Epstein Secrets

ated a new case number or if they're included in this. It seems like it probably generated a new case number but 1 can't say for sure. But Detective; Recarey would know. Q Okay. All right. Would all of the potential victims,that wcrc being investigated by your department prior to let's say July of2006, hav

ciates 56'1-833-7811 CA/ Aronberg-000800 FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:22:44 PM Page 149: 1 conversationwith Detective Recarey about this, 2 whether he said anything directly to you that she ■3 was removed as opposed to. removing:herself 4 voluntarily from the case? 5 MR. CRI

firmed before me this lsl day of May, 2006 by Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. Signature of Poli

Q Ifyou turn to page 79, it appears that; on 3 -the dale of.February 16, 2006, there's a meeting 4 that takes place between the investigator Joseph 5 Recafey and two women, Joanna Harrison and.a 6 Victoria Bean. Do you see that? 7 MR. CRITTON: Are we at 79? 8 MR. KUVIN: Yeah. 9 THE. WITNESS: Yes, 10 BY MR.

But it appears from this inforrna_tion here that these i:\vo, girls were paid for· sexual .contact with Mr:. Epstein, at least .accorging to what Detectiye Recarey investigated. Were there any additional investigations ongoing regarding allegations of ·prosGti,ition at thf home? • MR. CRITTON: Form. Page 1

have believed that this state plea could affect the federal investigation or the rights of my clients in that federal investigation.” I In Wild, the Eleventh Circuit panel stated that the government “seemingly” deferred to Epstein’s attorneys’ requests not to notify the victims about the NPA, and that in sending t

eet. Excluding also removes the ammunition about Detective Recarey and alleged misrepresentations of EFTA00191645

rances that she wo treated as a victim, she insisted on full immunity before she would meet. Excluding also removes the ammunition about Detective Recarey and alleged misrepresentations of EFTA00191645 statements to Recarey. also was the person who instructed the girls to say they were 18. The evid

ca, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge Enrique GAVIRIA and Jose Elkin Echeverry, Defendants-Appellants. No. 87-6517. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. Sept. 3, 1987. United States District Court for the South- ern District of Florida, No. 87-303-CR- LCN, Lenore Carrero Nesbitt, J., affirmed, and

pstein, No. 502008CA037319 XXXX-MB-AB (Palm Beach Cty. Cir. CL 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. 21. Epstein, No. 9:08-cv-80119-KAM (S.D. Fla. Mar. 19, 2010) (excerpts attached as Exhibit 29) Later, Dershowit

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

and Jane Doe No. 2. See Exhibit 2. The proposed motion 2 JelTrey Epstein also attempted to block discovery of materials in this case, leading to an Eleventh Circuit ruling that the victims' discovery efforts were proper. Dori Epstein, 749 F.3d 999 (11th Cir. 2014). 3 Remarkably, even though the Court directed t