Epstein Secrets

571 Ovate property manager brad Epstdn's property's. Was observed by a property manager to have S remds girls Mat spider web into that oripind Palm Beath tenestIttifiadar Its Name. may have been physic* inched in some d the abuse that occurred diming these massages, but has not personal attuned* A

ge R. and NY massage appoirommis S Epstein. -nos made to ;edam manage. an Epstein at hiSte Island. Ross vim insluded by I= to regime tans from Ns Palm Beach home and Virgin Wand home and have them destroyed during the Palm Bead) inveotigcbcin. taknowe If she Sealy recruited or abused any d the as. Jef

kizet aid fleet with Nen a over the world. She was the dyed supersikor to and Unburied her to rowing. massage , and destroy evidence during the Palm Bead investigation into Epstekts conduct. At last 1 SIM stabs thailM onvenal abused her dale° a massage wed Epstein. 2 *We (Ainown a she refs drec

5056 • 04/75/2004 thru 10/06/2005 11 • 07/15/7004 thru 07/08/2005 [13 07/72/7. 004 thrs 11/02/2005 fl7387 N25 EFTA01699906 sitinrogad %Edwin, OM /war a as gar....soons Per. . Waa. . Ma . . . "la lat . gr a ar ld . aro •01", thVo• *01). 24114 . Tata . agal . aaa . alg

asking Epstein to identify information potentially related to the case(s) including, but not limited to, all employees who performed work inside his Palm Beach residence, all other employees who came to the residence (Interrogatory Nos. 1 — 2), those who gave or were asked to give him massages (Interrogator

ions put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future proceedings." See Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11th Cir. 1985) (citing Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973)). The privilege is accorded liberal construction in

entirely reasonable for Epstein to assert that forcing him to testify as to anyone who came or went to his Palm Beach mansion or was employed at his Palm Beach mansion (Interrogatories 1-2), the identity of persons providing transport services (Interrogatory No. 9), and his employee's telephone numbers (Int

put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings." Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11th Cir. 1985)(citing Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70. 77 (1973)). The privilege is accorded "liberal construction