Epstein Secrets

atalogued above, but I will try to collect them into general categories in chronological order. a. I did not want to meet with counsel for Epstein (Lilly Ann Sanchez and Gerald Lefcourt) prior to completin m investi ation. My co-counsel ( ) agreed with me. Our supervisor, overruled us. b. AUSA and

p on March 19 and 22, 2008 to let everyone know that Epstein was subpoenaing victims and was using particularly aggressive means of service — having the Sheriff's Office serve the subpoenas at the places of work, calling them into the Dean's Office at their colleges, etc. I explained that Epstein was issuing these s

those changes. Criminal Chief participated in numerous meetings on the case, and had private conversations regarding resolution of the matter with Lilly counsel to Mr. Epstein. Ms. had formerly served as Deputy Chief in the Major Crimes Section at the USAO while Mr. was Chief of Major Crimes. As

A00225045 that the state offered, including work release. Because of this, I had to withdraw the Notice of Breach and could only write I letter to the Sheriff's Office pointing out all of the false statements contained in Epstein's application for work release and letters to the victims informing them that Epstein

between his attorneys and your office, Epstein secretly withheld correspondence by several of his mostii ral owered attorneys — namely Ken Starr and Lilly. Sanchez. Epstein settled the case wit within days after this limited production, and we did not realize the absence of what must have been critic

attorneys who are currently retained—and paid—by Mr. Epstein. Their attorney- client privilege obligations might further restrain them from notifying the Sheriff's Office if Mr. Epstein was not abiding by the work release rules. As I previously mentioned to Colonel Gauger, the decision regarding work release is comp

ntation of Epstein 12 8/4/2006 Victim Notification Letters 13 WI1/2006 Victim Notification Letters 14 1/17/07- 2/1/07 Correspondence between Lilly Ann Sanchez, Gerald Lelcourt, Andrew Laurie, A. Marie Villafrina, and John McMillan regarding 2/1/2007 Meeting 15 11/13/06- 1/22/07 Subpoenas to

had been specifically discussed with Epstein's counsel and they informed us that Epstein would not seek work release. The agents and I also met with the Sheriff's Office in advance of the plea and had been told that Epstein would not be eligible for work release. Accordingly, I provided my Notice of Breach, but was

in child exploitation cases was an issue of growing concern, so I was mindful that this plea mechanism that Criminal Chief Menchel had devised with Lilly Ann Sanchez would extinguish, the victims' right to restitution. That was one of the reasons why, on July 4, 2007, I wrote to Mr. Menchel that I be

or was one of his employees who lived in New Jersey) and submitted it to the Sheriff's Office (Exhibits 83 and 84). I never received a response from the Sheriff's Office. 30 Gauger also said that Jack Goldberger had threatened that "Ken Starr and the whole crew" would sue the jail if Epstein received less favorable