Epstein Secrets

ated a new case number or if they're included in this. It seems like it probably generated a new case number but 1 can't say for sure. But Detective; Recarey would know. Q Okay. All right. Would all of the potential victims,that wcrc being investigated by your department prior to let's say July of2006, hav

ciates 56'1-833-7811 CA/ Aronberg-000800 FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:22:44 PM Page 149: 1 conversationwith Detective Recarey about this, 2 whether he said anything directly to you that she ■3 was removed as opposed to. removing:herself 4 voluntarily from the case? 5 MR. CRI

firmed before me this lsl day of May, 2006 by Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. Signature of Poli

Q Ifyou turn to page 79, it appears that; on 3 -the dale of.February 16, 2006, there's a meeting 4 that takes place between the investigator Joseph 5 Recafey and two women, Joanna Harrison and.a 6 Victoria Bean. Do you see that? 7 MR. CRITTON: Are we at 79? 8 MR. KUVIN: Yeah. 9 THE. WITNESS: Yes, 10 BY MR.

But it appears from this inforrna_tion here that these i:\vo, girls were paid for· sexual .contact with Mr:. Epstein, at least .accorging to what Detectiye Recarey investigated. Were there any additional investigations ongoing regarding allegations of ·prosGti,ition at thf home? • MR. CRITTON: Form. Page 1

nd Belohlavek told OPR that the Chief of the Police Department would not regularly play a role in the state victim notification process. 427 Although Villafaiia’s notes indicate that she researched Florida Statutes §§ 960.001 and 921.143 when she drafted unsent letters to victims in November and December 2007

navailability o fJeffrey Epstein, Epstein 's mother, Michael Casey (the alleged agent of Minor Victim-1), and Palm Beach Police Department Detective Joseph Recarey. She contends that the loss of Epstein demonstrates actual prejudice because Epstein "would have" testified that the defendant did not engage in th

m Beach Police Department even began investigating Epstein in 2005. (Def. Mot. 7, Ex. D at i). The defendant's claims relating to Michael Casey and Detective Recarey fare no better. She again speculates that Casey and Detective Recarey, who passed away in August 2017 and May 46 EFTA00100013 2018 respectively,

, Ex. D at i). The defendant's claims relating to Michael Casey and Detective Recarey fare no better. She again speculates that Casey and Detective Recarey, who passed away in August 2017 and May 46 EFTA00100013 2018 respectively, would have testified, and that such testimony would have been exculpat

in this Indictment have told the USAO-SDNY. In sum, the defendant has not put "specific evidence" before this Court demonstrating that the loss of Detective Recarey's testimony, even if admissible, has caused her actual prejudice. Scala, 388 F. Supp. 2d at 400. The defendant next contends that had the Government

, OPR concluded that "the evidence does not show that [Former USAO-SDFL U.S. Attorney Alex] Acosta, [Former USAO-SDFL supervisor Andrew] Lourie, or Villafaiia agreed to the nonprosecution provision to protect any of Epstein's political, celebrity, or other influential associates." OPR Report at 168.11 In

unavailability of Jeffrey Epstein, Epstein's mother, Michael Casey (the alleged agent of Minor Victim-1), and Palm Beach Police Department Detective Joseph Recarey. She contends that the loss of Epstein demonstrates actual prejudice because Epstein "would have" testified that the defendant did not engage in th

m Beach Police Department even began investigating Epstein in 2005. (Def. Mot. 7, Ex. D at i). The defendant's claims relating to Michael Casey and Detective Recarey fare no better. She again speculates that Casey and Detective Recarey, who passed away in August 2017 and May 46 EFTA00077678 2018 respectively,

, Ex. D at i). The defendant's claims relating to Michael Casey and Detective Recarey fare no better. She again speculates that Casey and Detective Recarey, who passed away in August 2017 and May 46 EFTA00077678 2018 respectively, would have testified, and that such testimony would have been exculpat

in this Indictment have told the USAO-SDNY. In sum, the defendant has not put "specific evidence" before this Court demonstrating that the loss of Detective Recarey's testimony, even if admissible, has caused her actual prejudice. Scala, 388 F. Supp. 2d at 400. The defendant next contends that had the Government

le friend who was a well- known socialite, but, according to Villafafia, in 2007, they "didn't have any specific evidence against her." Accordingly, Villafaiia believed that the only "co-conspirators" of Epstein who would benefit from the provision were the four female assistants identified by name. 20

unavailability of Jeffrey Epstein, Epstein's mother, Michael Casey (the alleged agent of Minor Victim-1), and Palm Beach Police Department Detective Joseph Recarey. She contends that the loss of Epstein demonstrates actual prejudice because Epstein "would have" testified that the defendant did not engage in th

m Beach Police Department even began investigating Epstein in 2005. (Def. Mot. 7, Ex. D at i). The defendant's claims relating to Michael Casey and Detective Recarey fare no better. She again speculates that Casey and Detective Recarey, who passed away in August 2017 and May 46 EFTA00039493 2018 respectively,

, Ex. D at i). The defendant's claims relating to Michael Casey and Detective Recarey fare no better. She again speculates that Casey and Detective Recarey, who passed away in August 2017 and May 46 EFTA00039493 2018 respectively, would have testified, and that such testimony would have been exculpat

in this Indictment have told the USAO-SDNY. In sum, the defendant has not put "specific evidence" before this Court demonstrating that the loss of Detective Recarey's testimony, even if admissible, has caused her actual prejudice. Scala, 388 F. Supp. 2d at 400. The defendant next contends that had the Government

le friend who was a well- known socialite, but, according to Villafafia, in 2007, they "didn't have any specific evidence against her." Accordingly, Villafaiia believed that the only "co-conspirators" of Epstein who would benefit from the provision were the four female assistants identified by name. 20

unavailability of Jeffrey Epstein, Epstein's mother, Michael Casey (the alleged agent of Minor Victim-1), and Palm Beach Police Department Detective Joseph Recarey. She contends that the loss of Epstein demonstrates actual prejudice because Epstein "would have" testified that the defendant did not engage in th

m Beach Police Department even began investigating Epstein in 2005. (Def. Mot. 7, Ex. D at i). The defendant's claims relating to Michael Casey and Detective Recarey fare no better. She again speculates that Casey and Detective Recarey, who passed away in August 2017 and May 46 EFTA00103071 2018 respectively,

, Ex. D at i). The defendant's claims relating to Michael Casey and Detective Recarey fare no better. She again speculates that Casey and Detective Recarey, who passed away in August 2017 and May 46 EFTA00103071 2018 respectively, would have testified, and that such testimony would have been exculpat

in this Indictment have told the USAO-SDNY. In sum, the defendant has not put "specific evidence" before this Court demonstrating that the loss of Detective Recarey's testimony, even if admissible, has caused her actual prejudice. Scala, 388 F. Supp. 2d at 400. The defendant next contends that had the Government

complying with certain parts of the NPA. OPR Report at 95. According to the report: At the same time, at [USAO-SDFL supervisor] Lourie's request, Villafaiia sent the NPA and its addendum to Lourie and Oosterbaan. Oosterbaan responded to Lourie that he was "not thrilled" about the NPA; described Epstein'

same things that you had asked me to do earlier is improper meddling in civil litigation. Much of your letter reiterates the challenges to Detective Recarey’s investigation that have HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012578 JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, Eso. DECEMBER 13, 2007 PAGE 3 OF 5 already been submitted to the Office on seve

Beach Police Department’s probable cause affidavit has never been filed with the Court. If, in fact, you are referring to the Ex Parte 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 ex parte, so no one should have access to

Much of your letter reiterates the challenges to Detective Recarey’s investigation that have HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012578

by an officer acting on behalf of the court. June 18, 2007 (BY) DEPUTY CLERK Name, Address and Phone Number of Assistant U.S, Attomey Aun Marie C, Villafaiia, Assistant U.S. Anomey . 500 So. Australian Avenve, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-6235 Tel: (561) 820-8711 x3047. Fax; (561) 802-1787 To b

earch of 358 El Brillo, as well as all evidence derived from the search, both physical and testimonial. In addition, the affidavit prepared by Det. Recarey in support of the search warrant is replete with material misstatements and omissions which, if not intentional, at a minimum, were made with reckl

gation was initiated, namely by Palm Beach Police Detective Recarey. Although Det. Recarey's questionable actions un

than merely incidental. See United States v. Horschauer, 2007 WL 979931 (1 e h Cir. 2007) (unpublished). We understand from conversations with Ms. Villafaiia that she believes that Mr. Epstein was and is a resident of New York, and that all trips to other homes were trips "away from home," undertaken for