Epstein Secrets

statements, their credibility and the foundations. il' any. for claiming personal istiory. Also. Mr. Epstein would have received, pursuant to either Brady or Jencks. material in the Ponta of prior inconsistent statements made by these women before they learned of any financial benefit that may be avai

that persons close to her would personally profit. Ms. inappropriutely attempted toterinate Bert ()cariz for attorney re despite thi fact that Mr. Ocariz • turns out to be I very good personal friend or Ms. boyfriend. linen she assiduously kept hidden from counsel. We requested alternate c owes im

it has identified. Because the information provided by these women goes directly to the question of Mr. Epstein's guilt or innocence, it is classic Brady information. We understand that the U.S. Attorney might not want to disclose impeachment information about their witnesses prior to a charge or dur

nt the unnamed women in claims against Epstein). 26. The next day, AUSA advised the defense that she was removing one of the alternatives to Mr. Ocariz from our consideration, on the basis that "one of his partners is married to an AUSA here," and explained that, because of that personal relationshi

it has identified. Because the information provided by these women goes directly to the question of Mr. Epstein's guilt or innocence, it is classic Brady information. We understand that the U.S. Attorney might not want to disclose impeachment information about their witnesses prior to a charge or dur

present the unnamed women in claims against Epstein). 26. The next day, advised the defense that she was removing one of the alternatives to Mr. Ocariz from our consideration, on the basis that "one of his partners is married to an AUSA here," and explained that, because of that personal relationshi

each was astonished that any evidence Ms. Villafana purported to have was not shared with the State or made available to Mr Epstein's attorneys as Brady evidence. Ms. Villafana launched a totally unsupportable and vastly overreaching sex trafficking investigation without providing notification to th

osely and personally connected to Ms. Villafana's own live-in boyfriend. Upon learning of this fact, United States Attorney Alex Acosta removed Mr. Ocariz from consideration. Mr. Epstein's attorney, Joe Whitley, a former United States Assistant Attorney General, predicted that the unprecedented incorp

ed to provide the draft indictmatt. We understand that we have no statutory right to a FRI 302 that inculpates Mr. Epstein (although we believe that Brady principles would encourage the disclosure of P131 302 reports that exonerate him). We are Lammed that there is information that could be rebutted i

om an unlimited number of highly skilled and well paid attorneys. was that person. One of your letters suggests a business relationship between Mr. Ocariz and my boyfriend. This is patently untrue and neither my boyfriend nor I would have received any financial benefit from Mr. Ocariz's appointment. F

ir statements, their credibility and the foundations, if any, for claiming person! injury. Also. Mr. Epstein would have received, pursuant to either Brady or Jencks, material in the tbnn of prior inconsistent statements made by these women before they learned of any financial benefit that may be avail

represented parties who must be contacted only through their counsel. Your concerns regarding the § 2255 litigation are unfounded. As you know, Mr. Ocariz had been told that he would be the attorney representative for the victims. As a matter of professional courtesy, he was informed that the Office d

s it has identified. Because the information provided by these women goes directly to the question of Mr. Epstein’s guilt or innocence, it is classic Brady information. We understand that the U.S. Attorney might not want to disclose impeachment information about their witnesses prior to a charge or durin

the unnamed women in claims against Epstein). The next day, AUSA Villafana advised the defense that she was removing one of the alternatives to Mr. Ocariz from our consideration, on the basis that “one of his partners is married to an AUSA here,” and explained that, because of that personal relationship