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

s 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 subpoenas in the context of the state criminal case — even thou il ese victims w

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

s 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 subpoenas in the context of the state criminal case — even thou il hese victims

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

s 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 subpoenas in the context of the state criminal case — even though these victims