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

(213)680'8400 www.kirkland.com June 19,2008 John Roth, Esq. Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Office of the Deputy Attorney General United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Room 4115 Washington, D.C. 20530 Dear Mr. Roth: Facsimile: (213) 6804500 Dir. Fax: (213) 6804500 I again want t

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

ief attended a meeting with defense counsel, during which defense counsel made a pitch that Epstein should not be prosecuted. November 2020 Report, United States Department of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility, at 61-62. However, although the line prosecutor, , subsequently sent the CEOS Chief a draft of the NPA, the

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

ief attended a meeting with defense counsel, during which defense counsel made a pitch that Epstein should not be prosecuted. November 2020 Report, United States Department of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility, at 61-62. However, although the line prosecutor, Maria Villafaiia, subsequently sent the CEOS Chief a draft

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

ief attended a meeting with defense counsel, during which defense counsel made a pitch that Epstein should not be prosecuted. November 2020 Report, United States Department of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility, at 61-62. However, although the line prosecutor, Maria Villafaiia, subsequently sent the CEOS Chief a draft

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 EFTA00095138 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 EFTA00095138 2018 respectively, would have testified, and that such testimony would have been exculpat

fied in this Indictment have told 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

ief attended a meeting with defense counsel, during which defense counsel made a pitch that Epstein should not be prosecuted. November 2020 Report, United States Department of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility, at 61-62.6 However, although the line prosecutor, Maria Villafalia, subsequently sent the CEOS Chief a draf

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

ief attended a meeting with defense counsel, during which defense counsel made a pitch that Epstein should not be prosecuted. November 2020 Report, United States Department of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility, at 61-62. However, although the line prosecutor, subsequently sent the CEOS Chief a draft of the NPA, the

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

Ellis LLP Alston & Bird LIP May 19, 2008 VIA FACSIMILE (202) 514.0467 CONFIDENTIAL honorable Mark Filip Office of the Deputy Attorney General United States Department of Justice Dear Judge Filip: In his confirmation hearings last fall, Judge Mukasey admirably lifted up the finest traditions of the Department of Justice an

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

MAZEY OP COUVSEL THOMAS E. MeHLOGH June 19, 2008 Mr. John Roth Senior Associate Deputy Attorney General Office of the Deputy Attorney General United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Dear Mr. Roth: I write to offer my reaction to the May 15, 2008 correspondence from the Unit

d not provide answers to either question and instead made her suggestion of who I could call. My recollection is that she told me to call Detective Recarey, who was the lead case detective for Palm Beach. Because Villafafia would not provide answers to any basic questions about what might be going on a

all. My recollection is that she told me to call Detective Recarey, who was the lead case detective for Palm Beach.

en. Feinstein) (explaining that the right to confer was "intended to expansive," applying to "any critical stage or disposition of the case") . . . United States Department of Justice, Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance 30 (2005) ("Responsible officials should make reasonable efforts to notify identifie

his case. There is zero evidence that will be produced at trial to put Ms. Maxwell in any of this, in any of the investigation. The lead detective, Recarey, never spoke to her, never tried to call her. And when I asked him questions about, you know, what did you know about Ms. Maxwell when you were do

her there was a complaint. MS. SCHULTZ: Your Honor, this is also a public record that should come in under 803(8). This came from a public office, the United States Department of Justice. It contains findings of a legally authorized investigation into the sex crimes of Epstein. Defendant cannot make a showing that it lacks trustwor