Epstein Secrets

tims' 165:14 video 55:6 166:16 videographer 2:21 4:1.12 55:2,5 131:2,5 146:9,12 169:5 videotaped 1:13 3:3 4:4 6:12 view 105:1 145:11 158:10 Villegas 138:13 violation 165:3 violently 92:21 visually 70:5 voice 84:6 voluntarily 106:13 106:19 168:20 volunteering 51:14 voting 14:20,25 vs 1:7

if it happened it's relevant to 5 proving that it had happened to your client. 4 The whole point is to prove that it / happened to your client, Donau.* it happened to • other people. And the circumstances, if they can be • similar, that helps as wall. 10 II • You spoke about modus operandi.

1838255 (W.D.N.Y. May 8, 2014) passim United States v. Vilar, No. 05 Cr. 621 (KMK), 2007 WL 1075041 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2007) 169 United States v. Villegas, 899 F.2d 1324 (2d Cir. 1990) 115 EFTA00077629 United States v. Walker, 191 F.3d 326 (2d Cir. 1999) 70 United States v. Walsh, 194 F.3d. 37

Thus, the defendant's claim that she no longer has access to certain evidence is not a proper basis to dismiss the Indictment. See United States v. Donau, 356 F. Supp. 1091, 1094 (S.D.N.Y. 1973) ("A bare allegation that records have been lost or destroyed, which might relate Ig The Government notes t

1838255 (W.D.N.Y. May 8, 2014) passim United States v. Vilar, No. 05 Cr. 621 (KMK), 2007 WL 1075041 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2007) 169 United States v. Villegas, 899 F.2d 1324 (2d Cir. 1990) 115 EFTA00039444 United States v. Walker, 191 F.3d 326 (2d Cir. 1999) 70 United States v. Walsh, 194 F.3d. 37

Thus, the defendant's claim that she no longer has access to certain evidence is not a proper basis to dismiss the Indictment. See United States v. Donau, 356 F. Supp. 1091, 1094 (S.D.N.Y. 1973) ("A bare allegation that records have been lost or destroyed, which might relate Ig The Government notes t