Epstein Secrets

Belohlavek told OPR that the Chief of the Police Department would not regularly play a role in the state victim notification process. 427 Although Villafafia's notes indicate that she researched Florida Statutes§§ 960.001 and 921.143 when she drafted unsent lcllcrs to victims in November and December 2007

d resolved the federal investigation, and some victims only learned of the state court pleas and sentencing from the news media. In the end, although Villafafia and Sloman hastily attempted to ensure victim notification through Chief Reiter, their effort was too little and too late to ensure that victims had

tely three weeks abroad. Extensive international travel of this nature further demonstrates a significant risk of flight. See, e.g., United States v. Anderson, 384 F. Supp. 2d 32, 36 (D.D.C. 2005). There can be no assurance that, upon release, the defendant would suddenly lack access to such means of travel

e NPA, the investigation had not developed evidence of `any other potential co-conspirators.'"); id. at 167 (with respect to Maxwell, "according to Villafafia, in 2007, they `didn't have any specific evidence against her.'"). 55 EFTA00100022 satisfied that he should prosecute and will be able promptly t

d States v. Amato, 15 F.3d 230 (2d Cir. 1994) 209 United States v. An Antique Platter of Gold, 184 F.3d 131 (2d Cir. 1999) 222 United States v. Anderson, 747 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 2014) 212 United States v. Anderson, 772 F.3d 969 (2d Cir. 2014) 162 United States v. Annabi, 10 Cr. 07 (CM) 286 ix

edged that investigators were aware of Epstein's longtime relationship with a close female friend who was a well- known socialite, but, according to Villafafia, in 2007, they "didn't have any specific evidence against her." Accordingly, Villafaiia believed that the only "co-conspirators" of Epstein who wou

d States v. Amato, 15 F.3d 230 (2d Cir. 1994) 209 United States v. An Antique Platter of Gold, 184 F.3d 131 (2d Cir. 1999) 222 United States v. Anderson, 747 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 2014) 212 United States v. Anderson, 772 F.3d 969 (2d Cir. 2014) 162 United States v. Annabi, 10 Cr. 07 (CM) 286 ix E

edged that investigators were aware of Epstein's longtime relationship with a close female friend who was a well- known socialite, but, according to Villafafia, in 2007, they "didn't have any specific evidence against her." Accordingly, Villafaiia believed that the only "co-conspirators" of Epstein who wou

d States v. Amato, 15 F.3d 230 (2d Cir. 1994) 209 United States v. An Antique Platter of Gold, 184 F.3d 131 (2d Cir. 1999) 222 United States v. Anderson, 747 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 2014) 212 United States v. Anderson, 772 F.3d 969 (2d Cir. 2014) 162 United States v. Annabi, 10 Cr. 07 (CM) 286 ix E

, OPR concluded that "the evidence does not show that [Former USAO-SDFL U.S. Attorney Alex] Acosta, [Former USAO-SDFL supervisor Andrew] Lourie, or Villafafia agreed to the nonprosecution provision to protect any of Epstein's political, celebrity, or other influential associates." OPR Report at 168." In

d States v. Amato, 15 F.3d 230 (2d Cir. 1994) 140 United States v. An Antique Platter of Gold, 184 F.3d 131 (2d Cir. 1999) 148 United States v. Anderson, 747 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 2014) 142 United States v. Anderson, 772 F.3d 969 (2d Cir. 2014) 110 United States v. Annabi, 771 F.2d 670 (2d Cir. 1985

edi-te-disesss what-I-may-diselese-to,the-gek-regarding-the-agreemenWl-U:SrAnemeyls-Cerrespondenee at-1-56: 13. On about September 26, 2007, AUSA. Villafafia sent an e-mail to Lefkowitz, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit in-whielt-she-etatedailiay—Can-you-give-me-a-eall at-564-209--Enentl-th

e process because the litigants and the courts assume that the sole purpose of discovery is to assist trial preparation.") (quoting United States'. Anderson, 799 F.2d 1438, 1441(11'h Cir. 1986; emphasis in original). See also Anderson, 799 F.2d at 1441 ("Historically, discovery materials were not availa

t position in this case, it is that this provision is not in fact part of the plea agreement in this case. If our understanding is correct, then Ms. Villafafia has filed a false affidavit with the court, albeit inadvertently. We respectfidly request that she file a new affidavit that corrects this false in

pply not only to references to unindicted co-conspirators in indictments and factual proffers, but also to motion papers. See, e.g.. United States'. Anderson, 55 F. Supp. 2d 1163, 1168 (D. Kan. 1999) ("After carefully reviewing the government's moving papers on the conflict of interest issue, the court c