Epstein Secrets

d engage in illegal sexual activity. In other words, the illegal sexual activity must have not been merely incidental to the trip. United States v. Hayward, 359 F.3d 631, 637-38 (3d Cir. 2004). See also United States v. Garcia-Lopez , 234 F.3d 217, 220 (5th Cir. 2000) (The district court did not err in

ecruited Jane Doe #17 and a non-minor female to go to Epstein's home. There are ap roximatel 60 calls between Jane Doe #16 and and 14 calls between Jane Doe #16 and called Jane Doe #16 once. Credibility Issues Jane Doe #16 is the basis for one count of the state indictment. Epstein's at-tome s have acc

d engage in illegal sexual activity. In other words, the illegal sexual activity must have not been merely incidental to the trip. United States v. Hayward, 359 F.3d 631, 637-38 (3d Cir. 2004). See also United States v. Garcia-Lopez , 234 F.3d 217, 220 (5th Cir. 2000) (The district court did not err in

Jane Doe #5 to travel to 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Florida. 3. On or about March 12, 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN made a payment of $200 to Jane Doe #5. 2. The Substantive Offenses related to Jane Doe #5 Count Date(s) Offense Statute Defendant(s) 5 3/7/04 - 3/11/04 Use of cellular phone to

fighting at school because the other girl accused Jane Doe #2 of being a prostitute, one of the school principals intervened. The principal searched Jane Doe #2's purse and found $300 cash. The principal asked Jane Doe #2 where the money came from. Jane Doe #2 initially claimed that she earned the money w

d engage in illegal sexual activity. In other words, the illegal sexual activity must have not been merely incidental to the trip. United States v. Hayward, 359 F.3d 631, 637-38 (3d Cir. 2004). See also United States v. Garcia-Lopez , 234 F.3d 217, 220 (5th Cir. 2000) (The district court did not err in