Epstein Secrets

ion testimony. An analogy can be made to cases involving impermissibly suggestive showups.3 See e.g. Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972). In Neil, the United States Supreme Court, addressing suggestive showups, noted that the primary evil to be avoided is a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification." Id. a

others to bring one or more underage girls to Mr. Epstein's residence. Upon information and belief, economically-disadvantaged, underage girls from Loxahatchee and surrounding areas were specifically targeted because they were easier to entice by the money being offered (generally $200 to $300 per "massage

eeding which itself is protected by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) remains non-public, thus effectuating the privacy concerns addressed by the United States Supreme Court in Douglas and other cases. See e.g, Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 228-30 (1979). Under Rule 6(e), only a federal court

under oath that this 9 MySpace page where the headline says, "Twins do have more 10 fun," and the location is given as Lox, abbreviation for 11 Loxahatchee, and the age is 19, and it says 12 it your testimony that you did not post 13 that? 14 A. Correct. 15 Q. Now let's go back to the one that

eeding which itself is protected by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) remains non-public, thus effectuating the privacy concerns addressed by the United States Supreme Court in Douglas and other cases. See a Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 228-30 (1979). Under Rule 6(e), only a federal court can

nder oath that this 9 'MySpace page where the headline says, 'Sills do have more 10 fun," and the location is given as Lox, abbreviation for 11 Loxahatchee, and the age is 19, and it saysjillill, 12 is it your testimony that you did not post 13 that? 14 A. Correct. 15 Q. Now let's go back to th