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

ions. Conclusion We bring these difficult and delicate matters of misconduct to your attention not to require any disciplinary action or review by the Office of Professional Responsibility. Although we have been told that some of this misconduct has been self-reported (only after we raised these complaints in writing), we feel confide

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. See In Re Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces return OLY-63 a

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

ions. Conclusion We bring these difficult and delicate matters of misconduct to your attention not to require any disciplinary action or review by the Office of Professional Responsibility. Although we have been told that some of this misconduct has been self-reported (only after we raised these complaints in writing), we feel confide

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

ions. Conclusion We bring these difficult and delicate matters of misconduct to your attention not to require any disciplinary action or review by the Office of Professional Responsibility. Although we have been told that some of this misconduct has been self-reported (only after we raised these complaints in writing), we feel confide

this case, she filed the "Declaration of Joseph Recarey," attaching the state detective's affidavit in su

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. See In Re Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces Tecum OLY-63 an

ions. Conclusion We bring these difficult and delicate matters of misconduct to your attention not to require any disciplinary action or review by the Office of Professional Responsibility. Although we have been told that some of this misconduct has been self-reported (only after we raised these complaints in writing), we feel confide

home. We know that lead state police officers -- Detective Recarey and Police Chief Michael Reiter -- complained th

t, it appears that Epstein was tipped off before the execution of a search warrant at his home. We know that lead state police officers -- Detective Recarey and Police Chief Michael Reiter -- complained that the house was "sanitized" by the time they arrived to serve a search warrant for child pornograp

or your convenience, I attach a copy of that letter.) It was my understanding that you deemed my allegations serious enough to forward my letter to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) for further investigation, and it was my impression that 0PR was going to look into the allegations raised in my letter. I must say that I w