Epstein Secrets

ble and triple hearsay directed toward filing charges against a defendant named See A.6 (Palm Beach Police Department - Probable Cause Affidavit of J. Recarey, dated May 1, 2006). Furthermore, the Florida State Attorney msly rejected the claims asserted in the police affidavit (which sought to charge as

lice Department - Probable Cause Affidavit of J. Recarey, dated May 1, 2006). Furthermore, the Florida Sta

soned, evidence-based disavowal by the People of the Board's recommendation (based on the People's communications with the Florida prosecutor), the SORA Court relied wholesale upon the Board's recommendation. See A.93:21, 94:6-95:9 25 EFTA00792373 (Tr.). The Court improperly overlooked the burden of pr

hearsay directed toward filing charges against a defendant named Sarah Kellen. See A.6 (Palm Beach Police Department - Probable Cause Affidavit of J. Recarey, dated May 1, 2006). Furthermore, the Florida State Attorney expressly rejected the claims asserted in the police affidavit (which sought to charge

lice Department - Probable Cause Affidavit of J. Recarey, dated May 1, 2006). Furthermore, the Florida Sta

soned, evidence-based disavowal by the People of the Board's recommendation (based on the People's communications with the Florida prosecutor), the SORA Court relied wholesale upon the Board's recommendation. See A.93:21, 94:6-95:9 25 EFTA00181085 EFTA00181086 (Tr.). The Court improperly overlooked t

t submitted by police to the Florida prosecutor. See A.65 (Board Recommendation); A.6 (Palm Beach Police Department - Probable Cause Affidavit of J. Recarey, dated May 1, 2006). The allegations, even when aggregated, were not deemed by the Florida prosecutor who reviewed them to constitute sufficient "p

lice Department - Probable Cause Affidavit of J. Recarey, dated May 1, 2006). The allegations, even when

soned, evidence-based disavowal by the People of the Board's recommendation (based on the People's communications with the Florida prosecutor), the SORA Court relied wholesale upon the Board's recommendation. See A.93:21, 94:6-95:9 25 EFTA00232692 (Tr.). The Court improperly overlooked the burden of pr