Epstein Secrets

neyJ3;irry Kdscher's handli"hg - . . . . . I ofl:he c:as_e in a bhmtly critical leuert:o Krischer la.st ye·ar before Epstein was indicted, I Reitet referred the mattef·to the,FBlto determine whether any federal l~ws had been viol;ited. Epstein's allie_s c.91Jntered by attacking the chief person

to the FBI to determine: whether any federal laws had been violated. Epstein’s allies countered by attacking the chief personally and professionally. Reiters department investigated Epstein for 11 months; Police sifted repeatedly through his trash and conducted surveillance on his five-bedroom, 7 1/2-batb,

to take the unprecedented step of presenting the evidence against Epstein to a grand jury, rather than directly charging him. Palm Beach Police Chief Michael Reiterwas furious, with State Attorney Barry Krischer, saying in a May 2006 letter that the prosecutor should disqualify himself "I continue to find your offic

re it was to begin receiving evidence. (1) Police Chief Reiter’s Letter to the State Attorney. 16. On May 1, 200

000170 FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 2:57:43 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY Epstein on the'Ie~s serfous charge,-Pohce Chief Michael Reiter referred the ,case to the FBI to, determine wheth~r there were federal law violations; After a spate of stories· about the case last week, Ne

(“Where a speaker exists . . . the protection afforded [by the First Amendment] is to the communication, to its source and to its recipients both.”); Pittman v. Cole, 267 F.3d 1269, 1283 n. 12 (11th Cir. 2001) (“The Supreme Court has recognized that the First Amendment offers protection to both speakers an

~2(p0v7 ' CA/AroPfi,!il5P~Jl% BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 31/27/2023 4:10:49 PM 11. On May 1, 2006, Town of Palm Beach Police Chief Michael Reiter wrote a “personal and confidential” letter to former State Attorney Krischer, stating: I must renew my prior observation to you that I continue to fi

nd consider ifgood and sufficient reason exists to requireyour disqualificationfrom theprosecution ofthese cases. (Emphasis supplied) Appendix at 5 (“Reiter Letter”). 12. Chief Reiter wrote the letter because he “knew that Mr. Krischer was making decisions about this case” and “felt his objectivity was la

f solicitation of prostitution. There is no mention in the indictm~nt of the victim being a minor. See Appendix at 6 (Indictment at p. 42). I 20. Chi_ef Reiter did not "consider fifteen-year-olds, sixte~n--'-y~ar-olds who are paid money to engage in sexual contact [as] prostitution ... "Appendix at 4 (Reite

ndment right to report information informing the public about the operation of the criminal justice system. See Va. Pharmacy Bd., 425 U.S. at 756-57; Pittman, 267 F.3d at 1283; Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 596 (“the 5 No-knock warrants have been banned in Florida since 1994. See Slate y. Bamber, 630 So

(“Where a speaker exists . . . the protection afforded [by the First Amendment] is to the communication, to its source and to its recipients both.”), Pittman v. Cole, 267 F.3d 1269, 1283 n.12 (11th Cir. 2001) (“The Supreme Court has recognized that the First Amendment offers protection to both speakers and

Dershowitz. 12. Another grand jury was convened in April 2006, but canceled the day before it was to begin receiving evidence. (1) Police Chief Reiter’s Letter to the State Attorney. 13. On May 1, 2006, Town of Palm Beach Police Chief Michael Reiter wrote a “personal and confidential” letter to t

it was to begin receiving evidence. (1) Police Chief Reiter’s Letter to the State Attorney. 13. On May 1, 2006, Town of Palm Beach Police Chief Michael Reiter wrote a “personal and confidential” letter to then Palm Beach County State Attorney, Barry Krischer, stating: I must renew my prior observation t

o charge him with sexual activity with minors. When the grand jury indicted NOT A CERTIFIED COPY Epstein on the less serious charge1 Police Chief Michael Reiter referred the case to the FBI to determine whether there were federal law violations. After a spate of stories about the case last week1 New Y

it was to begin receiving evidence. (1) Police Chief Reiter’s Letter to the State Attorney. 13. On May 1, 2

“Where a speaker exists . . . the protection afforded [by the First Amendment] is to the communication, to its source and to its recipients both.”); Pittman v. Cole, 267 F.3d 1269, 1283 n.12 (11th Cir. 2001) (“The Supreme Court has recognized that the First Amendment offers protection to both speakers a

Alan Dershowitz. 15. Another grand jury was convened in April 2006, but canceled the day before it was to begin receiving evidence. (1) Police Chief Reiter’s Letter to the State Attorney. 16. On May 1, 2006, Town of Palm Beach Police Chief Michael Reiter wrote a “personal and confidential” letter to then

efore it was to begin receiving evidence. (1) Police Chief Reiter’s Letter to the State Attorney. 16. On May 1, 2006, Town of Palm Beach Police Chief Michael Reiter wrote a “personal and confidential” letter to then Palm Beach County State Attorney, Barry Krischer, stating: I must renew my prior observation to yo

re it was to begin receiving evidence. (1) Police Chief Reiter’s Letter to the State Attorney. 16. On May 1, 200

) (“Where a speaker exists ... the protection afforded [by the First Amendment] is to the communication, to its source and to its recipients both.”); Pittman v. Cole, 267 F.3d 1269, 1283 n.12 (11th Cir. 2001) (“The Supreme Court has recognized that the First Amendment offers protection to both speakers and