Epstein Secrets

TES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE II Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and Defen

upheld intervening procedural changes even if application of the new rule operated to a defendant's disadvantage in the particular case. See e. g., Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282, 293-294, 53 L. Ed. 2d 344, 97 S. Ct. 2290 (1977); see also Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37, 111 L. Ed. 2d 30, 110 S. C

8's eighteenth birthday, and when Jane Doe #19 was seventeen years old. [NB: The police report describes a pattern of activity, including dates when Jane Doe #18 was seventeen years old.] Neither Jane Doe #18 nor #19 ever returned to Epstein's home. Although we have not yet obtained Jane Doe #18's teleph

al is not an ex post facto law. Even though it may work to the disadvant- age p f of a defendant, a procedural clinge is not ex ostacto ',"citing Dobbert Flor- ida, 432 U.S. 282, 293, 97 S.Ct. 2290, 2298, 53 L.Ed.2d 344 (1977); g e e.g., United States ex rel Massarella Elrod, 682 F.2d 688, 689

ied female in the presence of Jane Doe #2, who was then a fourteen- year-old girl. 17 (8) In or around 2001, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN paid $300 to Jane Doe #2, who was then a fourteen-year-old girl, for allowing an unidentified female to perform oral sex on Jane Doe #2 in EPSTEIN's presence. (9) On or

(quoting Hop . Utah, 110 U.S. 574, 590, 4 S.Ct. 202, 21 , 28 L.Ed. 262 (1884) (brackets added to conform to origll quotation in Hopt )); see also Dobbert ■ Florida, 432 U.S. 282, 293, 97 S.Ct. 22 , 2298, 53 L.Ed.2d 344 (1977) ("Even though it may work to the uri disadvantage of a defendant, a proced