Epstein Secrets

Q. Did you send that message last week to a 14 friend of yours on MySpace? 15 A. I wouldn't know. There's no dates and I've 16 deleted that MySpace, so -- 17 Q. We're going to talk about that in a second. 18 A. Okay. 19 Q. Did you send that message last week -- 20 A. Right. 21 O. Let

o no no i love you...o and p.s. i love ur default pic 12 niggaa. Muah xo. 13 Q. Did you send that message last week to a 14 friend of yours on MySpace? 15 A. I wouldn't know. There's no dates and I've 16 deleted that MySpace, so -- 17 Q. We're going to talk about that in a second. 18 A. Ok

ee Ex. A. I had several oral and written communications with Mr. Eisenberg asking him if Jane Doe 2 would appear under the protection of a standard Kastigar letter, but he told me that Jane Doe 2 would only appear if statutory immunity pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 6001 was received. For example, in my letter

ile the letter covered all of these topics, I recall the meeting was focused primarily on challenges to the victims' credibility (e.g., one victim's MySpace page showed her smoking marijuana and posing provocatively); allegations of police overreaching; and the lack of evidence that Epstein knew the vic

nusz Banasiak and Mucinska. Both initially asked for immunity. After speaking with Banasiak's attorney, Mr. Banasiak was satisfied with I standard Kastigar letter, but Ms. Mucinska's attorney was insistent on formal immunity, and as noted above, so was Individual #28. I don't believe that, prior to thi

ile the letter covered all of these topics, I recall the meeting was focused primarily on challenges to the victims' credibility (e.g., one victim's MySpace page showed her smoking marijuana and posing provocatively); allegations of police overreaching; and the lack of evidence that Epstein knew the vic

in employees — Janusz Banasiak Both initially asked for immunity. After speaking with Banasiak's attorney, r. anasi was satisfied with a standard Kastigar letter, but Ms. Mucinska's attorney was insistent on formal immunity, and as noted above, so was Individual #28. I don't believe that, prior to thi