Epstein Secrets

ns of the offender and consequently, the offender-victim interaction that follows when a crime is committed (Tedeschi & Felson, 1994). For example, Elliott, Browne. and Kilcoyne (1995) found that 39% of sexual offenders in their sample said that they would use threats or violence to overcome child resi

ition is provided by Douglas. Burgess, Burgess and Ressler • Corresponding author. Tel.: •61 7 3735 5823. &mod address: hleclerctegriffithAduau (B, Leclerc). 1359-1789/S - see front matter 0 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.10166a0.2008.08.001 (1997), who define modus operandi as 'the ac

viors with children, his motives as well as his previous work experience with children (Leclerc et al.. 2005: Sullivan & Beech, 2004). For example. Leclerc et al. (2005) found that the modus operandi of these offenders focus on spending a lot of time and being "overly touchy and affectionate with poten

ss, ease of access, or perceived vulnerabilities of the child (Lanning 2010; McAlinden 2006; Mooney and Ost 2013; Olson, Ellevold, and Rogers 2007). Elliott, Browne, and Kilcoyne (1995) found that when selecting a victim, offenders often focused on physical characteristics such as the child being pretty

ss consists of a series of stages that the child molester progresses through as they groom the victim for the impending sexual abuse (Canning 2010; Leclerc, Prouty.. and Beauregard 2009; McAlinden 2006). It must be noted that, to date, there has yet to be a validated model of sexual grooming. It has bee

Men Exposed to Childhood Sexual Abuse: A Qualitative Investigation." Journal of Child Sexual Abuse 21 (2):155-75. doi: 10.1080/10538712.2012.659803 Elliott, Ian A. 2017. "A Self-Regulation Model of Sexual Grooming." Trauma, Violence 6 Abuse l8 (0:83-97. doh 10.1177/1524838015591573 Elliott, Mkhele, Kev

provide access to children (e.g., Catholic Church, Boy Scouts of America, schools, foster care, sports teams, babysitting; Lanning and Burgess 1984; Leclerc and Felson 2016; McAlinden 2006; Sullivan and Beech, 2002) thus circumventing the need to gain access to or groom the child's family, or exploiting

grooming processes may differ in important ways, as there are some behaviors that are not possible online (e.g., providing the victim with alcohol; Elliott, 2017) and thus, the present study will focus solely on in-person grooming behaviors. It should also be noted that individuals who sexually abuse c

, prior models describe a stage in which the offender works toward deceptively developing trust and cooperation with the child (Craven et aL, 2006; Leclerc et at, 2009; Olson et al., 2007). While some models incorporate a broad stage that refers to the overarching goal of trust development, others have

by DeVoe and Faller (1999) of five- to ten-year olds (i.e. making detailed informal disclosures that were not replicated in formal interviews) and Elliott and Briere (1994) of children aged eight to 15 years (i.e. disclosing only partial information until confronted with external evidence that led to

Kogan, S. (2004). Disclosing unwanted sexual experiences: Results from a national sample of adolescent women. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28, 147 165. Leclerc, B., & Wortley, R. (2015). Predictors of victim disclosure in child sexual abuse: Additional evidence from a sample of incar cerated adult sex offe

nce because of obvious power differentials and dependency needs (Collings et al., 2005; Dumont et al., 2014; Hershkowitz et al., 2005; Kogan, 2004; Leclerc & Wort- ley, 2015; Paine & Hansen, 2002; Schaeffer et al., 2011). Further, the perpetrator residing with their victim(s) increases the likelihood o

by DeVoe and Faller (1999) of five- to ten-year olds (i.e. making detailed informal disclosures that were not replicated in formal interviews) and Elliott and Briere (1994) of children aged eight to 15 years (i.e. disclosing only partial information until confronted with external evidence that led to