Epstein Secrets

, for example, requested that the U.S. Attorney's Office provide to them unredacted copies of correspondence between the U.S. Attorney's Office and Jeffrey Epstein. Through civil discovery from Epstein, the victims have obtained half of that correspondence — the words written by the U.S. Attorney's Office — bu

ey's Office provide to them unredacted copies of correspondence between the U.S. Attorney's Office and Jeffrey Epstein. Through civil discovery from Epstein, the victims have obtained half of that correspondence — the words written by the U.S. Attorney's Office — but are lacking the other half — the wor

spondence between the U.S. Attorney's Office and Jeffrey Epstein. Through civil discovery from Epstein, th

in "the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial." ily 9, 2008 (doc. #14

ope of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976)." See, e.g., Standing Discovery Order, United States v. Enriquez, No. 1:10-CR-20488- MGC (July 9, 2010) (doc. #115). These Standing Discovery Orders follow from identical language in the local rule on these issues

, for example, requested that the U.S. Attorney's Office provide to them unredacted copies of correspondence between the U.S. Attorney's Office and Jeffrey Epstein. Through civil discovery from Epstein, the victims have obtained half of that correspondence — the words written by the U.S. Attorney's Office — bu

ey's Office provide to them unredacted copies of correspondence between the U.S. Attorney's Office and Jeffrey Epstein. Through civil discovery from Epstein, the victims have obtained half of that correspondence — the words written by the U.S. Attorney's Office — but are lacking the other half — the wor

spondence between the U.S. Attorney's Office and Jeffrey Epstein. Through civil discovery from Epstein, th

in "the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial." The affidavit also g

ope of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976)." See, e.g., Standing Discovery Order, United States v. Enriquez, No. 1:10-CR-20488- MGC (July 9, 2010) (doc. #115). These Standing Discovery Orders follow from identical language in the local rule on these issues

, for example, requested that the U.S. Attorney's Office provide to them unredacted copies of correspondence between the U.S. Attorney's Office and Jeffrey Epstein. Through civil discovery from Epstein, the victims have obtained half of that correspondence — the words written by the U.S. Attorney's Office — bu

ey's Office provide to them unredacted copies of correspondence between the U.S. Attorney's Office and Jeffrey Epstein. Through civil discovery from Epstein, the victims have obtained half of that correspondence — the words written by the U.S. Attorney's Office — but are lacking the other half — the wor

spondence between the U.S. Attorney's Office and Jeffrey Epstein. Through civil discovery from Epstein, th

in "the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial." Declaration of Marie V

the scope of Brady. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and United States. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976)." See, e.g., Standing Discovery Order, United States, Enriquez, No. 1:10-CR-20488- MGC (July 9, 2010) (doc. #115). These Standing Discovery Orders follow from identical language in the local rule on these issues

spondence between the U.S. Attorney's Office and Jeffrey Epstein. Through civil discovery from Epstein, th

in "the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial." Declaration of Marie V

, for example, requested that the U.S. Attorney's Office provide to them unredacted copies of correspondence between the U.S. Attorney's Office and Jeffrey Epstein. Through civil discovery from Epstein, the victims have obtained half of that correspondence — the words written by the U.S. Attorney's Office — bu

ey's Office provide to them unredacted copies of correspondence between the U.S. Attorney's Office and Jeffrey Epstein. Through civil discovery from Epstein, the victims have obtained half of that correspondence — the words written by the U.S. Attorney's Office — but are lacking the other half — the wor

the scope of Brady. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and United States. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976)." See, e.g., Standing Discovery Order, United States, Enriquez, No. 1:10-CR-20488- MGC (July 9, 2010) (doc. #115). These Standing Discovery Orders follow from identical language in the local rule on these issues

necessary" (doc. #17 at I). The Office asserted that the Court need only take judicial notice of the fact that no indictment had been filed against Epstein to resolve the case. On August I, 2008, the victims filed a response to the Government's "Notice" (doe. #19), giving a proposed statement of facts

n for sexually abusing them. During the course of that litigation, in June 2001, they obtained correspondence between the U.S. Attorney's Office and Jeffrey Epstein's legal counsel. Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 ultimately settled their civil suits in July 2010. During the settlement discussions, they informed Epste

hether a charging document was ever filed against Jeffrey Epstein in the United States District Court for

in "the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial." Declaration of Marie V

the scope of Brady. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and United Stales, Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976)." See, e.g., Standing Discovery Order, United States' Enriquez, No. 1:10-CR-20488- MGC (July 9, 2010) (doc. #115). These Standing Discovery Orders follow from identical language in the local rule on these issues

iversity of California at Los Angeles. Dr. W. E. Jeffrey, Chairperson. X. PUBLICATIONS Greitzer (aka, Go

csamana, M., Ristrom, L., & Qin, J. (in press). Disclosures of sexual and physical abuse across repeated interviews. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse. Enriquez, R., Brown, L. F., Metcalf, S. A., Quas, J. A., & Goodman, G. S. (in press). The developmental science of children in criminal and dependency court