Epstein Secrets

m Gerald Lefcourt (Appendix A), you will see that most of the letter is an attack on the police report and probable cause affidavit drafted by Det. Joe Recarey from PBPD. Neither document is ideal and his interviews of the girls and other investigative steps had some problems (although did an incredibly in-

dn't wait" for her to turn 18 so that he could take them on trips. 52 EFTA00234568 Very early in the investigation, the FBI and I decided to put Recarey's police report and PC Affidavit to the side and to look at the case with fresh eyes. The facts discussed herein are based upon a personal review o

that the defendant knowingly persuade, induce, or entice someone to engage in prostitution or criminal sexual activity. 11 EFTA00234527 States'. Strevell, 2006 WL 1697529, *3 (11th Cir. June 20, 2006) (finding that a defendant's placing of "numerous phone calls from Philadelphia to Miami in order to a

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

intervention a high priority. See, e.g., United States 'Clarke, 159 Fed. Appx. 128, 2005 WL 3438434 (It ch Cir. 2005)(unpublished); United States I Strevell, 185 Fed. Appx. 841, 2005 WL 1697529 (11th Cir. 2006)(unpublished), cert. denied, 127 U.S. 692 (2006). No such federal interest is implicated in th

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

ntervention a high priority. See, e.g., United States v. Clarke, 159 Fed. Appx. 128, 2005 WL 3438434 (11th Cir. 2005)(unpublished); United States v. Strevell, 185 Fed. Appx. 841, 2005 WI, 1697529 (11th Cir. 2006)(unpublished), cert. denied, 127 U.S. 692 (2006). No such federal interest is implicated in t

ne system was a facility of interstate commerce." United States v. Roberts , 2006 WL 827293 n.1 (11th Cir. Mar. 30, 2006). See also United States v. Strevell , 2006 WL 1697529, *3 (11th Cir. June 20, 2006) (finding that a defendant's placing of "numerous phone calls from Philadelphia to Miami in order to

om Gerald Lefcourt (Appendix A), you will see that most of the letter is an attack on the police report and probable cause affidavit drafted by Det. Joe Recarey from PBPD. Neither document is ideal and his interviews of the girls and other investigative steps had some problems (although did an incredibly in

rassment. (It did, however, lead other girls to come forward and tell their stories.) Very early in the investigation, the FBI and I decided to put Recarey's police report and PC Affidavit to the side and to look at the case with fresh eyes. The facts discussed herein are based upon a personal review o