Epstein Secrets

hand 59:17 64:1065:13,18 64:3 163:18 165:1 62:4 80:24 82:15 66:14 68:6 69:3,5 sanctum 69:25 167:7,20 168:6,17 113:24 114:15 69:16 72:6 74:9 Santiago 2:21 4:11 169:1,4,7,11 127:21 74:17,19,25 77:22 sat 20:2 106:21 Scarola's 121:2,5 secrecy 69:2 78:2,18 79:4,7 Saturday 27:15 129:18 secret

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.

d 287 (2d Cir. 2018) 177, 178, 188 United States v. Samsonov, No. 07 Cr. 1198 (CM), 2009 WL 176721 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2009) 269 United States v. Santiago, 987 F. Supp. 2d 465 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) 75 United States v. Sarwari, 669 F.3d 401 (4th Cir. 2012) 179, 180 United States v. Sattar, 272 F. Supp.

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

d 287 (2d Cir. 2018) 177, 178, 188 United States v. Samsonov, No. 07 Cr. 1198 (CM), 2009 WL 176721 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2009) 269 United States v. Santiago, 987 F. Supp. 2d 465 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) 75 United States v. Sarwari, 669 F.3d 401 (4th Cir. 2012) 179, 180 United States v. Sattar, 272 F. Supp.

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