Epstein Secrets

e counsel in this matter.” Marra quoted an equally pleasant note then-Palm Beach County State Attorney Barry Krischer sent to Assistant U.S. Attorney Marie Villafana, who was the lead prosecutor in Epstein’s case. “Glad we could get this worked out for reasons: I won’t put in writing,” Krischer wrote, shortly afte

at were exchanged dealt with prosecutors’ and Epstein’s lawyers’ shared desire to keep the deal secret from Epstein’s accusers. In a September email, Villafana asked Lefkowitz for guidance about what she should reveal. “And can wehave a conference call to discuss what I may disclose to ... the girls regardin

id. “It taught them that someone with money can buy his Way out of anything. It’s outrageous and embarrassing for United States Attorney’s Office and the State Attorney’s Office.” Epstein now faces many civil lawsuits filed by the women, who are represented by a variety of attorneys. In many, the allegations are the same: tha

PBPD brought the case to the FBI’s attention because of a concern that the State Attorney’s Office had succumbed to “pressure” from defense counsel. Villafana informed both Acosta and Sloman of this when she met with them at the start of the federal investigation. Acosta confirmed that he was aware that the

oman of this when she met with them at the start of the federal investigation. Acosta confirmed that he was aware that the PBPD was dissatisfied with the State Attorney’s Office’s handling ofthe case. Appendix at 3 (OPR Report, p. 174). i 29. Records unsealed in 2015 revealed that the FBI compiled reports on “34 confirmed minor

cripts are included below). Furthermore, the women who visited Mr. Epstein’s home all visited voluntarily and many willingly returned several times. The State Attorney’s Office (the “SAO”) has vast experience prosecuting sex crimes and conducted an exhaustive, 15-month investigation of Mr. Epstein. A Grand Jury has concluded

ase at the Earliest Stage 4, In early November of 2006, Epstein’s lawyers had their initial contact with the newly assigned line federal prosecutor, A. Marie Villafana. Although it is extremely unusual for a First Assistant United States Attorney to participate in such a communication, FAUSA Jeffrey Sloman was prese

proval because her subpoena was not directed to “an office physically located within an attorney’s office.” See Tab 18, December 13, 2007 Letter from M. Villafana at 4n.1. This answer clearly suggests that Ms. Villafana had intentionally misled the Department officials about the items that her subpoena sought.”

in order to convict Mr. Epstein. Indeed, just this week (and after two years of federal involvement in this matter), Assistant United States Attorney Villafana re-initiated the federal grand jury investigation—in direct contravention of the parties’ Non Prosecution Agreement—and issued yet another subpoena s

Notably, the Non Prosecution Agreement contains the following agreed condition: Further, upon execution of this agreement and a plea agreement with the State Attorney’s Office, the federal Grand Jury investigation will be suspended, and all pending federal Grand Jury subpoenas will be held in abeyance unless and until the d