Epstein Secrets

effrey Zirulnilcoff, Case No. F078646 (June 28, 2007). 7. After a thorough review by the Miami State Attorney's Office, and sex-crimes prosecutor Laura Adams, the investigation revealed that the defendant and both the neighbor's 17- year-old daughter and Mr. daughter were previously acquainted. The defe

eral charges that limited Epstein's sentencing exposure . . . " See Tab 1, May 19, 2008 Letter from J. . In fact, by a email dated August 3, 2007, Criminal Division Chief Matthew Menchel advised the defense that the federal government required a minimum term of two years of incarceration. See Tab 40, August 3,

Jeffrey Zirulnikoff, Case No. F078646 (June 28, 2007). 7. After a thorough review by the Miami State Attorney's Office, and sex-crimes prosecutor Laura Adams, the investigation revealed that the defendant and both the neighbor's 17- year-old daughter and Mr. daughter were previously acquainted. The defe

eral charges that limited Epstein's sentencing exposure . . . " See Tab 1, May 19, 2008 Letter from J. . In fact, by a email dated August 3, 2007, Criminal Division Chief Matthew Menchel advised the defense that the federal government required a minimum term of two years of incarceration. See Tab 40, August 3,

Jeffrey Zirulnikoff, Case No. F078646 (June 28, 2007). 7. After a thorough review by the Miami State Attorney's Office, and sex-crimes prosecutor Laura Adams, the investigation revealed that the defendant and both the neighbor's 17- year-old daughter and Mr. daughter were previously acquainted. The defe

a plea to federal charges that limited Epstein's sentencing exposure . . . " See Tab 1, May 19, 2008 Le In fact, by a email dated August 3, 2007, Criminal Division Chief advised the defense that the federal government required a • o two years of incarceration. See Tab 40, August 3, 2007 Email fro Subsequen

athan Jeffrey Zirulnikoff, Case No. F078646 (June 28, 2007). After a thorough review by the Miami State Attorney’s Office, and sex-crimes prosecutor Laura Adams, the investigation revealed that the defendant and both the neighbor’s 17- year-old daughter and Mr. Sloman’s daughter were previously acquainted. Th

our review of this case is limited both factually and legally. We have not looked at the entire universe of facts in this case. It is not the role of the Criminal Division to conduct a complete factual inquiry from scratch.” (CEOS letter at p. 1). Indeed, entire subject areas relevant to the inquiry were not considered