Epstein Secrets

alt Lake City, Utah, with him on the brief), for plaintiff' appellee U.S. in No. 85-1009. Albert M. Pearson, University of Georgia School of Law, Athens, Ga., and Scott McLarty, Athens, Ga. (Cecil Hartman, Denver, Cob., with them on the brief), for defendant-appellant, Kowalik. Thomas M. O'Rourke,

phone calls to a telephone used bpane Doe #7. (48) On or about July 5, 2004, Defendant SARAH KELLEN placed a telephone call to a telephone used by T.M. 14 EFTA00191737 (49) In or around July 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN masturbated in the presence of Jane Doe #8, who was then a seventeen-yea

EFFREY EPSTEIN employed L.G. to perform, among other things, services as a personal assistant. 3. Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN and SARAH KELLEN paid T.M., H.R., and A.F. to pe orrn, among other things, recruiting services. 4. Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN owned a property located at 358 El Brillo Way,

EFFREY EPSTEIN caused a payment of $200 to be paid to Jane Doe #6. Jane Does #7 and #8 (46) In or around July 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN led T.M., who was then a fifteen-year-old gikand Jane Doe #7, who was then a sixteen-years-old girl, from the kitchen of 358 El Brillo Way upstairs to Defen

ecent sworn construction of it, is consonant with the Federal Criminal Action's "remaining undecided" and "awaiting decision." See Unified Gov't of Athens-Clarke County v. Athens Newspapers, LLC, No. S07G1133, _S.E.2d 2008 WL 2579238, *3 (Ga. June 30, 2008) (reviewing a public-records request against

d to Bradley Edwards' three clients, T.M., C.W., and S.R.' Your Affiant's letter to C.W. was provided by the FBI. (Ex. 11. Your Affiant's letter to T.M. was hand-delivered by myself to T.M. at the time that she was interviewed (Ex. 2).2 Both C.W. and T.M. also received letters from the FBI's Victim-

se the U.S. Attorney's modification limited Epstein's liability to victims whom the United States was prepared to name in an indictment. In light of T.M.'s prior statements to law enforcement, your AMant could not in good faith include T.M. as a victim in an indictment and, accordingly, could not inc

ecent sworn construction of it, is consonant with the Federal Criminal Action's "remaining undecided" and "awaiting decision." See Unified Gov't of Athens-Clarke County $ Athens Newspapers, LLC, No. S07G1133, ____, 2008 WL 2579238, *3 (Ga. June 30, 2008) (reviewing a public-records request against Ge

se the U.S. Attorney's modification limited Epstein's liability to victims whom the United States was prepared to name in an indictment. In light of T.M.'s prior statements to law enforcement, your Affiant could not in good faith include T.M. as a victim in an indictment and, accordingly, could not i

d to Bradley Edwards' three clients, T.M., C.W., and S.R.' Your Affiant's letter to C.W. was provided by the FBI. (Ex. 1). Your Affiant's letter to T.M. was hand-delivered by myself to T.M. at the time that she was interviewed (Ex. 2).2 Both C.W. and T.M. also received letters from the FBI's Victim-

tment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences University of California, Riverside, Memory Recovery & Creation Conference (keynote) Ohio University, Athens, OH University of South Florida, Sarasota, Conference on Child Abuse in Our Time Seattle Forensic Institute, Conference on Sexual Abuse and its R

ective. In J. Metcalfe & A. Shimamura (Eds.) Metacognition: Knowing about Knowing. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, pp. 157-184. Foster, R.A., Libkuman, T.M., Schooler, J.W., & Loftus, E.F. (1994) Consequentiality and eyewitness person identification. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 8, 107-121. Loftus, E.F