Epstein Secrets

stein's Palm Beach mansion. Rodriguez testified under oath that Dershowitz was at Epstein's mansion when underage girls were there to give massages. Alfredo Rodriguez Depo. at 278:13-25, 279:9-280:2, Jane Doe No. 21 Epstein (excerpts attached as Exhibit 19).24 Rodriguez also testified that Dershowitz stayed at the house

Id. at 76:11-15. In 2009, one of Epstein's most trusted employees was also deposed: Alfredo Rodriguez, the butler at Epstein's Palm Beach mansion. Rodriguez testified under oath that Dershowitz was at Epstein's mansion when underage girls were there to give massages. Alfredo Rodriguez Depo. at 278:13-25

a phone) as the vehicle of the inducement. See, e.g., United States ' Murrel, 368 F.3d 1283, 1286 (11th Cir. 2004) (government must ... prove that Murrell, using the intemet, acted with a specific intent to persuade a means to engage in unlawful sex). In fact, we have reviewed every indictment filed i

e their driver's license.5 (Sworn Statement of 1/4/06). ja ' ' comments about the age of the women in context, referring to Epstein's girlfriend, Rodriguez stated she was "very, very young". Sworn Statement of 1/4/06. Since r dato of birth is she was in fact twenty at the relevant time. 08-80736-CV-MA

en traveled in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in the conduct alleged. Though the Police Report suggests that one of the witnesses, Alfredo Rodriquez, claimed that one or more of the women in question traveled on Epstein's plane, a careful reading of the interview itself shows that the detective c

61 (11th Cir. 1949); United States Rojas, 145 Fed. Appx. 647 (11th Cir. 05); United States I Root, 296 F.3d 1222 (11'h Cir. 200 ). United States I Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2004), is in the same mold, except that, in that tiling operation, the defendant communicated, not with the purported 13 y

dan, 915 F.2d 622, 628 (11th Cir. 1990) (quoting Rodriguez v. United States, 480 U.S. 522, 525 (1987) (itsel

acility (the mail, phone, or intemet)—not thereafter—and the scienter element must be present while the facility is being used. See United States v. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283, 1286 (11th Cir. 2004) ("[T]he government must first prove that [Defendant], using the Internet, acted with a specific intent to per

dan, 915 F.2d 622, 628 (11th Cir. 1990) (quoting Rodriguez v. United States, 480 U.S. 522, 525 (1987) (itsel

acility (the mail, phone, or intemet)—not thereafter—and the scienter element must be present while the facility is being used. See United States v. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283, 1286 (11th Cir. 2004) ("[T]he government must first prove that [Defendant], using the Internet, acted with a specific intent to per

dan, 915 F.2d 622, 628 (11th Cir. 1990) (quoting Rodriguez v. United States, 480 U.S. 522, 525 (1987) (itsel

acility (the mail, phone, or intemet)—not thereafter—and the scienter element must be present while the facility is being used. See United States v. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283, 1286 (11th Cir. 2004) ("[T]he government must first prove that [Defendant], using the Internet, acted with a specific intent to per

dan, 915 F.2d 622, 628 (11th Cir. 1990) (quoting Rodriguez v. United States, 480 U.S. 522, 525 (1987) (itsel

acility (the mail, phone, or intemet)—not thereafter—and the scienter element must be present while the facility is being used. See United States v. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283, 1286 (11th Cir. 2004) ("[T]he government must first prove that [Defendant], using the Internet, acted with a specific intent to per

dan, 915 F.2d 622, 628 (11th Cir. 1990) (quoting Rodriguez v. United States, 480 U.S. 522, 525 (1987) (itsel

acility (the mail, phone, or intemet)—not thereafter—and the scienter element must be present while the facility is being used. See United States v. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283, 1286 (11th Cir. 2004) ("[T]he government must first prove that [Defendant], using the Internet, acted with a specific intent to per

s acts intentionally and purposefully in the disparate inclusion or exclusion." United States I. lordm, 915 F.2d 622, 628 (11th Cir. 1990) (quoting Rodriguez,. United States, 480 U.S. 522, 525 (1987) (itself quoting Russell° I. United States 464 U.S. 16, 23 (1983))). There is no basis for departing from

facility (the mail, phone, or intemet)—not thereafter—and the scienter element must be present while the facility is being used. See United States'. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283, 1286 (11th Cir. 2004) ("[T]he government must first prove that [Defendant], using the Internet, acted with a specific intent to per