Latest / Beyond The Horizon / Darren Indyke And His Epstein Related Congressional Transcript (Part 3) (10/9/26)

Transcript

Darren Indyke And His Epstein Related Congressional Transcript (Part 3) (10/9/26) · Beyond The Horizon

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone and welcome to another episode of the
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to dive right
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: back in to the Darren Indyke transcript from his trip
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: to Congress. Question, this time I'd like to introduce what
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: will be marked as exhibit number three. And this is
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: a letter sent in 2008 by Mr. Epstein's criminal defense lawyers,
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: the prosecutors in Florida. And it says, when Epstein was
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: under investigation for crimes committed against minors. This is a
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: compilation of statements from various employees of Mr. Epstein, all
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: attesting to its good character. This document is base number
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: EFTA 2857458, and I'd like to direct your attention to
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: page 13. We're specifically looking at the bottom of page 13,
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: and I'll give you a moment to read. And for
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: the record, we're reviewing the italicized portion. Did you write
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: this email, Mr. Indyke? And why did you contribute? A
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: statement for this. Answer. I believe I was asked by
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: defense counsel to contribute a statement for him. Question. So
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: there's a part where you mentioned that Mr. Epstein had
• 1:08
  Speaker 1: provided emotional and financial support. Is that in reference to
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: what you previously described as help for infertility issues? Answer. Yes. Question.
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: And for the record again, why did Jeffrey Epstein offer
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: to pay for these services? Answer. I can't tell you
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: what was in his own mind, but I can tell
• 1:26
  Speaker 1: you my perception. was that he was being generous to me.
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: He didn't really know me very long, and there was
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: no kind of obvious benefit to him at that stage
• 1:34
  Speaker 1: in my career with him. So I guess he was
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: being generous. I will say this, you know, in the
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: years that followed, he did this kind of thing for
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: other employees, friends, and acquaintances. He appeared to be generous.
• 1:45
  Speaker 1: He appeared to understand that his money could do good things,
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: and he appeared to use his money to do things
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: like that for people. Question, did he provide you any
• 1:54
  Speaker 1: other support besides the infertility support? Answer, can you be
• 1:59
  Speaker 1: more specific in terms of a time frame? Question, well,
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: we're looking at this character reference around this time, 2008. Answer, no,
• 2:10
  Speaker 1: but you know that was a big deal, obviously. It
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: was a very difficult time for my wife and I,
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: and it was very meaningful to me to have that support. Question,
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: it's a poignant letter that you wrote here. Did you
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: see that whole packet that was submitted? I do not recall. Question,
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: were you aware that the changes were pending at the
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: time that you wrote your statement? Answer, I'm trying to
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: remember when this, when this statement was written. It was
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: kind of fluid at the time. Answer, well, you knew
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: that there was some kind of criminal allegation against him,
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: which is why you, there was a criminal defense attorney
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: that was asking you to write these letters, right? Answer, yes. Question,
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: there were allegations, right? You know what those allegations were. Answer,
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: it depends at what time you're talking about. Question, can
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: you speak up for the mic, sir? Indyke, I'm sorry,
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: I'm sorry. I'm not speaking well enough. Indyke, my understanding, basically,
• 3:03
  Speaker 1: that the allegations against him at the time, I think
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: at the time this was going on, you know, forgive me,
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: it was a while ago, but I think the allegations
• 3:11
  Speaker 1: at the time that this is a state investigation in
• 3:14
  Speaker 1: Palm Beach or that there were massages at his house,
• 3:18
  Speaker 1: some of those massages wound up sexual in nature. And
• 3:21
  Speaker 1: at that time, it wound up being a case that some,
• 3:24
  Speaker 1: there were some underage women there in the massages. Question,
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: that's good, so you understood that. That those were the allegations,
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: or the note, of the charges at the time you,
• 3:34
  Speaker 1: you wrote your letter. Answer, I did understand that those
• 3:37
  Speaker 1: were the allegations, but if I could talk a little
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: bit more about that, I'd like to, if that's okay.
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: I'm sure they're, question, I'm sure they're going to get
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: into that. I just want to ask one other question.
• 3:47
  Speaker 1: You wrote the letter. Criminal defense attorney asked you to
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: write the letter. Did you ever discuss the charges with Mr.
• 3:53
  Speaker 1: Epstein before you wrote your statement? Answer, no. Question, you
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: never talked to him. You never talked to him once
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: about these allegations before, even though you just described somewhat
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: of what you knew about them. You didn't discuss that
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: with him at all before you wrote the good character
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: reference for him? Answer, to the extent that there were
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: discussions with Epstein, they were always in the presence of
• 4:15
  Speaker 1: defense counsel. There were many, there were many lawyers there,
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: and I was a member of that group, so I
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: never had it. I never had a personal conversation with
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: him like that, like the one you're suggesting. Question, and
• 4:28
  Speaker 1: during that, during those conversations, I assume that Mr. Epstein
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: wasn't mute. He was speaking, perhaps, about the charges. Answer, so, well,
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: a couple of things. I want to talk to you
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: about them, but I will say this. I have a
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: balance of privilege here. I have a balance of privilege here,
• 4:44
  Speaker 1: but I also don't want it to be that I'm
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: trying to withhold anything from you. So at the time
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: that this was going on, what I was learning from
• 4:51
  Speaker 1: the defense people who were investigating it was that the
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: investigation was full of allegations that were in many ways untrue.
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: contradicted by the record, transcribed statements from the witnesses. But
• 5:01
  Speaker 1: what I understood, what I understood from the attorneys, was
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: that the police investigation was flawed, and somehow either biased,
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: or there was something, or the facts of the investigation
• 5:12
  Speaker 1: as described in the police report were inconsistent with recorded
• 5:15
  Speaker 1: statements from the witnesses, omitted information that the witnesses gave
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: them in recorded statements. There was even, if I recall,
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: there was even in the police report, um, reference to
• 5:25
  Speaker 1: a trash pool, where they're, They were, the police report indicated,
• 5:29
  Speaker 1: that they found a sex toy in the trash pool,
• 5:31
  Speaker 1: and it later turned out that what was identified as
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: a sex toy was in fact a broken salad utensil.
• 5:38
  Speaker 1: And so when the police used that information from their
• 5:41
  Speaker 1: report in their affidavits and their arrest warrant, they kept
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: that part about finding sex toys in the garbage pool,
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: but never mentioned the fact that it was later found
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: out to be a salad utensil. That there's also no
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: mention in the police report about the fact that Epstein
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: had been adamant he didn't know that anybody was underage.
• 5:59
  Speaker 1: In fact, there was, as I understood it, because I
• 6:01
  Speaker 1: didn't do it, but as I understood it, there was
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: a lie detector test, a polygraph test, where Epstein indicated
• 6:07
  Speaker 1: that Epstein had been truthful when he said he didn't
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: know about the AIDS or so. Now he's cut off
• 6:13
  Speaker 1: by the speaker, Mr. Endyke. So let's go back to
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: an earlier question that I asked you about when in
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: context of that charge, when in context of this adjudication
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: of guilt and the sentencing, I assume you can correct
• 6:26
  Speaker 1: me if I'm wrong. You wrote this in connection with
• 6:28
  Speaker 1: the sentencing or pre-sentencing report on behalf of the defense.
• 6:33
  Speaker 1: Is that accurate? Answer, I don't know for a fact,
• 6:37
  Speaker 1: but I don't. That's not what I recollect. Question, okay,
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: so what I find intriguing about what you just testified to,
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: rather than some other lengthy detail about the theory of
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: the defense of Mr. Epstein. So it's something that is
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: stuck in my mind and stuck in my head. When
• 6:51
  Speaker 1: this was written, it was written once. I don't, it
• 6:54
  Speaker 1: was also a very long time ago, and so I
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: can't tell you precisely when it was written, and I
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: can't tell you, I just can't tell you the full
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: context when this was submitted. Question in your opening, you
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: said that after 2008, after his guilty plea, you thought
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: that he was contrite and that he learned from his mistake,
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: and you said that you were horrified to learn of
• 7:13
  Speaker 1: the crimes he committed. Answer, what crimes are you referencing?
• 7:19
  Speaker 1: Question after 2008. Answer, so now... With hindsight, he was
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: never charged, or I'm unaware of any charge or reference,
• 7:29
  Speaker 1: times post-2008. Is there, so what charges are you referencing?
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: What crimes are you referencing? Answer, I'm not referencing any
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: charges after 2008. Indyk, I don't specifically know what occurred post-2008.
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: I wasn't there. I didn't see any criminal activity. But
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: what I've seen now are allegations by a number of
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: women that have come to light after he died. where
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: they settled because these things happened, and while I've never
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: seen him do anything that way, nobody's ever reported anything
• 7:58
  Speaker 1: to me that way. I'm clearly with all these things,
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: saying that this happened after the fact. I cannot say
• 8:05
  Speaker 1: what he did or didn't do, a lot of bad things,
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: so learning this after his death, I feel horribly, and
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: that's what I said. I do feel horribly. Question, so Mr. Indyke,
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: just go back to your statement you wrote that was
• 8:17
  Speaker 1: inserted in the defense statement. I'm just wondering, was it
• 8:21
  Speaker 1: your normal practice to write such a letter of recommendation
• 8:23
  Speaker 1: on behalf of someone without full understanding of the ramifications
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: of what you were saying and the allegations in the
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: context with which you were being asked to write that?
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: I mean, did you know why you were being asked
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: to write that specific statement? Answer, I knew what people
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: were saying. We're making allegations against him, which were kind
• 8:41
  Speaker 1: of contrary to what I had observed in him. And
• 8:44
  Speaker 1: the truth is that I felt they asked me for
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: what he had done that was generous to me, and
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: I felt like I could be honest about that, and
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: so that's why I did it. Question, so I'm aware
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: that you were a transactional attorney, probably did, general ramifications,
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: but you understood, I would guess, as an attorney, that
• 9:04
  Speaker 1: somewhere along the pipe you had to understand something about
• 9:06
  Speaker 1: criminal law, that your statement was going to be used
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: to facilitate a reduction in sentence, reduction in charges, or
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: some benefit to Mr. Epstein, in light of the rather
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: substantial charges, which you described in some detail, that you
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: were aware of? Answer, at the time, first of all,
• 9:22
  Speaker 1: this is the first time anything like that ever happened
• 9:24
  Speaker 1: to me, so to some extent, this is all very
• 9:27
  Speaker 1: new to me. I'm still representing the person. The person
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: that I represented never exhibited this kind of conduct to me,
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: and it was very generous to me, and at the time,
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: gets cut off by you, but even though he was
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: generous to you, and you understood this was going to
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: be used to facilitate either a reduction in sentence or
• 9:47
  Speaker 1: reduction in charges. Answer, but I also understood the answer is,
• 9:51
  Speaker 1: I understood that it was going. I didn't know it
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: was going to be used for a reduction in charges
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: or a reduction in sentence. I understood it was going
• 9:59
  Speaker 1: to be used to give... to law enforcement as a
• 10:01
  Speaker 1: character reference for him okay I did understand that question
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: and so why would you give a character reference if
• 10:08
  Speaker 1: not for a reduction of sentence or reduction in charges
• 10:11
  Speaker 1: I mean that's why you would give something like that
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: to the police agency is it not answer that's not
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: what was going on that's not what I was thinking
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: at the time All right, it wasn't. Question, Mr. Endyke,
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: you referenced attorney-client privilege. Answer, aye, just for the record.
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: If you wish to assert any privilege, you must say
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: so on the record. So far, there hasn't been a
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: very specific question of that, Endyke says. If that does arrive,
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: I'll let you know. Question, and we're going to jump
• 10:37
  Speaker 1: around a little bit here, but you had mentioned that
• 10:39
  Speaker 1: the allegations that were made against Epstein during the 2006-2008 period,
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: you mentioned that those were untrue. Who did you make
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: that determination, or how did you make that determination yourself? Answer, no,
• 10:52
  Speaker 1: that was communicated to me. Question, who communicated that to you?
• 10:58
  Speaker 1: And it was communicated through defense counsel. Indic answers, and
• 11:02
  Speaker 1: the reason I can discuss it is it's the same
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: statement that defense counsel made in documents they delivered to the,
• 11:09
  Speaker 1: excuse me, to the government. Question, and for the record,
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: who was the defense counsel? Answer, Epstein had a lot
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: of defense attorneys at the time. Off the top of
• 11:18
  Speaker 1: my head, Gerald Lefcourt was one. I believe Jack Goldberger
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: was one. I believe Mike Teen was one. Dershowitz, Alan Dershowitz,
• 11:25
  Speaker 1: I think I mentioned. Lily Sanchez, a different. I'm trying
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: to remember who was all involved at that particular time.
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: Cheryl Reich, I believe, was a lesbian attorney, a criminal
• 11:34
  Speaker 1: defense attorney at the time. Guy Lewis also. Marty Weinberg. But,
• 11:39
  Speaker 1: you know, the attorneys came on at different times. So
• 11:42
  Speaker 1: I can't tell you exactly who came on when. All right, folks,
• 11:45
  Speaker 1: we're going to wrap up right here. And in the
• 11:47
  Speaker 1: next episode, we're going to pick up where we left off.
• 11:50
  Speaker 1: All the information that goes with this episode can be
• 11:53
  Speaker 1: found in the description box.