits 418B 420B 421B and 422B contain the properties, or metadata, for the corresponding exhibits. is expected to testify that Government Exhibits 418, 420, 421, and 422 were saved under a user profile named "GMax." He is also expected to testif that Government Exhibit 417 is a Word document stored on Government Exhibit 55. is expected to testify that that the metadata fields listed on Government Exhibits 417, 418, 420, 421, and 422 are true and accurate reflections of the metadata properties for those files, such as the fields listin the author, content created date, date last saved, last saved by, and last printed. will explain that he confirmed the accurac of metadata fields by running by Access Data AD Lab. In the course of doing so, will explain that metadata is information about a file, such as the file name and when the file was created. He will also explain that metadata can be stored in a computer's file system or embedded inside certain files, like Word documents.
+
+The Government also notes that discussed similar topics in testimony referenced in the September 15, 2021 letter. See Trial Tr. at 935-36, United States v. Hirst, 15 Cr. 643 (PKC) (describing metadata); Trial Tr. at 292-93, United States v. DiTomasso, 14 Cr. 160 (SAS) (describing hash values). He has also testified about similar topics in United States v. Healey, 11 Cr. 132 (SAS).
+
+As noted, the Government does not believe that the fore oin testimony encompasses the sort of "opinion" that requires expert testimony. Rather, testimony is based on his first-hand knowledge and observation during his examination of the devices in question. To the extent he offers anything resemblin an o inion it is the product of reasoning processes familiar to the average person. While possesses specialized knowledge by virtue of his training and experience, his testimony reflects his investi ato findings and conclusions, and is not rooted exclusively in his expertise. To the extent testimony is characterized as expert "opinion" testimony under Rule 702, we note that his experience and training are described in his curriculum vitae, which was produced to you on September 15, 2021 bearing Bates number 3503-001.
+
+Very truly yours,
+
+DAMIAN WILLIAMS United States Attorney
+
+by:
+
+
+
+Assistant United States Attorneys
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156626/EFTA00156626.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156626/EFTA00156626.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..71d8bb385ef9c3ec7d37da3945d64326f8f40065
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156626/EFTA00156626.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,184 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00156626.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 3,
+ "chars": 4930,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.81,
+ "image_assets": [
+ "_page_0_Picture_0.jpeg",
+ "_page_2_Picture_4.jpeg"
+ ],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "U.S. Department of Justice",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 318.24,
+ 25.11
+ ],
+ [
+ 464.119140625,
+ 25.11
+ ],
+ [
+ 464.119140625,
+ 40.5
+ ],
+ [
+ 318.24,
+ 40.5
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "BY ELECTRONIC MAIL",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 67.932,
+ 168.48
+ ],
+ [
+ 211.11807250976562,
+ 168.48
+ ],
+ [
+ 211.11807250976562,
+ 182.853515625
+ ],
+ [
+ 67.932,
+ 182.853515625
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 77
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 39
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 77
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 39
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 22
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00156626"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156626/_page_0_Picture_0.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156626/_page_0_Picture_0.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..856c95b5bdb5861cc72d45381115fed9c6d42c9b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156626/_page_0_Picture_0.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:4f7eeb717b7ef06f9997bee981d4afddcf2bc9d1b7249b1f7df2be1873d90ee0
+size 3703
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156626/_page_2_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156626/_page_2_Picture_4.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b88ebfc54127a773afcb83117968dca5c99653d8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156626/_page_2_Picture_4.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:c440c58a4eacc1eb0b03a8dbd2eb68b90edc6232507064004a649318e7304450
+size 2829
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156629/EFTA00156629.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156629/EFTA00156629.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cda7322d859518083b6015017246864e71d31be1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156629/EFTA00156629.md
@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+**To:** [REDACTED]
+
+[REDACTED]
+
+**Subject:** [EXTERNAL EMAIL] - STRICTLY PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL - NOT FOR PUBLICATION OR DISSEMINATION
+
+**Date:** Wed, 20 Jul 2022 14:08:01 +0000
+
+**Importance:** Normal
+
+**Attachments:** Facts\_-\_July\_7,\_2022.pdf
+
+**Inline-Images:** image001.gif
+
+---
+
+Dear Sirs,
+
+**SENT FOR AND ON BEHALF OF** [REDACTED]
+
+Please see attached correspondence.
+
+Kind regards,
+
+**Peri Mornington**
+
+Solicitor | Manleys Solicitors
+
+**Te** [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
+
+**Chester**
+
+[REDACTED]
+
+**MANLEYS**
+
+**IMPORTANT INFORMATION:** This e-mail and any files transmitted are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom they are addressed and may also be legally privileged. If you are not the addressed please do not read print, re-transmit, store or act in reliance on it or any attachments. Instead, please email it back to the sender and then immediately permanently delete it. The contents of this message may contain personal views which are not the views of this Company unless specifically stated. Manleys Solicitors Limited (No: 07941637) Registered Office: [REDACTED] Manleys Solicitors Limited is regulated and authorised by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 566882 and uses the trading name Manleys.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156629/EFTA00156629.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156629/EFTA00156629.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d87fbd73d12dbb88b347c55a9aae1ae4291a7b4d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156629/EFTA00156629.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00156629.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 1,
+ "chars": 1261,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 5.59,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 47
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 38
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 24
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00156629"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156630/EFTA00156630.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156630/EFTA00156630.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3b7cf87b93b35a05447cae4b960951d5ca7592ba
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156630/EFTA00156630.md
@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+From:
+
+Subject: [EXTERNAL EMAIL] - FW: STRICTLY PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL - NOT FOR PUBLICATION OR DISSEMINATION
+
+Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2022 17:02:28 +0000
+
+Importance: Normal
+
+Attachments: Facts\_-\_July\_7,2022.pdf
+
+Inline-Images: image001.gif
+
+This letter references communications with our team by email in December 2021, and and I are not sure what the letter is referring to. Could you please check your inboxes for communications from and/or her attorneys during that timeframe and forward us anything you have? If you're able to do that today, we'd very much appreciate it.
+
+Thanks,
+
+From: Peri Mornington
OFFEROR TO COMPLETE BLOCKS 12, 17, 23, 24 & 30 | | | 1. REQUISITION NUMBER
15JA54-21-PR-0199 | |
+|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|
+| 2. CONTRACT NO.
15JA5421P00000117 | 3. AWARD/EFFECTIVE DATE
03/08/2021 | 4. ORDER NUMBER | 5. SOLICITATION NUMBER | 6. SOLICITATION ISSUE DATE |
+| 7. FOR SOLICITATION INFORMATION CALL: | | a. NAME | b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (No collect calls) | 8. OFFER DUE DATE / LOCAL TIME |
+
+| 9. ISSUED BY
U.S. Attorneys Office Southern District of New York
One St. Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007 | CODE
15JA54 | 10. THE ACQUISITION IS
UNRESTRICTED OR SET ASIDE: % FOR
SMALL BUSINESS WOMEN-OWNED SMALL BUSINESS (WOSB)
HUBZONE SMALL BUSINESS EDWOSB NAICS: 621112
SERVICE-DISABLED VETERAN-OWNED SMALL BUSINESS 8(A) SIZE STANDARD: 12,000,000.00 |
+|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
+|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
+
+| 11. DELIVERY FOR FOB DESTINATION
UNLESS BLOCK IS MARKED
SEE SCHEDULE | 12. DISCOUNT TERMS
NET 30 | 13b. RATING
13a. THIS CONTRACT IS A RATED ORDER UNDER DPAS (15 CFR 700) |
+|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
+|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
+
+| 15. DELIVER TO
SEE SCHEDULE | CODE | 16. ADMINISTERED BY
U.S. Attorneys Office Southern District of New York
One St. Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007 | CODE
15JA54 |
+|--------------------------------|------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------|
+|--------------------------------|------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------|
+
+| 17a. CONTRACTOR/
OFFEROR
CODE 020583856 | FACILITY CODE
A | 18a. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY
U.S. Attorneys Office Southern District of New York
86 Chambers Street
New York, NY 10007 | CODE
UNYS |
+|------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------|
+| TELEPHONE NO.
[REDACTED] | | | |
+
+| 17b. CHECK IF REMITTANCE IS DIFFERENT AND PUT SUCH ADDRESS IN OFFER
| 18b. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN BLOCK 18a UNLESS BLOCK BELOW IS CHECKED
SEE ADDENDUM |
+|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
+|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
+
+| 19.
ITEM NO. | 20.
SCHEDULE OF SUPPLIES/SERVICES | 21.
QUANTITY | 22.
UNIT | 23.
UNIT PRICE | 24.
AMOUNT |
+|-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|-------------|-------------------|---------------|
+| | R21NYSW1091
Expert Witness Services - Psychology
U.S. v. Maxwell
20-CR-00330
2018R01618
Estimated POP: 3/8/2021 - 12/31/2021
POC: AUSA [REDACTED]
See Continuation Sheet(s)
(Use Reverse and/or Attach Additional Sheets as Necessary) | | | | |
+
+| 25. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA
JMD-2021-0311XDIR-JC2-NYS-EXW-EXW-11804-1157-2021 | 26. TOTAL AWARD AMOUNT (For Govt. Use Only)
\$45,000.00 |
+|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
+|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
+
+| 27a. SOLICITATION INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE FAR 52.212-1, 52.212-4, FAR 52.212-3 AND 52.212-5 ARE ATTACHED. ADDENDA
ARE ARE NOT ATTACHED | 27b. CONTRACT/PURCHASE ORDER INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE FAR 52.212-4, FAR 52.212-5 ARE ATTACHED. ADDENDA
ARE ARE NOT ATTACHED |
+|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
+|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
+
+| 28. CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO SIGN THIS DOCUMENT AND RETURN _____ COPIES TO ISSUING OFFICE. CONTRACTOR AGREES TO FURNISH AND DELIVER ALL ITEMS SET FORTH OR OTHERWISE IDENTIFIED ABOVE AND ON ANY ADDITIONAL SHEETS SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SPECIFIED | 29. AWARD OF CONTRACT: REF. _____ OFFER DATED _____. YOUR OFFER ON SOLICITATION (BLOCK 5) INCLUDING ANY ADDITIONS OR CHANGES WHICH ARE SET FORTH HEREIN, IS ACCEPTED AS TO ITEMS: |
+|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
+|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
+
+| 30a. SIGNATURE OF OFFEROR/CONTRACTOR
[REDACTED] | 31a. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER)
[REDACTED] |
+|----------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
+|----------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
+
+| 30b. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (TYPE OR PRINT) | 30c. DATE SIGNED | 31b. NAME OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER (TYPE OR PRINT) | 31c. DATE SIGNED
03/08/2021 |
+|-----------------------------------------------|------------------|------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|
+|-----------------------------------------------|------------------|------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|
+
+| 19.
ITEM NO. | 20.
SCHEDULE OF SUPPLIES/SERVICES | 21.
QUANTITY | 22.
UNIT | 23.
UNIT PRICE | 24.
AMOUNT |
+|-----------------|--------------------------------------|-----------------|-------------|-------------------|---------------|
+| | | | | | |
+
+32a. OUANTITY N COLU1AN 21 HAS BEEN
+
+RECEIVED 0 INSPECTED 0 ACCEPTED. AND CONFORMS TO THE CONTRACT. EXCEPT AS NOTED:
+
+| 32b. SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE | | 32c. DATE | | 32d. PRINTED NAME AND TITLE OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE | | | | | |
+|---------------------------------------------------------------|--|--------------------------------|--|---------------------------------------------------------------------|--|----------------------------------|--|--------------------------------|--|
+| 32e. MAILING ADDRESS OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE | | | | 32f. TELEPHONE NUMBER OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE | | | | | |
+| | | | | 32g. E-MAIL OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE | | | | | |
+| 33. SHIP NUMBER | | 34. VOUCHER NUMBER | | 35. AMOUNT VERIFIED CORRECT FOR | | 36. PAYMENT | | | |
+| PARTIAL | | FINAL | | COMPLETE | | PARTIAL | | FINAL | |
+| 38. S/R ACCOUNT NUMBER | | 39. S/R VOUCHER NUMBER | | 40. PAID BY | | | | | |
+| 41a. I CERTIFY THIS ACCOUNT IS CORRECT AND PROPER FOR PAYMENT | | | | 42a. RECEIVED BY (Print) | | | | | |
+| 41b. SIGNATURE AND TITLE OF CERTIFYING OFFICER | | | | 42b. RECEIVED AT (Location) | | | | | |
+| | | | | 42c. DATE REC'D (YY/MM/DD) | | | | | |
+| | | | | 42d. TOTAL CONTAINERS | | | | | |
+
+#### Table of Contents
+
+| Section | Description | Page Number |
+|---------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|
+| 1 | Solicitation/Contract Form | 1 |
+| 2 | Commodity or Services Schedule | 4 |
+| | 2-3 Specifications/Work Statement EOUSA Al-10-1C Data Security Contract Clause for Contracts Involving the PII of 25 or Fewer | 6 |
+| | Individuals (July 2016) | 8 |
+| | EOUSA AI-10-IA Notice of Contractor Personnel Security Clearance Requirements (May 2016) | 10 |
+| 3 | Contract Clauses 52.212-5 Contract Tams and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders Commercial Items (Jan 2021) | 12 |
+| 4 | List of Attachments | 19 |
+
+# SCHEDULE OF SUPPLIES/SERVICES
+
+#### CONTINUATION SHEET
+
+| ITEM NO. | SUPPLIES/SERVICES | QUANTITY UNIT UNR PRICE MATERIAL |
+|----------|-------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
+| 0001 | Examine Case | |
+| | | 0 \$0.0000 \$0.00 \$0.00 \$0.00 |
+| ITEM NO. | SUPPLIES/SERVICES | QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE MATERIAL |
+| 0002 | Prepare Testimony | |
+| | | 50 HR \$450.0000 \$0.00 \$0.00 \$22.500.00 |
+| ITEM NO. | SUPPLIES/SERVICES | QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE MATERIAL |
+| 0003 | Court Testimony | |
+| | | 50 HR \$450.0000 \$0.00 \$0.00 \$22.500.00 |
+| ITEM NO. | SUPPLIES/SERVICES | QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE MATERIAL |
+| 0004 | Travel Time | |
+| | | 0 \$0.0000 \$0.00 \$0.00 \$0.00 |
+| ITEM NO. | SUPPLIES/SERVICES | QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE MATERIAL |
+| 0005 | Deposition | |
+| | | 0 \$0.0000 \$0.00 \$0.00 \$0.00 |
+| ITEM NO. | SUPPLIES/SERVICES | QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE MATERIAL |
+| 0006 | Meals and Incidental Expenses | |
+| | | 1 EA \$0.0000 \$0.00 \$0.00 \$0.00 |
+
+| | PSC: R424
Line Period of Performance: 03/08/2021 - 12/31/2021 | | | | | | |
+|--------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------|------|------------|-------------------|-----------------|-------------|
+| ITEM NO. | SUPPLIES/SERVICES | QUANTITY | UNIT | UNIT PRICE | MATERIAL
COSTS | TRAVEL
COSTS | AMOUNT |
+| 0007 | Privately Owned Vehicle (NTE coach rate)
Time and Materials
PSC: R424
Line Period of Performance: 03/08/2021 - 12/31/2021 | 0 | ML | \$0.0000 | \$0.00 | \$0.00 | \$0.00 |
+| ITEM NO. | SUPPLIES/SERVICES | QUANTITY | UNIT | UNIT PRICE | MATERIAL
COSTS | TRAVEL
COSTS | AMOUNT |
+| 0008 | Lodging Reimbursement (Including Lodging Taxes)
Time and Materials
PSC: R424
Line Period of Performance: 03/08/2021 - 12/31/2021 | 1 | EA | \$0.0000 | \$0.00 | \$0.00 | \$0.00 |
+| ITEM NO. | SUPPLIES/SERVICES | QUANTITY | UNIT | UNIT PRICE | MATERIAL
COSTS | TRAVEL
COSTS | AMOUNT |
+| 0009 | Lodging via GTA (Including Lodging Taxes)
Time and Materials
PSC: R424
Line Period of Performance: 03/08/2021 - 12/31/2021 | 1 | EA | \$0.0000 | \$0.00 | \$0.00 | \$0.00 |
+| ITEM NO. | SUPPLIES/SERVICES | QUANTITY | UNIT | UNIT PRICE | MATERIAL
COSTS | TRAVEL
COSTS | AMOUNT |
+| 0010 | Common Carrier Transportation Via GTA
Time and Materials
PSC: R424
Line Period of Performance: 03/08/2021 - 12/31/2021 | 1 | EA | \$0.0000 | \$0.00 | \$0.00 | \$0.00 |
+| ITEM NO. | SUPPLIES/SERVICES | QUANTITY | UNIT | UNIT PRICE | MATERIAL
COSTS | TRAVEL
COSTS | AMOUNT |
+| 0011 | Common Carrier Transportation Reimbursed
Time and Materials
PSC: R424
Line Period of Performance: 03/08/2021 - 12/31/2021 | 1 | EA | \$0.0000 | \$0.00 | \$0.00 | \$0.00 |
+| ITEM NO. | SUPPLIES/SERVICES | QUANTITY | UNIT | UNIT PRICE | MATERIAL
COSTS | TRAVEL
COSTS | AMOUNT |
+| 0012 | Other Expenses
Time and Materials
PSC: R424
Line Period of Performance: 03/08/2021 - 12/31/2021 | 1 | EA | \$0.0000 | \$0.00 | \$0.00 | \$0.00 |
+| TOTAL | | | | | | | \$45,000.00 |
+
+### FUNDING DETAILS:
+
+| | | m OBLIGATED AMOUNT | ACCOUNTING CODES |
+|----|---|--------------------|---------------------------------------------------|
+| WA | 1 | 545.001100 | JMD-2021.0311XDIR-JC2-NYS.EXW.EXW-11804-1157-2021 |
+| | | TOTAL: 5.000.00 | |
+
+# 2-3 Specifications/Work Statement
+
+The United States Attorneys' Office (USAO) conducts litigation in the Southern District of New York on behalf of the United States of America. Frequently. there is a need for expert witness work prior to a case going to trial and during the trial. When appropriate. and pursuant to guidelines implemented by the Department of Justice, a USAO may enter into contracts with expert witnesses, functioning as independent contractors, to conduct record reviews and data analyses in preparation for testimony in person or by written report and to provide such testimony in court or by trial deposition. In this particular case, the USAO has determined that an expert witness is necessary to testify in litigation for the government and such services are not available from the agency being represented or from another agency.
+
+Through this statement of work, the USAO is seeking the services of a contractor to review records, analyze data, interview witnesses. prepare testimony, testify. and other work pertinent to the case.
+
+# Retention
+
+The contractor will be available to commence work for the USAO upon receipt of an executed copy of this contract or a verbal notice to proceed. The contractor agrees not to work for any other person or party involved in this case on matters relating to this case for thirty (30) days after he/she is verbally retained, or upon acceptance of this contract, unless notified earlier by the USAO. Should the thirty (30) days lapse without receipt of an executed contract or notice to proceed. the contractor is free to accept work from any other party.
+
+### Scope of Work
+
+The contractor shall:
+
+Provide all plant labor, material and equipment except as otherwise provided to perform expert witness services as required by USAO and in connection with such services agrees to perform such document review, studies and research so as to be able to testify in person or by written report as an expert witness with respect to the contractor's findings.
+
+Testify as an expert witness during the trial either in person or by written report. unless notified to the contrary by the AUSA, and must be willing to comply with all requirements of the court as well as local and/or federal rules for such purpose.
+
+Assist the USAO in the obtaining of one or more additional expert witnesses, as needed to support the testimony of the contractor in person or by written report. who are competent and willing to render a scientifically-supportable opinion and sign an appropriate affidavit, acceptable to the expert. prepared by the USAO, based upon the findings of the expert and the facts of the Case.
+
+Exercise neutrality and maintain independence. The contractor shall determine the manner in which the services are to be performed and the specific hours to be worked by the contractor except when the contractor's testimony is required at a specific time and place.
+
+Be of good professional standing and moral character, generally board eligible or board certified in the area of specialty or having other appropriate qualifications through training or experience: to act as the USAO's expert witness in the Case, the rendering of oral and written opinions, the signing of affidavits, giving depositions or courtroom testimony under oath and directly consulting with the USAO.
+
+The full scope of contractor's work will be determined as the matter proceeds. and will be subject to the needs and requests of the USAO. Occasionally the complexity of the case requires more review hours than initially estimated. Any time it becomes apparent to the contractor that he/she will need to exceed the time and cost estimates provided to complete his/her work, he/she will provide the USAO with a revised estimate and shall proceed only after being granted permission by the USAO.
+
+Specific deliverables known at this time include:
+
+In United Stares v. Maxwell. the Government has charged the defendant with various crimes related to the sexual abuse of mionrs. The Government anticipates that this case will proceed of trial. At trial. Dr. Rocchio will serve as a testifying expert to explain various topics related sexual abuse and trauma. Specifically. Dr. Rocchio will serve as a testifying expert, based on her professional experience and research. regarding the psychology of sexual abuse, including by explaining the following concepts: grooming. delayed reporting of child sexual abuse, attachments that form between abusers and victims of sexual abuse, and the effects of sexual abuse on memory.
+
+In advance of her trial testimony. Dr. Rocchio will meet with the Government for preparation sessions; assist the Government in responding to motions related to her expert testimony. as needed; and review any materials provided by the Government. or other relevant materials relevant to the above subject matters as necessary in advance of her testimony.
+
+Dr. Rocchio shall be compensated at a rate of \$450 per hour to perform the work described above, including travel time.
+
+This list of deliverables may not be all inclusive; additional deliverables may be identified by the USAO throughout the duration of this contract.
+
+FAR 31.20546 Travel Costs. When travel is authorized by the Government. transportation, lodging, meals and incidental expenses will be reimbursed in accordance with conditions set out in the Federal Travel Regulation (Title 41 Code of Federal Regulations). Rates listed elsewhere in this contract for mileage and per them are subject to change and will be reimbursed in accordance with the rates established by the Federal Travel Regulation. Federal Travel Regulations may be found at this address: hup://www.gsa.gov/.
+
+### Option to Extend Term of the Contract
+
+The Government may unilaterally extend the term of this contract by written notice to the contractor provided the Government does so before the contract expires. If any such extension causes an increase in the cost of performance on the contractor then the contractor may. within 30 days, request an equitable adjustment in the contract price. The Government shall make an equitable adjustment in the contract price and modify the contract to reflect the adjustment for all fair and reasonable requests. The total duration of this contract, including unilateral extensions, may extend no longer than 90 days beyond disposition of the Case.
+
+#### Relationship of the Parties
+
+Notwithstanding any provision hereof, for all purposes of this contract the contractor shall be and act as an independent contractor and not an employee of the USAO, thereby incurring all expenses associated with the work, including any overhead and other direct costs. The USAO will not provide fringe benefits, including health insurance benefits, paid vacations, or any other employee benefit. for the contractor. The contractor shall make no representation as an agent. employee, partner, or joint venturer of USAO. The contractor shall have no authority to bind nor attempt to bind USAO or incur other obligations on behalf of USAO. The contractor is an independent contractor and is solely responsible for all taxes. withholdings. and other statutory or contractual obligations of any sort, including, but not limited to. Workers' Compensation Insurance; and the contractor agrees to defend. indemnify and hold USAO harmless from any and all claims. damages, liability, attorneys' fees and expenses on account of an alleged failure by the contractor to satisfy any such obligations or any other obligation (under this contract or otherwise). If the contractor is a corporation. it will ensure that its employees and agents are bound in writing to the contractor's obligations under this Contract.
+
+#### Confidentiality
+
+The contractor recognizes that the USAO has and will have law enforcement interests, as well as non-privileged information obtained from federal agencies and employees. and other proprietary information (collectively "information") which are valuable. special and unique assets of the USAO. The contractor agrees that other than provided by law, he/she will at no time or under any circumstances. directly, or indirectly, divulge, disclose. or communicate information to a third party, or use it for its own benefit without the prior written permission from the USAO. The contractor may disclose information to its employees and subcontractors, who may be working on the case, in order to facilitate the testimony to be provided by the expert in person or by written report. unless notified to the contrary by the USAO. The contractor and its employees and subcontractors will protect the information and treat it as strictly confidential.
+
+In the performance of services under this contract, the contractor, its employees and/or its subcontractors may be required to perform operations. have access to, or handle data which contain sensitive. proprietary. or privacy information or data such as, but not limited to, review or an individuate tax records or medical records (such as patient files or prescription records) or other materials containing individual tax or medical information (such as medical utilization reports from carriers, workers' compensation claim files, personnel files, or court records which include medical or tax reports). The contractor agrees that the following additional safeguards apply to such information:
+
+The contractor shall be responsible for safeguarding the information or data while under the control of or available to the contractor and to prevent it from being compromised. altered, damaged, lost, or improperly disseminated. The contractor shall use such information solely for purposes of the particular court case.
+
+Access to any such information or document should be strictly limited to persons with a legitimate and compelling need for that information, such as support staff needed to assist in the preparation of testimony in person or by written report. The Contractor shall ensure that any such persons use such information solely or purposes of the particular court case and protect the confidentiality of such information.
+
+The contractor shall ensure that all records are maintained securely so that access is strictly limited.
+
+At the end of the contractor's engagement in this matter, all copies of such records shall be returned to the USAO.
+
+All questions about these safeguards and the records which they cover shall be directed to the AUSA.
+
+The confidentiality provisions of this contract shall survive any termination of this contract.
+
+# ConflictoUnretest
+
+The contractor warrants that he/she is under no obligation to any other entity that in any way conflicts with this contract. that he/she is free to enter into this contract, and is under no obligation to consult for others in matters covered by this contract. The contractor shall not, during the term of this contract, perform consulting services for others in any related or similar cases within the scope of this contract but shall have the right to perform consulting services for others outside the scope of this contract.
+
+If. for any reason, the USAO or the contractor determines that the contractor and/or an employee or subcontractor of the contractor faces a potential. perceived, or real conflict of interest, the USAO shall notify the contractor or the contractor shall notify the USAO of the potential, perceived, or real conflict of interest and the contractor and/or contract employee or subcontractor shall cease all work on or reassign the task or proceed at the discretion of the USAO. At the USAO's option, the contractor may provide an acceptable replacement.
+
+## Government Liability
+
+The United States, its agents, agencies. departments. employees, and/or contracting officials shall not be liable for any injury to the contractor. its subcontractors, agents. personnel. or damage to the contractor property unless the injury or damage is due to negligence on the USAO's part and may be recoverable under the Federal Ton Claims Act.
+
+#### Return of Records
+
+Upon termination of this contract, the contractor will deliver all records. notes. data or memorandum that was received from the USAO, and are in the contractor's possession or under the contractor's control and are the USAO's property or relates to the USAO's business. The contractor may properly destroy this material upon permission of the USAO.
+
+EOUSA Al- I 0-IC Data Security Contract Clause for Contracts Involving the Pll of 25 or Fewer Individuals (July 2016)
+
+Data Security Contract Clause for Contracts Involving the P11 of 25 or Fewer Individuals (July 2016)
+
+The following clause applies to all contracts involving the personally identifiable information (P11) of 25 or fewer individuals. Pll refers to information that can be used to distinguish or trace an individual's identity. such as his or her name, social security number. biometric records, etc., whether alone or when combined with other personal or identifying information that is linked or linkable to a specific individual, such as date and place of birth. mother's maiden name, etc. Pll is defined at this link: http://www.gsa.gov/portalkontent/104256.
+
+Contractors using information systems that are subject to the data security requirements under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) already are subject to the data security standards outlined below, and, therefore, only paragraphs (g), (h). and (i) apply.
+
+- (a) Contractors must ensure that computer hardware is secure and shall take the steps outlined below:
+
+- (1) Keep your firewall turned on: A firewall helps protect your computer from hackers who might try to gain access to crash it, delete information, or even steal passwords or other sensitive information. Software firewalls are widely recommended for single computers. The software is prepackaged on some operating systems or can be purchased for individual computers. For multiple networked computers. hardware routers typically provide firewall protection. although the contractor must verify this.
+- (2) Computers must be protected by username/password logins and password-protected screensavers (after 15 min. idle). Computer accounts cannot be shared with other users. Contractors must report an incident to the EOUSA Security Operations Center at 803-705-5533 within one hour if their account is accessed by another user.
+- (3) Install and update your antivirus software: Antivirus software is designed to prevent malicious software programs from embedding in your computer. If it detects malicious code, like a virus or a worm, it works to disarm or remove it. Viruses can infect computers without users' knowledge. Most types of antivirus software can be set up to update automatically.
+- (4) Install and update your antispyware technology: Spyware is just what it sounds like-software that is surreptitiously installed on your computer to let others peer into your activities on the computer. Some spyware collects information about you without your consent or produces unwanted pop-up ads on your web browser. Some operating systems offer free spyware protection, and inexpensive software is readily available for download on the Internet or at your local computer store. Be wary of ads on the Internet offering downloadable antispyware—in some cases these products may be fake and may actually contain spyware or other malicious code.
+- (5) Maintain active and supported operating systems and application software. Computer operating systems (e.g.. Windows 8.0) and application software (e.g.. Microsoft Word) have a lifecycle that begins when a product is released and ends when it's no longer supported. Install and maintain security updates and fixes updated to stay in tune with technology requirements and to fix security holes. Be sure to install the updates to ensure your computer has the latest protection.
+- (6) Be careful what you download: Carelessly downloading e-mail attachments can circumvent even the most vigilant anti-virus software. Never open an e-mail attachment from someone you don't know and be wary of forwarded attachments from people you do know. They may have unwittingly advanced malicious code.
+- (7) Turn off your computer: With the growth of high-speed Internet connections, many opt to leave their computers on and ready for action. The downside is that being "always on" renders computers more susceptible. Beyond firewall protection. which is designed to fend off unwanted attacks, turning the computer off effectively severs an attacker's connection—be it spyware or a botnet that employs your computer's resources to reach out to other unwitting users.
+
+- (b) You must encrypt files related to this project on your computer whenever you are not working on them using a standard software encryption product such as Winzip (Version 18.5 or later with the Windows FIPS 140-2 validated cryptographic modules enabled). Securezip, or any other product that meets Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 140-2. If you do not already have a suitable encryption program on your computer. you can download one of these products easily.
+- (c) If the data under this contract will be accessed by more than one person. rules of behavior must be signed by users. These rules shall address at a minimum: authorized and official use: prohibition against unauthorized users: and protection of sensitive data and Pit. You can comply by having all users sign these rules: 1. Keep all data and information received from the government confidential. 2. Do not leave it unattended in a place where an unauthorized person might read, copy, or take it. 3. Do not transmit it without encryption from one computer to another. 4. If confidentiality is breached, inform 'name principal of the contractor] within one hour of suspected breach so the United States can fulfill its obligations.
+- (d) All Pll data must be deleted from all contractor-owned devices within 15 days of contract termination or contractor completion. The Contracting Officer (CO) must receive a written certification, either via email or letter, that the contractor has
+
+deleted all PH. This bulletin outlines approved method of data destruction: please see Appendix 1, which begins on page 26: http://nvIpubs.nistgovrnistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.800-88r1.pdf.
+
+(e) All files related to this project, and contractor-owned removable media (such as removable hard drives, flash drives. CDs, or floppy disks containing DO1 data) shall not be removed from DOJ facilities (either physically or electronically, such as by email) unless encrypted using a NIST FIPS 140-2 approved product. Please note that this requirement refers to transferring information between systems and storage devices (such as back and forth between contractor and DO.1 attorney), while paragraph (b) above applies to data while it is on your computer.
+
+NOTE: As an alternative to media encryption, DOJ data may be securely exchanged between contractors and USAO personnel via the approved U.S. Attorneys' File Exchange (USAfx) web portal.
+
+(t) Contractors shall keep an accurate inventory of DOJ-owned devices used on DOJ contracts. It is understood that not all users will receive a Dal-owned device. If equipment is provided, then the contractor, as well as the USAO providing the devices, must maintain an inventory of accountable DOJ property.
+
+(g) If a data breach is suspected, the contractor shall. within one hour of discovery, report the breach to the EOUSA Security Operations Center (SOC) at 803-705.5533.
+
+(h) The contractor must coordinate with EOUSA and the Department on notifying any individual whose Pll was, or is reasonably believed to have been, breached.
+
+(i) The contractor must require that all subcontractors under this contract (if any) adhere to all applicable security contract requirements.
+
+(end of clause)
+
+## EOUSA Al- I 0-1A Notice of Contractor Personnel Security Clearance Requirements (May 2016)
+
+### Notice of Contractor Personnel Security Clearance Requirements (May 2016)
+
+Where performance under this contract/task or delivery order/call requires contractor personnel to have access to Department of Justice (DOI) information, systems or facilities, contractor personnel will be subject to the background clearance requirements of Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD)-12, OMB Guidance Memorandum M-05-24. FIPS Publication 201 and DOJ policy implementing HSPD-12 requirements.
+
+Background clearance requirements are determined by the risk level of each position. type of access and length of access required. Further information on background security clearance requirements applicable to contractor personnel proposed for performance on this contract/order/call may be obtained from the Contracting Officer.
+
+All contractor personnel must meet the DOJ Residency Requirements. He/She must have lived in the United States three of the last five years immediately prior to start of performance on this contract/order/call, and/or worked for the United States overseas in a federal or military capacity. and/or be a dependent of a federal or military employee serving overseas. Specific limited waiver request requirements - contractor personnel performing duties for a cumulative total of 14 days or less where there is a critical need for their specialized and unique skills (as solely determined by the Government) may be proposed for a waiver of the Residency Requirement by the contractor. Contractor personnel who are non-US citizens proposed for such a waiver of the Residency Requirement must be from a country allied with the United States (Since the countries on the Allied Countries List are subject to change. the contractor may review the following website for current information:
+
+http://www.opm.gov
+
+For contracts/orders/calls where access to DOJ information systems is involved, non-US citizens are not permitted to have access to or assist in the development. operation. management or maintenance of any Dal IT system. unless a waiver is granted by the head of the Component, with concurrence of the Department Security Officer (DSO) and DOJ Chief Information Officer (CIO). Any such waiver must be in writing and be obtained prior to allowing any contractor employee who is the subject of the waiver request to begin work under this contract/order/call.
+
+The above requirements apply to any and all contractor employees requiring access to DOJ information systems or facilities. including subcontractor personnel, if applicable.
+
+(end of clause)
+
+# A.1 ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-4, Specifications/Work Statement
+
+The terms and conditions for the following clauses are hereby incorporated into this solicitation and resulting contract as an addendum to FAR clause 52.212-4.
+
+### Clauses By Reference
+
+# 51252-2 CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (FEB 1998)
+
+This contract incorporates one or more clauses by reference. with the same force and effect as if they were given in full text. Upon request. the Contracting Officer will make their full text available. Also. the full text of a clause may be accessed electronically at this/these address(es): www.acquisition.gov
+
+| Clause | Title | Fill-ins (if applicable) |
+|----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------|
+| 52.212.4 | Contract Terms and Conditions-Commercial Items (Oct 2018) | |
+| 52.212.4 All I | Contract Terms and Conditions-Commercial Items (Oct 2018) - | |
+
+### Clauses By Full Text
+
+# [END OF ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-4]
+
+#### 52.212-5 Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders-Commercial Items (Jan 2021)
+
+(a) The Contractor shall comply with the following Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clauses, which are incorporated in this contract by reference, to implement provisions of law or Executive orders applicable to acquisitions of commercial items:
+
+(1) 52.203-19. Prohibition on Requiring Certain Internal Confidentiality Agreements or Statements (Jan 2017) (section 743 of Division E. Title VII, of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act. 2015 (Pub. L. 113-235) and its successor provisions in subsequent appropriations acts (and as extended in continuing resolutions)).
+
+(2) 52.204-23. Prohibition on Contracting for Hardware, Software, and Services Developed or Provided by Kaspersky Lab and Other Covered Entities (Jul 2018) (Section 1634 of Pub. L. 115-91).
+
+(3) 52.204-25, Prohibition on Contracting for Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services or Equipment. (Aug 2020) (Section 889(a)(1)(A) of Pub. L. 115-232).
+
+(4) 52.209-10, Prohibition on Contracting with Inverted Domestic Corporations (Nov 2015).
+
+(5) 52.233-3, Protest After Award (Aug 19%) (31 U.S.C. 3553).
+
+(6) 52.233-4, Applicable Law for Breach of Contract Claim (Oct 2004)(Public Laws 108-77 and 108-78 (19 U.S.C. 3805 note)).
+
+(b) The Contractor shall comply with the FAR clauses in this paragraph (b) that the Contracting Officer has indicated as being incorporated in this contract by reference to implement provisions of law or Executive orders applicable to acquisitions of commercial items:
+
+[Contracting Officer check as appropriate.]
+
+(I) 52.203-6, Restrictions on Subcontractor Sales to the Government (Jun 2020), with Alternate I (Oct 1995) (41 U.S.C. 4704 and 10 U.S.C. 2402).
+
+(2) 52.203-13, Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct (Jun 2020) (41 U.S.C. 3509)).
+
+(3) 52.203-15. Whistleblower Protections under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Jun 2010) (Section 1553 of Pub. L. 111-5). (Applies to contracts funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.)
+
+(4) 52.204-10. Reporting Executive Compensation and First-Tier Subcontract Awards (Jun 2020) (Pub. L. 109-282) (31 U.S.C. 6101 note).
+
+(5) [Reserved].
+
+(6) 52.204-14. Service Contract Reporting Requirements (Oct 2016) (Pub. L. 111-117. section 743 of Div. C).
+
+(7) 52.204-15. Service Contract Reporting Requirements for Indefinite-Delivery Contracts (Oct 2016) (Pub. L. 111-117. section 743 of Div. C).
+
+(8) 52.209-6. Protecting the Government's Interest When Subcontracting with Contractors Debarred, Suspended. or Proposed for Debarment. (Jun 2020) (31 U.S.C. 6101 note).
+
+(9) 52.209-9, Updates of Publicly Available Information Regarding Responsibility Matters (Oct 2018) (41 U.S.C. 2313).
+
+(10) [Reserved].
+
+(I IXi) 52.219.3. Notice of HUBZone Set-Aside or Sole-Source Award (Mar 2020) (15 U.S.C. 657a).
+
+(ii) Alternate I (Mar 2020) of 52.219.3.
+
+(12Xi) 52.219.4. Notice of Price Evaluation Preference for HUBZone Small Business Concerns (Mar 2020) (if the offeror elects to waive the preference. it shall so indicate in its offer) (15 U.S.C. 657a).
+
+(ii) Alternate I (Mar 2020) of 52.219.4.
+
+(13) [Reserved]
+
+(I4Xi) 52.219.6. Notice of Total Small Business Set-Aside (Nov 2020) (IS U.S.C. 644).
+
+(ii) Alternate I (Mar 2020) of 52.219.6.
+
+(15Xi) 52.219.7. Notice of Partial Small Business Set-Aside (Nov 2020) (15 U.S.C. 644).
+
+(ii) Alternate I (Mar 2020) of 52.219-7.
+
+(16) 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns (Oct 2018) (15 U.S.C. 637(d)(2) and (3)).
+
+(17Xi) 52.219.9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Jun 2020) (15 U.S.C. 637(d)(4)).
+
+(ii) Alternate I (Nov 2016) of 52.219-9.
+
+(iii) Alternate II (Nov 2016) of 52.219-9.
+
+(iv) Alternate III (Jun 2020) of 52.219-9.
+
+(18Xi) 52.219-13, Notice of Set-Aside of Orders (Mar 2020) (15 U.S.C. 644(r)).
+
+(ii) Alternate I (Mar 2020) of 52.219.13.
+
+(19) 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting (Mar 2020) (15 U.S.C. 637(a)(14)).
+
+(20) 52.219-16, Liquidated Damages--Subcon-tracting Plan (Jan 1999) (15 U.S.C. 637(d)(4)(F)(i)).
+
+(21) 52.219-27, Notice of Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Set-Aside (Mar 2020) (15 U.S.C. 657f).
+
+(22)(i) 52.219.28. Post Award Small Business Program Rerepresentation (Nov 2020) (15 U.S.C. 632(a)(2)).
+
+(ii) Alternate I (Mar 2020) of 52.219.28.
+
+(23) 52.219-29, Notice of Set-Aside for, or Sole Source Award to. Economically Disadvantaged Women-Owned Small Business Concerns (Mar 2020) (15 U.S.C. 637(m)).
+
+(24) 52.219-30, Notice of Set-Aside for, or Sole Source Award to. Women-Owned Small Business Concerns Eligible Under the Women-Owned Small Business Program (Mar 2020) (15 U.S.C. 637(m)).
+
+(25) 52.219-32, Orders Issued Directly Under Small Business Reserves (Mar 2020) (15 U.S.C. 644(r)).
+
+(26) 52.219-33, Nonmanufacturer Rule (Mar 2020) (IS U.S.C. 637(a)(17)).
+
+(27) 52.222-3, Convict Labor (June 2003) (E.O. 11755).
+
+(28) 52.222-19, Child Labor--Cooperation with Authorities and Remedies (Jan 2020) (E.O. 13126).
+
+(29) 52.222-21, Prohibition of Segregated Facilities (Apr 2015).
+
+(30)(i) 52.222-26, Equal Opportunity (Sept 2016) (E.O. 11246).
+
+(ii) Alternate I (Feb 1999) of 52.222-26.
+
+(31Xi) 52.222-35, Equal Opportunity for Veterans (Jun 2020) (38 U.S.C. 4212).
+
+(ii) Alternate I (July 2014) of 52.222-35.
+
+(32)(i) 52.222-36, Equal Opportunity for Workers with Disabilities (Jun 2020) (29 U.S.C. 793).
+
+(ii) Alternate I (July 2014) of 52.222-36.
+
+(33) 52.222-37, Employment Reports on Veterans (Jun 2020) (38 U.S.C. 4212).
+
+(34) 52.222-40, Notification of Employee Rights Under the National Labor Relations Act (Dec 2010) (E.O. 134%).
+
+(35)0) 52.222-50. Combating Trafficking in Persons (Oct 2020) (22 U.S.C. chapter 78 and E.O. 13627).
+
+(ii) Alternate I (Mar 2015) of 52.222-50 (22 U.S.C. chapter 78 and E.O. 13627).
+
+(36) 52.222-54. Employment Eligibility Verification (Oct 2015). (Executive Order 12989). (Not applicable to the acquisition of commercially available off-the-shelf items or certain other types of commercial items as prescribed in 22.1803.)
+
+(37)0) 52.223.9. Estimate of Percentage of Recovered Material Content for EPA-Designated Items (May 2008) (42 U.S.C. 6962(c) (3)(A)(ii)). (Not applicable to the acquisition of commercially available off-the-shelf items.)
+
+(ii) Alternate I (May 2008) of 52.223-9 (42 U.S.C. 6962(i)(2)(C)). (Not applicable to the acquisition of commercially available offthe-shelf items.)
+
+(39) 52.223-12, Maintenance. Service. Repair. or Disposal of Refrigeration Equipment and Air Conditioners (Jun 2016) (E.O. 13693).
+
+(40)(i) 52.223.13, Acquisition of EPEATD-Registered Imaging Equipment (Jun 2014) (E.O.s 13423 and 13514).
+
+(ii) Alternate I (Oct 2015) of 52.223-13.
+
+(41Xi) 52.223.14, Acquisition of EPEATD-Registered Televisions (Jun 2014) (E.O.s 13423 and 13514).
+
+(ii) Alternate I (Jun 2014) of 52.223-14.
+
+(42) 52.223-15, Energy Efficiency in Energy-Consuming Products (May 2020) (42 U.S.C. 8259b).
+
+(43)0) 52.223.16. Acquisition of EPEATD-Registered Personal Computer Products (Oct 2015) (E.O.s 13423 and 13514).
+
+(ii) Alternate I (Jun 2014) of 52.223-16.
+
+(44) 52.223-18, Encouraging Contractor Policies to Ban Text Messaging While Driving (Jun 2020) (E.O. 13513).
+
+(45) 52.223-20, Aerosols (Jun 2016) (E.O. 13693).
+
+(46) 52.223-21, Foams (Jun 2016) (E.O. 13693).
+
+(47)0) 52.224-3. Privacy Training (Jan 2017) (5 U.S.C. 552a).
+
+(ii) Alternate I (Jan 2017) of 52.224-3.
+
+(48) 52.225-1, Buy American--Supplies (Jan 2021) (41 U.S.C. chapter 83).
+
+(49)0) 52.225.3. Buy American--Free Trade Agreements—Israeli Trade Act (Jan 2021) (41 U.S.C. chapter 83, 19 U.S.C. 3301 note, 19 U.S.C. 2112 note. 19 U.S.C. 3805 note. 19 U.S.C. 4001 note. Pub. L. 103-182, 108-77, 108-78, 108-286, 108-302, 109-53, 109-169, 109-283, 110-138, 11241, 112.42. and 11243.
+
+(ii) Alternate I (Jan 2021) of 52.225-3.
+
+(iii) Alternate II (Jan 2021) of 52.225-3.
+
+(iv) Alternate III (Jan 2021) of 52.225-3.
+
+(50) 52.225-5. Trade Agreements (Oct 2019) (19 U.S.C. 2501. et seq.. 19 U.S.C. 3301 note).
+
+(51) 52.225-13. Restrictions on Certain Foreign Purchases (June 2008) (E.O.'s, proclamations, and statutes administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the Department of the Treasury).
+
+(52) 52.225-26, Contractors Performing Private Security Functions Outside the United States (Oct 2016) (Section 862, as amended. of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008: 10 U.S.C. 2302 Note).
+
+(53) 52.226-4, Notice of Disaster or Emergency Area Set-Aside (Nov 2007) (42 U.S.C. 5150).
+
+(54) 52.226-5. Restrictions on Subcontracting Outside Disaster or Emergency Area (Nov 2007) (42 U.S.C. 5150).
+
+(55) 52.229-12, Tax on Certain Foreign Procurements (Jun 2020).
+
+(56) 52.232-29, Terms for Financing of Purchases of Commercial Items (Feb 2002) (41 U.S.C. 4505, 10 U.S.C. 2307(f)).
+
+(57) 52.232-30, Installment Payments for Commercial Items (Jan 2017) (41 U.S.C. 4505, 10 U.S.C. 2307(f)).
+
+(59) 52.232-34, Payment by Electronic Funds Transfer--Other than System for Award Management (Jul 2013) (31 U.S.C. 3332).
+
+(60) 52.232-36, Payment by Third Party (May 2014) (31 U.S.C. 3332).
+
+(61) 52.239-1. Privacy or Security Safeguards (Aug 1996) (5 U.S.C. 552a).
+
+(62) 52.242-5. Payments to Small Business Subcontractors (Jan 2017)(15 U.S.C. 637(dX13)).
+
+(63Xi) 52.247-64. Preference for Privately Owned U.S.-Flag Commercial Vessels (Feb 2006) (46 U.S.C. Appx. 1241(b) and 10 U.S.C. 2631).
+
+(ii) Alternate I (Apr 2003) of 52.247-64.
+
+(iii) Alternate II (Feb 2006) of 52.247.64.
+
+(c) The Contractor shall comply with the FAR clauses in this paragraph (c). applicable to commercial services. that the Contracting Officer has indicated as being incorporated in this contract by reference to implement provisions of law or Executive orders applicable to acquisitions of commercial items:
+
+[Contracting Officer check as appropriate.]
+
+— (1) 52.222-41. Service Contract Labor Standards (Aug 2018) (41 U.S.C. chapter 67).
+
+(2) 52.222-42. Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal Hires (May 2014) (29 U.S.C. 206 and 41 U.S.C. chapter 67).
+
+(3) 52.222-43. Fair Labor Standards Act and Service Contract Labor Standards-Price Adjustment (Multiple Year and Option Contracts) (Aug 2018) (29 U.S.C. 206 and 41 U.S.C. chapter 67).
+
+(4) 52.222-44. Fair Labor Standards Act and Service Contract Labor Standards--Price Adjustment (May 2014) (29 U.S.C. 206 and 41 U.S.C. chapter 67).
+
+(5) 52.222-51. Exemption from Application of the Service Contract Labor Standards to Contracts for Maintenance, Calibration, or Repair of Certain Equipment--Requirements (May 2014) (41 U.S.C. chapter 67).
+
+(6) 52.222-53, Exemption from Application of the Service Contract Labor Standards to Contracts for Certain Services— Requirements (May 2014) (41 U.S.C. chapter 67).
+
+(7) 52.222-55. Minimum Wages Under Executive Order 13658 (Nov 2020).
+
+(8) 52.222-62. Paid Sick Leave Under Executive Order 13706 (Jan 2017) (E.O. 13706).
+
+(9) 52.226-6. Promoting Excess Food Donation to Nonprofit Organizations (Jun 2020) (42 U.S.C. 1792).
+
+(d) Comptroller General Examination of Record. The Contractor shall comply with the provisions of this paragraph (d) if this contract was awarded using other than sealed bid, is in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold, as defined in FAR 2.101, on the date of award of this contract and does not contain the clause at 52.215-2. Audit and Records—Negotiation.
+
+(1) The Comptroller General of the United States, or an authorized representative of the Comptroller General, shall have access to and right to examine any of the Contractor's directly pertinent records involving transactions related to this contract.
+
+(2) The Contractor shall make available at its offices at all reasonable times the records, materials. and other evidence for examination. audit, or reproduction, until 3 years after final payment under this contract or for any shorter period specified in FAR subpart 4.7. Contractor Records Retention, of the other clauses of this contract. If this contract is completely or partially terminated, the records relating to the work terminated shall be made available for 3 years after any resulting final termination settlement. Records relating to appeals under the disputes clause or to litigation or the settlement of claims arising under or relating to this contract shall be made available until such appeals. litigation, or claims are finally resolved.
+
+(3) As used in this clause, records include books, documents, accounting procedures and practices. and other data. regardless of type and regardless of form. This does not require the Contractor to create or maintain any record that the Contractor does not maintain in the ordinary course of business or pursuant to a provision of law.
+
+(e)( I) Notwithstanding the requirements of the clauses in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) of this clause, the Contractor is not required to flow down any FAR clause, other than those in this paragraph (e)(I) in a subcontract for commercial items. Unless otherwise indicated below, the extent of the flow down shall be as required by the clause--
+
+(i) 52.203-13, Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct (Jun 2020) (41 U.S.C. 3509).
+
+(ii) 52.203-19, Prohibition on Requiring Certain Internal Confidentiality Agreements or Statements (Jan 2017) (section 743 of Division E, Title VII, of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act. 2015 (Pub. L. 113-235) and its successor provisions in subsequent appropriations acts (and as extended in continuing resolutions)).
+
+(iii) 52.204-23. Prohibition on Contracting for Hardware, Software, and Services Developed or Provided by Kaspersky Lab and Other Covered Entities (Jul 2018) (Section 1634 of Pub. L. 115-91).
+
+(iv) 52.204-25, Prohibition on Contracting for Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services or Equipment. (Aug 2020) (Section 889(a)(I)(A) of Pub. L. 115.232).
+
+(v) 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns (Oct 2018) (15 U.S.C. 637(dX2) and (3)). in all subcontracts that offer further subcontracting opportunities. If the subcontract (except subcontracts to small business concerns) exceeds the applicable threshold specified in FAR 19.702(a) on the date of subcontract award, the subcontractor must include 52.219-8 in lower tier subcontracts that offer subcontracting opportunities.
+
+(vi) 52.222-21, Prohibition of Segregated Facilities (Apr 2015)
+
+(vii) 52.222-26, Equal Opportunity (Sept 2016) (E.O. 11246).
+
+(viii) 52.222-35. Equal Opportunity for Veterans (Jun 2020) (38 U.S.C. 4212).
+
+(ix) 52.222-36. Equal Opportunity for Workers with Disabilities (Jun 2020) (29 U.S.C. 793).
+
+(x) 52.222-37. Employment Reports on Veterans (Jun 2020) (38 U.S.C. 4212)
+
+(xi) 52.222-40. Notification of Employee Rights Under the National Labor Relations Act (Dec 2010) (E.O. 13496). Flow down required in accordance with paragraph (f) of FAR clause 52.222-40.
+
+(xii) 52.222-41, Service Contract Labor Standards (Aug 2018) (41 U.S.C. chapter 67).
+
+(xiii) (A) 52.222-50, Combating Trafficking in Persons (Oct 2020) (22 U.S.C. chapter 78 and E.G 13627).
+
+(B) Alternate I (Mar 2015) of 52.222-50 (22 U.S.C. chapter 78 and E.G 13627).
+
+(xiv) 52.222-51, Exemption from Application of the Service Contract Labor Standards to Contracts for Maintenance, Calibration, or Repair of Certain Equipment-Requirements (May 2014) (41 U.S.C. chapter 67).
+
+(xv) 52.222-53, Exemption from Application of the Service Contract Labor Standards to Contracts for Certain Services-Requirements (May 2014) (41 U.S.C. chapter 67).
+
+(xvi) 52.222-54, Employment Eligibility Verification (Oct 2015) (E.O. 12989).
+
+(xvii) 52.222-55. Minimum Wages Under Executive Order 13658 (Nov 2020).
+
+(xviii) 52.222-62. Paid Sick Leave Under Executive Order 13706 (Jan 2017) (E.O. 13706).
+
+(xixXA) 52.224-3, Privacy Training (Jan 2017) (5 U.S.C. 552a).
+
+(B) Alternate I (Jan 2017) of 52.224-3.
+
+(xx) 52.225.26. Contractors Performing Private Security Functions Outside the United States (Oct 2016) (Section 862. as amended, of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008; 10 U.S.C. 2302 Note).
+
+(xxi) 52.226-6. Promoting Excess Food Donation to Nonprofit Organizations (Jun 2020) (42 U.S.C. 1792). Flow down required in accordance with paragraph (e) of FAR clause 52.226-6.
+
+(xxii) 52.247-64. Preference for Privately Owned U.S.-Flag Commercial Vessels (Feb 2006) (46 U.S.C. Appx. 1241(b) and 10 U.S.C. 2631). Flow down required in accordance with paragraph (d) of FAR clause 52.247-64.
+
+(2) While not required, the Contractor may include in its subcontracts for commercial items a minimal number of additional clauses necessary to satisfy its contractual obligations.
+
+(End of clause)
+
+### Section 4 - List of Attachments
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156693/EFTA00156693.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156693/EFTA00156693.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c909acff911cc21bdf441dda385ad513cd4fdfef
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156693/EFTA00156693.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,1263 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00156693.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 19,
+ "chars": 61820,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 23.37,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "Table of Contents",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 267.44399999999996,
+ 31.589999999999996
+ ],
+ [
+ 343.83917236328125,
+ 31.589999999999996
+ ],
+ [
+ 343.83917236328125,
+ 43.74
+ ],
+ [
+ 267.44399999999996,
+ 43.74
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Section 2 - Commodity or Services Schedule",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 52.63199999999999,
+ 46.980000000000004
+ ],
+ [
+ 255.1403045654297,
+ 46.980000000000004
+ ],
+ [
+ 255.1403045654297,
+ 59.49945068359375
+ ],
+ [
+ 52.63199999999999,
+ 59.49945068359375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "SCHEDULE OF SUPPLIES/SERVICES",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 205.63200000000003,
+ 76.94999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 408.2596740722656,
+ 76.94999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 408.2596740722656,
+ 91.33056640625
+ ],
+ [
+ 205.63200000000003,
+ 91.33056640625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CONTINUATION SHEET",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 262.548,
+ 91.53
+ ],
+ [
+ 350.2973937988281,
+ 91.53
+ ],
+ [
+ 350.2973937988281,
+ 103.74945068359375
+ ],
+ [
+ 262.548,
+ 103.74945068359375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "FUNDING DETAILS:",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 53.24399999999999,
+ 57.50999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 137.43276977539062,
+ 57.50999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 137.43276977539062,
+ 70.35113525390625
+ ],
+ [
+ 53.24399999999999,
+ 70.35113525390625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "2-3 Specifications/Work Statement",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 53.24399999999999,
+ 221.13000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 193.3256072998047,
+ 221.13000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 193.3256072998047,
+ 234.60113525390625
+ ],
+ [
+ 53.24399999999999,
+ 234.60113525390625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Retention",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 53.24399999999999,
+ 362.07
+ ],
+ [
+ 97.77068328857422,
+ 362.07
+ ],
+ [
+ 97.77068328857422,
+ 375.60113525390625
+ ],
+ [
+ 53.24399999999999,
+ 375.60113525390625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Scope of Work",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 53.24399999999999,
+ 451.1700000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 117.49574279785156,
+ 451.1700000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 117.49574279785156,
+ 464.10113525390625
+ ],
+ [
+ 53.24399999999999,
+ 464.10113525390625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Option to Extend Term of the Contract",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 52.63199999999999,
+ 352.35
+ ],
+ [
+ 214.01502990722656,
+ 352.35
+ ],
+ [
+ 214.01502990722656,
+ 365.10113525390625
+ ],
+ [
+ 52.63199999999999,
+ 365.10113525390625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Relationship of the Parties",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 52.63199999999999,
+ 441.45000000000005
+ ],
+ [
+ 165.74853515625,
+ 441.45000000000005
+ ],
+ [
+ 165.74853515625,
+ 453.60113525390625
+ ],
+ [
+ 52.63199999999999,
+ 453.60113525390625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Confidentiality",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 52.63199999999999,
+ 585.6299999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 116.28,
+ 585.6299999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 116.28,
+ 597.6011199951172
+ ],
+ [
+ 52.63199999999999,
+ 597.6011199951172
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "ConflictoUnretest",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 52.63199999999999,
+ 307.79999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 134.27362060546875,
+ 307.79999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 134.27362060546875,
+ 321.60113525390625
+ ],
+ [
+ 52.63199999999999,
+ 321.60113525390625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Government Liability",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 52.63199999999999,
+ 451.9800000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 145.23605346679688,
+ 451.9800000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 145.23605346679688,
+ 465.08563232421875
+ ],
+ [
+ 52.63199999999999,
+ 465.08563232421875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Return of Records",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 52.63199999999999,
+ 519.21
+ ],
+ [
+ 131.989013671875,
+ 519.21
+ ],
+ [
+ 131.989013671875,
+ 531.6011352539062
+ ],
+ [
+ 52.63199999999999,
+ 531.6011352539062
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "EOUSA Al- I 0-1A Notice of Contractor Personnel Security Clearance Requirements (May 2016)",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 9,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 53.24399999999999,
+ 324.0
+ ],
+ [
+ 423.123291015625,
+ 324.0
+ ],
+ [
+ 423.123291015625,
+ 337.232421875
+ ],
+ [
+ 53.24399999999999,
+ 337.232421875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Notice of Contractor Personnel Security Clearance Requirements (May 2016)",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 9,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 53.24399999999999,
+ 343.43999999999994
+ ],
+ [
+ 364.623291015625,
+ 343.43999999999994
+ ],
+ [
+ 364.623291015625,
+ 355.9823913574219
+ ],
+ [
+ 53.24399999999999,
+ 355.9823913574219
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Section 3 - Contract Clauses",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 52.63199999999999,
+ 46.980000000000004
+ ],
+ [
+ 184.26193237304688,
+ 46.980000000000004
+ ],
+ [
+ 184.26193237304688,
+ 59.8511962890625
+ ],
+ [
+ 52.63199999999999,
+ 59.8511962890625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "A.1 ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-4, Specifications/Work Statement",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 52.63199999999999,
+ 88.28999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 383.6734313964844,
+ 88.28999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 383.6734313964844,
+ 102.83563232421875
+ ],
+ [
+ 52.63199999999999,
+ 102.83563232421875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Clauses By Reference",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 52.63199999999999,
+ 172.53
+ ],
+ [
+ 150.7784423828125,
+ 172.53
+ ],
+ [
+ 150.7784423828125,
+ 185.10113525390625
+ ],
+ [
+ 52.63199999999999,
+ 185.10113525390625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "51252-2 CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (FEB 1998)",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 52.63199999999999,
+ 187.11
+ ],
+ [
+ 337.7729187011719,
+ 187.11
+ ],
+ [
+ 337.7729187011719,
+ 200.85113525390625
+ ],
+ [
+ 52.63199999999999,
+ 200.85113525390625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Clauses By Full Text",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 52.63199999999999,
+ 383.93999999999994
+ ],
+ [
+ 143.87069702148438,
+ 383.93999999999994
+ ],
+ [
+ 143.87069702148438,
+ 396.98114013671875
+ ],
+ [
+ 52.63199999999999,
+ 396.98114013671875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "[END OF ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-4]",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 52.63199999999999,
+ 412.29
+ ],
+ [
+ 263.87652587890625,
+ 412.29
+ ],
+ [
+ 263.87652587890625,
+ 425.85113525390625
+ ],
+ [
+ 52.63199999999999,
+ 425.85113525390625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "52.212-5 Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders-\nCommercial Items (Jan 2021)",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 52.63199999999999,
+ 453.6
+ ],
+ [
+ 442.476,
+ 453.6
+ ],
+ [
+ 442.476,
+ 473.85113525390625
+ ],
+ [
+ 52.63199999999999,
+ 473.85113525390625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Section 4 - List of Attachments",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 18,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 52.63199999999999,
+ 47.79
+ ],
+ [
+ 194.41107177734375,
+ 47.79
+ ],
+ [
+ 194.41107177734375,
+ 60.75
+ ],
+ [
+ 52.63199999999999,
+ 60.75
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Form",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 97
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 21
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Form",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 38
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 17
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "TableOfContents",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 132
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 66
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 87
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 44
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 103
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 52
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 94
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 47
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 14
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 8,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 103
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 52
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 9,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 97
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 49
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 14
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 13
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 70
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 34
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 12,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 77
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 39
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 13,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 74
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 38
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 14,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 73
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 37
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 15,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 83
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 42
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 22
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 16,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 83
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 42
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 23
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 17,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 14
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 18,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00156693"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156712/EFTA00156712.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156712/EFTA00156712.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4a30335fb809f13bc8c9a66e183c9cda310afe7c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156712/EFTA00156712.md
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+
+
+- Leaving for Italy on 11/16 or 11117, returning on 11/27
+- LR has treated victims who in their past have engaged in sexually abusive behavior of others; specifically, has treated perpetrators of intimate partner violence; area of specialization is not treatment of perpetrators
+- When a patient comes in for treatment, it is not LR's job to conduct investigation to determine objective veracity of what the patient is saying; when someone comes in for treatment, LR generally relies on self-report, but she is always tuning in for areas of consistency and inconsistency in what the patient is saying; LR probes for details and looking at what the patients are telling her in context of literature and her knowledge base of norms
+- Times when LR is treating patients where tests are administered; patients given initial screening measures to get sense of overall level of functioning and where it will be important to address further inquiry as part of clinical assessment
+- If someone describing things inconsistent from one appointment to another or inconsistent with what have shared in the past, LR may point that out and try to discuss to understand; goal is to understand things from client's perspective as clinician
+- If client reporting symptoms of experiencing traumatic event and if it is not consistent with what LR would expect to see, that would pose situation for her to engage in further inquiry, seek consultation from a peer; goal to further her understanding of what is happening with client and client's experiences and issues presenting from treatment perspective
+- Might be times where appropriate to bring in family member or partner; LR has done that before
+- Might be times when patient presents with cognitive difficulties or memory issues or learning issues; might refer out for examinations; in those cases, would use work of other experts to inform treatment
+- Perpetrators use whatever need to or can to generate sense of comfort as they connect with child; may be that use dog, shared interest in art or camping; idea is to show an interest in child and things child finds interesting; helps provide a sense of false safety
+- Grooming is one of strategies utilized to facilitate attachment; perpetrators use grooming techniques in order to win trust and reliance and to slowly and gradually move the line of normality so that kids very slowly become accommodated to more and more deviant behavior without being aware that is what is happening (e.g., start with dirty jokes, then show a few pornographic photos; or start with back rub and then move to different body parts before moving to overtly sexual behavior); grooming is a pattern of behavior the impact of which is to win trust and develops into attachment
+- LR was asked to provide literature on attachment and grooming, delayed disclosure, victims or child victims feeling more comfortable in presence of third parties or women
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156712/EFTA00156712.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156712/EFTA00156712.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..002b5d558529993aacdf9dc69a59641085559a43
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156712/EFTA00156712.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00156712.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 1,
+ "chars": 2946,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.45,
+ "image_assets": [
+ "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg"
+ ],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 87
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 44
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00156712"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156712/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156712/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..636eb3ccbe87c55924200b420f51ad02ded3f10a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156712/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:0b067883bfffd5e758775ea854532f75c0047066561ebf9d88e4d45d5db6a4be
+size 1639
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156713/EFTA00156713.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156713/EFTA00156713.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..deeeb16dd68bad6195289c87df61c70619653305
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156713/EFTA00156713.md
@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+From: (USANYS) Sent: Sunda , October 24, 2021 10:16 PM To: (USANYS) (USANYS); Subject: Notes from 10/24/2021 Call with Dr. Rocchio (USANYS)
+
+10/24/2021 Call with Dr. Rocchio
+
+- Will send articles on grooming
+- No definitive articles on any one topic, but articles are samples from the literature
+- Has not yet identified articles focused on presence of third parties as part of grooming process, but topic in some articles
+- Pointed to Bureau of Justice Statistics re delayed disclosure
+
+Assistant United States Attorney United States Attorney's Office Southern District of New York One St. Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007 Tel:
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156713/EFTA00156713.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156713/EFTA00156713.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..41adef41fa547a4373f3c5b84735a7c42e0018be
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156713/EFTA00156713.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,90 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00156713.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 1,
+ "chars": 635,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.61,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "(USANYS) [Contractor]",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 129.132,
+ 41.31
+ ],
+ [
+ 249.3274688720703,
+ 41.31
+ ],
+ [
+ 249.3274688720703,
+ 55.08000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 129.132,
+ 55.08000000000001
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 46
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 23
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00156713"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156714/EFTA00156714.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156714/EFTA00156714.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..881b89333d332382c0ed13d71d8d340701d04fde
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156714/EFTA00156714.md
@@ -0,0 +1,154 @@
+# Sexual grooming of children: Review of literature and theoretical considerations
+
+Samantha Craven,''\* Sarah Brown' & Elizabeth Gilchrist2
+
+'Department of Psychology, Coventry University, Coventry, UK, and 2Department of Psychology, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, UK
+
+Abstract The current review aims to outline the existing understanding of sexual grooming. Issues of poor definition, the adoption of the term "grooming" and the prevalence of sexual grooming will be discussed. Consideration will be given to how prominent theories of child sexual abuse often neglect sexual grooming. This will be followed by a detailed account of the existing knowledge within the literature. Three types of sexual grooming were thus identified: self-grooming, grooming the environment and significant others and grooming the child. Based on these findings, a new definition of sexual grooming is suggested. Furthermore, the findings correspond well with currant models of the sexual offence process. A more comprehensive understanding of sexual grooming is required to facilitate a preventative approach to child protection.
+
+Keywords Sexual grooming; theory of child sexual abuse
+
+## Introduction
+
+The complex nature of the tactics used by child sex offenders in their efforts to sexually abuse children is increasingly evident in the accounts of the people affected by this predatory behaviour. Sexual grooming is a pertinent issue evident in society, but there is still little understanding about this phenomenon. This is reflected in problems relating to definition, which will be discussed in addition to the evolution of the term "grooming". This review will consider whether present aetiological theories of child sexual abuse can account for "sexual grooming" behaviour, and further determines what knowledge has already been established about the phenomenon of sexual grooming. Based on these findings, a new definition is presented and consideration is given to how current knowledge of sexual grooming relate to models of the sexual offence process.
+
+#### Definition
+
+Professionals are yet to agree on a definition of sexual grooming of children (Gillespie, 2004). Previous literature has provided three specific definitions of grooming. The strengths and
+
+\*Corresponding author: Samantha Craven. Department of Psychology, Coventry Unrremty. Priory Street. Coventry CV1 SFB, UK Tel: 02476 887 068. Fax: 02476 888300. &mail: s.cravengeoventryac.uk
+
+weaknesses of these definitions are discussed in turn below. First, O'Connell defines sexual grooming as:
+
+A course of conduct enacted by a suspected paedophile, which would give a reasonable person cause for concern that any meeting with a child arising from the conduct would be for unlawful purposes. (O'Connell, 2003, p. 6)
+
+Second, Howitt suggests that:
+
+Grooming... is the steps taken by paedophiles to "entrap" their victims and is in somew•ays analogous to adult courtship. (Howitt, 1995, p. 176)
+
+These two definitions are problematic, because they both refer to the term paedophile. Most sexual offenders who target child victims use sexual grooming, not just those classified as paedophiles. The term "paedophile" is a very specific clinical diagnosis, clearly not applicable to all offenders, and the association of grooming behaviour with paedophilia may prevent some offenders from acknowledging their own grooming behaviours. In addition, people known to the offender may not identify the grooming behaviour because they do not consider the individual to fit their image of a "paedophile". The public perception of a paedophile is littered with stereotypes that they are "dirty old men" or strangers; these perceptions may affect an individual's judgement of whether the behaviour they have observed is grooming. These misperceptions distract from the truth that most victims know their abuser. It is important that the wording of a definition does not thwart the identification of sexual grooming and the subsequent prevention or ending of abuse.
+
+Furthermore, the phrase "a course of conduct" requires subsequent definition. Additional problems include reference to "a reasonable person" and "cause for concern". Although legal precedent defines these phrases, they are ambiguous to the lay reader and hence they are open to misinterpretation and confusion. These definitions are confusing, at best, and at worst they reinforce the myth that strangers arc the biggest risk to children. Consequently, this ambiguity may hinder the identification of the full range of sexual grooming behaviours.
+
+Gillespie (2002) provides the third definition:
+
+The process by which a child is befriended by a would-be abuser in an attempt to gain the child's confidence and trust, enabling them to get the child to acquiesce to abusive activity. It is frequently a pre-requisite for an abuser to gain access to a child. (Gillespie, 2002, p. 411; based on van Dam, 2001)
+
+This definition avoids the use of the term paedophile. It also provides some clarity about the purpose of sexual grooming behaviour and identifies some of the stages that it involves. This appears to be the most appropriate published definition to date. Further evaluation of this dcfinition will follow consideration of previous literature and current understanding about sexual grooming.
+
+#### Prevalence
+
+Canter, Hughes and Kirby (1998) provide evidence for the prevalence of the sexual grooming phenomenon. They used Small Space Analysis on a behaviour matrix of the interaction between 97 incarcerated child sex offenders and their victims. They identified three distinct behaviour repertoires of offender-victim interaction. The different types of offender-victim interaction acknowledged were aggressive, which was identifiable by the use of extreme
+
+violence, threat and force; criminal-opportunist, which tended to be one-off offences on strangers; and intimate, which was categorized by the identified use of sexual grooming behaviours.
+
+Forty-five per cent of Canter et al.'s (1998) sample were classified as being intimate offenders. Thus, 45% of the child sex offenders employed an intimate behaviour repertoire and sexual grooming behaviours. This figure is likely to be unrepresentative of the child sex offender population as a whole. Intimate offenders tend to cause less physical harm to their victims than the other categories of offenders and the very nature of the behaviour used to categorize the intimate offenders implies that they would be less likely to be reported, identified and convicted, because these grooming behaviours are used to avoid disclosure and conviction. Hence, it is likely that intimate offenders were under-represented in this prison sample.
+
+Figures show that eight of 10 sex abuse victims know their abuser (Stop it Now, 2003). In such cases, offenders have substantial interest in preventing disclosure, because in the event of disclosure the victim would be able to easily identify them as their abuser. This is supported by offenders' accounts about the strategies they employed to victimize the children they sexually abused; fear of disclosure affected how and when they victimized their victims (Conte, Wolf & Smith, 1989).
+
+### Aetiology of a motivation to abuse
+
+Before an individual begins to groom a child, some level of motivation to abuse a child needs to be present. Furthermore, adequate theories of sexual offending should be able to account for the phenomenon of sexual grooming. Until recently there have been three dominant theories of child sexual abuse, namely Finkelhor's Pre-condition Model (1984); Marshall and Barbaree's Integrated Theory• (1990); and Hall and Hirschman's Quadripartite Model (1992). In 2002, Ward and Siegert proposed a more comprehensive theory of child sexual abuse by "knitting together" the strengths of each of the above theories. They propose that there are five pathways to sexual offending against children; hence, the theory is called The Pathways Model. This review shall consider each of these only briefly, because Ward and colleagues have already provided in-depth reviews (see Ward, 2001, 2002; Ward & Hudson, 2001). Herein, more emphasis will be placed on how these theories relate to the phenomenon of sexual grooming.
+
+### Marshall and Barbarre's Integrated Theory
+
+Marshall and Barbaree's (1990) Integrated Theory of the aetiology of sexual offending proposes that the presence of vulnerabilities, which develop as a result of adverse early developmental experiences, leave offenders unprepared to deal with the surge of hormones at puberty, and unable to understand the emotional world. As a resultant, offenders satisfy their emotional and sexual needs inappropriately in deviant ways. This theory suggests that sexual offending occurs as a consequence of an individual's sex and aggression drives becoming fused, as these functions share the same structure in the brain. Ward and Siegert (2002) state that this need not be the case, as there are many functions that are close in proximity but that do not affect each other. Furthermore, this theory suggests that sexual offending would be aggressive. Therefore, it would seem that it does not account for the phenomenon of sexual grooming, because the process of sexual grooming is generally not aggressive in nature. However, this criticism may be countered if a definition of aggression were to include indirect aggression, which sexual grooming could be considered to be.
+
+## Hall and Hirschman's Quadripartite Model
+
+Hall and Hirschman's (1992) Quadripartite Model was first developed as a theory of rape, but it was applied subsequently to child sexual abuse. This model suggests that someone commits an act of child sexual abuse because of four vulnerability factors and the presence of opportunity. The vulnerability factors are physiological sexual arousal, distorted cognitions that act to justify sexual aggression, affective dyscontrol, and personality problems. It is suggested that offending will occur when the presence of these vulnerability factors exceed a threshold, this could include one or all of these vulnerabilities. There are several problems with this model; first, it does not explain why someone chooses to offend against a child rather than an adult. Second, sexual grooming is not an impulsive act and the threshold would need to be maintained over a long period of time in order to explain sexual grooming, because it can occur over weeks, months or even years. Hence, this theory can account for sexual grooming if it is accepted that, for example, sexual arousal persists over long periods of time, so once sexually aroused to children/child the offender would be continually aroused to them. A further problem with this theory relates to the presence of opportunity; offenders often create their own opportunities to offend.
+
+## Pinkelhor's Pry-condition Model
+
+FinIcelhor's Precondition Model (1984) suggests that there are four pre-conditions to sexual offending. The first is the motivation to sexually abuse; it is suggested that this develops as a result of emotional congruence (a fit between the offender's emotional needs and the child's ability to meet them), deviant sexual arousal and blockage (the sexual needs of the offender not being met by appropriate adults). The second is to be able to overcome internal inhibitors; the third is to be able to overcome external inhibitors; and the fourth is to overcome the child's resistance. Before an incidence of abuse would take place, these pre-conditions need to be satisfied. Although Finkelhor does not use the term sexual grooming, others (e.g. Morrison, Erooga & Beckett, 1994; Sampson, 1994) have reviewed his work using this term. They referred to overcoming the child's resistance as grooming.
+
+### Ward and Siegen's Pathways Model
+
+Ward and Siegeres (2002) model is based on the dysfunction of one or more psychological mechanisms—emotional regulation, intimacy deficits, cognitive distortions and sexual arousal (deviant sexual scripts). All the aforementioned psychological mechanisms are involved to some degree. There is evidence of these dysfunctional mechanisms being present typically in child molesters, although to different degrees and for different functions. The five possible pathways are specified by whichever dysfunctional psychological mechanism is the most dominant; in turn this will affect the others. In the case of the fifth pathway, all the psychological mechanisms would be similarly dysfunctional. A sexual offence occurs when the above is present in conjunction with sexual need. In addition, Ward and Siegert still emphasize the importance of there being an opportunity to offend; however, the nature of sexual grooming is to create an opportunity to offend. Successful theory• would need to account for this.
+
+Despite Ward and Siegert presenting their Pathways Model as a comprehensive theory of sexual offending, it still only considers aetiology and no consideration is given to the offence process. In a comprehensive theory it is necessary to consider the whole journey from initial onset to the offence and beyond. In a similar way that the Transtheoretical Model (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1982) of change considers not only the action stage, where the overt behaviour is changed, but also the precontemplation, contemplation, preparation and maintenance stages, a theory of sexual offending against children needs to consider the whole journey. As demonstrated above, it is necessary that theories of aetiology are coherent with the phenomenon they are attempting to explain. While endeavouring to explain sexual offending it is important that sexual grooming is also factored into the equation, because it is part of the sexual offending phenomenon. Of the above theories, only Fmkelhor's (1984) Pre-condition Model has taken this approach.
+
+### Offence process
+
+In addition to the Pre-condition Model (Pinkelhor, 1984) there is one other model that considers the offence process of sexual offending. This is the Descriptive Model of the Offence Chain (Ward, Louden, Hudson & Marshall, 1995). Ward et al.'s model provides a much more detailed account of the offence process than the Pre-condition Model. While little evidence has been found to support Finkelhor's Pre-condition Model, Ward et al. used a grounded theory• approach and developed their model directly from offenders' experiences. They identified nine stages of the offence chain. Stage one relates to the offender's background factors, including their perception of themselves and their life at the beginning of the offence chain and whether these factors caused positive or negative affect. Stage two describes distal planning of access to their victim; this could take the form of implicit, or explicit planning or chance. Contact with the victim takes place in stage three. Stage four involves cognitive restructuring, which will result in either positive or negative affect. Stage five entails proximal planning, which would either be self-focused, victim-focused or a mutual-focus. This leads to stage six and the sexual offence, which is followed by further cognitive restructuring at stage seven. This results in negative or positive evaluation and future resolutions regarding continued offending at stage eight. This resolution will be to either avoid future offending or to persist in an abusive pattern. Stage nine depicts the impact of these resolutions on the offender's life.
+
+It is important to consider how sexual grooming fits into, and facilitates, the offence process, as this understanding is likely to aid the management of offenders and potential offenders by identifying the offence process prior to an sexual offence taking place. In addition, it is reasonable to suggest that motivation is not static but could be affected by later stages of the grooming and offence process, e.g. cognitive distortions developed later in the process could serve to reinforce prior motivation resulting in an entrenched deviant sexual interest. This may prove valuable to treatment programmes efforts of reducing motivation to offend.
+
+#### The grooming process
+
+The current review has identified three types of sexual grooming present in the literature self-grooming, grooming the environment and significant others and grooming the child. Each of these will be discussed to explore current understanding of sexual grooming. Understanding of the grooming process and an ability to identify sexual grooming behaviour is crucial in order to prevent child sexual abuse. However, retrospective identification of sexual grooming, i.e. after a sexual offence has been committed, is much easier than prospective identification, i.e. before a sexual offence. Nevertheless, the latter is necessary in order to prevent the sexual abuse from taking place. The reason for this is because the behaviours used to groom a child for sexual abuse are not dissimilar to innocent behaviour intended to broaden a young person's experiences. The only difference may be the motivation underlying the behaviour.
+
+## Self-grooming
+
+van Dam (2001) reports that during treatment, offenders' talk about "grooming themselves". They were referring to the justification or denial of their offending behaviour. It therefore seems important to consider this as pan of the grooming process. However, it may be more agreeable to refer to this phenomenon by another name, avoiding the use of the term "grooming". Nevertheless, self-grooming is likely to play a part in the move from being motivated to sexually abuse a child to the subsequent targeting of a child, through the justification or denial of the steps child sexual offenders take towards abusing a child. Furthermore, self-grooming is likely to be affected by the response from the community and the child, and the success or failure of the efforts to victimize the child. "Success" is likely to result in further justification or denial of their actions and more entrenched sexual interest in children and motivation to offend. "Failure", on the other hand, is likely to result in the desistence of offending or the offender developing/enahancing his skills/strategies to ensure success.
+
+Justification and denial of offender? behaviour manifests in cognitive distortions. Ward and Keenan (1999) propose that child sex offenders have cognitive distortions in the form of implicit theories, which relate to themselves, the victim and the world. Implicit theories help individuals to understand the world around them. Problems arise because offenders' implicit theories are maladaptive and supportive of sex with children. These implicit theories subsequently affect encoding and interpretation of future behaviours and events. Ward and Keenan have identified five implicit theories that account for most of the cognitive distortions held by child sex offenders: children as sexual objects; entitlement; dangerous world; uncontrollability; and nature of harm.
+
+Of course, it is not only offenders who have maladaptive implicit theories. For example, many people have an implicit theory that children are at most risk from strangers, which is not consistent with research findings. However, it is easier to believe that strangers sexually abuse children than accept that friends and family do; hence, this implicit theory helps to shelter people from the harsh nature of reality. Offenders' implicit theories work in a similar way, because it is easier for offenders to believe that the child seduced them than to accept that they sexually abused a child.
+
+### Grooming the environment and significant others
+
+Grooming the child begins with identifying a vulnerable child (van Dam, 2001). Child sex offenders seem to have a special ability in recognizing vulnerable children (Conte et al., 1989). These vulnerabilities may be that the children have a poor relationship with their parents, do not have many friends (Berliner & Conte, 1990), or have already been victimized (Leberg, 1997). Alternatively, offenders may target women who were sexually abused as children, because the offender considers them easier to re-victimize.
+
+In order to gain access to their victim(s), offenders groom the environment and their potential victim's significant others (e.g. parents, carers, teachers, etc). This may mean the offender integrating themselves into society and places where they are likely to meet children. This will often be a position of trust. Offenders then begin grooming the adults in this community, specifically those who are significant to their potential victim, with the aim of creating an opportunity to access and abuse a child or children. van Dam (2001) reports that offenders are frequently charming, very helpful, and have insider status. This is often an important factor in gaining access to potential victim(s). As offenders help out in the community, they are considering how their efforts will be rewarded later when they can then abuse the children in that community. Offenders are often able to "read the community like a book" in that they assess what they "need" and fulfil these needs accordingly (Hare & Hart, 1993). They can make themselves indispensable, too good to be true and will freely undertake jobs that others do not want to do (Leberg, 1997).
+
+A desire on the part of parents to avoid cognitive dissonance may assist offenders' grooming efforts. A parent may suffer cognitive dissonance as a result of concerns about the trustworthiness of the offender alongside their hospitality and acceptance of the offender. When thoughts do not match behaviour, cognitive dissonance manifests, and often thoughts are changed to be consistent with behaviour (van Dam, 2001). Thus, offenders gain insider status long before they start abusing a victim (van Dam, 2001). Grooming is therefore a wellorganized long-term activity (Sanford, 1982). Offenders groom the community so well that if a victim discloses their abuse, the community may support the offender rather than the victim, because they deem the offender to be more believable than the child.
+
+In the case of intrafamilial child sexual abuse, offenders are already in a position of trust and integrated in an environment where they can access potential victims. Some offenders groom the environment by targeting single-parent families to gain this status (Elliott, Browne & Kilcoyne, 1995). Offenders may do this because they believe that these children are more vulnerable and because they believe it will be easier to create opportunities to be alone with the child. Alternatively, offenders may target children or young people who have absent parents, and hence have less protection. In this incidence there is no need for the offender to groom the parents. They can become the child's friend and more easily arrange to have time alone with the child.
+
+Inuafamilial offenders often isolate the victim from their non-abusing parent, siblings and the outside world by developing an exclusive relationship with the child. For instance, they may encourage mothers to have more of a life outside the home, which then gives themselves increased opportunities to abuse their victims. Alternatively, they may isolate nonabusing parents from the outside world in order to prevent them from having people in whom to confide about any concerns (Leberg, 1997). Some offenders encourage mothers to develop an alcohol dependency, in part so that any future disclosures made lack credibility (Leberg, 1997). Other similar strategies employed to limit credibility include questioning the mother's parenting ability in front of friends and other family members. This may constitute pan of their strategy for grooming the environment and significant others.
+
+Grooming the environment and significant others can occur as a result of implicit or explicit planning; alternatively, access to a child may occur by chance. Ward and Hudson (2000) have developed a conceptual model of how child sex offenders' implicit planning or seemingly unimportant decisions (SUDs) implicate their offending behaviour by leading them to high-risk situations, i.e. contact with children. This appears to be automatic, because although offenders are conscious of their specific behaviours, they are often unconscious of the effect of implicit goals on these behaviours.
+
+Gollwitzer and Schaal (1998, cited in Ward & Hudson, 2000) suggest that it is through automatic goal-dependent action plans that these SUDs manifest. Ward and Hudson (2000) propose that there are two such action plans: offence scripts and mental simulations. Offence scripts manifest as a result of associations that have developed between situations and behaviours; subsequently, in the presence of certain cues, offence scripts may be activated without any conscious awareness. This is a possible explanation of continued offending and relapse following treatment.
+
+Automatic goal-dependent action plans can be activated regardless of whether an individual has committed any previous sexual crimes. This alternative involves mental simulation. Mental simulation is where an individual plans out in detail how he would commit an offence. As with offence scripts, the presence of certain cues may activate this implicit planning, resulting in the enactment of the individual's fantasies. The notion of implicit planning may provide a possible explanation why the majority of victims know their abuser, because the cues that activate the implicit planning are more likely to be present within the family or in relation to children in the immediate locality (i.e. the places where an individual spends the majority of his time).
+
+It is reasonable to suggest that the fundamental human need to belong may present one possibility to further understand offenders' ability to identify a victim and groom the environment and significant others. Research has shown that a need to belong can affect very basic cognitive functions, e.g. attention and encoding of social information (Pickett, Gardner & Knowles, 2004). Pickett et al. found a positive relationship between a need to belong and sensitivity to social cues. Sexual offenders often come from neglectful, violent and dysfunctional backgrounds (Craissati, McClurg & Browne, 2002). This environment is unlikely to provide an abundance of opportunities for emotional closeness and thus offenders are likely to have a need to belong. In addition, a need to belong is related to low self-esteem (Pickett et al., 2004) and research to date suggests that child sex offenders typically have low self-esteem (Marshall, Anderson & Champagne, 1997). This is supportive of the idea that a need to belong facilitates offenders' identification and access to a victim, because of the associated increased sensitivity to social cues. Children may be approached because the offender perceives them to be less threatening than peers. Alternatively, offenders may be able to identify vulnerabilities in other people because they themselves are vulnerable and thus recognize these signs in others. This explanation would relate to offenders that commit offences following implicit planning. Offenders using explicit planning may also have a need to belong and the associated increased sensitivity to social cues, as a result of a need to belong to the family of community in order to groom and subsequently abuse a child. It is therefore suggested that, in the presence of a motivation to sexually abuse a child, a need to belong often facilitates the identification of a victim and grooming of the environment and significant others.
+
+#### Grooming the child
+
+Grooming the child is the most commonly recognized form of sexual grooming. In addition to a desire for sexual gratification, there may or may not be a relational aspect to the grooming process, depending on the offender's motivation to abuse. Sexual grooming has been considered by some to be analogous to adult courtship (e.g. Howitt, 1995). In addition, Herman (1981) and Christiansen and Blake (1990) talk about sexually abusive fathers adopting the role of suitor towards their daughter. In the case of intrafamilial abuse, the offender promotes the child in place of the mother (Leberg, 1997). Alternatively, the offender may interact with the child on the child's wavelength (van Dam, 2001). Wilson (1999) found that offenders who abused boys showed a preference for interacting at the child's level, and incest offenders tended to raise the victim's status to that of an adult, while offenders who abused girls were more concerned with sexual gratification. The types of behaviour that constitute grooming the child take two different forms—physical and psychological.
+
+Physical grooming involves the gradual sexualization of the relationship between the offender and the victim (Berliner & Conte, 1990). Psychological grooming is used to achieve this increased sexualization. At first, the offender may justify the sexual behaviour through providing the child with his version of sex education, which states that sex between children and adults is acceptable and that the offender has a responsibility to train the child for later life (Berliner & Conte, 1990; Leberg, 1997). The abuser builds the child's trust (Christiansen & Blake, 1990; Leberg, 1997; Wyre, 1987, cited in Howitt, 1995; van Dam, 2001), makes him or her feel good (Warner, 2000) and then starts to violate boundaries (Christiansen & Blake, 1990; van Dam, 2001). This may involve intentionally entering the bedroom while the child or young person is undressed, or getting dressed together and exposing himself to the child.
+
+Offenders often desensitize a child to touch by beginning with non-sexual touching such as tickling or stroking the child's head. Conversation may also become more sexual. Alternatively, offenders may confuse victims by continuing to talk to the child about a positive unrelated issue while they begin touching the child sexually (Leberg, 1997). The child may have no idea that something inappropriate is happening. The aim is to progress to sexual touching, first on top of clothes and later under or without clothes (Berliner & Conte, 1990; Christiansen & Blake, 1990; Leberg, 1997; van Dam, 2001). Thus, the intention is to make the child compliant with the offender's sexual demands and overcome the child's resistance (Finitelhor, 1984; Leberg, 1997; Warner, 2000).
+
+In addition to using psychological grooming to increase compliance, it is also used to avoid disclosure. Children are groomed to want to be around the adult who is grooming them (Wolf, 1985). Offenders need to maintain the child's cooperation and secrecy to achieve this. One way that the offender does this is by isolating the child and alienating them from others (Warner, 2000). Leberg (1997) refers to this factor as something separate from grooming, others (e.g. van Dam, 2001) consider it to be part of the grooming process. Isolating the child creates a barrier which prevents the child from having a confidant in whom to disclose (Warner, 2000). In addition, the keeping of secrets acts as a source of further isolation (Lerner, 1993, cited in van Dam, 2001). Children are very good at keeping secrets when asked to. Peters (1991, cited in Ceci & Bruck, 1993) found that 82% of children in his study delayed or did not report an event that they had witnessed, because the thief in the scenario asked them not to tell anyone. The thief in this scenario was a stranger, to whom the children had no loyalty, and so it is likely that children would be even more likely to protect a known and loved adult.
+
+Further strategies used by offenders to maintain the child's compliance include issuing threats and bribes (Berliner & Come, 1990; Christiansen & Blake, 1990). Bribes may take the form of material gifts or extra privileges (Christiansen & Blake, 1990). In addition, offenders are skilled at using children's natural vulnerabilities against them. For instance, children very• often have a strong desire to protect their parents. When the offender informs them that their parents would be very hurt if they found out what they had been doing, children may remain silent (Berliner & Conte, 1990). Offenders may also demonstrate their potential for violence through violence towards others, e.g. other family members. Thereby offenders reinforce the message that they will enact their threats about hurting the child and/or the child's family.
+
+Offenders frequently make the child feel responsible for the abuse (Leberg, 1997; van Dam, 2001; Warner, 2000). They convince the child that they are to blame for letting the abuse happen and that they should have stopped it (Leberg, 1997). This is reinforced by stereotypes in society, which emphasize that men cannot control their sex drive (Warner, 2000). Additional guilt may be felt if the child has been made to perform sexual acts on the abuser or another child (Warner, 2000). However, this teeing of responsibility and guilt is overshadowed by the self-betrayal the child feels as their body reacts to sexual stimulation against their will (Warner, 2000) which children may interpret as evidence that they are enjoying themselves. This is internalized and resultantly may have an impact on the child's developing identity. Disclosure is avoided because the child feels that it is "all their fault", that he/she is bad and that no one will believe them (Warner, 2000).
+
+Each victim's experience of grooming is different, because offenders adapt their strategies dependent on the child, whose response during the grooming process is important. It seems reasonable to suggest that offenders require some level of "empathy" during the grooming process to recognize reactions in the child, so that they can adapt their strategy accordingly. For example, during the desensitization process an offender would need to recognize the limits of the victim and to strategically increase those limits. It is proposed that empathy involves four components: (1) emotion recognition; (2) perspective-taking; (3) emotion replication; and (4) response decision (Marshall, Hudson, Jones & Fernandez, 1995). Continuing with the previous example, offenders recognize the distress in their victim and make a decision based on this, because they choose to stop temporarily as a strategic part of the desensitization process. Thus, offenders appear to have ability in components (1) and (4), which are the cognitive components, but not in the affective components (2) and (3). While early research on empathy in sex offenders concluded that they have empathy deficits, more recent research has found that this empathy deficit to be victim-specific (Fernandez, Marshall, Lightbody & O'Sullivan, 1999; Marshall, Hamilton & Fernandez, 2001; Marshall et al., 1995). This is inconsistent with the suggestion that the grooming process requires some level of empathy. However, Fernandez et al. (1999; Marshall et al., 2001) provide a possible explanation for this. They suggest that victim-specific empathy deficits manifest as cognitive distortions, which protect the offenders from negatively evaluating themselves, thus allowing them to continue abusing a child. Based on this suggestion, victim-specific empathy deficits arise as a consequence rather than a cause of the abuse. These cognitive distortions therefore facilitate self-grooming.
+
+The manifestation of a cognitive distortion relating to a victim-specific empathy deficit may be facilitated by cognitive deconstruction. Cognitive deconstruction (see Ward, Hudson & Marshall, 1995) is a state entered into to escape negative experiences and negative selfevaluation. Cognitive deconstruction involves processing at a lower, more concrete, level, i.e. muscular movements, and rewards of behaviour, rather than social action. Resultantly, the individual has much more focus on feelings of pleasure and less awareness of the consequences of his behaviour. This concrete-level focus may reinforce cognitive distortions such as victims enjoyed the abuse because they became physically aroused, which justifies the offender's lack of empathy toward their victim.
+
+Self-grooming, grooming the environment and significant others, and grooming the child are relevant to situational and preferential offenders, extra-familial and intrafamilial offences. It is important that the different types of sexual grooming apply to these different typologies and classifications of offenders because sexual grooming is not used solely by one group of offenders and, furthermore, these categories are not mutually exclusive (Itzin, 2001).
+
+## Towards a new definition of sexual grooming of children
+
+The definitions of sexual grooming presented at the start of this review do not reflect the complexity of the sexual grooming of children, which is demonstrated in the previous discussion of the different types of sexual grooming. Based on the above findings it seems necessary to provide a new definition that attempts to encapsulate the complexity of sexual grooming, while still being easy to understand. We propose the following:
+
+A process by which a person prepares a child, significant adults and the environment for the abuse of this child. Specific goals include gaining access to the child, gaining the child's compliance and maintaining the child's secrecy to avoid disclosure. This process serves to strengthen the offender's abusive pattern, as it may be used as a means of justifying or denying their actions.
+
+#### Conclusion
+
+Despite the wide acceptance of the term, sexual grooming of children is not understood clearly, particularly in the public domain. Testimonies from both victims and perpetrators highlight the pertinence of the problem. Furthermore, the government in England and Wales has introduced legislation in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 regarding "meeting a child following sexual grooming" (see Part I: section 152003). A greater understanding of the meaning, elements and process of sexual grooming is required to effectively utilize this legislation (for review see Craven, Brown & Gilchrist, in press).
+
+Regardless of the prevalence and pertinence of sexual grooming, most aetiological theories of child sexual abuse neglect the phenomenon. The main reason for this is likely to be because prominent theories of child sexual abuse were devised more than 10 years ago, at a time when sexual grooming was not recognized as it is today. Therefore, it is necessary• that theories be reconsidered based on this recent awareness. Ward (2001,2002; Ward & Hudson, 2001; Ward & Siegert, 2002) has begun the process of theory knitting and development. While Ward and Siegert's Pathways Model is able to account for sexual grooming, it still focuses on the presence of opportunity rather than explicitly recognizing that offenders often create their own opportunities to offend.
+
+The current review has identified three types of sexual grooming discussed in the literature: self-grooming, grooming the environment and significant others and grooming the child. Based on these findings an alternative definition has been suggested, which includes details about offenders' objectives, e.g. gaining access to a child, gaining the child's compliance, maintaining secrecy and avoiding disclosure.
+
+A fuller understanding of sexual grooming is required. Consideration needs to be given to offender-victim interaction (before, during and after the offence), micro behaviours that may indicate to significant adults that a child is being sexually groomed, or indeed that they themselves are being groomed by an offender, and the seemingly impossible task of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the ambiguous behaviour of sexual grooming is sexually motivated. This would provide many benefits to child protection and the policing and treatment of child sex offenders with a specific focus on prevention of child sexual abuse rather than reactive responses to it. To optimize the impact of acquired knowledge and understanding, it is necessary• to consider how these findings are disseminated to the relevant groups involved with children, e.g. parents, police, and social workers.
+
+## References
+
+- Berliner. L & Conte, J. R. (1990). The process of victimization: The victims' perspective. Chi d Abuse and Neglect, 14, 29-40. Canter. D.. Hughes. D. & ICuby. S. (1998). Paedophilia: Pathology. criminality. or both? The development of multivariate model of offence behaviour in child sexual abuse. Journal of Anemic Psychiatry. 9. 532-555. Geri. S. J. & Bruck. .M. (1993). Suggestibility of the child witness: A historical review and synthesis. Povhological &Jain. 11.403-439. Christiansen. J.P. & Blake. R. H. (1990. The grooming process in father-daughter incest. In A. L. Horton (Ed.). The Man Paparaus: A Family Member No One Mine ro That (pp. 88 -98). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Conte. J. It . Wolf. S. & Smith. T. (1989). What sexual offenders tell us about prevention strategies. ChM Attest and Neglect. 13. 293-301. Craissati, J.. McClurg. G. & Broome. K. (2002). Characteristics of perpetrators of child sexual abuse who ham been sexually victimized as children. Sexual Abuse: proud of Benumb and Tennison. N. 225-239. Craven. S.. Brown. S. & Gilchrist. E fin press). Current responses to sexual grooming: Implication for prevention. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice. 46. Elliott. M.. Browne. K. & Kilcoyne. J. (1995). Child sexual abuse prevention: What offenders tell us. Child Abuse and Neglect. 19. 579-594. Fernandez. Y. M.. Marshall. W. L. Lightbody. S. & O'Sullivan. C. (1999). The Child Molester Empathy Measure: Description and examination of its rebabihty and validity. Sexual Abut Journal of Research and Treatment. ll. 17 -
+- 32. Finkelhor. D. (1984). Child Sexual Abuse: Nem Theory and Research .New York: Free Press/London: Collier Macmillan. Gillespie. A. (2002). Child protection on the interne —challenges for criminal law. Child and Rowdy Loco Quarterly.
+- 14. 411-425. Gillespie. A. (2004). 'Grooming": definitions and the law. New I.aw Journal. Elan. G. C. N. & Hirschman. R. (1992). Sexual aggression against children: A conceptual perspective of etiology. Criminal Jima and Behacior. 19. 8-23. Hare. P.D. & Elan. S. D. (1993). Psychopathy, mental disorder. and crime. In S. Ilodgins (Ed.). Atonal Monier and Crime (pp. 111.1 - I S). Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage Publications. Inc. Herman. J. (1981). Father daughter incest Professional Psychodoo: Reseanh and Pmaire. 11.76-80. Herne Office (2003). Sexual Offences Act 1003. Available at: http:ilwww.hmso.gov.ukractsracts2003120030042Jum (accessed November 2003). I lowitt. D. (1995). Paedophile and Sexual Offence Against Children. Oxford. UK: John Wiley and Sons. Irvin, C. (2001). Incest. paedophilia. pornography and prostitution: !dating familial miles more visible as the abusers. Child Abuse Retwco. 10. 35-48. Laws. D. P. & Marshall, W. L. (1990). A conditioning theory of the etiology and maintenance of deviant sexual preference and behavior. In W. L Marshall. D. R. Laws & II. E. Barbaree (Eds.). Handbook of Sexual Arsarrh: Theories, and Treatment of :he Offender (pp. 209 -230). New York. NY: Plenum Press. Leberg. E. (1997). Undemanding ChM Afolaren: Taking Charge. Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Nianhall. W. L. & Barbaree. II. E. (1990). An integrated theory of the etiology of sexual offending. In W. L. Marshall.
+- D. P. Laws & II. IL Barbaree (Eds.). Handbook of Sexual A.saidr. lours. Theories. and Ttramunt of the Offender. New York: Plenum Press. Nianhall. W. L. Anderson. D. & Champagne. F. (1997). Seliesteem and its relationship to sexual offending. Psychology. Crime and lam. 3. 161 -186. Nianhall. W. L. Hamilton. K. & Fernandez. Y. (2001). Empathy deficits and cognitive distortions in child molesters. Sexual Abut: Journal of Researrli and Treatment. 13. 123-130. W L. Hudson. S. M.. Jones. R. & Fernandez, Y. M. (1995). Empathy in sex offenders. Clinical Psychology Reim. Is. 99-113. Morrison, T.. Erooga, M. & Beckett. R. C. (1994). Sexual Offending Against Cluldree: AtICISIUMI and Treamanu of Males. London: Routkdge. O'Connell. R. (2003). A Typology of Child Cybenexpkicadon and Online Grooming Practices. Available at: http:// www.safer.internet.net'downloadtrUCLAN\_report\_release.pdf (accessed September 2003). Pickett. C. L. Gardner. W L. & Knowles. M. (2004). Getting a cue: The need to belong and enhanced sensitivity to social cues. Prrsoisaky and Social Psychology Bunco's. 30. 1095-1107. Prochaska. J. O. & DiClemente. C. C. (1982). Tnuudworetical therapy: Toward a more integrative model of change. Psychotherapy: Theory. Ratan\* and Praaice. 29. 276 -288. Sampson. A. (1994). Aas of Abuse: Sex Offenders and the Criminal Justice System. London: Routledge. Sanford. I.. T. (1982). The Sam Children: A Pamst's Guide to the Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse: McGraw-Hill.
+
+Stop it Now (2003). What ter at need ro km,sr ro proem oar Mildew.. Available at hity.:llviww.stopitnoworg.ult, Stop%2002.pdf (accessed December 2003). van Darn. C. (2001). Moir...bang CAW Afolaren: Ammon: Child Sexual Abase by Recognizing the Amara of the Offenders. Binghamton. NY: Haworth Maltreatment and Trauma Press/Me Haworth Press. Inc. Ward. T. (2001). A critique of Hall and Iiirschman's quadripartite model of child sexual abuse. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. 7. 333-350. Ward. T. (2002). Marshall and Barbaree's integrated theory of child sexual abuse: A critique. Psychologx. Clime and Lae. 8. 209 -228. Ward. T. & Hudson, S. M. (2000). Sexual offenders' implicit planning: A conceptual model. Sexual Abuse: journal of Rnearch and Tharnma. 12. 189-202. Ward. T. & Hudson. S. M. (2001). Finkelhoes precondiban model of child sexual abuse: A critique. Psyelsodav,Crinte and Law. 7. 291- 307. Ward. T. Hudson. S. M. & Marshall. W. L. (1995). Cognitive distortions and affective deficits in sex offenders: A cognitive &constructionist interpretation. Sexual Abase: Journal of &swirl. and Mathieu:. 7. 67 -83. Ward. T & Keenan. T. (1999). Child molesters' implicit theories. puma/ of Inrapersoleal Viekroce. 14. 821-838. Ward. T. Louden. K.. Hudson. S. M. & Mamball. L (1995). A descriptive model of the offense chain for child molesters. Journal of Inrespersoreal Violence. 10. 452-472. Ward. T & Siegert. R. (2002). Toward a comprehensive theory of child sexual abuse: A theory knitting perspective. Mythology, Ovule and LW. 8. 319-351. Warner. S. (2000). Undemanding Child Sexual About Making the Tactics Possible. Gloucester. IlandselL Wilson. R. J. (1999). Emotional congruence in sexual offenders against children. Sexual About: Journal of Research am! Trramaenr. If . 33-48. 1:11:41. S. (1985). A mu/U.6mi model of deviant sexuality. Viathwilogy: An buynarional journal. 10. 359 -374.
+
+Copyright of Journal of Sexual Aggression is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or mailed to multiple sites or posted to a listsery without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156714/EFTA00156714.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156714/EFTA00156714.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4c0e8b59c881622806b56ab6604ec80544cbd847
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156714/EFTA00156714.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,936 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00156714.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 14,
+ "chars": 47120,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 2.05,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "Sexual grooming of children: Review of \nliterature and theoretical considerations",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 95.795,
+ 123.12
+ ],
+ [
+ 411.0501708984375,
+ 123.12
+ ],
+ [
+ 411.0501708984375,
+ 160.1348876953125
+ ],
+ [
+ 95.795,
+ 160.1348876953125
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Introduction",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 95.795,
+ 388.79999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 152.01510620117188,
+ 388.79999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 152.01510620117188,
+ 401.44915771484375
+ ],
+ [
+ 95.795,
+ 401.44915771484375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Definition",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 95.795,
+ 539.46
+ ],
+ [
+ 142.183349609375,
+ 539.46
+ ],
+ [
+ 142.183349609375,
+ 551.4491729736328
+ ],
+ [
+ 95.795,
+ 551.4491729736328
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Prevalence",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 96.39000000000001,
+ 537.84
+ ],
+ [
+ 145.81829833984375,
+ 537.84
+ ],
+ [
+ 145.81829833984375,
+ 548.9909210205078
+ ],
+ [
+ 96.39000000000001,
+ 548.9909210205078
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Aetiology of a motivation to abuse",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 96.39000000000001,
+ 312.65999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 239.09933471679688,
+ 312.65999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 239.09933471679688,
+ 324.74090576171875
+ ],
+ [
+ 96.39000000000001,
+ 324.74090576171875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Marshall and Barbarre's Integrated Theory",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 96.39000000000001,
+ 474.65999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 248.59469604492188,
+ 474.65999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 248.59469604492188,
+ 486.74090576171875
+ ],
+ [
+ 96.39000000000001,
+ 486.74090576171875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Hall and Hirschman's Quadripartite Model",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 96.39000000000001,
+ 135.27
+ ],
+ [
+ 250.55331420898438,
+ 135.27
+ ],
+ [
+ 250.55331420898438,
+ 147.74090576171875
+ ],
+ [
+ 96.39000000000001,
+ 147.74090576171875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Pinkelhor's Pry-condition Model",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 96.39000000000001,
+ 325.62
+ ],
+ [
+ 210.42332458496094,
+ 325.62
+ ],
+ [
+ 210.42332458496094,
+ 338.24090576171875
+ ],
+ [
+ 96.39000000000001,
+ 338.24090576171875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Ward and Siegen's Pathways Model",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 96.39000000000001,
+ 464.12999999999994
+ ],
+ [
+ 225.0076446533203,
+ 464.12999999999994
+ ],
+ [
+ 225.0076446533203,
+ 476.24090576171875
+ ],
+ [
+ 96.39000000000001,
+ 476.24090576171875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Offence process",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 96.39000000000001,
+ 241.38
+ ],
+ [
+ 165.6397247314453,
+ 241.38
+ ],
+ [
+ 165.6397247314453,
+ 253.49093627929688
+ ],
+ [
+ 96.39000000000001,
+ 253.49093627929688
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "The grooming process",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 96.39000000000001,
+ 547.5600000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 191.1397247314453,
+ 547.5600000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 191.1397247314453,
+ 559.4909210205078
+ ],
+ [
+ 96.39000000000001,
+ 559.4909210205078
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Self-grooming",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 96.39000000000001,
+ 189.54000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 148.68604278564453,
+ 189.54000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 148.68604278564453,
+ 201.94915771484375
+ ],
+ [
+ 96.39000000000001,
+ 201.94915771484375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Grooming the environment and significant others",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 96.39000000000001,
+ 526.5
+ ],
+ [
+ 265.4062194824219,
+ 526.5
+ ],
+ [
+ 265.4062194824219,
+ 538.6991729736328
+ ],
+ [
+ 96.39000000000001,
+ 538.6991729736328
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Grooming the child",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 96.39000000000001,
+ 505.43999999999994
+ ],
+ [
+ 167.18375396728516,
+ 505.43999999999994
+ ],
+ [
+ 167.18375396728516,
+ 517.4909210205078
+ ],
+ [
+ 96.39000000000001,
+ 517.4909210205078
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Towards a new definition of sexual grooming of children",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 97.58000000000001,
+ 95.58
+ ],
+ [
+ 327.7750244140625,
+ 95.58
+ ],
+ [
+ 327.7750244140625,
+ 107.99090576171875
+ ],
+ [
+ 97.58000000000001,
+ 107.99090576171875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Conclusion",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 97.58000000000001,
+ 249.48
+ ],
+ [
+ 146.6589813232422,
+ 249.48
+ ],
+ [
+ 146.6589813232422,
+ 261.1991271972656
+ ],
+ [
+ 97.58000000000001,
+ 261.1991271972656
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "References",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 96.39000000000001,
+ 95.58
+ ],
+ [
+ 145.43162536621094,
+ 95.58
+ ],
+ [
+ 145.43162536621094,
+ 108.32867431640625
+ ],
+ [
+ 96.39000000000001,
+ 108.32867431640625
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 81
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 40
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 95
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 48
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 96
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 48
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 93
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 47
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 100
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 49
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 97
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 49
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 103
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 104
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 52
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 8,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 109
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 9,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 104
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 52
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 96
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 48
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 129
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 62
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 12,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 13,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 15
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00156714"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156728/EFTA00156728.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156728/EFTA00156728.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..252b2b88ac078379d3aebb48fa02adbe109cb80d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156728/EFTA00156728.md
@@ -0,0 +1,232 @@
+# Violence: Recognition, Management and Prevention
+
+# WHY WOMEN DON'T REPORT SEXUAL ASSAULT TO THE POLICE: THE INFLUENCE OF PSYCHOSOCIAL VARIABLES AND TRAUMATIC INJURY
+
+Jeffrey S. Jones. mo.' Carmen Alexander, SSW Barbara N. Wynn. 'An't Unda Rossman. MSN t and Chris Dunnuck, hISN't
+
+'Spectrum Health Hospital - Butternorth Campus and tYWCA Nurse Examiner Program. Grand Rapids MERC/Mchgan &ate University Program in Emergency Medcine. Grand Rapids. Michigan Repnat Address: Jeffrey S. Jones. MD. Department of Emergency Medcine. Spectrum Health Buttenvorth Campus, 100 Michigan Street NE. Grand Reads. Ml 49503-2560
+
+Abstract—The purpose of this study was to identify the variables that acutely influence reporting practices in female sexual assault victims presenting to an urban clinic or Emergency Department. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of consecutive female victims during an 18-month study period. Patient demographics assault characteristics. and injury patterns were recorded in all eligible patients using a standardized classification system. At the completion of the forensic examination, victims were asked to complete a psychosocial questionnaire designed to determine specific reasons why women reported or did not report their sexual assault to police. During the study period. 424 women were eligible to participate in the study: 318 (75%) reported the sexual assault to police. One hundred six (25' 1 did not file a police report, but consented to a medical-legal examination. Women not reporting sexual assault were typically employed, had a history of recent alcohol or drug use, a known assailant, and prolonged time intervals between the assault and forensic evaluation 1p < 0.004 There were no differences in the extent of nongenital injuries or anogenital injuries between the two groups. Thirty-six percent (152/424) of the eligible population agreed to complete the questionnaire. Only three of the 20 psychosocial variables examined were found to he significantly different in women not reporting sexual assault compared to reporters. The reasons for not reporting were
+
+Presented at the American College of Emergency Physicians Research Forum. Seattle. Washington. October 2002.
+
+primarily environmental factors (prior relationship with assailant) rather than internal psychological barriers (shame. anxiety, fear). C) 2009 Elsevier Inc.
+
+❑ Keywords—sexual assault: anogenital injuries: reporting; psychosocial: medical-legal
+
+## INTRODUCTION
+
+Accurate estimates of the incidence of sexual assault are difficult to obtain. One national study reported that female lifetime prevalence rates of sexual assault in the general population were 18% (I). Feldhaus and colleagues recently reported that 51% of women presenting to their Emergency Department (ED) had a history of completed or attempted sexual assault at some point during her life (2). Despite these rates. it is widely recognized that a significant percentage of these assaults are not reported to police or social agencies. The National Crime Victimization Survey estimates that only 38% of sexual assaults occurring in 2005 were reported to police (3).
+
+Sexual assault is treated as a violent crime in all jurisdictions. The legal definition includes a wide range of victimizations that include acts of unwanted sexual contact between the offender and victim. as well as threats and attempts to commit sexual assault (4). How-
+
+REauvm: 3 November 2006: Fomt. SUBMISSION Recovan: 25 September 2007: Acceprm: 30 October 2007
+
+ever, social definitions of sexual assault are diverse, and one's personal conception of rape can inhibit reporting (5.6). Reporting can also be hindered by the perceived outcomes of dealing with the police and criminal justice system. impaired cognitive processing, and the victim/ offender relationship (2.7-9).
+
+Much of the literature on sexual assault reporting is outdated or based on retrospective population surveys. telephone questionnaires, or studies of specific populations (e.g.. date rape) (1,2,6.10). The present study examined data from a community-based population of women presenting to a sexual assault clinic or ED. Our purpose was to identify the variables that acutely influence reporting practices and to compare the frequency and types of traumatic injuries in women who do and do not report.
+
+## METHODS
+
+#### Study Design
+
+This was a cross-sectional survey of consecutive female patients presenting to an urban sexual assault clinic or local ED during an 1S-month study period. The study was designed to explore the primary reasons why women decline to report sexual assault to the police. A secondary objective was to identify any differences in demographics, assault characteristics, or injury patterns in those who do and do not report. The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Spectrum Health. Grand Rapids, Michigan.
+
+### Study Setting
+
+The Nurse Examiner Program (NEP) is a communitybased clink that provides 24-h comprehensive response to adolescent and adult victims of sexual assault. It is located in downtown Grand Rapids. in the YWCA building. The NEP is associated with a university-affiliated Emergency Medicine residency program and works closely with local law enforcement agencies and the existing domestic/sexual assault programs of the YWCA (II). The vast majority of referrals come from law enforcement dispatch and crisis line contacts. Those sexual assault victims presenting directly to the three downtown EDs are referred to the NEP for evaluation after triage and initial assessment. Transportation is provided if needed or requested. Approximately 3-5 ED patients each year are too severely injured to be evaluated at the YWCA (II). Nurse examiners have completed a creden-Elating process that allows them to go into the hospital and perform the evaluation and collection of evidence in
+
+the ED. Education of the nurse examiner consists of approximately 40 h of training in all aspects of caring for this population, including physical examination, forensic preservation of evidence. documentation, and courtroom testimony.
+
+#### Participant Selection
+
+All female sexual assault victims aged 13 years or older who presented to local EDs for treatment or the YWCA Nurse Examiner Program for treatment between November 1.2001 and April 30, 2003 ( IS months) were eligible for the study. Women who could not complete the questionnaire (e.g.. non-English speaking). refused forensic examination, or could not remember the sexual assault (e.g.. intoxication) were excluded from participation.
+
+#### Study Protocol
+
+Demographic data, sexual assault history, and clinical findings were prospectively obtained on eligible patients and entered into a Microsoft Excel database (version 2003: Microsoft Inc.. Redmond. WA). Abstraction forms were used to guide data collection. It is the policy of the NEP to conduct a complete evidentiary examination for all sexual assault victims who come to the clinic within 72 h of an assault, even if no police report is made. This rationale allows for the collection of evidence without putting pressure on the victim to report the assault if she is not ready to make that decision.
+
+Anogenital trauma is documented at the NEP using colposcopic examination with nuclear staining and digital photography. The following nine anatomic sites are routinely evaluated and photographed for the presence and type of injury: the labia minors, labia majors, posterior fourchette. fossa navicularis. hymen. vagina, cervix. perineum, and perianal area. Anoscopy was performed at the examiner's discretion. For the purposes of this study. the type and location of anogenital injuries were recorded using a standardized classification system (12.13). Definitions of findings used by the nurse examiners were those listed in Sexual Assault: The Medical Legal Eramination (4).
+
+At the completion of the forensic examination performed at the NEP. victims were asked to voluntarily complete the study questionnaire. The survey instrument consisted of 20 questions designed to determine specific reasons why women reported or did not report their sexual assault to police. The questions were adapted from previous studies on sexual assault, and from anecdotal reports heard by clinicians from their clients (2,6,10). Information was also collected regarding pit-
+
+Table 1. Demographics and Reporting Practices in Female Sexual Assault Victims
+
+| Age of victim (mean years ± SD) Age range (years) | Not Reposing (n - 106) 252 .15.7 13-54 | Reporting (n - 318) 23.31 6.5 13-76 |
+|---------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|
+| Ethnicity (94 white) | 89 (84%) | 254 (80%) |
+| Marital status (% single) | 92(87%) | 251(79%) |
+| Employment status | 73(60%) | 171(54%) |
+| Alcohol or drug use < 24 h' | 74(70%) | 162(51%) |
+| No prior history sexual intercourse | 8(8%) | 38 (12%) |
+| Last consensual intercourse < 72 h | 29(27%) | 95(30%) |
+| Time interval to examination (mean hours ± SD) | 202 ± 12.6 | 11.3 1 9 |
+| History of previous sexual assault | 46 µ3%) | 156 (49%) |
+
+• Indicates significance at the p < 0.01 level.
+
+vious sexual assaults, prior experience with police, and support systems available to the victim. The questionnaire was pretested on a select group of sexual assault victims presenting to the NEP in September 2001. After revisions were made, the questionnaire was offered to all female sexual assault victims beginning in November 2001. The questionnaire was handed out by the nurse examiner, who explained its purpose and answered any questions. Patients were assured that the questionnaire would remain anonymous and confidential.
+
+## Outcomes Measured
+
+The primary outcome of interest was to identify reasons that women decline to report sexual assault to the police. The secondary outcome was to identify any differences in demographics. assault characteristics, or injury patterns in those who do and do not report. We hypothesized that women suffering the most seven assaults would be more likely to report to the police, and that women not reporting might have suffered less severe injury and hence might have less need of medical treatment.
+
+# Data Analysis
+
+A power analysis determined that at least 40 patients were needed in each group (reporters vs. non-reporters) to detect a 20% difference in categorical variables with a power of 0.8 and an alpha of 0.05. Analyses were performed using SPSS statistical software (version 14.0. SPSS Inc., Chicago. IL). Descriptive statistics were used to describe the demographic variables, perpetrator factors, and assault characteristics. The mean number of documented anogenital and non-genital injuries for each group was determined, as were the typical locations and type of anogenital injury (abrasion, laceration. erythema. ecchymosis. edema). Discrete variables were analyzed with the use of chi-squared tests: unpaired mests were used for comparisons of two means. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were then calculated for the association between survey responses and the women's decision to report sexual assault to police. Due to the number of variables compared. we chose a p-value < 0.01 for statistical significance (14,15).
+
+# RESULTS
+
+During the I8-month study period. 337 adult women presented directly to the Nurse Examiner Program: 114 were triaged in one of four local EDs and transferred to
+
+Table 2. Sexual Assault Characteristics
+
+| Multiple assailants Age of assailant. mean (SD) Ethnicity of assailant (% white) Relationship to victim• Stranger Known assalant Acquaintance/date | Not Reposing (n — 106) 13(12%) 25.4 ± 7.0 50(47%) 14(13%) 92(87%) 76(71%) | Reporting (n — 318) 41(13%) 25.91 6.0 146(46%) 102(32%) 216(68%) 180(56%) |
+|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
+| Previous boyfriend/spouse | 8(8%) | 19(6%) |
+| Current spouse/partner | 1(1%) | 8(3%) |
+| Relative | 5 (5%) | 5 (2%) |
+| Employer/authority figure Time of assault | 2 (2%) | 4(1%) |
+| Midnight-5:50 am. | 52(49%) | 146(46%) |
+| 6:00 axn.-11:59 a.m. | 11(10%) | 48(15%) |
+| Noon-5:59 p.m. | 13(12%) | 35(11%) |
+| 6:00 p.m.-11:59 p.m. Type of sexual assault | 31(29%) | 89(28%) |
+| Vaginal | 99 (93%) | 267 (84%) |
+| Oral | 21(20%) | 02 (29%) |
+| Anal | 35(33%) | 83(26%) |
+| Digital Location of assault | 37 (35%) | 02 (29%) |
+| Victim's home | 42(40%) | 146(46%) |
+| Assailant's home | 33(31%) | 73(23%) |
+| Vehicle | 16 (15%) | 57 (18%) |
+| Outdoor | 6 (6%) | 41 (13%) |
+| Other Type of coercion | 19(18%) | 38(12%) |
+| Verbal threats | 52(49%) | 143(45%) |
+| Physical force | 30(28%) | 108(34%) |
+| Victim sleeping/drugged | 26 V5%) | 73(23%) |
+| Use of weapons | 13(12%) | 54(17%) |
+| Non-genital injuries | 43(41%) | 143(45%) |
+| Anogenital injuries | 78(74%) | 248(78%) |
+| Mean no. genital injuries | 1.5 ± 1.0 | 1.7 ± 1.3 |
+
+- Indicates significance at the p < 0.01 level.
+
+Table 3. Psychosocial Variables Associated with Reporting Sexual Assault
+
+| | Not Reporting (n — 41) | Reporting (n 111) | Odds Ratio (95% CS |
+|---------------------------------------------------|------------------------|-------------------|--------------------|
+| I do not want the assailant going to | fair 27 (66%) | 10(9%) | 19.47 (7.79-48.68) |
+| Police would be insensitive or blame me' | 21 (51%) | 17 (15%) | 5.81 (2.61-12.94) |
+| I know the assailant' | 22 (54%) | 26 (23%) | 3.79 (1.78-8.04 |
+| I was involved in illegal activity during assault | 19 (46%) | 27 (24%) | 2.69 (1.27-5.70) |
+| I am afraid of going to courVtrial | 25 (61%) | 46 (41%) | 2.21(1.06-4.59) |
+| Some people will not believe me | 20 (49%) | 34 (31%) | 2.16 (1.04-4.49) |
+| I have no support from rnenda/family | 2 (5%) | 3 (3%) | 1.85 (0.30-11.47) |
+| I have had a bad experience with police in past | 17(42%) | 32 (29%) | 1.75 (0.83-3.68) |
+| My family or friend(s) will be upset | 6 (15%) | 10(9%) | 1.73 (0.59-5.11) |
+| It would be just his word against mine | 26 (63%) | 58 (52%) | 1.58 (0.76-3.31) |
+| Other people will think I am responsible | 30 (73%) | 71 (64%) | 1.54 (0.70-3.39) |
+| Concerned that others will (rid out about assault | 33 (80%) | 81 (73%) | 1.52 0.64-3.68) |
+| The details of the assault are unclear | 24 (59%) | 54 (49%) | 1.49 (0.72-3.04 |
+| I feel partially responsible | 27 (66%) | 64 (58%) | 1.43 (0.67-2.99) |
+| I have a criminal record or am on probation | 3 (7%) | 6 (5%) | 1.38 0.33-5.80) |
+| I feel ashamed or embarrassed | 32 (78%) | 80 (72%) | 1.38(0.59-322) |
+| I feel anxious | 18 (44%) | 42 (38%) | 1.29 (0.62-2.66) |
+| I am afraid of the assailant | 9 (22%) | 21 (19%) | 1.21(0.50-2.90) |
+| I have been raped/assaulted before | 6 04%) | 19 (17%) | 0.83 (131-225) |
+| FriencVfamily told me not to report | 1(2%) | 3(3%) | 0.90(0.09-891) |
+
+• Indicates significance at the p < 0.01 level.
+
+the NEP: and 15 patients were evaluated in the hospital by NEP staff due to the severity of their injuries. Of these 466 women. 42 (9%) were excluded from the study for the following reasons: could not recall details of the sexual assault due to intoxication (n = 21). refused forensic examination (n = 9). intercourse was consensual (n = 7). and missing or incomplete documentation (n = 5). Seventy-five percent (318/424) of the women eligible to participate in the study reported the sexual assault to law enforcement.
+
+Women not reporting sexual assault were more often employed, with a history of recent alcohol or drug use, a known assailant, and a prolonged time interval between assault and forensic evaluation (p < 0.031). There were no other significant differences in race, marital status. perpetrator factors. Or assault characteristics between the two patient groups (Tables 1. 2). A large percentage of women in both groups had a previous history of sexual assault.
+
+Eighty-three percent of known assailants (2561308) were described as acquaintances: 12% (36/308) were current or previous boyfriends or spouses: 3%(10/308) involved other family members (Table 2). Eighty percent of incestuous assaults (8110) occurred among victims aged 13 to 15 years of age; the majority (64%) of acquaintance rape (164/256) was documented in young adults aged 16 to 25 years of age. Among the older victims (>31 years of age) who knew their assailants. 23% (22/97) were assaulted by current or previous boyfriends or spouses. Women victimized by known assailants were less likely to file a police report (70% vs. 88%, p <.001).
+
+There were no differences in the extent of non-genital injuries or anogenital injuries between the two groups (Table 2). Seventy-seven percent (326/424) had documented anogenital injuries. A total of 23% (751326) had single and 77% (251/326) had multiple sites of trauma. The pattern of anogenital injuries was similar in both groups of adult patients with the majority of injuries (80%) occurring at one of three anatomical sites: labia minors, fossa navicularis. and posterior fourchette. Superficial lacerations and erythema were the most common types of injuries documented in women reporting sexual assault as well as those not reporting assault (Figure
+
+Of the 424 women eligible to participate in the study. 152 (36%) agreed to complete the psychosocial questionnaire. There were no significant differences in demographics. perpetrator factors, or assault characteristics between those who completed the survey and those who refused. Seventy-three percent (111/152) of the women who completed the survey reported the sexual assault to police.
+
+Table 3 details the responses of women to the psychosocial questionnaire. A majority of women in both groups felt partially responsible for the assault, were concerned about public exposure. and were ashamed or embarrassed by the assault. However, these internal psychological barriers (i.e., shame. anxiety. fear) were not significantly associated with reporting sexual assault to police.
+
+The three most common reasons for not reporting sexual assault included: not wanting the assailant to go to
+
+
+
+Figure 1. Types of genital trauma in sexual assault victims with anogenital findings (n = 326).
+
+jail (OR 19.47.95% CI 739-48.68), a prior relationship with the assailant (OR 3.79, 95% CI 1.78—8.05). and feeling that the police would blame the victim or be insensitive (OR 5.81. 95% CI 2.61-12.94). Seven percent of women not reporting sexual assault (3141) had a criminal record or were on probation: however, 42% (17/41) reported a "bad experience" with police in the past or were involved in illegal activity during the assault (19/41). This illegal activity generally involved underage drinking or recent drug use.
+
+# DISCUSSION
+
+These results show that in a community-based urban population, one-quarter of women presenting to a sexual assault clinic or ED chose not to report the rape to police. This rate is consistent with a previous study in Minneapolis that reported that 24% of sexual assault victims treated in an ED by nurse examiners refused to file a police report (16). During the past three decades, women have become more likely to report rapes and auempted rapes-particularly those involving known assailants-to police 13). But the fact remains that less than half of such crimes are reported (1.3). In fact, law enforcement officials consider sexual assault to be the most underreported violent crime in America (17).
+
+It is apparent that the majority of rape survivors who seek post-assault health care in community clinics or EDs have already made the decision to involve the police (7.16.18). The simple act of seeking medical help may in turn lead a woman to define a situation as rape and report it. For those victims who have not decided whether or not to report the assault, trained examiners, when available. can discuss the survivor's fears and concerns about reporting and provide the information necessary to make an informed decision (16). A recent study by Crandall and Helitzer examined the legal outcomes for sexual assault cases seen at the University of New Mexico's Health Sciences Center. After inception of a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) program, approximately 28% of rape victims declined to report the assault to the police. compared with 50% before the SANE program was launched in their community (19).
+
+It has been hypothesized that women suffering the most severe assaults are more likely to report to the police, and hence might access medical care through the police (18.20.21). It follows that women not reporting might have suffered less severe assaults and hence might have less need of medical treatment.
+
+Although the majority of our study population had documented physical injuries, we found no differences in the frequency or severity of injuries between reporters and non-reporters. In addition, we found that the use of force and the pattern of anogenital injuries were similar in both groups. Therefore, although the severity of physical injuries may cause the rape survivor to seek appropriate medical care, it does not significantly influence their decision to report. These findings are consistent with a recent Danish study of women presenting to a sexual assault center in Copenhagen. They also concluded that the severity of the assault or the documentation of injuries did not influence police reporting (20).
+
+Since 1970. social scientists have investigated a number of possible reasons why women don't report rape. ranging from fears, beliefs, and characteristics of the women themselves. to the nature of the relationship between the victim and the assailant. and the characteristics of the particular rape. The usefulness of these studies in determining the relative importance of these factors is limited by the research methodologies used and the populations studied. The only way clinicians can really determine why sexual assault victims do not report to police is to ask the victims themselves. The current study was designed to accomplish this goal within a community-based sample of women presenting for medical care after an assault. The results of this study identified six distinct factors associated with not reporting sexual assault to law enforcement.
+
+Age. marital status, and ethnicity were not associated with police involvement; however, employment status differed significantly between non-reponers and those reporting sexual assault (69% vs. 54%. respectively). Some rape victims likely chose to avoid the notoriety and stigma attached to rape prosecution, or they feared rejection by friends and co-workers (17,20). More than half of the women we surveyed felt partially responsible for the assault (60%). were concerned about public exposure (75%). and were ashamed or embarrassed by the assault (74%). Practical issues may also be involved—a victim may not have the time to participate in a criminal prosecution. especially if she is employed (22).
+
+Seventy-three percent of sexual assaults in our study This is consistent with other studies such as the National Crime Victimization Survey, which reported that approximately twothirds of rape victims knew their assailant (3). Our results also demonstrate that women assaulted by a known assailant are significantly less likely to report the crime compared to those assaulted by a stranger. Not surprisingly. the response on the psychosocial survey that had the greatest association with non-reporting was: "I do not want the assailant going to jail" (OR 19.47. p < 0.001). The complex nature of the victim-assailant relationship is known to influence perceptions of the seriousness and sequelae of the sexual assault (23). It also is clearly the most important factor influencing a victim's decision to report (1820-22). were committed by known assailants.
+
+Sexual assault victims having experienced acquaintance rape are typically young adults, 16 to 25 years old. Sex-role socialization encourages this type of assault victim to see herself as a possible contributor to her own victimization (22). In a survey of high school students. teenage girls who had experienced forced sex believed that consensual sex play provoked the non-consensual intercourse and therefore felt they were at fault, not the perpetrator who ignored pleas to stop (23). Moreover. intoxication in the context of a dating relationship can lead to the misinterpretation of friendly cues as sexual invitations, diminished coping responses. and the woman's inability to ward off a potential attack (24).
+
+At least one-half of all violent crimes involve alcohol or drug use by the perpetrator, the victim, or both (3,24). Sexual assault certainly fits this pattern. Alcohol, marijuana. cocaine, and other illicit drugs were used by 56% of all the women in our population. Although not statistically significant. almost half of our respondents did not report rape because they were involved in illegal activity at the time of the assault. This illegal activity generally involved underage drinking or recent drug use and probably contributed to victim's feelings of fear. guilt. embarrassment. and blame. In addition. intoxication was likely the key reason that 51% of our respondents stated that "the details of the assault are unclear."
+
+Another significant reason for not reporting assault was the belief that police would be insensitive or blame the victim (OR 5.81. p < 0.001). Only 7% of nonreporters had a criminal record or were on probation; however, a considerable number of these women reported a "bad experience with police in the past" (42%) or were "involved in illegal activity during assault" (46%). Previous research has shown that victims may
+
+also lack confidence in the ability of the criminal justice system to apprehend or punish the assailant (22.24).
+
+According to Williams. most people think of rape as a sudden. violent attack by a stranger in a deserted. public place. after which the victim is expected to provide evidence of the attack and of her active resistance (22). These characteristics, then, constitute what is referred to as the classic rape situation. When an individual is confronted with a situation that does not conform to the stereotypical concept rape. she may be reluctant to report the incident or seek medical care (7). This reluctance is aptly demonstrated by the prolonged time interval between assault and forensic evaluation among nonreporters (20 h vs. II h. p < 0.001). Any delay in presentation is troublesome in light of previous studies that suggest that the timing of the examination is the most significant predictor of abnormal anogenital findings in both children and adult victims of sexual assault (2526). For example. the frequency of anogenital lacerations and abrasions may decrease from 50% at C 24 h to 13% at > 96 h after the assault (26).
+
+#### LIMITATIONS
+
+There were several limitations in our study. We could not control for the clinical evaluations by different examiners. It may be that documentation was not uniform. although the nine nurse examiners had a similar level of training and experience. The findings of the examiners were recorded on state-mandated reporting forms and were taken as the most accurate representation of the actual physical findings. Over half of all patients had been exposed to alcohol or illicit drugs during the time of the assault. It is unknown what impact this might have had on the accuracy of the history or the degree of anogenital injuries. However, the documented history of the sexual assault by forensic nurses is quite detailed and considered accurate by legal authorities. In addition. women were excluded from participating in the survey if the nurse examiner felt they were still clinically intoxicated.
+
+This study, like all studies of rape victims, is vulnerable to sample or selection bias. Previous research suggests that many victims of rape are not likely to seek medical care or even to identify themselves as rape victims (2). In fact, the desire to avoid using the term "rape" is frequently very high. It should also be noted that this study considered women who reported to the police, the NEP. or a local ED. If all women experiencing sexual assault who neither reported to the police nor came to the NEP/ED were included, the results might have been different.
+
+Of the 424 women eligible to participate in the study. 152 agreed to complete the psychosocial questionnaire.
+
+for a response rate of 36%. This limited response rate was understandable because, in many cases, subject recruitment took place within hours of the sexual assault and women were not compelled to participate. There were no significant differences in demographics. perpetrator factors, or assault characteristics between those who completed the survey and those who refused. However, the small sample size and the more stringent level of significance (p < 0.01) made for a less robust study.
+
+Over the past two decades, there have been a number of initiatives aimed at improving the legal treatment of sexually assaulted women (27). Rape crisis centers and victim assistance programs offer crisis intervention. emotional support, counseling, and advocacy to women who have been sexually assaulted. Hospital-based sexual assault care and treatment programs have been established, providing victims with around-the-clock support and crisis counseling, medical care, referrals to local service providers, and forensic evidence collection for potential court use. Although one of the goals of these initiatives was to increase the proportion of women reporting sexual assault, results from retrospective studies evaluating their effectiveness have been mixed and have not captured the complexity of factors that may influence women's post-assault decisions. Qualitative, in-depth interviews with women who have been sexually assaulted hold unique promise for evaluating treatment programs and enhancing women's interaction with the criminal justice system (27). Moreover, given that women do not constitute a unified and homogeneous group. future research may want to employ more sophisticated measures of age. ethnicity, culture, education, and assault characteristics to examine their collective impact on reporting practices.
+
+#### CONCLUSIONS
+
+In a community-based urban population. one-quarter of women presenting to a sexual assault clinic or ED chose not to report the sexual assault to police. These results suggest that women who are employed, raped by a known assailant, have a history of recent alcohol or drug use, and prolonged time intervals between the assault and forensic evaluation are more reluctant to involve the police. No differences were found in the extent of nongenital injuries or anogenital injuries between reporters and non-reporters. When surveyed, the reasons given by assault victims for not reporting to police were primarily environmental factors (e.g.. relationship with the assailant) rather than internal psychological barriers (e.g.. shame, anxiety. fear). Further study is needed to identify the policies or practices that encourage reporting and to apply those practices elsewhere. Such a strategy might.
+
+in turn, increase the chance of arrest and prosecution and. ultimately. the deterrent effect of the criminal justice system.
+
+Acloundedgments-The authors acknowledge the suggestions and statistical assistance of Dr. Diann Reischnum. Grand Rapids Medical Education and Research Center for Health Professions.
+
+## REFERENCES
+
+- I. Toden P. Thoennes N. Prevalence. incidenx. and consequences of violence againtr women: findings from Ile National Violence against Women Sooty (NCI 183781). Washington. DC: National firritute of linnet: November 2030. AvaibI4c at: hugfiwwwnars.orgipdililes I/ ni/111.3781.pdf. Accessed September 5. 20(17.
+- 2. &Wham KM. Hoary D. Kaminsky R. Lifetime sexual assault prevalence rates and mporting practices in an emergency department population. Ann Emerg !Sled 2000:36:23-7.
+- 3. Sedgwick IL. Criminal victimization in the United States. 2005: statistical tables iNa 2152441. liJS Bulletin: December 2006. Available at: Ititp://www.ojp.usdoj.goterbyrIpub/pdflcous0S.pdf. Accessed September S. 3307.
+- 4. Crowley SR. Sexual the medical legal examination. New York: AlcGrawtHill: 1999.
+- S. Renner KE. Wasted C. Quiderton S. The ?social? nature of sexual assault. Can Psychol 1988:29:163-73.
+- 6. Patin PO. Cotten N. Psycbo.social variables of female rapees not reporting and reporting the lira incidence of rape. Acta Psychiatr Belg 1979:79:332-42.
+- 7. Burgess AW. Felder WP. Hartman CR. Delayed reporting of the rape victim.lPsychersoc Nun Mem Health Seer 1995:33:21-9.
+- 8. Dupre AR. Hampton HL Morrison If, Meeks GR. Sexual assault. Obstet Gynecol Sury 199148:640-8.
+- 9. Novacek J. Redskin R. Ballinger D. Rape: Tulsa women speak out. Tulsa. OK: Tulsa Institute of Behavioral Sciences: 1992. I0. Rickert VI. Wiemann CM. Date rape among adolescents and young adults. 1 Pedlar Adokw Gynecol 1998:11:167-75.
+- II. Itotorman L Dunnuck C. A community sexual assault pogrom based in an urban YWCA: the Grand Rapids experience. 1 Emerg Nurs 1999:25:424-7.
+- 12. American College of Emergency Physicians. Evaluation and management of the sexually assaulted in sexually abused patient Irving. TX: American College of Emergency Physicians: 1999.
+- 13. Slaughter L. Brown C. Colposcopy to establish physical findings in rape victims. Am .1 Obstet Grave 1992:166:83-7.
+- 14. Pocock Sl. Geller XI'L Tsiatis AA. The analysis of multiple endpoints in clinical trials. Biometrics 1987:43:487-98. IS. Muman D. Practical statistics for medical research. London. UK: Chapman and Hall: 1995.
+- 16. Lethay LE. Kraft J. Evidentiary examination without a police report: should it be done? Are delayed reporters and nonreportere unique? .1 Emag Nuts 200127:396-400.
+- 17. Kilpatrick DG. Edmunds CN. Seymour A. Rape in America: a report to the nation. Arlington. VA: National Victim Center: 1992. IS. McGregor NU. Witte E. Marion SA. Livingstone C. Why don't more women report sexual assault to the police? CMAI 200(X162: 659-60.
+- 19. Crandall CS. Helitaer D. Impact evaluation of a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) program INC) 203276). Washington. DC: National Institute of Justice: December 2003. Available at: http://www.ncy rs.gov/pdfli les I in iyg rantrJ203276.pdf. Accessed September 5. 2007.
+- 20. Scbei B. Sicleniu> K. Lundvall L Ouesen G. Adult victims of sexual assault: acute medical response and police reporting among women consulting a center for victims of sexual assault. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scant 2003:82:750-5.
+
+1. 21. Rennison CM. Rape and sexual assault: reporting to police and medical attention, 1992–2000 (NCJ 194530). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice; August 2002. Available at: [www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/trsarp00.pdf](http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/trsarp00.pdf). Accessed September 5, 2007.
+2. 22. Williams LS. The classic rape: when do victims report? *Soc Probl* 1984;31:459–67.
+3. 23. Davis TC, Peck GQ, Storment JM. Acquaintance rape and the high school student. *J Adolesc Health* 1993;14:220–4.
+4. 24. Rickert VI, Wiemann CM. Date rape among adolescents and young adults. *J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol* 1998;11:167–75.
+5. 25. Sachs CJ, Chu LD. Predictors of genitorectal injury in female victims of suspected sexual assault. *Acad Emerg Med* 2002;9:146–51.
+6. 26. Bush C, Jones JS, Rossman L, Wynn B, Alexander C. Patterns of anogenital injury in female sexual assault victims following delayed forensic examination (abstract). *Ann Emerg Med* 2003;42:S90.
+7. 27. Baumer E. Temporal variation in the likelihood of police notification by victims of rapes, 1973–2000 (NCJ 207497). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice; April 2004. Available at: [www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/207497.pdf](http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/207497.pdf). Accessed September 5, 2007.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156728/EFTA00156728.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156728/EFTA00156728.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7ded914698f5425cb171e85cc1518037f2d4d7b3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156728/EFTA00156728.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,704 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00156728.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 8,
+ "chars": 43876,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 7.15,
+ "image_assets": [
+ "_page_4_Figure_2.jpeg"
+ ],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "Violence: Recognition, \nManagement and Prevention",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 114.24000000000001,
+ 110.97
+ ],
+ [
+ 362.2970275878906,
+ 110.97
+ ],
+ [
+ 362.2970275878906,
+ 147.76239013671875
+ ],
+ [
+ 114.24000000000001,
+ 147.76239013671875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "WHY WOMEN DON'T REPORT SEXUAL ASSAULT TO THE POLICE: \nTHE INFLUENCE OF PSYCHOSOCIAL VARIABLES AND TRAUMATIC INJURY",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 64.855,
+ 185.49
+ ],
+ [
+ 476.45172119140625,
+ 185.49
+ ],
+ [
+ 476.45172119140625,
+ 211.48590087890625
+ ],
+ [
+ 64.855,
+ 211.48590087890625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "INTRODUCTION",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 343.90999999999997,
+ 380.7
+ ],
+ [
+ 420.2906799316406,
+ 380.7
+ ],
+ [
+ 420.2906799316406,
+ 392.82415771484375
+ ],
+ [
+ 343.90999999999997,
+ 392.82415771484375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "METHODS",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 134.47000000000003,
+ 262.44
+ ],
+ [
+ 185.33688354492188,
+ 262.44
+ ],
+ [
+ 185.33688354492188,
+ 274.8659362792969
+ ],
+ [
+ 134.47000000000003,
+ 274.8659362792969
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Study Design",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 55.335,
+ 279.45
+ ],
+ [
+ 109.12206268310547,
+ 279.45
+ ],
+ [
+ 109.12206268310547,
+ 290.61590576171875
+ ],
+ [
+ 55.335,
+ 290.61590576171875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Study Setting",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 55.335,
+ 430.11
+ ],
+ [
+ 108.71533966064453,
+ 430.11
+ ],
+ [
+ 108.71533966064453,
+ 442.11590576171875
+ ],
+ [
+ 55.335,
+ 442.11590576171875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Participant Selection",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 279.055,
+ 144.17999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 360.3615417480469,
+ 144.17999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 360.3615417480469,
+ 155.61590576171875
+ ],
+ [
+ 279.055,
+ 155.61590576171875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Study Protocol",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 279.055,
+ 271.35
+ ],
+ [
+ 338.8267517089844,
+ 271.35
+ ],
+ [
+ 338.8267517089844,
+ 283.11590576171875
+ ],
+ [
+ 279.055,
+ 283.11590576171875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Outcomes Measured",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 55.335,
+ 414.72
+ ],
+ [
+ 136.0614471435547,
+ 414.72
+ ],
+ [
+ 136.0614471435547,
+ 427.11590576171875
+ ],
+ [
+ 55.335,
+ 427.11590576171875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Data Analysis",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 55.335,
+ 556.47
+ ],
+ [
+ 112.66497039794922,
+ 556.47
+ ],
+ [
+ 112.66497039794922,
+ 569.6159210205078
+ ],
+ [
+ 55.335,
+ 569.6159210205078
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "RESULTS",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 358.19,
+ 230.03999999999996
+ ],
+ [
+ 405.7657775878906,
+ 230.03999999999996
+ ],
+ [
+ 405.7657775878906,
+ 243.36590576171875
+ ],
+ [
+ 358.19,
+ 243.36590576171875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "DISCUSSION",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 129.71,
+ 396.90000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 190.0023956298828,
+ 396.90000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 190.0023956298828,
+ 409.86590576171875
+ ],
+ [
+ 129.71,
+ 409.86590576171875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "LIMITATIONS",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 349.265,
+ 313.47
+ ],
+ [
+ 416.14935302734375,
+ 313.47
+ ],
+ [
+ 416.14935302734375,
+ 325.11590576171875
+ ],
+ [
+ 349.265,
+ 325.11590576171875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CONCLUSIONS",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 124.355,
+ 451.1700000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 194.98309326171875,
+ 451.1700000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 194.98309326171875,
+ 463.11590576171875
+ ],
+ [
+ 124.355,
+ 463.11590576171875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "REFERENCES",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 350.45500000000004,
+ 174.14999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 415.07318115234375,
+ 174.14999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 415.07318115234375,
+ 186.36590576171875
+ ],
+ [
+ 350.45500000000004,
+ 186.36590576171875
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 156
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 76
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 3
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 184
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 102
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 265
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 134
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Caption",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "TableGroup",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 185
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 93
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Caption",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "TableGroup",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 174
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 95
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Figure",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Caption",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "FigureGroup",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 202
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 112
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 230
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 121
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 17
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00156728"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156728/_page_4_Figure_2.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156728/_page_4_Figure_2.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0c9083d20bd45e7baa3fb5d949ead6829c62baa4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156728/_page_4_Figure_2.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:c5057574e777adcf3a36b778217e5e2eca3a5e7a0432b5c1b6749d3bbe079267
+size 17956
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156736/EFTA00156736.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156736/EFTA00156736.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1f12175c5cc0a9346fa4e54c3fdc990067e2b9dc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156736/EFTA00156736.md
@@ -0,0 +1,325 @@
+# Women's Reporting of Sexual and Physical Assaults to Police in the National Violence Against Women Survey
+
+Yingyu Chen I and Sarah E. Ullmani
+
+
+
+#### Abstract
+
+Previous research has assumed that rape reporting is unique.but no study has systematically tested this assumption. The present study used a probability sample of female victims from the National Violence Against Women Survey to compare factors affecting rape and physical assault reporting using multinomial logit regression. Overall. results suggested that there was similarity in reporting decisions between rapes and physical assaults in terms of main effects. However.inceractions suggested chat age. marital status.and physical force each influenced reporting differently by assault type. Implications of these results are discussed and directions for future research are offered.
+
+#### Keywords
+
+police reporting. physical assault, rape
+
+Of all personal crimes, rape/sexual assault has been considered the most serious and traumatic. short of homicide (Koss & Harvey, 1991; Resick & Nishith, 1997). Women may be attacked by various types of perpetrators, most often someone they know (e.g.. acquaintances. partners). The National Women's Study (NWS) indicated that only 22% of rape victims were assaulted by strangers or someone they did not know well, 9% by husbands or ex-husbands, 11% by fathers or stepfathers. 10% by boyfriends or ex-boyfriends. 16% by other relatives, and 29% by other nonrclatives, such as friends or neighbors (Kilpatrick, Edmunds. & Seymour. 1992). Victims of sexual violence may experiences rangeof behavioral and psychological problems, which can last from a few months to as long as several
+
+#### Corresponding Author:
+
+Yingyu Chen. 4F. No.24. Lane 342. Lontliang Road.Talpe. 10474.Tarman
+
+Email yywchenagmail.com
+
+ITaipes.Taivean
+
+x27;University of Minas at Chicago
+
+years (Frazier. 2003: Rothbaum, Foa. Riggs, Murdock, & Walsh, 1992). Despite these serious consequences. victims of sexual offenses am less likely to report incidents to the police than victims of other violent crimes. According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). rape/sexual assault was least likely to be reported of all violent crimes between 1992 and 1999 (Bureau ofJustice Statistics. 2003). and this trend persisted in 2006 (Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2007).
+
+Sexual assault victims who do not report incidents to the police may adhere to socially constructed perceptions of rape such as rape myths (Bun 1991; Lonsway & Fitzgerald. 1994) and other beliefs that lead people to regard rape as justifiable (Nluchlenhard. Friedman. & Thomas. 1985). Fear of receiving negative responses from legal authorities may also discourage sexual assault victims from reporting their experiences to police (Campbell. 2005). Researchers have found that police were less likely to make an arrest if the victim's credibility was questionable (Frazier & Haney. 1996; Martin & Powell. 1994). if the suspect was acquainted with the victim (fistrich. 1987; Frazier & Haney. 1996: LaFree. 1989). or if there was no substantive evidence (Frazier & Haney. 1996: Kerstetter. 1990). The decision by prosecutors to charge is also affected by similar legal and extralegal factors that affect police decisions to arrest (Frazier & Haney. 1996: Roll:mann. 1991: Kerstetter, 1990).
+
+Given that socially constructed perceptions of rape and negative responses from legal authorities are common, such as disbelief and blame of rape victims. it is reasonable to assume that factors affecting their decisions to report are different from those affecting victims of other violent crimes. Myers and LaFree (1982) found few significant differences in prosecutorial decisions between sexual assaults and other crimes but suggested that future research should examine whether this conclusion holds for stages before prosecution, such as victims' reporting decisions. Although research exists on correlates of rape reporting. fewer studies have looked at physical assault reporting. Research on correlates of Tenoning has been atheorctical and has often examined victim demographics and assault characteristics. Past research in both of these areas is now reviewed.
+
+### Correlates of Rape Reporting
+
+Several demographic characteristics of rape victims relate to their reponing decisions. Victim age is unrelated to police reporting (Bachman. 1998: Clay-Warner & Bun. 2005; Fisher, Daigle. Cullen. & Turner. 2003; Golding. Siegel. Sorenson. Bumam. & Stein. 1989: Lizotte, 1985), education is negatively related to rape reporting (Lizotte. 1985; Pino & Meier. 1999), and victim's marital status (Bachman, 1998: Lizotte. 1985: Russell & Bolen. 2000). mcd ethnicity (Bachman. 1998; Fisher ct al.. 2003: Wyatt. 1992). and socioeconomic status (Bachman. 1993; Pino & Meier, 1999) show inconsistent relationships with rape reporting.
+
+Studies of both probability and nonprobability samples show that rapes/sexual assaults committed by strangers are more frequently reported to police than those perpetrated by nonstrangers (Edson & Pare, 2005: Fisher et al.. 2003: Golding et al.. 1989: Greenberg & Ruback, 1992; Lizotte, 1985; Pino & Meier. 1999; Ruback & Menard. 2001; Russell & Bolen, 2000), with the exception of three studies using NCVS data (Bachman, 1993. 1998; Banner. Felson. & Messner. 2003), perhaps due to known measurement limitations of this survey (Koss. 1992). Women whose experiences meet the legal definition of rape/sexual
+
+assault may not acknowledge themselves (i.e.. self-label) as rape victims if they believe that physical force or weapons are essential elements of rape/sexual assault (Fisher et al.. 2003: Littleton. Axsom, Breitkopf, & Berenson. 2006). Physical force by assailants (Bachman. 1993; Du Mont. Miller, & Myhr. 2003: Russell & Bolen. 2000). presence of weapons (Fisher et al., 2003; Russell & Bolen. 2000). completed rape (Bachman. 1993; Golding ct al., 1989: Russell & Bolen, 2000). and victim injuries (Bachman. 1993. 1998: Du Mont
+
+ct al., 2003: Lamont, 1985; Pino & Meier. 1999) am all related to increased rape reporting. Women arc most likely to report incidents happening at home or in their cars and least likely to report attacks in social situations such as dates (Williams. 1984). The effect of dnig or alcohol consumption on rape reporting has been less studied, but women who are intoxicated may be more likely to be viewed as sexually available and to be blamed for being raped (Norris. Nurius. & Dirndl: 1996), resulting in less police reporting. However, research on rape reporting shows that neither offender nor victim use of drugs/alcohol prior to incidents affects victims' reporting decisions (Clay-Warner & Bun. 2005; Fisher et al., 2003).
+
+# Correlates of Physical Assault Reporting
+
+Only a handful of existing studies have examined correlates of physical assault reporting to police. Two studies found that police reporting did not differ by victim race/ethnicity (Baumcr, 2002; Felson. Messner. & Hoskin. 1999), but one study found that Black victims were more likely to notify police than White victims (Folsom. Messner. Hoskin. & Deane, 2002). Older victims were more likely to report assaults to police than younger victims (Balmer, 2002; Felson et al., 2002). Victim income and educational level were negatively related to simple assault reporting but had no effect on aggravated assault reporting, whereas married victims were more likely than unmarried victims to report assaults (Batumi. 2002).
+
+Unlike rape reporting studies, which have consistently shown that victims arc more likely to report rapes/sexual assaults committed by strangers. research on physical assault reporting based on NCVS data has shown mixed findings regarding the effect of victim offender relationship. One study showed that victims were less likely to call police if the attacker was a nonstzanger outside the family than if the attacker was a stranger (Felson et al.. 2002). and another study showed more reposing when the offender was an ex-spouse rather than a stranger (Felson et al...1999).A third study showed that simple assault, but not aggravated assault, was more likely to be reported for family member than for stranger assailants (Baumer. 2002). Studies have consistently shown a positive association between seriousness of assaults and reporting rates. Felson et al. (1999) applied the Sellin-Wolfgang Scale (Sellin & Wolfgang, 1964) and found the more serious a criminal event was, the more likely the victim was to call police. Researchers also found that assaults were more likely to be reported to police if the victim suffered injury or if the offender was armed (Baumer, 2002; Felson et al., 2002).
+
+Incident location and offender use of drugs/alcohol arc also related to physical assault reporting. Police were more likely to be notified when incidents happened in victims' homes (Felson et al., 2002) or in their neighborhoods (Baumer, 2002). Jasinski (2003) analyzed NCVS (1992-1994) data and found that female assault victims were more likely to report to police if offenders used either drugs or akohol at the time of the incident. but the association disappeared after other individual and incident-related correlates were included in the analysis.
+
+### Comparing Sexual and Physical Assault Reporting
+
+Some studies have combined sexual and physical assault with other crimes (e.g., robbery. theft) to examine correlates of victims' reporting behavior (e.g., Conaway & Lehr. 1994: Singer. 1988; Webb & Marshall, 1989). without examining each type of crime separately or comparing correlates of reporting decisions. Only Lizottc's (1985) study of National Crime Survey (NCS) (1972-1975) data showed that factors that made strong cases for prosecution. such as stranger assailants and serious injuries, were better predictors of rape reporting than of physical assault reporting, leading him to conclude that rape reporting may be unique.
+
+Although important. Lizottc's (1985) study was limited by reliance on the NCS. which has been criticized for methodological problems (Eisenberg. 1990; Koss, 1992): statistical analyses comparing two assault types that were not stringent; combining males and females: and not separating victim reporting from third-party reporting. The latter point is important because third parties notified police of nearly half of violent crimes (46%) between 1992 and 2000 (Bureau of Justice Statistics.. 2003), yet determinants of third-party reporting are rarely studied. In a few studies. third parties were less likely to report rapes/sexual assaults if victims were older or weapons were involved (Greenberg & Ruback. 1992), and less likely to report intimate partner sexual or physical assaults (Sauna et al.. 2003; Pelson et al., 1999).
+
+# Present Study
+
+Compansons between rape reporting and physical assault reporting arc important because if distinct correlates are found, special methods for encouraging rape victims to report will need to be developed. However, if they are similar, possibly public awareness of sexual violence against women has increased, and women arc equally likely to report sexual and nonsexual incidents. Due to the lack of research on the uniqueness of rape reporting. the present study used the National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS) to evaluate whether factors identified in the past research arc unique to rape reporting compared with physical assault reporting in women. It was hypothesized that assault characteristics (c.g., physical force, injury, weapons. stranger assailants. perceived life threat) would play a stronger role in sexual assault reporting than physical assault reporting, whereas hypotheses were not made about victim demographics given past inconsistent results. Unlike past research, exploratory analyses were done to see if correlates of reporting varied if reported by victims or third parties.
+
+# Method
+
+### Sample
+
+The National Institute of Justice (NU) and the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NC1PC), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) jointly sponsored the NVAWS. conducted by a survey research firm, to funkier the understanding of violence against women (Tjaden & Thoennes. 1999). A national sample of 8.000 women, aged 18 years and older and living in the United States, was drawn by random-digit dialing (RDD) from households with a telephone and was interviewed by female interviewers using a computer-assisted interviewing system between November 1995 and May 1996. In households with more than one eligible woman. the woman with the most recent birthday was selected (Tjaden & Thoennes. 1998a). The participation rate for female respondents was 72.1% (Tjaden & Thacnnes. 19986).
+
+The NVAWS defined rape as "an event that occurred without the victim's consent, that involved the use or threat of force to penetrate the victim's vagina or anus by penis. tongue, fingers, or object, or the victim's mouth by penis" (Tjaden & Thoennes 1998a, p. 13). The NVAWS used a set of five screening questions to identify rape victims. Questions were phrased using specific behavioral terms to ask whether respondents had ever been forced or threatened by a man or woman to have vaginal or anal intercourse by penis, tongue. fingers, or objects or to have oral intercourse by penis. Both completed and attempted forms of sexual assault were assessed. Physical assault was defined as "behaviors that threaten, attempt, or actually inflict physical harm" (Tjaden & Thocnnes. 1998a. p. 13). A modified version of the Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus, 1990) was used to screen respondents for physical assault experienced as an adult by any type of perpetrator.
+
+The present study selected incidents involving a male offender and a female victim who was at least 14 years of age at the time of assault. If a woman was victimized by more than one type of perpetrator at different periods, the most recent incident was selected. This resulted in 531 sexual assault and 1,278 physical assault cases. There were 441 incidents in which victims experienced both sexual and physical assault in different years. Previous research shows that victims are more likely to report future victimization to the police if their previous reporting experiences have positive results (Conaway & Lohr, 1994: Shapland. Willmore, & Duff. 1985) or if they have a positive view of their prior interactions with police (Waller. 1990). Therefore. for women who had been victimized both sexually and physically, their first victimization incident was selected. If sexual and physical victimization occurred in the same year (it = 88), neither incident was included in the analysis because the order of incidents could not be determined. This selection process resulted in a final sample of 874 sexual assault and 1,376 physical assault cases.
+
+#### Measures
+
+Dependent variable. Respondents who disclosed their experiences to interviewers were asked whether incidents were reported to police, and if so, who notified police. The dependent variable was coded with three outcomes: 0 = no. I =yes. reported by a third party, and 2 = yes. reported by the respondent. In the multinomial logit model. "reported by the respondent" was used as a reference category.
+
+Victim demographic characteristic. To be consistent with the past studies, women who were assaulted at the age of 14 or older were selected. Although age at assault less than 16 may be considered child sexual or physical abuse, the results did not differ when the analyses were conducted excluding those under 16. Respondent age at the time of assault was coded in years, and employment status was coded as 0 = unemployed or I = employed. Highest level of education was coded as 0 = no college or 1 = some college, and marital status was coded 0 = unmarried or I = married (including common-law relationships). Respondent ethnic background was dichotomized as 0 = non-White or I = White. Respondent income was measured by ordinal categories in the NVAWS and was coded in the present study using the midpoint of each income category to treat income as continuous: USS0, USS2,500, USS7.500, USS12.500, USSI 7,500, USS22,500. USS30.000. USS42,500, USS65,000, USS90.000. and USSI10,000.
+
+Assault characteristic. As the present study focused on male violence against women, respondents victimized by same-sex perpetrators were excluded from analyses. The victim—offender relationship was examined in a more elaborate manner for bivariate analyses: 0 = stranger, 1 = current or former spouse or partner. 2 = relative (father, stepfather, brother, stepbrother. brother-in-law, uncle, grandfather. step-grandfather. male cousin, son/stepson, son-in-law, nephew, nephew-in-law, another male relative). 3 = boyfriend or date, and 4 = acquaintance. To avoid losing degrees of freedom and find the best-fit model for the multivariate analysis. the victim-offender relationship was coded as 0 = non-stranger or I = stranger. Three measures were used to assess assault seriousness: use of physical force (e.g.. slap, kick, beat), presence of weapons (e.g.. gun, knife), and victim physical injuries (each coded 0 = no. I =)ts). Incident location was coded 0= place other than the respondent's home or I = the respondent's home.
+
+Respondents were asked about their own and offender use of substances (e.g., drugs. alcohol, or both) at the time of the assault. Victim substance use was coded 0 = no or I =yes and offender substance use was coded 0 = no, I = yes, and 2 = don know. Offender substance use was recoded into two dummy variables (i.e., I =yes vs. 0= all other cases, I = don know vs. 0 = all other cases) to enter the multinomial logit model. Alcohol and drug use were also examined separately, but results did not differ based on the coding schemes. Victim perception of life threat during assault (0 = no or I =yes) was scented by asking whether they believed they or someone close to them would be seriously harmed or killed during the incident. Finally, assault type was coded as 0 = sexual assault and I = physical assault.
+
+# Results
+
+### Sample Characteristics
+
+Sample characteristics are shown in Table I. Nearly two thirds of the sample (61.1%) consisted of physical assault incidents. Three quarters of incidents (74.9%) went unreported. 17.7% were reported by victims, and 7.4% were reported by third panics. Victims' age ranged from 14 to 72 years at the time of the assault (31= 26, SD = 9.45), and personal annual income ranged from USS0 to USS110.0D0 = USS21,000, SD = 18.95). Two thirds of women were employed.. 58.3% had some college education. 79.4% were White. and more than half (53.8%) were married.
+
+**Table 1.** Description of Variables
+
+| Variable | M (SD) |
+|----------------------------------------------------|--------------|
+| Victim age at assault (from 14 to 72) | 26.0 (9.45) |
+| Victim mid-point of income (in units of US\$1,000) | 21.5 (18.95) |
+| | % |
+| Assault type | |
+| Sexual | 38.9 |
+| Physical | 61.1 |
+| Victim age at assault | |
+| <16 | 6.9 |
+| ≥16 | 93.1 |
+| Victim employed | 65.7 |
+| Victim college education | 58.3 |
+| Victim White | 79.4 |
+| Victim married | 53.8 |
+| Stranger offender | 11.8 |
+| Use of physical force | 69.5 |
+| Use of weapon | 13.2 |
+| Victim injured | 33.4 |
+| Assault happened at home | 57.7 |
+| Victim substance use | 13.2 |
+| Perceived life threat | 42.4 |
+| Incident reported | |
+| No | 74.9 |
+| Yes, by third party | 7.4 |
+| Yes, by victim | 17.7 |
+| Perpetrator type | |
+| Stranger | 11.8 |
+| Former or current spouse or partner | 51.6 |
+| Relative | 5.8 |
+| Boyfriend or date | 17.8 |
+| Acquaintance | 13.0 |
+| Offender substance use | |
+| No | 36.0 |
+| Yes | 50.0 |
+| Don't know | 14.0 |
+
+Data on assault characteristics showed that 11.8% of incidents involved stranger perpetrators. Of known perpetrators, more than half (58.5%) were former or current spouses or live-in partners, followed by boyfriends or dates (20.2%), acquaintances (14.7%), and relatives (6.6%). Seventy percent of incidents involved physical force, 13.2% involved weapons, and 57.7% happened at the victim's home. Victims perceived that 50% of incidents involved offender substance use, 36% did not, and in 14%, victims were unsure.
+
+Table 2. Comparisons of Victim Characteristics and Assault Characteristics Between Sexual Assaults and Physical Assaults
+
+| Variable Victim demographics | Ms' | Sexual Assault n | Ms' | Physical Assault | p |
+|---------------------------------|-------|------------------|-------|------------------|-------|
+| Age at assault | 22.10 | 874 | 28.47 | 1.376 | |
+| Midpoint of income | 20.73 | 775 | 21.95 | 1.160 | .165 |
+| Employed | 0.63 | 873 | 0.67 | 1.375 | .076 |
+| College education | 0.62 | 874 | 0.56 | 1.371 | .005° |
+| White | 0.79 | 866 | 0.79 | 1.344 | .941 |
+| Married Assault characteristics | 0.52 | 871 | 0.55 | 1.371 | .301 |
+| Use of physical forte | 0.33 | 864 | 0.92 | 1.368 | .000° |
+| Use of weapon | 0.09 | 868 | 0.16 | 1.370 | .000° |
+| Victim injured | 0.27 | 868 | 0.38 | 1.366 | .000° |
+| Happen at home | 0.40 | 869 | 0.69 | 1.372 | .000° |
+| Victim substance use | 0.18 | 857 | 0.10 | 1.361 | .000° |
+| Perceived life threat | 0.41 | 858 | 0.43 | 1.353 | .289 |
+
+avariables from "Employed- to-Perceived life threat" mob.e proportion dfference tests.
+
+b.Setnificant at the Holm-adjusted .05 level
+
+Only 13.2% of victims used substances at the time of the incident. One third of victims were physically injured, and 42.4% feared serious harm or death during the incident.
+
+# Bivariate Comparisons of Sexual and Physical Assault
+
+Independent-samples 1 tests for continuous and dichotomous variables (see Table 2) and chi-square tests for categorical variables (sec Table 3) were conducted to compare sexual and physical assaults on victim demographics and assault characteristics. The Holm procedure was applied to adjust the Type 1 error rate at the .05 level (Aickin & Gensler, 1996). The mean age of women at the time of sexual assault was significantly younger than that of physical assault (22.1 vs. 28.5), 42004) = —16.90, p < .001. Sexual assault victims were significantly more likely to have a college education (62%) than physical assault victims (56%). \$1889) = 2.81, p < .01. There were no significant differences in income, employment status, ethnicity, or marital status between victims of sexual assault and physical assault.
+
+All assault characteristics significantly differed between sexual and physical assaults except for perceived life threat. Physical assaults were more likely to involve physical force (92% vs. 33%), 41214)= 33.54,p < .001, and weapons (16% vs. 9%). gm!). 5.24, < .001, than sexual assaults. Physical assaults were also more likely to happen at home than sexual assaults (69% vs. 40%), 41768) = 14.15. p < .001. Although sexual assault victims were less likely than physical assault victims to suffer physical injuries (27% vs. 38%),
+
+Table 3. Comparisons of Whether Reported. Perpetrator Type. and Offender Substance Use Between Sexual Assaults and Physical Assaults
+
+| Variable Whether reported | | Sexual Assault | | Physical Assault p |
+|------------------------------------------|-----|----------------|-----|--------------------|
+| Not reported | 713 | 82.3 | 956 | 70.2 |
+| Reports by victim | 92 | 10.6 | 302 | 22.2 |
+| Reported by third party Perpetrator type | 61 | 7.0 | 103 | 7.6 .000' |
+| Stranger | 145 | 16.6 | 120 | 8.7 |
+| Spouse/parmer | 205 | 23.5 | 955 | 69.5 |
+| Relative | 92 | 10.5 | 39 | 2.8 |
+| Boyfriend/date | 222 | 25.4 | 178 | 13.0 |
+| Acquaintance Offender substance use | 210 | 24.0 | 82 | 6.0 .000' |
+| No | 276 | 31.6 | 532 | 38.8 |
+| Yes | 442 | 50.6 | 680 | 49.6 |
+| Don't know | 155 | 17.8 | 160 | 11.7 .000' |
+
+a. Sign/cant at the Holm.adiusted .05 level.
+
+41966) = —5.47.p < .001. they were more likely than physical assault victims to use substances at the time of the incident (18% vs. 10%), \$1518) = 4.89, p <.001.
+
+Women were most likely to be sexually assaulted by boyfriends or dates (25.4%), acquaintances (24%), spouses or parmcrs (23.5%), and strangers (16.6%). whereas physical assaults were committed by spouses/partners (69.5%). boyfriends or dates (13%), strangers (8.7%). and acquaintances (6%), e(4. = 2.248)=482.32,p <.001. Both assault types were least likely to be perpetrated by relatives. Sexual assaults were more likely to involve perpetrator substance use and victims unsure about offender substance use compared with physical assaults, N= 2,245) = 21.84, p <.001. Finally, incident reporting varied by assault type, with sexual assaults less often reported to police than physical assaults, x2(2, N= 2,227) = 50.54,p <.001.
+
+# Multivoriate Analyses of Police Reporting
+
+First, a multinomial logic model (sec Table 4) was estimated using the entire sample to examine the effect of victim demographics, assault characteristics, and assault type on reporting both sexual and physical assaults. Second. interaction terms were added to the multinomial logit model (see Table 5) to examine whether correlates differed by assault type. "Reported by victims" was chosen as the reference group for the model because the present study mainly focused on two comparisons: (a) nonsponing versus victim reporting and (b) third-party versus victim reporting. In addition, victim annual income was omitted due to missing data and the fact that it was nonsignificant in preliminary analyses.
+
+Table 4. Multinomial Logic Model Predicting Polka Reporting (N = 2.072)
+
+| | No vs Vktim Report' | Third Party vsVicUm Reports |
+|---------------------------|---------------------|-----------------------------|
+| | ISE) | 9(SE) |
+| Intercept | 3.649 (0.325) | 0.377 (0.488) |
+| Age at assault | -0.022 (0.007)" | -0.031 (0.01l)" |
+| Employed | -0.014 (0.140) | -0.518 (0.206)" |
+| College education | 0.281 (0.133)" | -0.333 (0.203) |
+| White | 0.530 (0.155)" | 0.030 (0.231) |
+| Married | 0.213 (0.132) | 0.173 (0.204) |
+| Stranger perpetrator | -1.388(0.220)" | 0.361 (0.290) |
+| Use of physical force | -0.360 (0.208)* | -0.478 (0.288)* |
+| Use of weapon | -0.476 (0.176)" | 0.215 (0.240) |
+| Victim injured | -0.788 (0.140" | 0.184 (0.227) |
+| Happen at home | —0.252 (0.156) | 0.024 (0.240) |
+| Offender substance use lb | —0.280 (0.154)* | 0.402 (0.269) |
+| Offender substance use 2° | —0.843 (0.213)" | 0.484 (0.315) |
+| Victim substance use | 0.271 (0.214) | —0.426 (0.354) |
+| Perceived life threat | —1.048 (0.140)" | 0.019 (0.229) |
+| Physical assault | —0.703 (0.175)" | —0.304 (0.242) |
+| —2 log likelihood | | 2418657 |
+| Likelihood ratio ',(I | | 525.823 |
+| df | | 30 |
+| p value | | .000 |
+| McFadden's R2 | | .179 |
+
+a"Reported by the mum" is the reference category:0 = warn report vs. I = not reported: 0 = mann report vs. I = thrdixtrty report
+
+b.Offender substance use 1:0 = other cases. I = offender used substances: Offender substance use 2: 0 = ether cases. I = morns clef not know whether Wenders used substances.
+
+< lap < OS.
+
+No multicollinearity was detected among the independent variables. A total of 2,072 cases (804 sexual assaults and 1.268 physical assaults) were included in the analyses: 1.559 unreported. 360 reported by victims, and 153 reported by third parties.
+
+Age at assault, college education, and ethnic background had significant effects on the probability of reporting by victims. with more reporting by older, less-educated, and non-White victims. Moreover. five assault characteristics significantly affected victims' reporting decisions. The odds of victim reporting compared with nonrcporting were greater for attacks by strangers. with perceived life threat, weapons, victim injury. and when victims were unsure whether offenden used substances. Also, victim reporting was twice as likely for physical assault as for rape. With respect to third-party reporting, two victim demographics.
+
+Table S. Multinomial Logic Model With Interaction Terms Predicting Police Reporting (N = 2.072)
+
+| | No vsVlcdrri Report' | Third Party vs Victim Report' |
+|-------------------------------|----------------------|-------------------------------|
+| | 13 (SE) | a (SE) |
+| Employed | 0.148 (0.275) | -0.607 (0.363)• |
+| College education | 0.011 (0.273) | -0.224 (0.368) |
+| White | 0.480 (0.312) | 0.209 (0.419) |
+| Married | 0.228 (0.274) | -0.367 (0.380) |
+| Stranger perpetrator | -1.088 (0.359y" | 0.238 (0.453) |
+| Use of physical force | -0.790 (0.324y" | -0.702 (0.452) |
+| Use of weapon | -0.821 (0.368)•' | 0.023 (0.449) |
+| Victim injured | -0.809 (0.310) | 0.123 (0.436) |
+| Happen at home | -0.413 (0.294) | -0.001 (0.397) |
+| Offender substance use 1° | -0.125 (0.348) | 1.110 (0.569)• |
+| Offender substance use 2° | -0.627 (0.401) | 1.001 (0.603)• |
+| Victim substance use | 0.604 (0.444) | -0.328 (0.622) |
+| Perceived life threat | -1.069 (0.311y" | -0.259 (0.429) |
+| Physical assault | -1.799 (0.754y" | -2.344 (1.114)" |
+| Assault type x Age at assault | 0.003 (0.017) | 0.057 (0.028)" |
+| Assault type x Employed | -0.255 (0320) | 0.156 (0.445) |
+| Assault type x Education | 0.378 (0.314) | -0.254 (0.446) |
+| Assault type x White | 0.111 (0.361) | -0.227 (0.506) |
+| Assault type x Married | -0.076 (0.314) | 0.832 (0.456)• |
+| Assault type x Stranger | -0.460 (0.475) | 0.502 (0.612) |
+| Assault type x Physical force | 1.120 (0.452) | 0.609 (0.620) |
+| Assault type x Weapon | 0598 (0.423) | 0.272 (0.539) |
+| Assault type x Injury | 0.060 (0.349) | 0.060 (0.515) |
+| Assault type x Home | 0.208 (0.348) | 0.197 (0311) |
+| Assault type x Offender use I | -0.147 (0.389) | —0.941 (0.648) |
+| Assault type x Offender use 2 | —0.192 (0.480) | —0.709 (0.719) |
+| Assault type x Victim use | —0589 (0.510) | —0.060 (0.771) |
+| Assault type x Threat | 0.046 (0.351) | 0.496 (0515) |
+| -2 log likelihood | | —1191.641 |
+| Likelihood ratio z2 | | 561.199 |
+| Of | | 58 |
+| p value | | .000 |
+| McFadden's R2 | | .191 |
+
+a.lteported by the victim is the reference =terry:0u 'Scorn report sale not reported:0= victim report
+
+vs. I = dirdparty report.
+
+b. Offender substance use 1:0 = other cases. I = offender used substance:Offender substance use 2:
+
+0 = other cases. I = vicems did not know whether off enders used substances.
+
+<.05.
+
+but no assault characteristics, had significant effects. Older age and being employed were related to greater reporting by victims than by third parties.
+
+To test whether influences on reporting differed by assault type, interaction terms were created by multiplying assault type (i.e.. 0=sexual wadi, 1 =physical assault) with each independent variable. The multinomial logit model was then reestimated by including all predictors and interaction terms. Results arc presented in Table 5. This composite model significantly predicted police reponing. LRX2(58,N= 2.072)=561.20,p <.001. However. addition of interaction terms did not improve prediction of reporting for either rapes or physical assaults, LRX2(28, N = 2,072) = 35.38. p = .159.1n other words, there was a high degree of similarity in correlates of police reporting between rapes and physical assaults.
+
+Only one interaction term, assault type by physical force, was significant (left panel of Table 5). showing the effect of physical force on victim reporting decisions differed by assault type. Follow-up multinomial logit analyses for each assault type (results not shown) indicated that use of physical force had a significant effect on rape reporting but not on physical assault reporting. Specifically, physical force increased rapt reporting but actually reduced physical assault reporting.
+
+With respect to third-party reporting. interactions of assault type by age at assault and assault type by marital status were significant at the .05 and .10 levels, respectively (right panel of Table 5). Follow-up analyses for each assault type comparing victim and thirdparty reporting suggested that age at assault was a significant predictor for rape reporting but not for physical assault reporting. whereas victim marital status had a marginal effect on physical assault reporting but not on rape reporting. As victim age at assault increased. the predicted probability of third-party reporting of physical assault remained nearly the same. whereas that of third-party reporting of sexual assault decreased. The assault type by marital status interaction showed that victims who were married had lower predicted probability of reporting both sexual and physical assaults than victims who were not married. Married victims decreased the predicted probability of third-party reporting of sexual assault but increased third-party reporting of physical assault.
+
+# Discussion
+
+The present study used a national sample of women (NVAWS; Tjaden & Thoennes. 1999) to examine whether factors affecting rape reporting arc different from those affecting physical assault reporting. an understudied issue in the literature on victim reporting to police. Initial analyses of correlates of reporting including assault type as a predictor showed that women who were older at the time of the assault were more likely to report. consistent with past research on physical assault reporting (Baumer. 2002; Felson et al.. 2002). Also consistent with prior rape (Bachman, 1998; Fisher et al.. 2003: Lizotte. 1985: Pino & Meier. 1999) and physical assault reporting findings (Baumer. 2002: Felson et al.. 2002). women without a college education or who were non-White were more likely to report to police.
+
+Women were more likely to report to police incidents perpetrated by strangers. with weapons, or victim injury, as in previous research on reporting of rape (Bachman. 1993. 1998; Felson & Pare. 2005; Fisher et al., 2003; Golding a al., 1989; Greenberg & Ruback. 1992; Lizette. 1985: Pino & Meier. 1999: Ruback & Nlenard. 2001: Russell & Bolen, 2000) and physical assault (Balmer, 2002; Pelson et al.. 1999; Pelson et al.. 2002). Women were also more likely to report when they were unsure of offender substance use, but more research is needed to interpret this result. Perceiving life threat during the assault also increased the likelihood of reporting, possibly because these victims were more distressed following the attack and/or viewed these assaults as more serious. This is a new finding and shows that both objective and subjective measures of assault severity predict police reporting. With respect to third-party reponing, exploratory analyses showed that victims were more likely than third parties to report to police if they were older or employed. More research is needed to explain these results, but it is possible that these women were more independent and likely to make their own decisions.
+
+Results showed that sexual assaults were less likely to be reported than physical assaults. consistent with government statistics (Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2003). However, contrary to the hypothesis that assault characteristics would influence rape reporting more than physical assault reporting. multinomial logit regression analyses adding interactions of assault type indicated that both types of victims were equally likely to base their reporting decisions on personal demographics and assault characteristics. Only physical force distinguished rape reporting from physical assault reporting: specifically, it increased rape reponing but reduced physical assault reporting. This may be due to rapes with force being more likely to be acknowledged (Littleton et al.. 2006) and thus reported. Conversely, physical assaults may be likely to be domestic violence-related and thus less reponed, even with greater physical violence. These data suggest physical assault victims with more offender violence may be less likely to receive help from police and other needed services such as medical attention for their injuries.
+
+In terms of third-party reporting, the predictor of victim age at assault and marital status distinguished rape reporting from physical assault reporting. Whereas victim age was a significant predictor for rape reporting but not for physical assault reporting. marital status had a marginal effect on physical assault reporting but not on rape reporting. As victim age at assault increased, the probability of reporting rapes by third panics decreased, which may be due to differences in lifestyle/routine activities of women of varying ages. Younger women may be more likely to be out with friends at parties where rapes occur. so third parties may be more likely to know about and to report these rapes. Younger women may also be more likely to tell informal support sources such as parents. who then report to police (Konradi, 1996). Women were less likely than third panics to report physical assaults when they were married. Most of these physical assaults may be domestic violence incidents that third panics may witness or hear about and/or women may view these assaults as private matters, less serious crimes, or be more fearful of perpetrator retaliation.
+
+The present study's findings contrast with the popular assumption that rape reporting is unique. There arc three possible explanations for similarities in correlates of victim reporting of sexual and physical assaults. The first possibility is that rape reponing has never been different from physical assault reporting. However, except for Lixotte's (1985) study, no prior research compared reponing of sexual and physical assaults, so this is unknown.
+
+A second possibility is that rape reporting was in fact unique. but the extent to which it differed from physical assault reporting has decreased in recent years because of increased awareness of sexual violence against women. Rape law reforms and the emergence and growth of rape crisis centers in the 1970s and 1980s may have played a major role in bridging the gap between rape and physical assault reporting.
+
+Last. the present study found that 11.8% of the women (16.6% of rape victims. 8.7% of physical assault victims) were attacked by strangers, which was consistent with past data showing that women were less likely to be raped or injured by strangers than by men they knew (Bachman & Saltzman. 1995; Estrich, 1987; Russell & Bolen. 2000). The high number of intimate partner violence (IPV) victims captured in the NVAWS does not indicate that women were only attacked by intimate partners (in fact 13% were assaulted by acquaintances, 17.8% by boyfriends or dates, and 5.8% by relatives). However. the higher percentage of intimate partner assailants in this sample compared with other representative samples may have contributed to the nonsignificant differences in most correlates of victim reporting found between sexual and physical assaults. This possibility was evaluated further by splitting the entire sample into IPV (spouses or partners. relatives, or boyfriends or dates) and non-IPV (strangers or acquaintances) subsamples. Results obtained using the IPV-only subsample were analogous to those using the entire sample. whereas the non-IPV subsample showed a significant effect of offender physical force and a marginal effect of victim age at assault (p <.10) on reporting that differed by assault type. Specifically, older physical assault victims were more likely to report. whereas offender physical force led to more rape reporting. These findings support the idea that the lack of differences in correlates of victim reporting found between sexual and physical assaults in the entire sample may be because the NVAWS largely consists of IPV victims.
+
+The lack of significant differences found between rape and physical assault reporting does not imply that rape victims are equally willing to report any type of sexual assaults to police. On the contrary. analysis of the rape subsample showed that rape victims arc still more likely to report incidents constituting stereotypical or -real rapes" (Emrich. 1987) with strangers. physical force, weapons. and victim injury. These findings suggest that the general public and women still need to be informed that sexual assault is a violent crime, even if committed by nonstrangcrs. without weapons, physical force, or physical injury. Furthermore. training programs targeting criminal justice officials and other service providers are needed to ensure that every rape victim who reports is treated justly and with dignity, with the ultimate goal of increasing rape reporting.
+
+There are a few limitations that may have affected results of the present study. First, the NVAWS used random-digit dialing methods to select the sample, which excluded women without telephones and those who were homeless or institutionalized. In addition, in-person interviews may be better than telephone interviews for research involving sensitive topics such as sexual assault and WV (Crowell & Burgess. 1996). A few studies have shown that postassault psychological symptoms (Golding et al., 1989; Russell & Bolen, 2000) and receiving tangible aid from others (Ullman & Filipas, 2001) increased the likelihood of rape reporting. However, lack of postassault variables in the NVAWS precluded analyses of how these factors affected reporting in this study.
+
+Despite these limitations, this study was an important comparison of the reporting of these two types of assault in a nationally representative sample of women. The finding that there were few differences in correlates of rape and physical assault reporting is important because prior research has assumed that correlates of rape reporting arc unique. Although a couple of differences in correlates of reporting these two types of assaults were identified, future research is needed to replicate these findings. Furthermore, these findings suggest that more research is needed on these two types of assaults and the victim-offender relationship in which assaults occur, given that married victims were least likely to report all assaults. Rapes were half as likely as physical assaults to be reponed to police, and victims still based their reporting decisions on stereotypical conceptions of rape. Use of the NVAWS data in the present study was a strength over past studies, but a larger number of IPV victims in the sample may have precluded detection of differences in police reporting between sexual and physical assaults. Other representative sample studies not geared toward assessing WV arc needed to replicate these analyses to better understand police reporting by female victims of these two forms of assault. More heterogeneous samples of victims may reveal differences in police reporting of these two assaults, which could deepen our understanding and aid in the development of more appropriate strategies to encourage reporting.
+
+### Authors' Note
+
+This research was presented at the 2008 annual meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences in Cincinnati. Ohio.
+
+### Declaration of Conflicting Interests
+
+The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship andior publication of this article.
+
+#### Funding
+
+The authors declared no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.
+
+#### References
+
+Aickin. M.. & Gensler, H. (1996). Adjusting for multiple testing when reporting research results: The Bonferroni vs. Holm methods. American Journal of Public Health. 86.726-728. Bachman. R.(1993). Predicting the 'evening of rape victimization: Have rape reforms madc a difference? Criminal Justice and Behavior: 20. 254-270. Bachman. R. (1998). The factors related to rape reporting behavior and arrest: New evidence from the National Crime Victimization Survey. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 25. 8-29. Bachman. R.. & Saltzman. L. E. (1995). lloknce against stamen: Estimates from the redesigned survey (NCI 154348). Washington. DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Office ofJustice Programs. Baumer. E. P. (2002). Neighborhood disadvantage and police notification by victims of violence. Criminology: 40, 579-616.
+
+Balmier, E. P.. Filson. R. B.. & Messner. S. F. (2003). Changes in police notification for rape. 1973-2000. Criminology. 41.841-872. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2003). Reporting crane to the police. /992-2000 (NCJ 195710). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Amite, Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2007). Crtmmal victimization. 2006 (NCJ 219413). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Burt, M. R. (1991). Rape myths and acquaintance rape. In A. Parrot & L. Bechhofer (Eds.). Acquaintance nape: The hidden crime (pp. 2640). New York: John Wiley. Campbell. R. (2005). What really happened? A validation study of rape survivors' help seeking experiences with the legal and medical systems. Violence and Victims. 20, 55-68. Clay-Warner.1..@ Bun, C. H. (2005). Rape reporting after reforms: Have times really changed? Violence Against Women. 11.150-176. Conaway. M. R.. & Lehr. S. L. (1994).A longitudinal analysis of factors associated with reporting violent crimes to the police. Journal of Quantitative Criminology. 10.23-39. Crowell. N. A.. & Burgess. A. W (1996). Understanding violence against women. Washington. DC: National Academy Press. Du Mont. J.. Miller. K.-L.. & Myhr. T. L. (2003). The role of "real rape" and "real victim" stereotypes in the police reporting practices of sexually assaulted women. Violence Against Women. 9,466-486. Eigcnberg, N.M. (1990). TheNationalCrime Survey and rape: The case of the missing question. Justice Quarterly. 7,655-671. Estrich, S. (1987). Real rape. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Risen. R. B.. Messner. S. F.. & Hoskin. A. W. (1999). The victim-offender relationship and calling the police in assaults. Criminology. 37, 931-947. Filson- R. B.. Messner. S. F.. Hoskin. A. W.. & Deane. G. (2002). Reasons for reporting and not reporting domestic violence to the police. Criminology: 40, 617-647. &Ism R. B., & Part P.-P. (2005). The reporting of domestic violence and sexual assault by nonstrangers to the police. Journal of Marriage and Famibt 67. 597-610. Fisher. B. S., Daigle. L. E.. Cullen. F. T.. & Turner. M. G. (2003). Reporting sexual victimization to the police and others: Results from a national-level study of college women. Crtminal Justice and Behavior. 30.6-38. Frazier. P. A. (2003). Perceived control and distress following sexual assault: A longitudinal test of a new model. Journal of Personal try and Social Psythologv. 84, 1257-1269. Frazier. P. A.. & Haney, B. (1996). Sexual assault cases in the legal system: Police. prosecutor, and victim perspectives. Law and Human Behavior. 20.607-628. Fr:Amami, L. (1991). Discrediting victims' allegations of sexual assault: Prosecutorial accounts of case rejections. Soda! Problems. 38. 213-226. Golding. J. M.. Siegel. J. M., Sorenson. S. B.. Burnam, M. A.. & Stein, J. A. (1989). Social support sources following sexual assault. Journal of Communny Pmichologii 17, 92-107. Greenberg. M. S.. & Ruback, R. B. (1992). After the crime: Haim decision making. New York: Plenum Press. Jasinski, J. L. (2003). Police involvement in incidents of physical assault: Analysis of the redesigned National Crime Victimization Survey. Journal of Family Violence. /8, 143-150.
+
+Kerstetter. W A. (1990). Gateway to justice: Police and prosecutorial response to sexual assaults against women. Journal of Criminal Law and Crtminology. 81, 267-313. Kilpatrick. D. G.. Edmunds. C.. & Seymour. A. (1992). Rape in America:A report to the nation. Charleston. SC: National Victim Center & the Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center. Medical University of South Carolina. Konsadi. A. (1996). Understanding rape survivors' preparation for court: Accounting for the influence of legal knowledge, cultural stereotypes. personal efficacy, and prosecutor contact. Nolence Against Women. 2.25-62. Koss. M. P. (1992). The underdetection of rape: Methodological chokes influence incidence estimates. Journal of Social Issues. 48.61-75. Koss, M. P.. & Harvey. M. R. (1991). The rape victim: Clinical and community interventions (2nd ed.). Newbury Park. CA: Sage. LaFrce. G. D. (1989). Rape and criminal police: The social construction of sexual assault. Belmont. CA: Wadsworth. Littleton. H. L.. Axsom. D.. Breitkopf, C. R.. & Berman. A. (2006). Rape acknowledgment and postassault experiences: How acknowledgement status relates to disclosure. coping, worldview. and reactions received from others. Violence and liettms. 21.761-778. Lizette. A. J. (1985). The uniqueness of rape: Reponingassaultive violence to the police. Crime rind Delinquency. 31. 169-190. Lonsway. K. A.. & Fitzgerald. L. F. (1994). Rape myths: In review. Psychology of Women Quarterly. 18, 133-164. Martin. P. Y.. & Powell. R. M. (1994). Accounting for the "second assault": Legal organizations' framing of rape victims. Law and Social/nip:try. 19, 853-890. Muchlenhard. C. L.. Friedman• D. E.. & Thomas. C. M. (1985). Is date rape justifiable? Psychology of Women Quarterly. 9.297-309. Myers. M. A.. @ LaFree, G. D. (1982). Sexual assault and its prosecution: A comparison with other crimes. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 73. 1282-1305. Norris, J.. Nu:los, P. S.. & Dirndl; L. A. (1996). Through her eyes: Factors affecting women's perception of and resistance to acquaintance sexual aggression threat. Psychology of Women Quarterly. 20, 123-145. Pino. N. W., & Meier. R. F. (1999). Gender differences in rape reporting. Sex Roles. 40, 979-990. Rcsick. P. A...& Nishith. P. (1997). Sexual assault. In R. C. Davis. A. J. Lurigio. & W. G. Skogan (Eds.). Nairn: of crime (2nd ed.. pp. 27-52). Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage. Rothbatun, B. O., Foa. E. B.. Riggs. D. S., Murdock. T.. & Walsh, W. (1992). A prospective examination of post-traumatic stress disorder in rape victims. Journal of Thaumatic Street 5. 455-475. Ruback, R. B., @ Manard. K. S. (2001). Rural-urban differences in sexual victimization and reporting: Analyses using UCR and crisis center data. Criminal Justice and Behavior: 28, 131-155. Russell, D. E. H., & Bolen. R. M. (2000). The epidemic of rape and child sexual abuse in the United States. Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage. Sellin. T. J.. @ Wolfgang. M. E. (1964). The measurement of delinquency. New York: Wiley.
+
+Shapland. J.. Willmore.1.. & Duff. P. (1985). Victims in the criminal justice system. Aldershot, UK: Gower. Singer. S. 1. (1988). The fear of reprisal and the failure of victims to report a personal crime. Journal of Quantitative Criminology. 4.289-302. Straus. M. A. (1990). Measuring inn family conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics (CS) Scales. In M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American families: Risk factory and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families (pp. 29-47). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishing. Tjaden. P.. & Thocnnes. N. (1998a). Prevalence. incidence. and consequences of violence against women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Research in brief(NO-172837). Washington. DC: U.S. Department ofJustice• National Insiitute oflustice. Tjadert, P. & Thoennes, N. (1998b). Stalking in America: Findings front the National Violence Against Women Surve) Research in brief(NCJ-169592). Washington. DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute ofJustice. Tjaden, P.. & Thoennes. N. (1999). Violence and threats of violence against women and men in the United States. 1994-1996 (Computer file] (ICPSR version). Denver. CO: Center for Policy Research (producer). 1998. Ann Arbor. MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research (distributor). 1999. Ullman. S. E.. @ Filipas. H. H. (2001). Correlates of formal and informal support seeking in sexual assault victims. Journal ofinterpersonal Violence. 16. 1028-1047. Waller. I. (1990). The police: First in aid? In A. J. Lurigio. W. G. Skogan. & R. C. Davis (Eds.), Victims of crime: Problems, policies. and programs (pp. 139-156). Newbury Park. CA: Sage. Webb. V. J.. & Marshall. I. H. (1989). Response to criminal victimization by older Americans. Criminal Justice and Behavior. 16,239-259. Williams. L. S. (1984). The classic rape: When do victims report? Social Problems. 31.459-467. Wyatt.G. E. (1992).The sociocultural context of African American and WhiteAmerican women's rape. Journal of Social Issues. 48.77-91.
+
+#### Bios
+
+Tilton Chen received an LLM in international legal studies at the Washington College of Law of the American University in 2009. She was a postdoctoral researcher at the Social Science Research Center at the National Science Council in Taiwan and a part-time lead researcher at Taipei Women's Rescue Foundation. She received a PhD in criminal justice at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Her research interests include rape victims' decision-making and help-seeking behavior, the criminal justice system's responses to and treatment of rape victims, and trafficking in women and children.
+
+Sarah E. Unman is a professor of criminology, law, and justice at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Shc received a PhD in social psychology at Brandeis University and completed postdoctoral training in health psychology at University of California. Los Angeles. Her research interests concern the impact of sexual assault and traumatic life events on women's health and substance abuse outcomes. cognitive and behavioral factors associated with recovery from trauma and situational and behavioral correlates of rape avoidance.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156736/EFTA00156736.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156736/EFTA00156736.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f805fa3bd5cd2d3ac2d5706c6aa7c2794238ee1d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156736/EFTA00156736.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,1242 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00156736.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 18,
+ "chars": 58111,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 8.15,
+ "image_assets": [
+ "_page_0_Picture_9.jpeg"
+ ],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "Women's Reporting of \nSexual and Physical \nAssaults to Police in the \nNational Violence Against \nWomen Survey",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 126.14000000000001,
+ 127.98000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 296.2759246826172,
+ 127.98000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 296.2759246826172,
+ 211.30001831054688
+ ],
+ [
+ 126.14000000000001,
+ 211.30001831054688
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Abstract",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 126.14000000000001,
+ 279.45
+ ],
+ [
+ 165.6078643798828,
+ 279.45
+ ],
+ [
+ 165.6078643798828,
+ 291.24945068359375
+ ],
+ [
+ 126.14000000000001,
+ 291.24945068359375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Keywords",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 126.14000000000001,
+ 383.93999999999994
+ ],
+ [
+ 168.92083740234375,
+ 383.93999999999994
+ ],
+ [
+ 168.92083740234375,
+ 396.24945068359375
+ ],
+ [
+ 126.14000000000001,
+ 396.24945068359375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Corresponding Author:",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 126.14000000000001,
+ 555.6600000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 206.09515380859375,
+ 555.6600000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 206.09515380859375,
+ 566.4994354248047
+ ],
+ [
+ 126.14000000000001,
+ 566.4994354248047
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Correlates of Rape Reporting",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 129.115,
+ 422.82
+ ],
+ [
+ 275.85516357421875,
+ 422.82
+ ],
+ [
+ 275.85516357421875,
+ 435.99945068359375
+ ],
+ [
+ 129.115,
+ 435.99945068359375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Correlates of Physical Assault Reporting",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 126.735,
+ 290.78999999999996
+ ],
+ [
+ 324.69386291503906,
+ 290.78999999999996
+ ],
+ [
+ 324.69386291503906,
+ 304.5840759277344
+ ],
+ [
+ 126.735,
+ 304.5840759277344
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Comparing Sexual and Physical Assault Reporting",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 129.71,
+ 168.48
+ ],
+ [
+ 372.67047119140625,
+ 168.48
+ ],
+ [
+ 372.67047119140625,
+ 181.5841064453125
+ ],
+ [
+ 129.71,
+ 181.5841064453125
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Present Study",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 129.71,
+ 362.07
+ ],
+ [
+ 202.09896850585938,
+ 362.07
+ ],
+ [
+ 202.09896850585938,
+ 375.8340759277344
+ ],
+ [
+ 129.71,
+ 375.8340759277344
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Method",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 129.71,
+ 524.88
+ ],
+ [
+ 172.28514099121094,
+ 524.88
+ ],
+ [
+ 172.28514099121094,
+ 538.5840759277344
+ ],
+ [
+ 129.71,
+ 538.5840759277344
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Sample",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 129.71,
+ 540.27
+ ],
+ [
+ 163.895751953125,
+ 540.27
+ ],
+ [
+ 163.895751953125,
+ 553.5840759277344
+ ],
+ [
+ 129.71,
+ 553.5840759277344
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Measures",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 126.735,
+ 475.4699999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 169.75298309326172,
+ 475.4699999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 169.75298309326172,
+ 487.7494354248047
+ ],
+ [
+ 126.735,
+ 487.7494354248047
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Results",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 129.71,
+ 464.12999999999994
+ ],
+ [
+ 169.4927520751953,
+ 464.12999999999994
+ ],
+ [
+ 169.4927520751953,
+ 478.0670471191406
+ ],
+ [
+ 129.71,
+ 478.0670471191406
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Sample Characteristics",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 129.71,
+ 478.71
+ ],
+ [
+ 221.4090576171875,
+ 478.71
+ ],
+ [
+ 221.4090576171875,
+ 491.4994354248047
+ ],
+ [
+ 129.71,
+ 491.4994354248047
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Bivariate Comparisons of Sexual and Physical Assault",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 128.52,
+ 392.04
+ ],
+ [
+ 336.8445739746094,
+ 392.04
+ ],
+ [
+ 336.8445739746094,
+ 406.46759033203125
+ ],
+ [
+ 128.52,
+ 406.46759033203125
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Multivoriate Analyses of Police Reporting",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 8,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 126.14000000000001,
+ 474.65999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 287.27366638183594,
+ 474.65999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 287.27366638183594,
+ 488.59458923339844
+ ],
+ [
+ 126.14000000000001,
+ 488.59458923339844
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Discussion",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 129.115,
+ 433.35
+ ],
+ [
+ 185.5366668701172,
+ 433.35
+ ],
+ [
+ 185.5366668701172,
+ 447.3170471191406
+ ],
+ [
+ 129.115,
+ 447.3170471191406
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Authors' Note",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 14,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 126.14000000000001,
+ 322.38
+ ],
+ [
+ 190.44515991210938,
+ 322.38
+ ],
+ [
+ 190.44515991210938,
+ 335.49945068359375
+ ],
+ [
+ 126.14000000000001,
+ 335.49945068359375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Declaration of Conflicting Interests",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 14,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 126.14000000000001,
+ 363.69
+ ],
+ [
+ 272.3392791748047,
+ 363.69
+ ],
+ [
+ 272.3392791748047,
+ 376.74945068359375
+ ],
+ [
+ 126.14000000000001,
+ 376.74945068359375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Funding",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 14,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 126.14000000000001,
+ 405.0
+ ],
+ [
+ 164.8814697265625,
+ 405.0
+ ],
+ [
+ 164.8814697265625,
+ 417.24945068359375
+ ],
+ [
+ 126.14000000000001,
+ 417.24945068359375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "References",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 14,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 126.14000000000001,
+ 435.7800000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 175.72197723388672,
+ 435.7800000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 175.72197723388672,
+ 447.99945068359375
+ ],
+ [
+ 126.14000000000001,
+ 447.99945068359375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Bios",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 17,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 128.52,
+ 416.34000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 151.88340759277344,
+ 416.34000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 151.88340759277344,
+ 427.6329650878906
+ ],
+ [
+ 128.52,
+ 427.6329650878906
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 87
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 44
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 88
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 47
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 91
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 47
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 81
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 42
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 87
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 46
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 87
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 45
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "Caption",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "TableGroup",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 96
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 45
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Caption",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "TableGroup",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 8,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 88
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 45
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Caption",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "TableGroup",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 9,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 101
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 48
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Caption",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "TableGroup",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 131
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 60
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Caption",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "TableGroup",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 85
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 46
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 12,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 90
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 48
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 13,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 92
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 48
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 14,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 81
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 43
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 15,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 129
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 48
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 16,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 94
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 48
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 17,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 90
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 46
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00156736"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156736/_page_0_Picture_9.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156736/_page_0_Picture_9.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f03ffb2522e4ea60980a887ce2f0181bad7df356
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156736/_page_0_Picture_9.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:e06a30a8139b3c4ddccb0dbcb2eab19ec66810ab861e95a2c1b50c3364e7787c
+size 1601
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156754/EFTA00156754.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156754/EFTA00156754.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..35a5775efb75dac00e5114a8574a125feaeaa79f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156754/EFTA00156754.md
@@ -0,0 +1,242 @@
+# The Construct of Grooming in Child Sexual Abuse: Conceptual and Measurement Issues
+
+NATALIE BENNETT and WILLIAM O'DONOHUE
+
+unktersay of Nevada, Reno, Reno, ,Veividn, 1114
+
+There have been claims that some child molesters engage in a "seduction stage" prior to committing abuse. These behaviors, commonly known as 'grooming," are understood as methods child molesters use to gain access to andprep arefiaure victims to be compliant with abuse. However, there is a lack of consensus regarding exactly what this process entails and how it is clearly distinguished from normal adult-child interactions. It is important to devise an accurate definition of grooming for scientific, clinical, and forensic purposes. We critically evaluate the various definitions and reveal problematic heterogeneity. Furthermore, there are no methods of known psychometrics to validly assess grooming. We review the empirical literature regarding the occurrence of grooming and propose future directions for research.
+
+KEYWORDS grooming, child sexual abuse, measurement
+
+Understanding the process of child sexual abuse (CSA) is important for both its prevention and treatment. Some clinicians and researchers (e.g., Budin & Johnson, 1989; Burgess & Holmstrom, 1980; Conte, Wolf, & Smith, 1989; Elliott, Browne, & Kilcoyne, 1995) agree that a type of seduction stage, commonly called "grooming" but also variously known as "entrapment; "engagement," or "subjection" often precedes the actual sexual abuse. Offenders have admitted that they use techniques such as identifying a particularly vulnerable child, gift giving, and sexual desensitization to prepare the child for the abuse (Seto, 2008).
+
+Understanding grooming has both important clinical and legal implications. First, it is passible that if professionals were able to identify grooming
+
+Received 23 May 2013; revised 28 January 2014; accepted 10 April 2014.
+
+Address correspondence to William O'Donohue, Department of Psychology, University of Nevada, Reno, Abil Stop 298, Reno, NV 89557. E-mail: moratintedu
+
+before abuse has actually taken place the abuse may be prevented. Second, in a forensic context, sexual abuse allegations might be partially substantiated when it is established that grooming did indeed occur. However, without a clear grooming definition and a valid way of measuring grooming, this judgment that a behavior constitutes grooming becomes problematic. For example, a recently convicted sex offender in las Vegas, Nevada, is seeking to appeal his conviction on the grounds that the testimony provided by a psychologist regarding his grooming behavior is unreliable (Mower, 2012). His defense attorney claimed that "(Grooming' is not a proven science. It's a behavioral thing. .. . How can you tell that this was in the mind of this guy?"
+
+There have been attempts to criminalize grooming in several countries. In the United States, a federal law (18 USC S 2252A(aX6)) has made it illegal and thus adds years onto a sentence for people who knowingly offer child pornography to a minor to persuade the minor to participate in an illegal activity such as adult-child sexual contact (18 USC 5 2252A, certain activities relating to material constituting or containing child pornography). In the United Kingdom, Section 15 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 has covered "the behavior of an offender who meets, or seeks to meet, a child with the intention of committing a sexual assault, if he has met or communicated with that child on at least two earlier occasions" (McAlinden, 2006, p. 342). However, as Gillespie (2004) noted, definitional problems with the construct of grooming limit the use of this law, as grooming is "a transient feature that is difficult to capture and virtually impossible to decide when it begins and ends" (p. 586). McAlinden also described another law designed to criminalize grooming in the UK:
+
+Sections 123-9 introduce the risk of sexual harm order—a new civil preventative order which can be used to prohibit specified behaviours, including the 'grooming' of children. . . . This order effectively criminalizes acts which may be carried out for the purposes of sexual grooming, but only after an individual had been identified as pacing a risk to children. (p. 342)
+
+O'Callaghan (2011) described that in Wales a man pled guilty and was sentenced to a year in prison for one count of meeting a child following sexual grooming that consisted of inappropriate communication via Facebook. In addition, Vance (2012) described a proposed law in New Zealand that provides a sentence of three years in prison for anyone who participates in online "indecent communication with anyone under 16." This law is aimed at sexual offenders who use Internet chatrooms or other social media websites to find victims.
+
+It is evident that these legal definitions of grooming are both varied and limited. The sorts of activities that these laws target do not actually
+
+capture the notion of grooming because these already involve illegal and abusive contract with a child. Grooming is generally regarded as prior activities intended to prepare the child for abuse, not actual illegal or abusive activities themselves. Thus, legitimate questions can be raised about whether showing a child pornography ought not to be regarded as grooming because it constitutes abuse itself. Clarifying a definition of grooming can thus make these laws applicable to many more behaviors that are used by offenders intending to sexually abuse children.
+
+It is important to note that clarifying key constructs is a difficult yet important process. The prominent philosopher of science Larry Laudan (1977) suggested that science has both empirical and conceptual problems and that scientific progress is made when either type of problem is addressed. Conceptual analysis is particularly difficult as it is traditionally not included as a part of the research method in the social sciences and also because it involves the inherent complexity of language (O'Donohue, 2013). Here, conceptual analysis of the grooming construct is necessary in the research process, as it is a salient example where the complexity of language contributes to definitional confusion and leads to problematic implications in clinical and forensic fields.
+
+The aim of this paper is to highlight the need for a clearer definition of the grooming construct that may be applied to both clinical and forensic work. The courts are currently unable to take much legal action against grooming as it is not well understood and clearly demarcated. Furthermore, psychologists are currently using clinical judgment to determine whether an alleged perpetrator's behaviors are considered grooming. The reliability and validity of these judgments are largely unknown, leaving concerns of unacceptable rates of false positives and false negatives. An additional aim is to review the empirical literature regarding what is known about the occurrence of grooming so that a clear definition can be constructed. With a clearer definition of grooming, a more scientific assessment of such behavior can he established. This article proposes future directions for research, including validation of the proposed definition and development of an assessment device.
+
+## CURRENT DEFINITIONS
+
+The three tables presented here list various definitions of the construct of "grooming- currently found in the literature. Table I provides various general definitions of the term, Table 2 provides subcategories of grooming that some authors have proposed, and Table 3 provides stages of grooming that several authors have suggested.
+
+Thus there is a wide variability that exists in defining sexual grooming as well as possible subtypes or stages of grooming. Although many of the
+
+**TABLE 1** General Definitions of Grooming
+
+| Author(s) | Definition of Grooming (taken directly from reference) |
+|-------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
+| Sgroi (1982) | "How does [the perpetrator] get the child to participate in some type of sexual behavior? Usually in a low-key, nonforcible fashion, possibly by presenting the activity as a game or something that is 'special' and fun. This always entails misrepresentation of moral standards, either verbally or implicitly. . . . Perhaps rewards or bribes will be offered." |
+| Salter (1995) | "The establishment (and eventual betrayal) of affection and trust occupies a central role in the child molester's interactions with children. The grooming process itself often seems similar from offender to offender, largely because it takes little to discover that emotional seduction is the most effective way to manipulate children." |
+| Howitt (1995) | "The steps taken by paedophiles to 'entrap' their victims and is in some ways analogous to adult courtship." |
+| Leberg (1997) | "The offender plans to make the victim less likely to resist, to make others unaware of what he is doing, or even to make them likely to help him, without their knowledge, to molest a child." |
+| Gallagher (1999) | "Entrapment involves the use of an array of material, illicit and emotional 'inducements' to draw children into abusive situations and increases their difficulty in disclosing." |
+| Brackenridge (2001) | "The process by which a perpetrator isolates and prepares an intended victim." |
+| Gillespie (2002) | "The process by which a child is befriended by a would-be abuser in an attempt to gain the child's confidence and trust, enabling them to get the child to acquiesce to abusive activity. It is frequently a pre-requisite for an abuser to gain access to a child." |
+| Berson (2003) | "Grooming involves a clever process of manipulation, typically initiated through a nonsexual approach, which is designed to entice a victim into a sexual encounter (Brown, 2001). The inhibitions of a child are lowered through active engagement, desensitization, power and control. It is often characterized as a seduction, involving a slow and gradual process of learning about a child and building trust. This also contributes to the difficulty in detecting the activity. Grooming is also a deceptive process in which a child is unprepared to interpret cues which signal danger of risk. Predators are skilled at gaining the trust of a child before luring them into interactions. The process of grooming through the formation of a close bond creates a victim who is more likely to comply with sexual advances." |
+| O'Connell (2003) | "A course of conduct enacted by a suspected paedophile, which would give a reasonable person cause for concern that any meeting with a child arising from the conduct would be for unlawful purposes." |
+| Spiegel (2003) | "Subjection is the process of predisposing a boy to sexual abuse by means of subtle or blatant interactions that lead to boundary diffusion and role confusion." |
+| Craven, Brown, and Gilchrist (2006) | "A process by which a person prepares a child, significant adults and the environment for the abuse of this child. Specific goals include gaining access to the child, gaining the child's compliance and maintaining the child's secrecy to avoid disclosure. This process serves to strengthen the offender's abusive pattern, as it may be used as a means of justifying or denying their actions." |
+| Knoll (2010) | "The process by which sex offenders carefully initiate and maintain sexually abusive relationships with children. Grooming is a conscious, deliberate, and carefully orchestrated approach used by the offender. The goal of grooming is to permit a sexual encounter and keep it a secret." |
+
+TABLE 2 Proposed Subtypes of Grooming
+
+| Author | Types of Grooming |
+|-------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
+| Leberg (1997) | I. Physically grooming the victim |
+| Craven, Brown, and Gilchrist (2006) | I. Self-grooming |
+| McAlinclen (2006) | I. Personal |
+| Wyre (1987)as discussed in Howitt | I. Extrafamilial |
+| (1995) | 2. Intrafamilial |
+
+definitions share some key similarities, many behaviors may he classified as grooming under some definitions but not under others. Some of these similarities in definition include the criterion of preparing a child for abuse (Brackenridge, 2001; Craven, Brown, & Gilchrist, 2006; Gallagher, 1999), gaining a child's trust (Berson, 2003; Craven et al., 2006; Gillespie, 2002; Salter, 1995), making it more difficult to the child to resist or disclose the abuse (Berson, 2003; Craven et al., 2006; Gallagher, 1999; Gillespie, 2002; Knoll, 2010; Leberg, 1997), and the enumeration of specific tactics used to groom the child (Berson, 2003; Gallagher, 1999; Sgroi, 1982).
+
+Furthermore, a variety of different kinds of definitional features are proposed. For example, one definition mentions "betrayal" (Salter, 1995) while another references "courtship" (Howitt, 1995). Some proposed definitions give concrete examples of grooming (Gallagher, 1999; Sgroi, 1982), while others try to give abstract properties to capture what the authors take to he the essential properties of grooming (O'Connell, 2003; Spiegel, 2003). Some definitions are fairly brief and more vague (Brackenridge, 2001; Howitt, 1995; Spiegel, 2003), whereas others are much longer and more detailed about what grooming looks like (Berson, 2003; Craven et al., 2006; Sgroi, 1982). Obviously this heterogeneity presents serious challenges for forensic and clinical work.
+
+Some of these definitions involve additional difficulties in that the terms used to define grooming present additional serious definitional problems themselves. For example, Salter (1995) used the phrase "emotional seduction" in her grooming definition. This requires further delineation of what exactly emotional seduction entails as well as a measurement strategy to validly capture this alleged dimension. As another example, Spiegel's (2003) definition involves constructs such as "boundary diffusion" and "role confusion." These constructs are not part of the standard scientific lexicon and thus create further impediments to enhancing our scientific understanding of the grooming process. Finally, some definitions propose stages of grooming,
+
+**TABLE 3** Proposed Stages of Grooming
+
+| Author | Stages of Grooming |
+|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
+| van Dam (2001) | 1. Identify vulnerable child
2. Engage that child in peerlike environment
3. Desensitize the child to touch
4. Isolate the child
5. Make the child feel responsible |
+| Brackenridge (2001)
Applies to grooming in sport. | 1. Targeting a potential victim
2. Building trust and friendship
3. Developing isolation and control, building loyalty
4. Initiation of sexual abuse and securing secrecy |
+| Wyre (1987) as discussed in
Howitt (1995) | Applies to extrafamilial grooming:
1. The offender masturbates and fantasizes about future contacts, a boy is befriended while an effort is made to earn his parents' trust, outings are common to achieve intimacy
2. The offender finds out about the boy's home/school problems—a "counseling" role is created
3. Physical contact of a nonsexual sort begins, offender's masturbation and fantasy continue, sexual touches begin and gradually increase in severity
Applies to intrafamilial grooming:
1. Tickling the child
2. Bathing
3. The offender's sexual arousal and fantasy
4. The child going to the offender's bed
5. The offender knows the child likes being tickled
6. "Sex education"
7. Tickling reaches child's sexual parts
8. Offender masturbates the child's genitals
9. The child is trapped into silence
10. Sexual contact is increased
11. Offenders cognitive distortions increase
12. Becomes difficult to end sexual contact
13. Offending behavior reinforced through masturbation to fantasies |
+| Christiansen and Blake (1990)
Applies to father-daughter grooming. | 1. Trust
2. Favoritism
3. Alienation
4. Secrecy
5. Boundary violations |
+| O'Connell (2003)
Applies to online grooming. | 1. Friendship-forming
2. Relationship-forming
3. Risk assessment
4. Exclusivity
5. Sexual |
+
+which makes the definitional and measurement process even more complex as each of these stages must be delineated and validly measured, and this must be done with the proposed sequencing as well. For example, Wyre's (1987) proposed stages for intrafamilial abuse involved 13 separate steps, the first 10 of which according to the author an be identified as grooming behaviors. As Howitt (1995) pointed out, this account of the abuse cycle makes it "appear a relatively short-term and repetitive process" (p. 85), which certainly is not representative of all cases of child sexual abuse.
+
+#### GROOMING AS A DEVIANT PROCESS
+
+Part of the difficulty in identifying and clarifying a useful definition of grooming is the fact that many behaviors used by perpetrators appear quite similar to behaviors seen in normal adult-child relationships. Buying gifts for children or taking them on private outings obviously are not always precursors to sexual abuse. Using the male sports world as an example, Hartill (2009) wrote that "in preparing for the abuse, the perpetrator is able to use such 'disinhibiting' techniques through drawing on practices and discourses that are, to varying degrees, a normative feature within many, if not all, male sports contexts" (p. 239). Obviously part of the reason for this similarity to normative behavior is that the potential abuser does not want to be detected and thus wants to disguise what he is setting out to accomplish. In addition, it must he recognized that not all sexual offenders use grooming techniques. Grail, Hobson, and Gary (1982) differentiated between "child molesters" and "child rapists." Part of this distinction for these authors stems from their observation that child molesters use a grooming process on their victims, whereas child rapists do not, as their assaults occur suddenly. These authors also pointed out that child molesters are much more common than child rapists. Alternatively, some authors seem to construe grooming behaviors as mirroring behaviors seen in dating relationships between two consenting adults. For example, Herman (1981) wrote that sexually abusive fathers make an attempt to "court" their daughters by giving them flowers or presents (e.g., expensive jewelry or lingerie).
+
+## THE PREVALENCE OF GROOMING
+
+Because the definition of grooming varies from study to study, currently there is no way to know precisely how prevalent grooming is because each study employs some variant of the definition. Nevertheless, there have been several empirical studies conducted with child molesters to determine what specific methods they frequently use to choose their victims, initiate the abuse, and keep their victims from disclosing. Other researchers have chosen to focus
+
+on the victims and ask them what techniques their abusers used prior to the abuse. It is important to note that in this article, examples of grooming with different genders of perpetrator and genders of victim are not readily distinguished. This is primarily due to the fact that the grooming literature reviewed did not always provide statistics about which grooming behaviors were used on boys versus girls. In addition, most of the grooming literature reviewed discussed male offenders.
+
+## Identifying Potential Victims
+
+Elliott and colleagues (1995) interviewed 91 child sex offenders about the strategies they used when committing their offenses. They found that 33% of the offenders explicitly worked on becoming welcome in the child's home and 18% offered incentives or threatened their victims to recruit other children and then gave bribes to the recruits.
+
+Conte, Wolf, and Smith (1989) interviewed 26 offenders about their crimes. They found that offenders often admitted to being able to identify what they considered a vulnerable child—often one who was "needy" and seemed "quiet." For example, one offender stated that his tactic was to look for a kid who is easy to manipulate. They will go along with anything you say. I would approach them by being friendly, letting them think I was someone they could confide in and talk to" (Conte et al., 1989, p. 298).
+
+In her review of literature about sexual abuse involving teachers, Shakeshaft (2004) noted that selection of a victim is "influenced by the compliance of the student and the likelihood of secrecy" (p. 32). Teachers usually look to victimize students whom they have control over. Shakeshaft also identified factors that make a child vulnerable to educator sexual abuse, such as problems at home with parents, lack of confidence, and participation in other risky behavior. However, it also must he remembei ad that nonoffending adults could see the same needs in these vulnerable children and want to help them in legitimate ways. Thus the child's vulnerability and needs cannot he a sufficient condition for defining grooming.
+
+## The Use of Attention, Bribery, and Coercion
+
+Elliott and colleagues (1995) found that 53% of the offenders in their sample offered to play games, teach a sport, or teach how to play a musical instrument. Forty-six percent gave bribes, took the child for an outing, or drove the child home. Thirty percent admitted to using affection and love to gain the child's trust. Forty-six percent of the offenders used gifts as bribes in exchange for sexual favors.
+
+The offenders interviewed by Conte and colleagues (1989) also claimed they used bribery and coercive strategies prior to sexual contact. For example, one sex offender stated that his specific methods included "play,
+
+talking, giving special attention, trying to get the child to initiate contact with me. Get the child to feel safe to talk with me" (p. 297).
+
+In his literature review on teacher sexual misconduct, Knoll (2010) found that educator sexual offenders tend to use bribery by giving their students special attention or rewards. According to Knoll, "the power of such rewards to affect the student should not be underestimated. Rewards from a teacher may have a crucial impact on the student's motivation and cognitions" (p. 376).
+
+Budin and Johnson (1989) interviewed 72 sex offenders about methods they used to gain access to and abuse their victims. When asked what they did to gain their victims' trust, the majority of offenders admitted to acting like the child's friend and playing games with them. Other strategies included giving money, toys, candy, cigarettes, beer, or drugs to the child.
+
+In his study of institutional sexual abuse, Gallagher (2000) looked at a sample of 65 substantiated cases of abuse. He found that grooming, or 'entrapment," which he defined as "the process by which perpetrators draw children into abusive situations and make it difficult for them to disclose" (p. 810) was reported in 35% of cases. In these cases, he found that 39% of perpetrators took the child away from the institution (thus isolating the child), 22% gave the child extra attention, 22% gave money to the child, 9% provided the child with illicit goods, and 4% provided the child with games or toys.
+
+In their interviews with 23 CSA victims, Berliner and Conte (1990) found that many children shared similar experiences with bribery and coercion prior to their abuse. Sixty-one percent of children reported that their abusers made excuses to spend time alone with them; 61% indicated that they were told that they were special, different, or the only one who understood the abuser; 61% said that their abuser treated them as an adult or he acted as a child toward them; 57% reported that their abusers gave them special privileges that made them feel obligated to be compliant in the abuse; 39% indicated that their abuser shared private information about spouses with them; 39% reported that their abuser prevented them from having friends or doing activities that other children do; and 30% reported that their abuser treated them "meaner" than other children.
+
+Shakeshaft (2004) wrote that in educator sexual abuse, teachers usually "coerce- their student victims by providing additional help (e.g., advisement on a project or taking on an outing) that not only allows for time alone with the victim but are also activities for which the victim's parents tend to be grateful to the teacher. Furthermore, she pointed out that because these acts do not yet constitute recognizable sexual abuse and because they share similarities with legitimate activities, any complaint about these activities cannot lead to much disciplinary action.
+
+Christiansen and Blake (1990) discussed that in father—daughter incest, most fathers purposely build a trusting relationship with their daughters prior to beginning any sexual abuse. However, this is a somewhat flawed analysis, as there ought to be a trusting relationship in all father-daughter relationships, at least prior to any abuse. Seventy-three percent of perpetrating fathers viewed this trust as crucial to the sexual relationship to reduce the risk of the daughter disclosing the abuse (Warner-Kearney, 1987, as cited in Christiansen & Blake, 1990). Many fathers also show clear signs of favoritism toward their victimized daughter relative to their other children. Burgess and Holmstrom (1980) wrote that molesters tend to use three types of pressure to make their victims compliant: material goods, misrepresentation of moral standards, and the need for human contact. They noted that material goods are the most frequent tool that offenders use.
+
+One difference has been found between genders of the victim in this emotional coercion type of grooming. Spiegel (2003) noted that in male victims, emotional coercion can take on a negative tone. For example, perpetrators may use name-calling words such as "fag" or "whore" to put the male child down and make him feel ashamed and thus less likely to disclose the abuse.
+
+#### Sexual Desensitization
+
+Elliott and colleagues (1995) found that of those offenders who used babysitting as a strategy to gain access to their victims, 27% started talking to the child about sex, 21% misrepresented the abuse as educational or loving (which again may not he part of grooming because some of this would be postahuse), and 20% offered to bathe or clothe the child. Furthermore, these authors found that 40% of all offenders said the first move they made was sexual touching or genital kissing. Thirty-two percent of the offenders asked the child for help with undressing or lying down. Forty-four percent of the offenders used coercion and persuasion, 49% talked about sex with the child, and 47% used "accidental" touch. Sixty-one percent of the offenders would stop the abuse if the child became resistant and then persuaded the child to let them begin again. Many offenders committed the abusive acts in their own homes, where 33% used pornographic videos and magazines to desensitize the child.
+
+Conte and colleagues (1989) found that sexual desensitization was commonly used among the offenders in their sample. For example, one offender stated,
+
+Most of the time I would start by giving them a rub down. When I got them aroused, I would take the chance and place my hand on their penis to masturbate them. If they would not object, I would take this to mean it was OK. I would isolate them. I might spend the night with them. Physical isolation, closeness, contact are more important than verbal seduction. (p. 297)
+
+Knoll (2010) found that while a teacher is using bribery to gain the trust of a victim, typically conversation about sexual matters with the student is also starting to emerge. Physical contact is then gradually increased. Furthermore, Gallagher (2000) found that in cases where "entrapment" behaviors were reported, 43% of perpetrators initiated physical contact with the child and 17% behaved in a sexual manner with the child.
+
+Furthermore, differences between genders of the victim have also been noted in the sexual desensitization type of grooming. Spiegel (2003) noted that the use of pornography to sexually desensitize children is more common with male victims than with female victims.
+
+## Boundary Violations
+
+Berliner and Conte (1990) found that 70% of children reported that their abusers "accidentally" came into their bedroom or bathroom while they were undressing; 61% indicated that their abusers "accidentally" touched their private parts; 61% said that their abusers did not respect their privacy or let them close doors; 61% reported that their abusers "accidentally" showed their naked body to them; 57% indicated that their abusers would purposely do things with the child that involved physical contact; 48% said that their abusers made sexual comments about the child's body or clothing; 44% reported that their abusers asked them to do things that involved physical contact; 30% said that their abusers would inspect the child's body "to see how it was developing"; 30% indicated that their abusers "taught sex education" by showing pornographic pictures and touching the child's body; 26% reported that their abusers told the child about sexual things he had previously done; and 22% indicated that their abusers put lotion or ointment on the child when they were alone but said he was doing nothing wrong.
+
+According to Christiansen and Blake's (1990) stages of grooming in father—daughter incest, the last step involves the father violating his daughter's boundaries. In particular, Fathers may insist on bathing their daughters and do not allow other family members to do this. These baths frequently involve inappropriate sexual behavior. Fathers also insist on dressing their daughters or on watching them get dressed. In addition, fathers will tend to watch the child use the bathroom. Finally, perpetrating fathers will have sexually explicit conversations with the daughter to further desensitize them.
+
+## Grooming the Child's Environment
+
+Elliott and colleagues (1995) found that 20% of the offenders in their sample admitted they gained the trust of the child's family with the purpose of abusing the child. Forty-eight percent isolated their victims through babysitting. Furthermore, Knoll (2010) found that a teacher can also manipulate the relationship with her victim's parents to gain their approval of spending time with their child.
+
+Van Dam (2001) pointed out that many child molesters spend years gaining the trust of members in the community before actually sexually abusing any children. She hypothesized that these offenders use several social psychological techniques to groom the community effectively. As an example, they may use "foot-in-the-door technique" by showing up uninvited to a child's birthday party and spending time playing games with the children. The parents would feel uncomfortable asking this person to leave and have thus subtly cooperated with the offender. From then on it would be easier for the offender to gain cooperation from the parents on spending time with the children. Offenders can also use conformity against these parents—it would go against social norms and be rude to ask a person to leave a party when the children are enjoying spending time with an offender. In addition, cognitive dissonance can play a role as the parents will try to make their beliefs about the offender consistent with their actions of letting their children around him or her (they will believe that they think he or she is a good person). Finally, confirmation bias can also play a role as the parents will tend to only accept information that is confirming their existing beliefs about the offender.
+
+## Commonalities
+
+The two major commonalities in the definitions reviewed as well as the empirical studies of grooming are (a) some sort of inappropriate behavior on the part of the prospective abuser (whether it is a bribe, boundary violation, invasion of privacy, misstatement of morality, mischaracterizing an interaction as a "game," isolation, emotional manipulation, etc.) and (b) the function of this inappropriate behavior is to increase the likelihood that the adult can sexually abuse the child (by, for example, gaining access to them, gaining their trust, silencing them, isolating them, desensitizing them to nudity or sex, etc.). Each component of the definition may have different topographies in individual cases (e.g., sometimes the inappropriate behavior is removing a door to the child's bedroom, or sometimes it may be buying the child a bikini), but the function of the behavior is to increase the likelihood of future abusive contact.
+
+#### A PROPOSED DEFINITION
+
+Any definition ought to use the empirical findings reviewed previously about common strategies used by sexual molesters. In addition, we believe that the most useful definition of grooming would attempt to instantiate the following definitional meta-criteria:
+
+- I. Minimize False negatives. Thus, we wanted the definition to he sensitive to all occurrences of grooming.
+- 2. Minimize false positives. Thus we also wanted the definition at the same time to be specific and not overinclusive (including perfectly appropriate behaviors as invalid examples of grooming).
+- 3. Be capable of providing the basis for a valid assessment procedure.
+- 4. Not include constructs that in themselves bring about fiwther definitional problems.
+- 5. Minimize judgment, although not completely avoid it as we believe that determining a behavior to be grooming essentially requires some complex judgments regarding appropriateness.
+- 6. Show interrater reliability (have a high degree of agreement across raters).
+- 7. Allow the rater to have multiple choices regarding final decisions given the complexity of individual cases, such as clearly grooming, probably grooming, uncertain, or not grooming.
+- 8. Allow a third party to understand the logic of these judgments and conclusions by explicating the decision pathway for these final judgments.
+
+We propose that grooming he defined as "antecedent inappropriate behavior that functions to increase the likelihood of future sexual abuse." There are no stages of grooming as there are in some definitions as proposing stages necessitates additional definitions and demarcations of each stage. Therefore, there are two individual criteria that must he met to consider a behavior to be "grooming:" (a) the behavior being evaluated must in and of itself be inappropriate and a case for this inappropriateness must he made, and (b) a sound argument must be presented that the behavior or behaviors increases the likelihood of future sexual abuse. The definition is further elucidated by providing a number of exemplars of grooming:
+
+- I. Any sexualization of the relationship such as talking about sex in a way that is not permissible given the adult's relationship with the child (e.g., it is permissible for parents to provide sex education to their children) or exposing the child to sexually explicit materials such as R rated movies (showing the child pornography would be abusive in and of itself and therefore not grooming).
+- 2. Inappropriate gift giving (developmentally or socially inappropriate, such as bikinis or bras purchased by a neighbor or teacher).
+- 3. Inappropriate nonsexual communication with the child (e.g., telling the child she is the only one who understands the offender, or telling her 1 love you" when the social role is not appropriate for this type of communication), particularly when an adult uses these statements to manipulate the child to do something (e.g., "I love you and people who love each other touch each other").
+
+- 4. Inappropriate touching of the child (e.g., excessive tickling, hugging, wrestling, sitting on lap).
+- 5. Bribes for inappropriate contact (e.g., bribes for nonsexual or sexual touching or bribes to meet the adult secretly).
+- 6. Threats related to not participating in inappropriate contact.
+- 7. Inappropriate isolation of the child (e.g., trips where the offender and victim are alone that are not part of the normal adult—child relationship. It is permissible for a father to drive a child to school), or inappropriately discouraging the child to play with friends or be with family. For parents or other caretakers, the threshold for what is considered inappropriate behavior is higher than for other adults.
+- 8. Favoritism directed toward the child (e.g., the child is treated much better than siblings or classmates, particularly when this is intimate or isolating).
+- 9. Boundary violations such as inappropriately bathing the child, clothing the child, sleeping with the child, the adult being in underwear around the child, the adult acting like a child, or the adult sharing private information with the child, particularly sexual or relationship information (e.g., "my wife and I are not having sex"). Again, for parents, family members or caregivers the threshold is much higher for defining a boundary violation than for others.
+- 10. Asking the child to keep secrets, particularly about their contact (e.g., the mother's Christmas present would not be regarded as a problematic secret, whereas asking the child to not tell that she was with the offender would he).
+- II. Providing the child drugs or alcohol (note: although this behavior is already abusive, it is not sexually abusive; thus, it can be considered a grooming behavior as it is inappropriate and serves to facilitate compliance with the intended sexual abuse).
+- 12. Misstating moral standards regarding touching, contact, or sex, particularly when these relate to adult—child sexual contact or sexualizing a situation.
+- 13. Repeated violations of the child's privacy (e.g., walking into bathroom when child is in there, watching her get dressed, etc.).
+
+The more of these features present, the more likelihood the individual's behavior represents grooming. To further clarify the grooming definition, it may be helpful to also look at a few specific exemplars of nongrooming behaviors that may be misinterpreted:
+
+- 1. Purchasing appropriate gifts for the child (e.g., for birthdays).
+- 2. Engaging in appropriate hand-holding (e.g., to cross the street).
+- 3. Bathing a young child by a legitimate caregiver without any inappropriate touching.
+
+- 4. Having age-appropriate and relationship-appropriate discussions of body pans.
+- 5. A care-giving figure saying "I love you" without the goal of manipulation (not using the phrase to get the child to do something inappropriate).
+
+#### THE ASSESSMENT OF GROOMING
+
+Because grooming is a set of common behaviors seen in child sexual offenders (as the previous reviewed literature seems to support this conclusion), it should he possible to assess behaviors to determine whether they are indicative that sexual abuse is likely to occur. We have reviewed the published literature and have not been able to find any measures that validly assess grooming behaviors (by any definition of grooming). This greatly reduces the value of any definition as the practical usefulness of a definition is seen in its ability to be operationalized in valid measurement processes. It is important to develop valid measures as it is not ideal for the detection of grooming to be an entirely post hoc process—that is, only after the abuse occurs are the gifts seen as inappropriate and thus as part of a grooming process. The grooming acts should seem at least somewhat inappropriate at the time they are occurring and thus ideally adults can intervene to stop future abuse. To resolve this problem, grooming requires a valid definition and a psychometrically adequate assessment procedure to reduce both the number of false positives and false negatives.
+
+We are currently developing an assessment device that would aid a clinician in coming to a valid conclusion as to whether an individual's behaviors can be considered grooming. As mentioned, an assessment of grooming in our proposed definition would involve a two-step process: (a) determining that the adults behavior is inappropriate in and of itself, such as if the tickling is excessive or the bikini gift is not justified by the nature of the relationship; and (h) reasonably arguing that the function of this inappropriate behavior is to increase the likelihood of future abusive contact.
+
+What is "inappropriate" admittedly is somewhat of a vague term that requires judgment because we need to clearly differentiate the behavior from normal adult-child relationships. However, this judgment requirement currently exists for other psychological constructs as well. For example, the diagnosis of a major depressive episode might require that a clinician judges the client's guilt as "excessive." In addition, under our criteria these judgments of inappropriateness should he explicit (there must be a clear argument as to why the behavior is inappropriate). Since the argument must be explicated, others would he able to evaluate it and decide whether it is a nonproblematic judgment of the behavior.
+
+To illustrate, a male coach buying an eight-year-old girl a bikini would generally be considered inappropriate, but the act of buying her a pair of
+
+gym shoes with her mother's consent generally would not. A criticism of this definition is that "appropriate" behaviors may be used by some perpetrators to groom (e.g., buying a poor child gym shoes may still be performed to gain the child's trust to eventually abuse her). However, because this behavior can he entirely unrelated to abuse and because the assessment ought to strive to minimize false positives, we have chosen to require that all grooming behaviors be inappropriate in and of themselves. Second, we recognize that not all inappropriate behaviors ought to be considered grooming—an adult offering cigarettes to a child may be inappropriate but in addition we narrow the class of these inappropriate behaviors to those that are related to increasing the probability of sexual contact.
+
+It is important to note that there may be instances in which the questionable behavior falls in some gray area between grooming and nongrooming. For example, a father buying his daughter a bikini may or may not be considered inappropriate. Unless more details are known about the context of this purchase (perhaps it was just impossible for the mother or some other female to do this and the need for a bathing suit was urgent), one could explicate reasonable arguments that the behavior is and is not representative of grooming. The most logical judgment to come to, then, is that this behavior is an indeterminate case and that it Ls unclear whether it should be considered grooming.
+
+Arguments also need to be made regarding the second criterion of the definition: whether the function of the inappropriate behavior was to increase the likelihood of abuse in the future. Interpreting behavior and the intentions of a person performing a behavior is admittedly complex. The rational appraisal of behavior involves setting up a universe of plausible interpretations and gathering evidence in the individual case to rule in or rule out each. As an example, if a male neighbor has a pool and buys a bikini for a five-year-old girl to come over to swim and has her change into the bikini at his house while they are alone (the purchase of the bikini and having her change in his house without her guardian present would be considered inappropriate and thus meet the first criterion of the definition), the set of major plausible interpretations regarding the function of the behavior include:
+
+- I. Buying a bikini for the girl was the only way to allow the child to engage in the appropriate activity of swimming. Changing at his house was the only way to have the child dressed appropriately for swimming. These fads do not function to set the occasion for abuse to occur.
+- 2. Buying a bikini and having the child change alone is not appropriate as there are more appropriate, prudent alternatives. In addition, bikinis can he thought of as sexualized clothing and changing alone without a guardian present is also a boundary violation. For example, giving money to the child's guardian to buy whatever bathing suit the guardian thought
+
+appropriate (perhaps a one piece) is a better way to allow the child to engage in the healthy activity of swimming. In addition, the child's guardian should always be present when the child is swimming in the pool or changing into her bathing suit. This pathway does not increase the probability that abuse will occur in the future.
+
+In this case, clearly the second alternative explanation is superior due to the fact that it respects the guardian's control, enhances the guardian's ability to supervise the child, does not isolate the child, might involve a less revealing swimsuit, and allows the guardian to exercise his or her discretion regarding what is appropriate swimwear. In addition, because the first altemative contains false assertions and can set the occasion for abuse, while the second alternative contains true assertions and is consistent with decreasing the likelihood of abuse, it is concluded that the behavior under question meets the second criterion of our definition of grooming as it is functioning to increase the likelihood of future abuse.
+
+Again, the advantage of this approach is that it explicates the arguments for a person's behavior as meeting or not meeting the definitional criteria. The situation is complex because often grooming is meant to be disguised or ambiguous by the would-be abuser. However, this approach does allow the generation of alternatives that would he more prudent and reasonable and thus both the inappropriateness and function of the behavior can be rationally identified.
+
+Finally, before this assessment method is accepted it must be evaluated with respect to its interrater reliability, predictive validity, sensitivity, and specificity. Currently, it is unfortunate that the field has no assessment methods to properly identify grooming and thus understanding the psychometrics of this definitional approach (as well as others) ought to be a priority.
+
+Obviously the proposal of this definition is just a first step, and it generates a large research agenda. Validity studies need to be run on a sample of what experts clearly identify as instances of grooming and instances of normal behavior to see the extent to which professionals trained in this definition can correctly identify these two kinds of behaviors. The rates of false positives and false negatives need to he identified in these sorts of studies and modifications in the definition, assessment, or training need to occur in attempts to minimize these. Randomly controlled studies can be used to compare the accuracy of this method as compared to other proposed methods and definitions. Studies need to be conducted investigating different types of abuse (e.g., familial versus nonfamilial, boys versus girls, young children versus teenagers, majority versus minority culture) to see the extent to which this definition is robust across these varying dimensions. Again, modifications would need to be made when pmblents or limitations are found. It would also be useful to conduct some longitudinal research with high-risk samples to determine the likelihood of accurate detection of grooming and the prevention of future abuse (by perhaps a comparison with a no treatment control). Another important issue is to investigate what sort of training programs or materials need to be developed so that a wide variety of professionals can faithfully implement the definition and proposed assessment methods.
+
+#### CONCLUSIONS
+
+Currently there is no consensus regarding how to define grooming. In addition, there is no valid method to assess whether grooming has occurred or is occurring. The field possesses an insufficient amount of knowledge about key issues such as the interrater reliability of these judgments or the error rates of these judgments including the frequency of false negatives or false positives. Thus currently it appears that grooming is not a construct that ought to be used in forensic settings as it does not meet some of the criteria in the Daubert standard. The Daubert standard indicates that in court an expert witness may only testify if (a) "the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case' (Rule 702: Testimony by expert witness). Right now it does not appear to be the case that there are "reliable principles and methods' to define and detect grooming.
+
+We propose a definition of grooming that involves two parts: (a) inappropriate behavior on the part of the adult and (b) sound arguments that this inappropriate behavior functions to increase the probability of future sexual abuse. We then provide exemplars of this kind of inappropriate behavior. Future research on grooming would be more useful to the field if data were collected using a single, clear definition such as the one we have proposed. This would provide a basis for data to be easily aggregated and better understood, which could lead to the admissibility of grooming evidence in forensic settings. Furthermore, we are currently working to develop valid psychometric instruments with known reliability and validity to assess grooming according to this standard.
+
+#### REFERENCES
+
+18 USC 2252A. Certain activities relating to material constituting or containing child pornography. (n.d.). In Legal lnforneation lnsdituie online. Retrieved from littp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2252A
+
+Berliner, L., & Conte, J. R. (1990). The process of victimization: The victims' perspective. Child Abuse and Attlee!, 14, 29-40. Berson, I. R. (2003). Grooming cybervictims: The psychosocial effects of online exploitation for youth. Journal of School Violence, 2(1), 5-18. Brackenridge, C. H. (2001). Spoilsports: Understanding and preventing sexual exploitation in sport. London, England: Routledge. Brown, D. (2001). Developing strategies for collecting and presenting grooming evidence in a high tech world. National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse Update, 14(11). Retrieved from hup://www.ndaa-apri.org/publiattions/ newslettent/update\_volume\_14\_number\_ 1 1\_2001.html Budin, I. E., & Johnson, C. F. (1989). Sexual abuse prevention: Offenders attitudes about their efficacy. Child Abuse & Neglect, 13, 77-87. Burgess, A. W., & Holmstrom, L. L. (1980). Sexual (name of children and adolescents: Pressure, sex, secrecy. In L. G. Schultz (Ed.), The sexual victimology of youth (pp. 67-82). Springfield, IL Charles C. Thomas. Christiansen, J. R., & Blake, R. H. (1990). The grooming process in father—daughter incest. In A. L Horton (Ed.), The incest perpetrator: A family member no one aunts to treat (pp. 88-98). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Conte, J. R., Wolf, S., & Smith, T. (1989). What sexual offenders tell us about prevention strategies. Child Abuse and Neglect, /3(2), 293-301. Craven, S., Brown, S., & Gilchrist, E. (2006). Sexual grooming of children: Review of literature and theoretical considerations. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 12(3), 287-299. Elliott, M., Browne, K., & Kilcoyne, J. (1995). Child sexual abuse prevention: What offenders tell us. Child Abuse and Neglect, 19(3), 579-594. Gallagher, B. (1999). The abuse of children in public care. Child Abuse Review, 8, 357-365. Gallagher, B. (2000). The extent and nature of known cases of institutional child sexual abuse. British Journal of Social Work, 30(6), 795-817. Gillespie, A. (2002). Child protection on the interne: Challenges for criminal law. Child and Family Law Quarterly, 14(4), 411-425. Gillespie, A. (2004). "Grooming": Definitions and the law. New law Journal, 154(7124), 586-587. Grab, A. N., Hobson, W. F., & Gary, T. S. (1982). The child molester: Clinical observations. In J. R. Conic & D. A. Shore (Eds.), Social work and child sexual abuse (pp. 129-144). Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press. Haiti'', M. (2009). The sexual abuse of boys in organized male sports. Men and Masculinities, 12, 225-249. Herman, J. L. (1981). Farber-daughter incest. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Howie, D. (1995). Paedophiles and sexual offences against children. Oxford, England: John Wiley and Sons. Knoll, J. (2010). Teacher sexual misconduct: Grooming patterns and female offenders. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 19, 371-386. Laudan, L (1977). Progress and its problems. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Leberg, E. (1997). Understanding child molesters: Taking charge. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
+
+McAlinden, A. (2006). -Setting 'ern up: Personal, familial and institutional grooming in the sexual abuse of children. Social & Legal Studies, /5(3), 339-362. Mower, L (2012, July 22). Sex assault conviction may be test case for testimony standards. Las Vegas Reviewfournal. Retrieved from littp://www.lvd.cominews/sexassault-conviction-may-be4ea-case-for-testimony-standards-163325306.html O'Callaghan, D. (2011, November 7). Jailed after grooming teen online: Pacebook groomer is jailed. South Wales Evening Post Retrieved from vevevelexisnexis. contihottopicsaracademic O'Connell, R. (2003). A typology of child cybersexploitation and online grooming practices. Retrieved September 2012 from lutp://wwwaLsc.ac.uk/uploadecl\_ documentsilLs\_PaperJPrice.pdf O'Donohue, W. (2013). Clinical psychology and the philosophy of science. New York, NY: Springer. Rule 702. Testimony by expert witness. (n.d.). In Legal information Institute Retrieved from http://verw.law.mmelLedukules/fre/rule\_702 Salter, A. (1995). Transforming trauma: A guide to understanding and treating adult survimors of child sexual abuse. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Sew, M. (2008). Pedophilia. In D.R. Laws & W. O'Donohue (Eds.), Sexual deviance: Theory, assessment, and treatment. New York, NY: Guilford. Sgroi, S. M. (1982). Handbook of clinical intervention in child sexual abuse. Lexington, MS: Lexington Books. Shakeshaft, C. (2004). Educator sexual misconduct: A synthesis of existing literature (U.S. Department of Education Document No. 2004-09). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Spiegel, J. (2003). Sexual abuse of males: The SAAl model of theory and practice. New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge. Van Dam, C. (2001). Identifying child molesters: Preventing child sexual abuse by recognizing the patterns of the offenders. Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press. Vance, A. (2012, August 29). Prison for online grooming proposed. The Dominion Post (Wellington, New Zealand). Retrieved from www.lexisnexis.cozn/hottopics/ lnacademic Wyre, R. (1987). Working with sex offenders. Oxford, England: Perry Publications.
+
+#### AUTHOR NOTES
+
+Natalie Bennett, BS, is a graduate student in the Clinical Psychology Doctoral Program at the University of Nevada, Reno. Her current research interests focus on child sexual abuse and assessment of psychological constructs.
+
+William O'Donohue, PhD, is a professor of psychology at the University of Nevada, Reno. He is also the clinical director of the Victims of Crime Treatment Center, a treatment clinic for victims of sexual abuse or assault, in Reno, Nevada. He received his MA and PhD from the State University of New York at Stony Brook in Stony Brook, New York.
+
+Copyright of Journal of Child Sexual Abuse is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listsery without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156754/EFTA00156754.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156754/EFTA00156754.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9a363100045fc1162ebdc1b6b5500f5950bc92e6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156754/EFTA00156754.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,1176 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00156754.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 21,
+ "chars": 70261,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 14.2,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "The Construct of Grooming in Child Sexual \nAbuse: Conceptual and Measurement Issues",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 113.645,
+ 134.46
+ ],
+ [
+ 410.3436279296875,
+ 134.46
+ ],
+ [
+ 410.3436279296875,
+ 168.24200439453125
+ ],
+ [
+ 113.645,
+ 168.24200439453125
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CURRENT DEFINITIONS",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 202.30000000000004,
+ 487.62
+ ],
+ [
+ 320.3071594238281,
+ 487.62
+ ],
+ [
+ 320.3071594238281,
+ 500.8511199951172
+ ],
+ [
+ 202.30000000000004,
+ 500.8511199951172
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "GROOMING AS A DEVIANT PROCESS",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 170.17,
+ 204.12
+ ],
+ [
+ 351.5384216308594,
+ 204.12
+ ],
+ [
+ 351.5384216308594,
+ 216.60113525390625
+ ],
+ [
+ 170.17,
+ 216.60113525390625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "THE PREVALENCE OF GROOMING",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 177.905,
+ 498.96
+ ],
+ [
+ 344.1736145019531,
+ 498.96
+ ],
+ [
+ 344.1736145019531,
+ 512.3356323242188
+ ],
+ [
+ 177.905,
+ 512.3356323242188
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Identifying Potential Victims",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 100.555,
+ 187.11
+ ],
+ [
+ 233.6974639892578,
+ 187.11
+ ],
+ [
+ 233.6974639892578,
+ 200.85113525390625
+ ],
+ [
+ 100.555,
+ 200.85113525390625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "The Use of Attention, Bribery, and Coercion",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 100.555,
+ 472.23
+ ],
+ [
+ 306.3235778808594,
+ 472.23
+ ],
+ [
+ 306.3235778808594,
+ 485.33563232421875
+ ],
+ [
+ 100.555,
+ 485.33563232421875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Sexual Desensitization",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 9,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 99.96000000000001,
+ 302.94
+ ],
+ [
+ 207.697021484375,
+ 302.94
+ ],
+ [
+ 207.697021484375,
+ 315.60113525390625
+ ],
+ [
+ 99.96000000000001,
+ 315.60113525390625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Boundary Violations",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 99.96000000000001,
+ 226.8
+ ],
+ [
+ 198.68734741210938,
+ 226.8
+ ],
+ [
+ 198.68734741210938,
+ 240.08563232421875
+ ],
+ [
+ 99.96000000000001,
+ 240.08563232421875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Grooming the Child's Environment",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 99.96000000000001,
+ 528.1200000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 263.8988494873047,
+ 528.1200000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 263.8988494873047,
+ 541.5856323242188
+ ],
+ [
+ 99.96000000000001,
+ 541.5856323242188
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Commonalities",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 99.96000000000001,
+ 334.53
+ ],
+ [
+ 173.6716766357422,
+ 334.53
+ ],
+ [
+ 173.6716766357422,
+ 347.85113525390625
+ ],
+ [
+ 99.96000000000001,
+ 347.85113525390625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "A PROPOSED DEFINITION",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 195.755,
+ 521.64
+ ],
+ [
+ 327.096435546875,
+ 521.64
+ ],
+ [
+ 327.096435546875,
+ 534.6011199951172
+ ],
+ [
+ 195.755,
+ 534.6011199951172
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "THE ASSESSMENT OF GROOMING",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 14,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 177.905,
+ 159.57000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 344.52044677734375,
+ 159.57000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 344.52044677734375,
+ 172.3511962890625
+ ],
+ [
+ 177.905,
+ 172.3511962890625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CONCLUSIONS",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 17,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 223.72,
+ 169.29
+ ],
+ [
+ 299.14137268066406,
+ 169.29
+ ],
+ [
+ 299.14137268066406,
+ 182.10113525390625
+ ],
+ [
+ 223.72,
+ 182.10113525390625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "REFERENCES",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 17,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 226.69500000000002,
+ 525.69
+ ],
+ [
+ 292.29437255859375,
+ 525.69
+ ],
+ [
+ 292.29437255859375,
+ 538.3511199951172
+ ],
+ [
+ 226.69500000000002,
+ 538.3511199951172
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "AUTHOR NOTES",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 19,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 217.175,
+ 448.74
+ ],
+ [
+ 301.30682373046875,
+ 448.74
+ ],
+ [
+ 301.30682373046875,
+ 460.86590576171875
+ ],
+ [
+ 217.175,
+ 460.86590576171875
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 81
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 42
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 101
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 47
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 89
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 46
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "Caption",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "TableGroup",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 93
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 48
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Caption",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "TableGroup",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "Caption",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "TableGroup",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 84
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 43
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 87
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 45
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 8,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 99
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 49
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 9,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 87
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 46
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 81
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 44
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 82
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 44
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 12,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 92
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 46
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 13,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 89
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 45
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 13
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 14,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 89
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 46
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 15,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 89
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 48
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 16,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 90
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 48
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 17,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 75
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 42
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 18,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 142
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 19,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 88
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 46
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 20,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 15
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00156754"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156775/EFTA00156775.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156775/EFTA00156775.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0e9ecb1370def9b66ff2e12386219acfb07b11e4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00156775/EFTA00156775.md
@@ -0,0 +1,84 @@
+
+
+# To Tell or Not to Tell
+
+Carrie M. Carrettal , Ann W. Burgess=, and Rosanna DeMarco3
+
+veience Against vioame' NIS. Wit 21191114S-1165
+
+0 rho Autherf0 2.015
+
+Repents and permissions.
+
+nettwbcoSpurnsaPermnions nay
+
+COI 10 1177,10770012ISS90671
+
+vaw sagtpub men
+
+
+
+#### Abstract
+
+The underreporting of rape is well known: however. there is less information on women who fail to disclose to anyone. This online study suggests that 24% of 242 women who were non-disclosing compared with those who had disclosed were significandy less likely to seek treatment for emotional injuries. Also, almost two thirds of non-disclosing women believed that the abuse was their fault versus 39.1X of women with prior disclosure. Of clinical interest is that regardless of disclosure pattern. there was no significant difference in reports of depression. anxiety. or posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). and the majority of respondents endorsed support for online counseling over telephone or individual contact.
+
+#### Keywords
+
+rape. disclosure, depression. anxiety. PTSD
+
+# Background
+
+For centuries, rape thrived on prudery and silence. The silence lifted when consciousness-raising (CR) groups became the major organizing tool of the re-emergence of the women's rights movement in the late 1960s. These CR groups involved informal groups of women discussing their experiences with incest, child, adolescent, and adult rape. Prior to that time, women who disclosed a sexual assault to law enforcement risked censure, scorn. indifference, or loss of credibility (Ledray. Burgess. & Giardina. 2011).
+
+#### Corresponding Author:
+
+Came M. Carrena. Assoore PrciessociResearch Faculty at Rutter:. The State University of New Jersey.
+
+180 University Avenue. Ackerson Hat Room 224. Newark. NJ 07102. USA.
+
+Email: carnecarretoesniutgers.edu: carnecarrensagernal corn
+
+x27;Rutgers. The State Unerenxy of New jersey. Newark. USA
+
+alloston College. Chestnut Hit MA. USA
+
+x27;University of Massachusetts Boston. USA
Early published evidence by Smith et al. (2000) indicated restricted disclosure of women who reported being raped. They gathered representative data from 3,220 Wave II respondents front the National Women's Study telephone survey regarding the length of time women who were raped before age IS delayed disclosure, to whom they disclosed. and variables that predicted disclosure. There were ns women who reported at least one rape prior to their 18th birthday. Fully 28% of child rape victims reported that they had never told anyone about their child rape prior to the research interview and 47% did not disclose for over 5 years post rape. Close friends were the most common confidants. Younger age at the time of rape. family relationship with the perpetrator. and experiencing a series of rapes were associated with disclosure longer than 1 month. Shorter delays were associated with stranger rapes. Logistic regression revealed that the age at rape and knowing the perpetrator war independently predictive of delayed disclosure.
Relevant to these findings• Fisher. Daigle, Cullen, and Turner (2003) identified key factors that contributed to rape reporting included the impact of self-blame, the seriousness of the incidents, type of victim-offender relationships• certain victim characteristics (e.g., age, income level, education level, race), and the contextual characteristics of the crimes.
Starzynski. Ullman. Filipas. and Townsend (2005) emphasized that deciding whom to tell about sexual assault is an important and potentially consequential decision for sexual assault survivors. A diverse sample of adult sexual assault survivors in the Chicago area was surveyed about sexual assault experiences, social reactions received when disclosing assault to others, attributions of blame, coping strategies, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Women disclosing to both formal and informal support sources experienced more stereotypical assaults, had more PTSD symptoms, engaged in less behavioral self-blame. and received more negative social reactions than those disclosing to informal support sources only.
Research shows that survivors with lower levels of posttraumatic stress or depressive symptoms arc less likely to seek help from formal social systems (Lewis, 2005: Starzynski et al., 2005). In addition, survivors who blamed themselves for causing the rape were less likely to disclose the rape to formal social systems (Starzynski et at, 2005). Although studies have shown that survivors with less severe psychological symptomatology arc less likely to seek assistance, it is still unclear what prevents these survivors from seeking help.
In a mail survey with 155 respondents studying how social reaction to rape disclosure affects sexual assault victims, Ullman (1996) found that negative social reactions were strongly associated with increased psychological symptoms, while most positive social reactions were unrelated to adjustment (Ullman, 1996). The only social mactions related to better adjustment war being believed and being listened to by others.
Wolitzky-Taylor et al. (2011) interviewed a national sample of 2,000 college women about rape experiences in 2006 and found only 11.5% of college women in the sample reported their most recenVonly rape experience to authorities, with only 2.7% of rapes involving drugs and/or alcohol reported (Wolitzky-Taylor et al., 2011). Minority status (i.e.. non-White race) was associated with lower likelihood of report-
ing, whereas sustaining injuries during the rape was associated with increased likelihood of reporting.
Currently, there is developing published evidence on rape reporting and disclosure. Using a prospectivestudy to identify predictorsof sexual assault disclosure, Orchowski and Gidycz (2012) examined the responses of 374 support providers and learned women most often disclosed a sexual assault to a female peer supporting the findings over 10 years ago by Smith ct al. (2000).
Despite the feminist movement of the 1970s, which marked the beginning of the era of rape reform in the United States, to fast-forward to 2013, two findings that affect a victim's mental health have not changed. First, sexual assault remains the most widely underreported violent crime and second, victims typically do not seek help after coercive sexual encounters (Fisher et al., 2003; Siegel, Golding, Stein, Bumam, & Sorenson, 1990).
Second, statistics from the National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS) indicate that only 19.1% of the women and 12.9% of the men who were raped since their 18th birthday reported their rape to the police (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2006). Indeed, the underreporting of sexual assault persists in bearing the infamous label of "the hidden crime," and poses serious problems on an individual and societal level (Grohol, 1997).
Parallel with the incidence of rape being far more extensive than reported in official statistics is the fact that the large majority of rapists am never apprehended. In 2007, there were 90.427 incidents of rape reported to law enforcement that resulted in only 23,307 arrests or 25.8% of reported cases (U.S. Department of Justice, 2008). Victimization data show a higher number of rapes and sexual assaults-191,670 (Catalano, 2006)—which means that potentially more than half of the rapes and sexual assaults go unreported (and therefore unpunished) to law enforcement (Fisher et al., 2003). Clearly. the vast majority of rapists are never brought to justice as FBI clearance rates for rape average about 50% per year.
Front a public policy perspective, official estimates of the incidence and prevalence of sexual assault that are used for planning program initiatives am likely underestimated; therefore, individuals and areas that are at high risk for sexual assault am likely failing to receive adequate attention. In addition, the failure to report precludes the arrest of offenders, which limits the degree to which the criminal justice system can serve as a deterrent to sexual assault crimes (Fisher et al.. 2003).
The issue of self-disclosure—that information about oneself that a person is willing to reveal to others—is an important area of clinical inquiry. Rape traditionally has not been a socially acceptable issue for disclosure. In decades past, it has often been seen as something that lessened the worth of the victim and that was the victim's fault. Thus, Irving Coffman's classic analysis of stigma and the management of spoiled identity am particularly useful in analyzing the disclosure of a rape. Coffman (1963) uses the term "stigma" to indicate "an attribute that is deeply discrediting" in a certain
social context (p. 3). He distinguishes between cases where the stigma is known to others already or evident immediately (the individual is discredited), and cases where the stigma is not known by others and not immediately perceivable (the individual is discreditable). As Coffman states. when an individual's
differentness is not immediately apparent. and is nor known beforehand ... then ... the issue is ... that of managing information about his failing. To tell or not to tell: to display or not to display: to let on or not to let on: to lie or not to tic: and in each ease, to whom. how. when. and where (p. 40).
The issue becomes "the management of undisclosed discrediting information about self' (p. 42).
Secrets, especially those involving incest. rape. and abortion. arc closely aligned with non-disclosure. Georg Simmel (1906) defines secrets as "consciously willed concealment" (p. 449) that involve a tension that when revealed breaks its power that can result in positive or negative outcomes. Secrecy sets barriers. A secret disclosed may advance to betrayal. Wolff (1950) describes a secret being surrounded by temptation and possibility of betrayal, and the external danger of being discovered is interwoven with the internal danger of giving oneself away. As long as the rape remains cloaked in secrecy, the victim only has to manage that information internally; once the rape is disclosed, the victim has to manage the external reactions.
Jack (1991, 1999) and Jack and Ali (2010) describe the phenomenon of "silencing the self' as a behavior common to women where information is withheld in the context of all types of relationships. Whether a relationship is experienced with violence or through rape or without these experiences, Jack contends through her Theory of Silencing the Self that women do not share certain thoughts or feelings that would contradict what others expect of them because it jeopardizes relationships with others and how they are "seen." Congruent with the social stigma that surrounds disclosure, women avoid conflict and silence their voice which often leads to a loss of self as well as feelings of shame and anger. Ironically. avoiding conflict and abiding by societal expectations are found to be protective and normative in many cultures, and yet Jack (1991) found in her original work that the very secret or silence kept was strongly correlated with clinical depression.
Jack and Dill (1992) identified four particular sub-concepts of silencing the selfbehaviors from the qualitative analyses of data she collected through a large longitudinal study that included conversations with women talking about their lives and depression. The four self-silencing sub-concepts/behaviors arc called (a) Silencing the Self, (b) the Divided Self, (c) Care as Self-Sacrifice, and (d) the Externalized Self. The first sub-concept/sub-scale. Silencing the Self, for which the theory was named described how women often do not ask directly for what they need or tell others what they arc feeling. The second sub-concept/sub-scale, the Divided Self, described how women present a compliant exterior to the public when they actually feel hostile and angry. The third sub-concept/sub-scale. Care as Self-Sacrifice, described how women put the feelings and needs of another before their own. The fourth sub-concept/
sub-scale, the Externalized Self, described how women judge themselves by external standards. In the end, the "self' for women is focused in a context of others' needs, and it is the "self-in-relation•' that drives behavior choices to disclose or not to disclose (Jack. 1991; Jordan, Kaplan. Miller, Sliver, & Surrcy, 1991).
The issue of rape disclosure and moving away from silencing one's voice has psychosocial and clinical importance. One model of rape counseling is to encourage clients to report and talk to members of their social network as support for experiencing a stressful situation. The dilemma, however, is that the decision to tell or not to tell someone about a rape tends to be a difficult one and many women will experience decisional conflict that is related to the uncertainty regarding outcomes that will result from the choice. Regret of disclosure emerges as a potential outcome (Marchetti, 2012). Not to disclose can be viewed as self-protective as the individual has control of the information and preserves relationships without conflict (Jack, 1991). Telling others dilutes the control.
We were interested in studying patterns of rape disclosure as basic to assessing coping and adaptation to a traumatic event. This article presents data from a larger rape study with the intent to provide specific implications for counseling victims regarding disclosure of the information. Thus, the research questions for this study were as follows:
Research Question I: What was the pattern of disclosure for rape using an anonymous web-based survey?
Research Question 2: What was the symptom response based on whether the respondent had disclosed prior to the survey or disclosed at the time of survey?
Research Question 3: What type of follow-up was preferred by respondents?
This study utilized a descriptive cross-sectional design. Participants completed the study via REDCap Survey, a web-based. online survey tool. Online surveys have been established as an effective means of obtaining a large sample of rape victims (Littleton, 2007, 2010).
Data were collected via an online survey. A web-based procedure was chosen as it has several benefits. First, the use of a web-based survey has been established as an effective means of obtaining a large sample of rape victims (Littleton, 2007. 2010). Furthermore, the use of an online study allows for elimination of missing data by prompting participants to address non-completed items. Finally, this methodology was selected because it offers participants the ability to complete study instruments at their convenience. offers privacy and confidentiality at the time of participation. and affords the participant an opportunity for safe disclosure.
A script was available online as soon as the participant accessed the study link via REDCap Survey. Potential participants were screened online. Once an exclusion criterion was met, no other information was gathered. If deemed eligible, the subjects were provided with informed consent. After they read and acknowledged understanding by answering three questions covering material contained within the consent, the participant was allowed to proceed to access the study packet online. All information was collected via participant self-report. Participants were allowed to save responses online and return to finish the packet at their convenience. If the participant elected to log off and log back on to complete the study packet, the first screen reiterated the fact that nobody would be able to contact them for any reason. All data collected from participants were kept online.
Questions were created by the principal investigator to determine whether the participant had previously (before answering this survey) disclosed that they had an unwanted sexual experience (completed rape), to whom they disclosed if they affirmed disclosure, and their preferences for follow-up. The questions relative to prior disclosure were contained in the beginning of the survey and were as follows: (a) Is this the first time you are disclosing that you had an unwanted sexual experience? Yes/no; (b) If you have told one or more people about this incident, whom did you tell? Please check all that apply; (c) If you checked "other" above, please fill in the relationship you have with the person you told about the most recent incident of unwanted sexual contact. Please do not put in a personal name but only identify your relationship with that person. Branching logic was employed, so that participants would only see Questions 2 and 3 if they answered "no" to Question Number 1. The question relative to follow-up preferences was contained toward the end of the survey and stated: For experiences such as the one I had, I feel more comfortable disclosing the situation: (a) online anonymously with no way for anyone to re-contact me, (b) online with a way that someone could follow-up with me in the future, (c) in person face-to-face, (d) on the telephone anonymously with no way for anyone to re-contact me. and (e) on the telephone with a way that someone could follow-up with me in the future.
This study included a convenience sample of 242 adult female victims of completed rape drawn from the population of females aged 18-64 in the United States and internationally. The subjects recruited into the study met the following inclusion criteria: (a) between the ages of 18-64, (b) 55 years since their most recent incident of rape. (c) ability to understand English, (d) no recent report of psychosis, (e) the ability to complete study instruments, and (t) female gender. Individuals were excluded if they met the following exclusion criteria: (a) most recent incidence of rape happened while participant was <18 years of age, (b) unable to understand the informed consent as evidenced by incorrectly answering three, and (c) questions designed to determine understanding the content of the study. Determination of an incidence of rape for inclusion was screened for using the Sexual Experiences Scale Short Form Victimization (Koss et al.. 2007; Koss & Gidycz, 1985).
The sample was recruited in a variety of ways. First, recruitment was accomplished using email messages inviting participation in the survey. Emails were sent out through ResearchMatch as part of an opt-in list of individuals who had previously given their contact information for that purpose. as well via the clinical trials registry maintained by the sponsoring University. A description of the study along with a link was provided in the email. This link led to the dedicated study website, specifically designed to provide comprehensive information on the study, a toll-free telephone number to contact a live person if the potential participant so chose, and a link that would provide direct access to the study itself. Responses went directly into the REDCap survey system. designed and maintained by Vanderbilt University. This provided a tracking mechanism for responses. prevented the release of any information and/or data to an outside server, and increased response rates.
Additional methods included the following: informative advertisements placed on national screening and online support wcbsites, and in domestic violence shelters, rape crisis centers, offices of psychiatrists, and psychotherapists, local emergency mom departments, primary cam office lobbies, and public venues such as college bulletin boards, grocery stores, bathroom stalls, libraries, social media sites such as Faceboolc, and police departments. Other techniques included posting informative public service announcements on local radio channels and direct marketing of the study online to organizations in which the principal investigator is affiliated. Specialist health cam providers. home health agencies, church groups. and support groups may also have referred participants to the study based on flyers supplied to their organizations.
Strategies to enhance participant recruitment and retention included ensuring anonymity, with no way to link any participant to any particular response. and the ability to complete the study packet in more than one sitting. All information was collected via participant self-report, and Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was given by the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey. Participants were allowed to save responses online and return to finish the packet at their convenience. All data collected from participants were kept online. Answers to survey questions determined whether the participant had previously (before answering this survey) disclosed that they had an unwanted sexual experience, to whom they disclosed if they affirmed disclosure, and their preferences for follow-up. Branching logic was employed, so that participants would only see Questions 2 and 3 if they answered —no" to Question Number I. Also used in this data analysis were questions related to current mental health and three standard measurement tests for anxiety (State Trait Anxiety Inventory—trait portion only), depression (Beck Depression Inventory II; BDI-II), and PTSD (Posttraumatic Stress Diagnostic Scale; PDS). Participants were also asked questions related to their insurance status at the time of their most recent assault and questions related to medications they currently take for anxiety, depression. or sleep disturbance. There was no compensation for study completion. A total of 384 completed the study consent form and at least some portion of the study. Of those, 242 (63%) completed all the study instruments sufficiently for inclusion in the analysis of the research questions. There were no statistically significant differences between the completers and non-completers on any demographic factor.
The 242 participants ranged from 18-56 years in age with a median age of 27 years (25th-75th Interquartile Range (IQR): 23.8/33.3). The sample was primarily Caucasian (n = 218, 90%). with the remaining identifying themselves as African American (n = IS, 7%) or other (n = 6, 3%). The majority of the sample reported being single/not partnered Or = 185, 76%). Participants lived in all regions of the United States; Northeast (n = 41, 17%), Southeast (n = 18, 8%). Midwest (n = 40. 17%), South (n = 97. 41%), and West (n = 20, 9%) with 9% reporting living outside the United States (n = 20). Although the majority of the sample was well educated and reported having at least a bachelor's (n = 100, 41%) or a master's degree (n = 54, 23%), they were less affluent, with 70% of the sample reporting incomes of USS60,000 or less (range <USS25,000 to >USS100,000). The majority of the sample (n = I71, 71%) reported having no children or having any religious preference = 146, 60%). Those reporting having non-governmental health insurance Point of Service (POS), Preferred Provider Organization (PPO), Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) was slightly higher (n = 143. 59%) than those having insurance that was government subsidized (Medicaid, Medicare, n = 99. 41%). The majority of the sample (96%) denied living with their abuser (n = 232).
Frequency distributions summarized the number of participants who reported nondisclosure before the survey and those who had disclosed prior to the survey. Crosstabulations were constructed to determine the percentages of individuals who affirmed first-time disclosure with reporting of follow-up preferences. The chi-square test of independence was used to test for differences in the distributions.
The demographic characteristics of those citing first-time disclosure and those reporting having disclosed previously are summarized in Table 1. Statistically significant differences between the two groups were observed in ages of the participants and presence of children. A higher proportion of those stating first-time disclosure reported having children (n = 24 of 58.41%) than in the group citing prior disclosure (n = 47 of 137, 34%). Those who admitted to first-time disclosure were, on avenge, older than those who cited previously disclosing. While not statistically significant (p = .055), within the group citing first-time disclosure approximately half (n = 30 of 58, 51.7%) reported having some form of governmental subsidized insurance. while a considerably smaller respective proportion (n = 69 of 184, 37.5%) was seen in the group citing prior disclosure.
There were no statistically significant differences between the first-time and nonfirst-time respondents in terms of type of unwanted experience. nor for relationship between the perpetrator and victim (see Table 2).
Finally, there was no statistically significant difference between the respondent groups in terms of type of follow-up preferred (p = .153). The majority of participants,
Table I. Descriptive Statistical Sumrnarks of Consented Individuals lint Time Disclosing and Not First Time Disclosing Study Variables--Demographics.
| First time disclosed (n = 58) | Not first disclosure (n = 184) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristic | n (%) | it (%) | p value |
| Race | .582 | ||
| Caucasian | SI (873) | 167 (90.8) | |
| African American | 6(10.3) | 12 (6.5) | |
| Other | (1.7) | 5 (27) | |
| Education | .774 | ||
| 12th grade/GED | 5(8.6) | 10 (5.4) | |
| Some college—Did not graduate | 13 (22.4) | 34 (183) | |
| 2-year degree | 7(12.1) | 19 (10.3) | |
| 4.year degree | 22 (37.9) | 78 (47\_4) | |
| Graduate degree | II (19.0) | 43 (23.4) | |
| Marital status | .635 | ||
| Single/not partnered | 13 (74.1) | 142 (77.2) | |
| Married/partnered | 15(25.9) | 42 (22.8) | |
| Residence area | .702 | ||
| Northeast | 7(13.0) | 34 (18.7) | |
| Southeast | 6(11.1) | 12 (6.6) | |
| Midwest | 10(18.5) | 30 (16.5) | |
| South | 24 (44.4) | 73 (40.1) | |
| West | 3 (5.6) | 17 (9.3) | |
| Outside the United States | 4(7.4) | 16 (8.8) | |
| Children | .021 | ||
| Yes | 24 (41.4) | 47 (25.5) | |
| No | 34 (48.6) | 137 (745) | |
| Health Insurance type | .055 | ||
| Governmental (Medicare. Medicaid. etc) | 30 (51.7) | 69 (37.5) | |
| Non-governmental | 28 (48.3) | 115 (67\_5) | |
| Religious preference | 118 | ||
| Roman Catholic | 14(24.1) | 24 (13.0) | |
| Protestant | 11 (19.0) | 36 (19.6) | |
| Jewish | 3 (5.2) | 4 (7\_2) | |
| Muslim | 0(0.0) | I (0.5) | |
| Buddhist | 0(0.0) | 3 (1.6) | |
| No preference | 30 (51.7) | 1 16 (63.0) | |
| Annual household income | 353 | ||
| Less than US\$25.000 | 14(24.1) | 44 (25.1) | |
| USS26.001-USS40.000 | 12(20.7) | 48 (27.4) | |
| USS40.00I-USS60.000 | 14(24.1) | 29 (16.6) |
(continued)
Table I. (continued)
| First time disclosed | Not first disclosure | |
|---|---|---|
| = 58) | (n = 184) | |
| Characteristic | n | n (%) p value |
| US\$60.001-US\$80.000 | I (1.7) | 12 (6.9) |
| US\$80.001-US\$100.000 | 6 (10.3) | 13 (7.4) |
| More than US\$100.000 | 6 (103) | 14 (8.0) |
| Prefer not to answer | 5 (8.6) | 15 (8.6) |
| Yes | 4 (6.9) | 7 (3.8) |
| No | 54 (93.1) | 177 (96.2) |
| Median (IRQ) | Median (IRQ) | |
| 31.5 (23.0. 42.3) | 27.0 (24.0. 32.0) |
Note. With the exception of age. x' Tesu c4 Independence were used to test for differences between the respondent groups. A Mann-Whitney Test was used for that respective test for age GED = general education ciploma. IRQ = Interquartle Range.
Table 2. Descnptive Statistical Summaries of Consented Individuals First Time Disclosing and Not First Time Disclosing—Type of Unwanted Experience and PerpetratorNicdm Relationship.
| First time &dosed (n = 58) | Not first disclosure (n = 184) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristic | n(%) | n(%) | p value |
| Type of unwanted experience | .186 | ||
| Forcible rape | 28 (483) | i 17 (63.6) | |
| Pressured sex | 11 (19.0) | 29 (15.8) | |
| Sex stress | 4 (6.9) | 7 (3.8) | |
| Multiple types | 15 (25.9) | 31 (16.8) | |
| Perpetrator/victim relationship | .091 | ||
| Intimate partner | 26 (44.8) | 71 (38.6) | |
| Non-intimate known | 28 (483) | 78 (424) | |
| Stranger | 4 (6.9) | 35 (19.0) | |
| Total | 58 (100) | 184 (100) |
Note. xt Tests of Independence were used to test for dflerences between the declosure groups.
both those who had previously disclosed (n = 123, 70.3%) and those had who admitted to first-time disclosure = 46, 79.3%), reported they preferred online follow-up to both the face-to-face and telephone options (Table 3).
Table 3. Descriptive Statistical Summaries of Consented Individuals First Time Disclosing and Not First Time Disdosing Study Variables—Disclosure and Follow-Up.
| First time | Not first disclosure | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| disclosed (n = 58) | (n = 175) | ||
| Characteristic | 1/ (A) | n (%) | p value |
| Follow-up preferences | .153 | ||
| Online | 46 (79.3) | 123 (70.3) | |
| Telephone | 6 (10.3) | 14 (8.0) | |
| Face-to-face | 6 (10.3) | 38 (21.7) |
Note. Xs Tests c4 Independence were used to test for &gen:nets between the disdosure groups.
Table 4. Descriptive Statistical Summaries of Consented Individuals First Time Disclosing and Not First Time Disclosing Study Variables—Medication Use.
| First time disclosed (n = 58) | Not first disclosure (n = 184) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristic | at ('A) | n (%) | p value |
| Depression medication | .571 | ||
| Yes | 16 (27.6) | 58 (31.5) | |
| No | 42 (72.4) | 126 (68.5) | |
| Anxiety medication | .574 | ||
| Yes | 13 (22.4) | 48 (26.1) | |
| No | 45 (77.6) | 136 (73.9) | |
| Sleep medication | .635 | ||
| Yes | 15 (25.9) | 12 (22.6) | |
| No | 43 (74.1) | 142 (77.2) |
Note. Xs Tests 04 Independence were used to test for drib:fences between the disclosure groups.
Current use of medication for depression, anxiety, and sleep disturbances for those who had previously disclosed and those who had not is summarized in Table 4. There were no statistically significant differences in the rates of use of the types of medication between the groups.
Follow-up with providers for physical and emotional injuries was evaluated for those who had previously disclosed and those who had not (summaries in Table 5). Results indicated that there was a statistically significant difference between the groups in rates of seeking treatment for emotional injuries with both medical providers (p = .003) and non-medical therapist/counselors (p < .001). In both cases, a higher proportion of those admitting to first-time disclosure reported never seeking treatment
Table S. Descriptive Statistical Summaries of Consented Individuals First Time Disclosing and Not First Time Disclosing Study Variables—Rape Resource Utilization.
| First time disclosed (n = 58) | Not first disclosure (n = 184) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristic | n | p value (%) n (.4) | |
| Medical practitioner for physico/ ineiries | .055 | ||
| Never | 53 (91.4) | 138 (75.0) | |
| Once or twice | 4 (6.9) | 38 (20.7) | |
| 3.5 times | I (1.7) | 4 (2.2) | |
| More than 5 dines | 0 (0.0) | 4 (2.2) | |
| Total | 58 (100) | 184 (100) | |
| Medical practitioner for emotronat injuries | .003 | ||
| Never | 52 (89.7) | 119 (64.7) | |
| Once or twice | 2 (3.4) | 24 (13.0) | |
| 3.5 times | 2 (3.4) | 12 (6.5) | |
| More than 5 times | 2 (3.4) | 29 (15.8) | |
| Total Non-medical therapist/counselor for emouond injuries | 58 (100) | 184 (100) | |
| Never | 46 (79.3) | 78 (42.4) | |
| Once or twice | 5(8.6) | 21 (11.4) | |
| 3.5 times | 4 (6.9) | 12 (6.5) | |
| More than 5 times | 3 (5.2) | 73 (57.8) | |
| Total | 58 (100) | 184 (100) | |
| Lawyer for injuries | .218 | ||
| Never | 56 (96.6) | 160 (87.0) | |
| Once or twice | I (1.7) | 9 (4.9) | |
| 3.5 times | 0 (0.0) | 5 (2.7) | |
| More than 5 times | I (1.7) | 10 (5.4) | |
| Total | 58 (100) | 184 (100) | |
| Called police | .009 | ||
| Yes | 5 (&6) | 45 (24.5) | |
| No | 53 (91.4) | 139 (753) | |
| Total | 58 (100) | 184 (100) |
for emotional injuries from a medical provider (52 of 58, 90%) or a therapist/counselor (46 of 58.79%) than those who had previously disclosed (65% and 42%, respectively). The overwhelming majority of those citing first-time disclosure = 46, 70.3%) reported that they had never seen a non-medical therapist/counselor for emotional injuries, whereas the majority (57.8%) of those citing prior disclosure reported seeing a therapistkounsclor mom than 5 times. As expected. given that one group cited no prior disclosure, there was a statistically significant difference in reporting the assault to police.
Table 6. Descriptive Statistical Summaries of Consented Individuals First Time Disclosing and Not First Time Disclosing Study Variables—Blame.
| Ant dme | Not first disclosure | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| disclosed (n = 58) | (it = 184) | ||
| Characteristic | n (X) | ||
| p value |
Table 7. Differences Between Groups for Disclosure Follow•Up Preferences and Outcomes (Depression and Anxiety).
| + | First time disclosed (n = 58) | +Mean first disclosure (n = 18) | ++ | + | + |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| + | M (SD) | +M (SD) | ++ | p | +value | +
| BDI-II | +22.7 (15.0) | +21.1 (13.8) | +0.53 | +.46 | +0.00 | +
| STALY (trait) | +52.4 (12.3) | +50.9 (14.1) | +0.54 | +.46 | +0.00 | +
Note MANOVA was used to test for differences in depression and anxiety smote the groups. Wilkes lambda =.996. F(I. 240) = 0.286. D = .751. BDI4I = Beck Depression Inventory H. STAI.Y = State Trait Anxiety Inventory-Form Y.
The difference in the rates of feeling good about oneself between the groups was not statistically significant (45% vs. 54%). yet there were statistically significant differences in the reported belief that the abuse was their fault with 63.8% of those reporting first-time disclosure believing that the abuse was their fault versus 39.1% of those with prior disclosure (Table 6). Further analysis was completed to determine whether differences exist in rape trauma presentation/symptomatoloR (depression, anxiety) and diagnosis of PTSD among women who have and have not disclosed the event. Descriptive summaries of the two groups arc presented in Table 7. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in terms of depression (p = .466) or anxiety (p = .465; Table 7). In addition, there were similar proportions of those who met the criteria fora diagnosis of PTSD (p = .481) within each of the groups (Table 8).
Most respondents (76%) in this study had disclosed an unwanted sexual experience that happened within the previous 5 years. Of clinical interest, however. 24% had never disclosed until asked on this survey. Of the 184 who had previously disclosed. persons told included friends; medical professionals; family members; spouse or partner; police, coworkers; clergy; academic staff; domestic violence; rape crisis, and hotline staff; with one woman disclosing to a local newspaper.
Table 8. Summaries for Disclosure and PTSD.
| First time | Not first disclosure | |
|---|---|---|
| disclosed (n = 58) | (n = 179) | |
| n (%) | n (%) | p value |
Note. PTSD = posttraurraoc stress asorder; PDS = POSUMUTUIC Wes Diagnostic Seale
The decisional conflict around disclosing a rape either to others or to police has a long history. That almost a quarter (24.5%) of this sample reported to police is closer to the 19% suggested by Tjaden and Thocnncs (2006) but less than the 47% reported by Catalano et al. (2009) (Flitch et al., 2000).
Not only is rape a seriously underreported crime, it is also an undertrcated crime. Only a small number of women seek treatment, with one fifth or 21% sought treatment from a medical provider for an emotional injury and almost half (49%) from a coonsclorora therapist.This pattern is somewhat different than that suggested by Amstadter, McCauley, Ruggiero, Resnick, and Kilpatrick (2008), who reported that 38% sought treatment from a medical professional and 54% front a mental health specialist. Medication use in our study was low in contrast to Smith et al. (2005) who reported that visits to providers to obtain prescriptions for anti-depressants rose dramatically between 1995 and 1996 from 13.8 visits to 35.5 visits (Smith et al.. 2005). Plichta and Falik (2001) report a significant relationship between intimate partner violence and taking medication for depression and anxiety (Plichta & Falik, 2001). We found almost identical rates for those reporting crimes in this study perpetrated by an intimate partner (n = 97) and non-intimate known (n = 106). There were significantly less reported incidents by a stranger in this sample (n = 40). This finding agrees with most prior studies (Basile, Chen, Black, & Saltzman, 2007; Johnson, Zlotnick, & Perez, 2008; Littleton, 2007, 2010; Plichta & Falik, 2001; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2006) but disagrees with the findings by other researchers (Frazier, 2003; Resick, Jordan, Girclli, Butter, & Marhoefer-Dvorak, 1988), where about half of the participants were found to have been raped by a stranger.
There were 30% (ft = 74) of women in our study who reported taking anti-depressant medication with 25% (n = 61) taking medication for anxiety and 24%(n = 57) for sleep disturbances. These findings could be due to the low rate of treatment for emotional injuries. However, almost half (48%) reported that they do not feel good about themselves since their most recent abuse incident, and 45% said they feel the most recent incident of abuse was their fault. This pattern is consistent with other studies specific to rape, citing self-blame as significantly related to psychological distress (Frazier, 2003; Koss, Figueredo, & Prince, 2002; Najdowski & Ullman, 2009).
There arc several limitations that are noteworthy. First, the sample did not use random sampling and was comprised of a convenience sample of adult participants who self-reported one or more incidents of rape within the past S years. This approach limits generalizability of the study to those participants who were aware of the study based on the limited recruitment mechanisms employed and decided to participate, and the findings cannot necessarily be generalized to survivors of other possible traumatic experiences. Second. this study was a cross-sectional design, and therefore no causal inferences can be made. Third, the instruments used in this study were not necessarily specific to rape, and thus may have more limited ability to assess certain symptoms or outcomes specific to an experience of rape such as fear of sexual contact. Another example exists related to the measure of PTSD. Although this measure mentions the concept of rape as one possible traumatic experience, it cannot be determined by virtue of the questionnaire if the diagnosis of PTSD is solely or most significantly related to the rape experience. Furthermore, the measure of PTSD was distinctly different from the measures of depression and anxiety, in that the measure of PM did not measure the continuum of symptoms. It is likely that more and stronger associations would have been found if the measure had allowed for measurement on a continuum. Fourth, the preference for online follow-up (as opposed to face-to-face or telephone) may be an artifact of the chosen methodology. That is to say. women more likely to self-select for participation in an online study regarding sexual experiences and disclosure may also be more likely to (a) be frequent Internet users and (b) prefer e-based communication. Finally, this study did not ask individuals the reason they chose to disclose to certain persons. Ullman and Filipas's (2001) study on 323 sexual assault victims reported that disclosing the sexual assault to more persons was related to more negative and positive reactions. Given the equivocal findings, it is strongly recommended that this question be asked in future research.
Carter-Snell and Jakubec (2013) conducted an in-depth analysis of 100 data-based articles (of a total 2,116) on interpersonal violence to determine the relative impact of selected risk and resiliency factors pertaining to mental health impacts. As mental health counselors can do little about risk factors after the assault (e.g., severity of violence. prior trauma), our focus is on secondary prevention and identification of resilience factors.
Our study found that irrespective of disclosure, victims of rape do not readily seek treatment for psychological or symptom remediation when we know that silencing themselves in addition to the experience of trauma is highly correlated with clinical depression (Jack, 1991; Jack & Ali, 2010). In trying to explain this lack of victim help-seeking behavior, several researchers have put forth suggestions. Koss (1994) posited that interviewer effects and other factors such as others overhearing an interview may be responsible for victims' unwillingness to disclose (Koss. 1994). Campbell. Dworkin. and Cabral (2009) focus on the negative mental health effects
of rapt, instead of the recovery aspect. and consider the role of personality characteristics, preexisting mental health conditions. biological/genetic factors, use of force and/or threats, and substance use not examined in previous models (Campbell et al., 2009). Campbell. Wasco, Ahrens, Sell. and Barnes (2001) and Ledray (1998) suggest that the avoidance of treatment could be due to fear that counseling could result in (a) further incidence of abuse (e.g., perpetrator becomes aware that victim is disclosing) or (b) re-traumatization based on having to recount the story over and over again (e.g., to multiple medical practitioners, law enforcement: Campbell et al., 2001; Ledray, 1998). Jack (1991) would support the notion that women in violent and non-violent situations struggle to be direct, open. and honest with what they need and feel because of the more dangerous feeling of losing relationships with others if they did so.
The researchers argue that the impact of disclosure by their autonomous voice is integral to victims' post-assault psychological healing, and that should victims of rape blame themselves, they may not disclose the event to anyone. They continue to suggest. as does Kilpatrick et al. (1992), that failure to disclose is probably resulting in inadequate treatment and that failure to disclose then denies them opportunities for support (Grotto!. 2011).
A major finding in this study was the importance of self-blame as diagnostic of the non-disclosing group. Self-blame reflects a psychosocial mechanism of selfcriticism and low self-evaluation in which the individual accepts personal responsibility for negative events. Janoff-Bulman's (1979) classic study of self-blame in rape victims distinguishes two types of self-blame—behavioral and characterological. Behavioral self-blame is control related, involves attributions to a modifiable source (one's behavior), and is associated with a belief in the future avoidance of a negative outcome. Characterological self-blame is esteem related, involves attributions to a relatively non-modifiable source (one's character), and is associated with a belief in personal descrvingness for past negative outcomes. Self-blame is another way of translating Jack and Dill's (1992) findings that women often put others before themselves (care as self-sacrifice). In her study of 38 rape crisis centers, behavioral self-blame, and not characterological self-blame, emerged as the most common response of rape victims to their victimization, suggesting the victim's desire to maintain a belief in control, particularly the belief in the future avoidability of rape.
Given that our study found that the percentages of those with and without PTSD in both the disclosure and non-disclosure groups were almost identical, we suggest attention be given to the power of self-blame, secrecy, and non-disclosure as self-protective mechanisms. The lack of significant differences between the disclosure groups suggests that rape trauma is present irrespective of disclosure, and that disclosure in itself is not cathartic to the point that rape survivors experience symptom remission. But self-blame appears to be an incapacitating factor in the recovery process. This selfblame finding could be attributed to the fact that those who have previously disclosed may have sought professional treatment, and thus may have wodced toward resolution of self-blame.
Carter-Snell and Jakubec (2013) argue that effective secondary prevention of adverse mental health consequences following rape depends upon the identification of resilience factors. This would allow the professionals to draw on these strengths to promote the client and to shape interventions in a manner informed by evidence. An example would be to help the individual to reframe events to reduce self-blame. or to identify individuals or agencies that may provide positive reactions and supportive resources. In addition, Carter-Snell and Jubenec (2013) recommend studying the mental health impact of education programs for the community, police, and health professionals related to the use of responses such as psychological first aid and positive responses to rape disclosures.
Rape involves concern regarding disclosure, secrecy and self-silencing, stigma and the organizing emotion of self-blame. In a sense, this requires counselors to assume a role as a clinical detective in assessing for the red flags with non-disclosing clients. Inquiry about any type of unwanted sexual experience needs to be considered of all clients with the knowledge that it may take some time for an affirmative answer to surface.
For those clients who do disclose, we recommend that this issue of disclosure and self-blame be pan of a counseling plan that is aimed at helping victims talk through the positives and negatives of disclosure and to help the victim predict those they tell (or have told) will be supportive and understanding, or blaming. The steps that counselors and therapists can take for counseling the victim on the issue of self-disclosure include the following:
Disclosure of unwanted sexual experiences remains a major problem. To date, there is no study within the past 10 years that has attempted to update incidence and prevalence. Moreover, the reports that do exist present divergent findings. To pursue development of studies aimed at testing prolific treatment interventions, we must first glean
a more accurate and concrete understanding of the true depth of the number of survivors and also begin to identify more acceptable methods for disclosure.
Web-based anonymous surveys have demonstrated effectiveness in other populations. The finding that regardless of the disclosure pattern, the majority of respondents supported online counseling was impressive. The overwhelming majority of participants in both groups cited that online follow-up was preferred to either telephone or face-to-face contact. Brief and colleagues (2013) were able to successfully recruit 600 Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OW) veterans into an alcohol and PTSD treatment study online in about 6 weeks. The outcomes showed favorable effects on (a) drinking days, (b) percent heavy drinking days, (c) avenge drinks per drinking day, and (d) PTSD symptomatology. The advantage of this approach is the potential for an incredible reach to those in rural areas. to those unable or unwilling to combat the stigma, and to those who live in areas with few mental health resources.
Given this study's findings that regardless of disclosure pattern, individuals prefer the use of the Internet to traditional counseling modalities. Thus, it is reasonable to assert that this method could be optimal for providing the most cohesive and accurate estimates to date from a broad. diverse population.
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research. authorship. and/or publication of this article.
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Amstadier. A. B.. McCauley. J. L.. Ruggiero. K. L. Resnick. H. S.. & Kilpatrick. D. G. (2008). Service utilization and help seeking in a national sample of female rape victims. Psychiatric Services. 59. 1450-1457. doi:10.1176/appLps.59.12.1450 Basile. K. C.. Chen. L. Black. M. C.. & Saltzman. L. E. (2007). Prevalence and characteristics of sexual violence victimization among U.S. adults. 2001-2003. Violence and Victims. 22. 437-448. Brief, D.. Rubin, A.. Keane. T.. Enggasser. J. L.. Roy, M.. Helmuth. E., et al. (2013). Web intervention for OEF/OIF veterans with problem drinking and PTSD symptoms: A randomized clinical trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 81. 890-900. Campbell. R.. Dworkin. E.. & Cabral. G. (2009). An ecological model of the impact of sexual assault on women's mental health. Trauma. Violence. & Abuse. 10.225-246. Campbell. R.. Waste. S. M.. Ahrens. C. E.. Sefl. T.. & Barnes. H. E (2001). Preventing the "second rape": Rape survivors' experiences with community service providers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 16. 1239-1259. Caner-Snell. C.. & Jakubec. S. L. (2013). Exploring influences on mental health after interpersonal violence against women. International Journal of Child. Youth & Family Studies. 4. 72-99.
Catalano, S. M. (2006). Criminal victimization. 2005 (NCJ 214644). Washington. DC: Bureau of \_titmice Statistics. Office of Justice Programs. Catalano. S.. Smith. E.. Snyder. H.. & Rand. M. (2009). Female victims ofviolence. Washington. DC: U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Fisher. B. S., Daigle, L. E.. Cullen. F. T.. & Turner. M. G. (2003). Reporting sexual victimization to the police and others: Results from a national-level study of college women. Criminal Justice and Behavior. 30.6-38. Frazier. P. A. (2003). Perceived control and distress following sexual assault: A longitudinal test of a new model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84. 1257-1269. Ruch. B. C.. Deitsch. S. E.. Santos. A. B.. Gold. P. B.. Johnson. M. R.. bleiskt. N.. et al. (2009). Procedural and methodological issues in tekpsychiatry research and program development. Psychiatric Services. 51. 1522-1527. Coffman. E. (1963). Stigma. Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice Hall. Grohol, 1. M. (1997). Psychotherapy online. Retrieved from hnp://psychcenual.comtarchives, etherapy.htm Grohol. J. M. (2011). Wait. there's online therapy? Retrieved from http:Upsychcentralcomt bloglarchives/2011/07/14helcheahh-waitlhats-online-therapy/ Jack, D. C. (1991). Silencing the self Women and depression. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press. Jack, D. C. (1999). Behind the mask. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press. Jack, D. C., & Ali, A. (2010). Silencing the self across cultures: Depression and gender in the social world. New York: Oxford University Press. Jack, D. C.. & Dill. D. (1992). The Silencing the Self Scale: Schemes of intimacy associated with depression in women. Psychology of Women Quarterly. 16. 97-106. .dor.10.I I I 1.6.1471-6402.1992.tb00242.x Janoff-Bulman. R. (1979). Charaeterologieal versus behavioral self-blame: Inquiries into depression and rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 37. 1798-1809. Johnson. D. M.. Zlotnick, C.. & Perez, S. (2008). The relative contribution of abuse severity and PTSD severity on the psychiatric and social morbidity of battered women in shelters. Behavior Therapy. 39.232-241. doi:10.10161j.bah.2007.08.003 Jordan. J. V.. Kaplan, A. G.. Miller. J. El., Silver, I. P.. & Surrey, J. L. (1991). Women's growth in connection. New York: Guilford. Kilpatrick, D. O.. Edmonds. C. N., & Seymour. A. (1992). Rape In America: A report to the nation. Arlington. VA: National Victim Center. Koss. M. P. (Ed.). (1994). The negative impact of crime victimization on women's health and medical use. Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage. Koss. M. P.. Abbey. A.. Campbell. R.. Cook. S.. Norris, J.. Testa, M.. et al. (2007). Revising the SES: A collaborative process to improve assessment of sexual aggression and victimization. Psychology of Women Quarterly. 31. 357-370. Koss. M. P.. Figueredo, A. J.. & Prince. R. J. (2002). Cognitive mediation of rape's mental, physical. and social health impact: Tests of four models in cross-sectional data. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70,926-941. Koss. M. P.. & Gidycz. C. A. (1985). Sexual Experiences Survey: Reliability and validity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 53. 422-423. Ledray, L. E. (1998). Sexual assault nurse examiner Development and operation guide (NCJ 170609). Washington, DC: Office of Victims of Crimes. Ledray, L. E., Burgess, A. W., & Giardina A. P. (2011). Medical response to adult sexual assauh. St. Louis. MO: STM Learning.
Lewis. C. F. (2005). Post-traumatic stress disorder in HIV-positive incarcerated women. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatty and the Law. 33(4).455-464. Littleton. H. L. (2007). An evaluation of the coping patterns of rape victims: Integration with a schema-based information-processing model. Violence Against Women. 13.789-801. Littleton. H. L. (2010). The impact of social support and negative disclosure reactions on sexual assault victims: A cross-sectional and longitudinal investigation. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation. 11.210-227. Marchetti. C. A. (2012). Regret and police reporting among individuals who have experienced sexual assault. Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association. 18. 32-39. doi:10.1177/1078390311431889 Najdowski. C. 1., & Ullman. S. E. (2009). PTSD symptoms and self-rated recovery among adult sexual assault survivors: The effects of traumatic life events and psychosocial variables. Psychology of Women Quarterly. 33.43-53. Orchowski, L. M.. @ Gidycz. C. A. (2012). To whom do college women confide following sexual assault? A prospective study of predictors of sexual assault disclosure and social reactions. Vioknce Against Women. 18(3). 264-288. Plichta. S. B.. @ Falik. M. (2001). Prevalence of violence and its implications for women's health. Women's Health Issues. /1,244-258. Resick. P. A.. Jordan, C. G.. Girelli, S. A., Hunts. C. K.. & Marhocfer-Dvorak. S. (1988). A comparative outcome study of behavioral group therapy for sexual assault victims. Behavior Therapy. 19. 385-401. Siegel. J. M.. Golding. J. M.. Stein. J. A.. Burnam. M. A.. & Sorenson. S. B. (1990). Reactions to sexual assault: A community study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 5.229-246. Simnel, G. (1906). The sociology of secrecy and of secret societies. American Journal of Sociology. 11.441-498. Smith. D. K., Berrey. M. M.. Robertson. M.. Mchrotra• D.. Markowitz. M.. Perrin. L., et al. (2000). Virological and immunological effects of combination antireuoviral therapy with zidovudine, lamivudine, and indinavir during primary human immunodeficiency vinis type infection. Journal of Infectious Disease. 182(3). 950-954. Smith. D. K., Grohskopf, L A., Black. R. J.. Auerbach. J. D.. Veronese, F.. Struble. K. A., et al. (2005. January 22). Antiretroviral postexposure prophylaxis after sexual, infection-drug use. or other nonoccupatlonal exposure to HIV in the United States: Recommendations from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report—Recommendations and Reports. 2005). Retrieved from http:/fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih. gowenuczkruery.fcgi?emdatetrievettdb=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list\_uids=15660015 Starzynski. L. L.. Ullman, S. E.. Filipas. H. H.. & Townserid. S. M. (2005). Correlates of women's sexual assault disclosure to informal and formal support sources. Violence and Victims. 20.417-432. Tjaden. P.. & Thoenncs, N. (2006). Extent nature and consequences of rape staimuation: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Surey. Washington. DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Ullman. S. E. (1996). Do social reactions to sexual assault victims vary by support provider? Violence and Victims. 11. 143-157. Ullman. S. E.. & Filipas. H. H. (2001). Predictors of PTSD symptom severity and social reactions in sexual assault vietimsJournal of Trauma Stress. 14(2). 369-389. U.S. Department of Justice. (2008). Crime in the United States. 2007. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Washington. D.C.
Wolitalcy-Taylor, K. B.. Resnick, H. S.. McCauley. J. L.. Ainstacher. A. B.. Kilpatrick. D. G.. & Ruggiero. K. J. (2011). Is reporting of rape on the rise? A comparison of women with reported versus unreported rape experiences in the National Women's Study-Replication. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 26.807-832. dal:10.1177108862.60510365869 Wolff, K. H. (ed.). (1950). The sociology of georg :unmet. New York, NY: Simon & Shuster.
Carrie M. Carretta. PhD, APN-BC, ANN-BC. PMHNP. is an assistant professorkesearch faculty at Rutgers. the State University of Nov Jersey. Newark. NJ. and has a private psychiatric nursing practice.
Ann W. Burgess. DNSc. APRN. BC. FAAN. is professor of psychiatric nursing at the William F. Connell School of Nursing. Boston College. Chestnut Hill. MA. and has a private psychiatric nursing practice.
Rosanna DeMarco, PhD. RN. PHCNS-BC. APHN-BC. FAAN. is chair and professor. Department of Nursing. University of Massachusetts Boston. College of Nursing and Health Sciences. Boston. MA.
+