Epstein Secrets

pstein's house. Sec In Re Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces Tecum OLY-63 and OLY.64,Nu. F(31 07-103(WPB) (S.D. Fla. July 31, 2007). At the time she tiled Detective Recarey's affidavit, she knew it contained numerous material misrepresentations, including gross misstatements of witness statements and other evidence. Secon

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

d serious misrepresentations before a court. On July 31, 2007, in the grand-jury litigation arising out of this case, she filed the "Declaration of Joseph Recarey," attaching the state detective's affidavit in support of a search warrant for Epstein's house. Sec In Re Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces Tecum OLY-63 an

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

statute makes clear, the essence of this crime is the communication itself—not the resulting act. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in Murrell, underscores the point: The defendant in Bailey contended that attempt under § 2422(6) 'requires the specific intent to commit illegal sexual acts

on Jeff was unable to touch her buttocks". There is no mention in her There were three Probable Cause Affidavits prepared and executed by Detective Recarey on the same date. The affidavits arc in all material respects identical and we here refer to the one concerning Epstein. It is annexed at Tab 2. Be

ed behind Epstein's desk". Clearly omitted from both the Police Report and the Probable Cause Affidavit is the fact that the PBPD, and specifically Detective Recarey, knew about the cameras since the cameras were installed in 2003, with the help of the PBPD, to address the then of cash from Epstein's home. This

een. I'm 19 now this last March." (Sworn Statement of 10/12/05). 4 In addition to giving a sworn statement at the PBPD Station, conversations with Detective Recarey while being transported to and from the station were also recorded, This excerpt is taken from the recording of ;raveling from the station. 08-807

61 (11th Cir. 1949); United States Rojas, 145 Fed. Appx. 647 (11th Cir. 05); United States I Root, 296 F.3d 1222 (11'h Cir. 200 ). United States I Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2004), is in the same mold, except that, in that tiling operation, the defendant communicated, not with the purported 13 y

olice Department. See, e.g., Police Detective Joe Recarey Depo. at 281, Jane Doe No. 2'. Epstein, No. 9:08

stein, No. 502008CA037319 XXXX-MB-AB (Palm Beach Cty. Cir. Ct. Nov. 23, 2009) (excerpts attached as Exhibit 28); see also Depo. of Police Detective Joe Recarey at 301-302 and 309-10, Jane Doe No. 2'. Epstein, No. 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM (S.D. Fla. Mar. 19, 2010) (excerpts attached as Exhibit 29) Later, Dershowi

a phone) as the vehicle of the inducement. See, e.g., United States ' Murrel, 368 F.3d 1283, 1286 (11th Cir. 2004) (government must ... prove that Murrell, using the intemet, acted with a specific intent to persuade a means to engage in unlawful sex). In fact, we have reviewed every indictment filed i

taped interviews conducted largely by Detective Recarey of the Palm Beach police. These transcripts were

scripts of taped interviews conducted largely by Detective Recarey of the Palm Beach police. These transcripts were

in order to persuade, induce, entice, or coerce a finor to engage in a proscribed sexual act—rather than the sexual act itself. See United States Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283, 1285 (11th Cir. 2004) ("The underlying criminal conduct Congress expressly proscribed in passing § 2422(b) is the persuasion, induc

tried to hide something from the reviewers is false. I also take issue with the duplicity of stating that we must accept as true those parts of the Recarey reports and witness statements that you like and we must accept as false those parts that you do not like. You and your co-counsel also impressed u

e.g. with himself or a third party), without then actually committing any sex act himself, he would nevertheless violate §2422(b)." United States v. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283, 1286 (11th Cu. 2004). See also United States v. Bailey 228 F.3d 637, 639 (61° Cir. 2000) ("Congress has made a clear choice to crimi

2,23 questions 6:7 14:17 17:22,23 18:9 22:25 23:9 quickly 8:16 quite 8:10 R R3:5 26:1 ready 6:24 11:17 reason 16:25 19:5 19:6 recall 16:8 Recarey 2:11 3:3 4:17,18 23:16 23:19,22 24:1 receive 7:24 Registered 4:2 26:5 relative 26:13 relevant 22:23 remember 5:20 8:9 9:19 14:10 17:19 20:2

gain by 9 his investigator again for any more questions or anything 10 or any packages that he may deliver to you 11 A. They have to go to Mr. Murrell. 12 Q. I was going to say, have him contact your 13 attorney. 14 MR. MURRELL: Packages? Are we expecting a 15 delivery of something? 1

ce, a conviction under the statute only requires a finding that the defendant had an intent to persuade or to attempt to persuade.’ United States v. Murrell 368 F.3d 1283, 1287 (11th Cir. 2004) (citing United States v. Bailey, 228 F.3d 637, 638-39 (6th Cir.2000)). Thus, the targeted criminal conduct must

e statute makes clear, the essence of this crime is the communication itself—not the resulting act. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in Murrell, underscores the point: The defendant in Bailey contended that attempt under § 2422(b) ‘requires the specific intent to commit illegal sexual acts r

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

FLORIDA, ) COUNTY OF PALM BEACH ) BEFORE ME: Honorable Judge Laura Johnson in and for Palm Beach County, personally appeared this day: Detective Joseph Recarey who being by me first duly sworn, deposes and says that he believes and has good reason to believe that a certain Premises located in Palm Beach Fl

investigation of Jeffrey E. Epstein ("Epstein"). Detective Recarey's conduct of the investigation; his presentation

Detective Joseph Recarey/ID No: 7915 Dear [ ]: We write to request an investigation of the actions of Palm Beach County Detective Joseph Recarey ("Recarey") in the investigation of Jeffrey E. Epstein ("Epstein"). Detective Recarey's conduct of the investigation; his presentation of the investigation t

dence he did not want to encounter the Alessis during his stay in Palm Beach. I then spoke with Mr. Alessi in the presence of his attorney, Donnie Murrell. Mr. Alessi stated that he was employed for eleven years with Mr. Epstein. He originally was hired as a part time employee and then moved up into a

ing. 14 This is Monday the 21st, and we are here by 15 agreement. 16 EXAMINATION 17 BY DET. RECAREY: 18 Q. Mr. Alessi, I'm Detective Joe Recarey with 19 the Palm Beach P.D. As I explained to you on the 20 telephone, I am conducting an investigation on a former 21 employer of yours. 22

RECAREY: 18 Q. Mr. Alessi, I'm Detective Joe Recarey with 19 the Palm Beach P.D. As I explained to

at was important for us. 19 don't want to be involved with this thing. I'm out of 20 the job three years ago, and that's why we hired 21 Mr. Murrell. He suggested that. 22 Q. Did he ask you if anybody else has been 23 contacted? 24 A. No. 25 Q. Did he tell you that to call him ba