Epstein Secrets

anted to know what was in it. The State Attorney's Office wrote the line prosecutor inquiring how to respond.' 152. On September 16, 2008, attorney Jeffrey Herman, who represented several Epstein victims, wrote to the line prosecutor to strenuously object to the restitution procedures 164 RFP WPB 001775 (Exhi

public mention of the NPA and the first disclosure to Mr. Edwards—and thus to Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, and Jane Doe 5—of the possible existence of a NPA.137 122. Mr. Edwards detrimentally relied on the misleading representations made by the Office that the case was still under investigation when he was w

anted to know what was in it. The State Attorney's Office wrote the line prosecutor inquiring how to respond.' 152. On September 16, 2008, attorney Jeffrey Herman, who represented several Epstein victims, wrote to the line prosecutor to strenuously object to the restitution procedures 164 RFP WPB 001775 (Exhi

public mention of the NPA and the first disclosure to Mr. Edwards—and thus to Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, and Jane Doe 5—of the possible existence of a NPA.137 122. Mr. Edwards detrimentally relied on the misleading representations made by the Office that the case was still under investigation when he was w

nted to know what was in it. The State Attorney's Office wrote the line prosecutor inquiring how to respond.'68 152. On September 16, 2008, attorney Jeffrey Herman, who represented several Epstein victims, wrote to the line prosecutor to strenuously object to the restitution procedures 161 REP WPB 001775 (Exhi

public mention of the NPA and the first disclosure to Mr. Edwards—and thus to Jane Doe I, Jane Doe 2, and Jane Doc 5—of the possible existence of a NPA.137 122. Mr. Edwards detrimentally relied on the misleading representations made by the Office that the case was still under investigation when he was w