Epstein Secrets

ught in the litigation was not just to get "disclosure" of the agreement, but instead to uphold the rights of Epstein's 151. On September 16, 2008, the Palm Beach Daily News wrote the State Attorney's Office that it had "recently discovered" the NPA and wanted to know what was in it. The State Attorney's Office wrote th

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

ught in the litigation was not just to get "disclosure" of the agreement, but instead to uphold the rights of Epstein's 151. On September 16, 2008, the Palm Beach Daily News wrote the State Attorney's Office that it had "recently discovered" the NPA and wanted to know what was in it. The State Attorney's Office wrote th

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

itigation was not just to get "disclosure" of the agreement, but instead to uphold the rights of Epstein's v ictims.I67 151. On September 16, 2008, the Palm Beach Daily News wrote the State Attorney's Office that it had "recently discovered" the NPA and wanted to know what was in it. The State Attorney's Office wrote th

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