Epstein Secrets

estigation involved intent with many of the same witnesses. We are aware that at least one federal interview 1 ) was recorded. We understand that Detective Recarcy provided his police report and certain affidavits to the federal authorities but did not provide the actual witness statements of the taped intervie

ftPI): told me to say I was IS because said . . . if you're not then he [Epstein' won't really let you in his house. So I said I was Ir. Detective Recarey. however. largely ignored these critical admissions in his Police Report and Probable Cause Affidavit. Q: At any time. did he speak to you and does

Beach Police Department's probable cause affidavit has never been filed with the Court. If, in fact, you are referring to the Ex Pane Declaration of Joseph Recarey that was filed in response to the motion to quash the grand jury subpoena, it was filed both under seal and er pane, so no one should have access t

n's attorneys stating that "I intend to notify the victims by letter after COB Thursday [two days later]." See Tab 34, November 27, 2007 Email from J. Sloman to J. Lelkowitz. 42. The morning of November 28, attorneys for Mr. Epstein faxed a letter to Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher, requesting a

n to the press at the same time that he publicly called for federal authorities to prosecute Mr. Epstein. The raw police reports included Detective Joseph Recarey's unedited written reports of witness statements and witness identification information that were later proven to be highly inaccurate transcriptions

ghly inaccurate transcriptions of the witnesses' actual recorded statements, rife with glaring misquotes and misleading omissions. It was Detective Recarey who took the case to the EFTA00314859 FBI. These actions undermined the credibility of everything that followed in the federal investigation. Th

aring misquotes and misleading omissions. It was Detective Recarey who took the case to the EFTA00314859 FBI. The

sel, confirming that "I understand that the plea and sentence will occur on or before the January 4th [2008] date." See October 31, 2007 Email from J. Sloman to J. Lefkowitz (emphasis added). On November 5, 2007, despite Mr. Sloman's having sent the October 31 email only a week earlier, after learning th

aw police reports of the investigation (including Detective Recarey's unedited written reports of witness statements

Jury's indictment, the Chief took the unprecedented step of releasing his Department's raw police reports of the investigation (including Detective Recarey's unedited written reports of witness statements and witness identification information), that were later proven to be highly inaccurate transcript

novo review of the investigation and facilitated such review at the highest levels of the Department of Justice. " Tab 1, May 19, 2008 Letter from J. Sloman, p. 5,1 3. The Truth: • CEOS' review, concluded in May 2008, was neither independent nor de nova o CEOS' review was not "independent:" • who co

P-012130 Thru P-012150 Declaration of Joseph Recarey 6(e) Box #3 P-012151 Thru P-012167 Ex Parte

f Jeffrey Epstein to Intervene and to Quash Grand Jury Subpoenas and Cross-Motion to Compel 6(e) Box #3 P-012130 Thru P-012150 Declaration of Joseph Recarey 6(e) Box #3 P-012151 Thru P-012167 Ex Parte Declaration Number One in Support of United States' Response to Motion to Quash Subpoenas 6(e)

ts of victims who are not parties to this litigation Suppl. Box #3 P-013282 Thru P-013283 7/9/08 Email from A. Marie Villafafia to A. Acosta, J. Sloman, K. Atkinson, and FBI re proposed response to Goldberger letter re victim notification Attorney-Client Privilege Work product Deliberative Proce

ent representation that “/T]he SDFL indicated a willingness to defer to the State the length of incarceration...” See Tab 1, May 19, 2008 Letter from J. Sloman, p. 2. This statement is simply not true. Contrary to Mr. Sloman’s assertion, federal prosecutors refused to accept what the State believed to be app

d Jury’s indictment, the Chief took the unprecedented step of releasing his Department’s raw police reports of the investigation (including Detective Recarey’s unedited written reports of witness statements and witness identification information), that were later proven to be highly inaccurate transcriptio

aw police reports of the investigation (including Detective Recarey’s unedited written reports of witness statements

g out of this case, she filed the “Declaration of Joseph Recarey,” attaching the state detective’s affidavit in su