(USAFLS) From: 'ent: fo: Subject: Esptei Itr 5 19 08. pdf r..on a a 2U00613A5FADS4)PM Epstein EFTA00225672

sure I do everything within my power to obviate a need for trial through a reasonable alternative resolution. Although it is clear that CEOS is not directing a prosecution here, and has stated only that you have the authority to commence such a prosecution, I am well aware that the decision whether to proceed, subject to any further process in Washington, is now within your discretion. I think the new facts should greatly influence your decision and accordingly, I hope you will agree to meet with me, both to discuss the new evidence and to discuss a resolution to this matter once and for all. I am available to meet with you at your earliest convenience subject to our mutual availability. Respectfully, Jay The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of Kirkland 6 Ellis LLP or Kirkland 6 Ellis International LLP. Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by e-mail to [email protected], and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. 3 EFTA00225673

following the initiation of multiple civil lawsuits, Mr. Epstein's counsel was able to take limited discovery of certain women in this matter. The sworn statements provided by these women all confirm that federal prosecution is not appropriate in this case. isten of witnesses such as , and , and the civil complainan an eir a rneys, confirm the following key points: First, there was no telephonic communication that met the requirements of § 2422(b). For example, as many other witnesses have stated, Ms. unclear terms that there was never any discussion over the phone abou Mr. Epstein's home to e ual activity: "The only thing that ever occurred on any of these phone calls [with or another assistan , 'Are you willing to come over,' or, 'Would you like to come over an give a massage.'" Tr. A at 15. Second, the underage women who visited Mr. Epstein have testified t a ey lied about their age in order to gain admittance into his home and women who brought t nderage friends to Mr. Epstein counseled them to lie ab ages as well. Ms. stated the following: "I would tell my girlfriends just like approached me. a e sure you tell him you're 18. Well, these girls that I brought, I nowt at they were 18 or 19 or 20. And the girls that I didn't know don't know if they were lying or not, I would say make sure that you tell him you're 18." Tr. at 22. Third, there was no routine or h gesting an intent to transform a massage into an illegal sexual act. For instance, Ms. stated that Mr. Epstein "never touched [her] physically" at all she did was "massage ] his back, his chest and his thighs and that was it." Tr. at 12-13. Finally, as you are well aware, there was no force, coercion, fraud, vio ence, drugs, or even alcohol present in connection with Mr. Epstein's encounters with these women. testified in no er coming over to The civil suits confirm that the plaintiffs did not discuss engaging in sexually-related activities with anyone prior to arriving at Mr. Epstein's residence. This reinforces the fact that no telephonic or Internet persuasion, inducement, enticement or coercion of any kind occurred. Furthermore, Mr. Herman, the attorney for most of the civil complainants, was quoted in the Palm Beach Post as saying that "it doesn't matter" that his clients lied about their ages and told Mr. Epstein that they were 18 or 19. In short, the new evidence establishing that the women deliberately lied about their age because they knew Mr. Epstein did not want anyone under 18 in his house directly undercuts the claim that Mr. Epstein willfully blinded himself as to their ages. Willful blindness is not a substitute for evidence of knowledge nor is it a negligence standard. It requires proof beyond reasonable doubt of deliberate intent and specific action to hide one's knowledge. There is absolutely no such evidence of that here, so it is not even a jury issue. Furthermore, willful ignorance cannot constitute the required mens rea for a crime of conspiracy or aiding and abetting. Through the recent witness statements, we have also discovered another serious issue that implicates the integrity of the federal investigation. We have learned that FBI Special Agent Kurkendayl attempted to convince these adult women, now in their twenties, that they were in fact "victims" even though the women themselves strongly disagreed with this characterization. This conduct, once agailles to the heart of the integrity of the investigation. In a sworn statement, Ms. was highly critical of the overreaching by federal law enforcement officers in this case. She testified—in no uncertain terms—that she does not, and never did, feel like a "victim," despite the fact that the FBI repeatedly tried to convince her otherwise. I am mindful of the fact that we have a state court date of July 8 on which either to enter a plea or to commence trial. As I review the trial options with Mr. Epstein, I certainly want to make 2 EFTA00225674