Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / Mega Edition: The OIG Report Detailing The Investigation Into Epstein's NPA (Part 7-10) (7/20/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: The OIG Report Detailing The Investigation Into Epstein's NPA (Part 7-10) (7/20/26) · The Epstein Chronicles

0:00
Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles.
0:04
Speaker 1: This episode, we're picking up where we left off with
0:07
Speaker 1: the OIG report into Jeffrey Epstein's non prosecution agreement b.
0:13
Speaker 1: The State Attorney's office decides to present the case to
0:16
Speaker 1: a state grand jury. State Attorney Barry Krisher explained to
0:20
Speaker 1: OPR that the Epstein case was unusual and that police
0:24
Speaker 1: brought the case to his office without having made an arrest.
0:27
Speaker 1: Krisher was unfamiliar with Epstein, and the case was assigned
0:31
Speaker 1: to the Crimes against Children Unit. Palm Beach Chief Michael
0:35
Speaker 1: Ryder stated in a two thousand and nine civil deposition
0:39
Speaker 1: that when the PBPD initially brought the case to the
0:42
Speaker 1: State Attorney's office in two thousand and five, Krisher was
0:45
Speaker 1: supportive of the investigation and told writer, let's go for
0:49
Speaker 1: it because, given the nature of the allegations, Epstein was
0:53
Speaker 1: somebody we have to stop. Krisher told OPR, however, that
0:57
Speaker 1: both detectives and the prosecutors came to recognized that there
1:01
Speaker 1: were witness problems. Assistant State Attorney and Crimes against Children
1:06
Speaker 1: Unit chief Lana Bellohovlik told o PR that she and
1:10
Speaker 1: an experienced assistant state attorney who initially worked with her
1:13
Speaker 1: on the case, were at a disagreement with Palm Beach
1:17
Speaker 1: police over what the state could ethically charge. According to Bellehovlik,
1:21
Speaker 1: she did not believe the evidence the police presented would
1:24
Speaker 1: satisfy the elements of proof required to charge Epstein with
1:28
Speaker 1: the two felony crimes the police wanted filed unlawful sexual
1:32
Speaker 1: activity with a miner Florida Statute Section seven ninety four
1:36
Speaker 1: dot five to one and leude and Lascivious Molestation of
1:40
Speaker 1: a minor Florida Statute Section eight hundred dot four, and
1:44
Speaker 1: the police were not happy with that. In addition, victims
1:48
Speaker 1: had given contradictory statements to police, and the original complaintant,
1:52
Speaker 1: who could have supported a charge requiring sexual offender registration,
1:56
Speaker 1: recanted her allegation of sexual contact. Belho offered Epstein a
2:01
Speaker 1: resolution that would result in a five year term of probation,
2:04
Speaker 1: which he rejected. Records publicly released by the state attorney
2:09
Speaker 1: showed that, beginning in early two thousand and six, attorneys
2:12
Speaker 1: for Epstein sought to persuade the state prosecutors to allow
2:15
Speaker 1: Epstein to plead no contest rather than guilty. To that end,
2:19
Speaker 1: the defense team aggressively investigated victims and presented the state
2:23
Speaker 1: attorney's office with voluminous material in an effort to undermine
2:27
Speaker 1: some of the victim's credibility, including criminal records, victims social
2:31
Speaker 1: media postings such as MySpace pages about their own sexual
2:35
Speaker 1: activity and drug use, and victim statements that appeared the
2:38
Speaker 1: undercut allegations of criminal activity and Epstein's knowledge of victim's ages.
2:43
Speaker 1: Krisher told oh PR that Epstein's local council brought attorney
2:47
Speaker 1: Alan Dershowitz to see Krisher and the assistant state attorney,
2:50
Speaker 1: but Dershowitz was overly aggressive and threatened, We're going to
2:54
Speaker 1: destroy your witnesses. Don't go to court because we're going
2:57
Speaker 1: to destroy those girls. According to Krisher, Schwitz so tainted
3:01
Speaker 1: the waters that Epstein also hired local attorney Jack Goldberger,
3:05
Speaker 1: with whom Krisher had a working relationship. Because the husband
3:08
Speaker 1: of the assistant state attorney was Goldberger's law partner, Bellohovlk
3:12
Speaker 1: recused the assistant state attorney to remove even the appearance
3:17
Speaker 1: of any kind of conflict of interest, and Bellohovlik took
3:21
Speaker 1: over the case Goldberger, together with Gerald Lefcourt, a nationally
3:25
Speaker 1: known New York criminal defense attorney also representing Epstein, then
3:29
Speaker 1: directed their efforts at Bellohovlik and Krisher to dissuade the
3:33
Speaker 1: office from prosecuting Epstein, largely by attacking the credibility of
3:37
Speaker 1: the victim witnesses. Meanwhile, the State Attorney's office took the
3:41
Speaker 1: unusual step of preparing to present the case to a
3:44
Speaker 1: grand jury. Krisher told OPR that under state law as
3:48
Speaker 1: it existed until it changed in twenty sixteen, his office
3:52
Speaker 1: prosecuted miners as young as fourteen for prostitution. The possibility
3:56
Speaker 1: that Epstein's victims themselves could have been prosecuted caused great
4:00
Speaker 1: consternation within the office, and, according to Krisher, resulted in
4:04
Speaker 1: the decision to put the case before the grand jury.
4:07
Speaker 1: Bellohovelik told OPR that our office took the allegations against
4:10
Speaker 1: Epstein seriously because it was an organized scheme to involve
4:15
Speaker 1: young girls by offering them money. And I wouldn't say
4:18
Speaker 1: that we thought they were prostitutes, but I think there
4:20
Speaker 1: was solicitation. However, she said, although Epstein's behavior was reprehensible,
4:26
Speaker 1: I'm limited by the state statutes as to what I
4:29
Speaker 1: can charge. Krisher told OPR there were so many issues
4:33
Speaker 1: involving the victim witnesses that, to my mind, in consultation
4:37
Speaker 1: with my prosecutors, the only way to achieve, to my mind,
4:40
Speaker 1: real justice was to present the case to the grand
4:43
Speaker 1: jury and not to direct file criminal charges against Epstein.
4:48
Speaker 1: See Florida state procedure for bringing criminal charges. Federal criminal
4:53
Speaker 1: procedure requires that a felony charge, that is, any charge
4:56
Speaker 1: punishable by imprisonment for one year or more be brought
5:00
Speaker 1: by a grand jury, unless wave by a defendant. Under
5:03
Speaker 1: Florida law, however, a grand jury is required to bring
5:06
Speaker 1: criminal charges only in a death penalty case. For all
5:10
Speaker 1: other cases, a state attorney has concurrent authority to file
5:13
Speaker 1: criminal charges by means of a document called an information
5:17
Speaker 1: or to seek grand jury indictment. Although Florida criminal cases
5:21
Speaker 1: are routinely charged by information, state grand juries are often
5:25
Speaker 1: utilized and sensitive or high profile cases, such as those
5:29
Speaker 1: involving allegations of wrongdoing by public officials. Florida grand jury
5:34
Speaker 1: proceedings are a subject to strict secrecy rules that, among
5:38
Speaker 1: other things, prohibit anyone from being present while grand jurors
5:42
Speaker 1: deliberate and vote and proscribe the release of the notes, records,
5:46
Speaker 1: and transcripts of the grand jury d Palm Beach Chief
5:51
Speaker 1: Writer becomes concerned with the State Attorney's office handling of
5:54
Speaker 1: the state investigation and seeks a federal investigation. In two
5:59
Speaker 1: thousand and six, Palm Beach Chief Michael Ryder perceived that
6:02
Speaker 1: Krisher's attitude had changed, and, according to Writer's statements in
6:06
Speaker 1: his two thousand and nine deposition, Krisher said that he
6:09
Speaker 1: did not believe the victims were credible. Writer was disturbed
6:13
Speaker 1: that when Krisher suggested that the PBPD issue a notice
6:16
Speaker 1: for Epstein to appear in court on misdemeanor charges, leading
6:20
Speaker 1: Writer to be in questioning Krisher's objectivity and the State
6:23
Speaker 1: Attorney's office approach to the case. As Writer explained in
6:27
Speaker 1: his deposition, this was a case that I felt absolutely
6:31
Speaker 1: needed the attention of the State Attorney's office that needed
6:34
Speaker 1: to be prosecuted in state court. It's not generally something
6:37
Speaker 1: that's prosecuted in a federal court. And I knew that
6:41
Speaker 1: it didn't really matter what the facts were in the case.
6:43
Speaker 1: It was pretty clear to me that mister Krisher did
6:46
Speaker 1: not want to prosecute this case. On May first, two
6:50
Speaker 1: thousand and six, Writers submitted to Krisher probable cause Affidavid's
6:53
Speaker 1: and a case filing package relating to Ebstein, one of
6:57
Speaker 1: his personal assistants, and a young local woman whom Epstein
7:00
Speaker 1: first victimized and then used to recruit others. In his
7:04
Speaker 1: transmittal letter, which was later made public, Writer criticized Krisher,
7:08
Speaker 1: noting that he found the State Attorney's office treatment of
7:11
Speaker 1: these cases to be highly unusual. Writer urged Krisher to
7:15
Speaker 1: examine the unusual course that your office handling of this
7:19
Speaker 1: matter is taken, and to consider disqualifying himself from prosecuting Epstein.
7:25
Speaker 1: Section three. The FBI and the USAO investigate Epstein, and
7:29
Speaker 1: the defense team engages with the USAO a May two
7:35
Speaker 1: thousand and six. February two thousand and seven, the federal
7:38
Speaker 1: investigation is initiated and the USAO opens a case file.
7:44
Speaker 1: In early two thousand and six, a Wes palm Beach
7:47
Speaker 1: FBI special agent who worked closely with a USA and
7:50
Speaker 1: Marie Villafanna on child exploitation cases, and who was referred
7:54
Speaker 1: to in this report as the case agent mentioned to
7:57
Speaker 1: Villa Fauna in casual conversations, having learned that the pom
8:01
Speaker 1: Beach Police was investigating a wealthy pom Beach man who
8:04
Speaker 1: recruited miners for sexual activity. The case agent told Villa
8:08
Speaker 1: Fauna that pom Beach had reached out to the FBI
8:11
Speaker 1: because the state Attorney's office was considering either not charging
8:15
Speaker 1: the case or allowing the defendant to plead to a misdemeanor.
8:19
Speaker 1: Villa Fanna suggested meeting with the Palm Beach Police, but
8:23
Speaker 1: the case agent explained that before formally presenting the case
8:26
Speaker 1: to the FBI, pom Beach wanted to see how the
8:29
Speaker 1: State Attorney's office decided to charge Epstein. One the Palm
8:33
Speaker 1: Beach Police present the matter to the FBI and the USAO.
8:38
Speaker 1: In May two thousand and six, the lead detective handling
8:41
Speaker 1: the state's investigation met with Villa Fauna and the FBI
8:44
Speaker 1: case agent to summarize for them the information learned during
8:48
Speaker 1: the state's investigation. At the time, neither Villa Fauna nor
8:51
Speaker 1: the case agent had heard of Epstein or any knowledge
8:55
Speaker 1: of his background. According to Villa Fauna. During the meeting,
8:58
Speaker 1: the detective express concern that pressure had been brought to
9:01
Speaker 1: bear on Krisher by Epstein's attorneys, and he and chief
9:04
Speaker 1: writer were concerned the state which charge Epstein with only
9:07
Speaker 1: a misdemeanor or not at all. The detective explained that
9:11
Speaker 1: the defense had hired private investigators to trail Ryder, and
9:15
Speaker 1: the detective had raised claims of various improprieties by the police,
9:19
Speaker 1: and in the view of the Palm Beach Police Department,
9:21
Speaker 1: had orchestrated the removal of the assistant state attorney initially
9:25
Speaker 1: assigned to handle the matter, who was viewed as an
9:28
Speaker 1: aggressive prosecutor, by hiring a defense attorney whose relationship with
9:32
Speaker 1: the assistant state attorney created a conflict of interest for
9:36
Speaker 1: the prosecutor. Further, giving the missing computer equipment and surveillance
9:40
Speaker 1: camera videotapes, the detective believed Epstein may have been tipped
9:44
Speaker 1: off in advance of the search warrant. During the meeting,
9:48
Speaker 1: Villa Fauna reviewed the US Code to see what federal
9:51
Speaker 1: charges could be brought against Epstein. She focused on US
9:54
Speaker 1: Code eighteen, Section twenty four twenty two enticement of miners
9:58
Speaker 1: in the prostitution or other illegal sexual activity, and the
10:02
Speaker 1: use of a facility of interstate or foreign commerce to
10:06
Speaker 1: persuade or induce a minor to engage in prostitution or
10:10
Speaker 1: other illegal sexual activity, and twenty four to twenty three
10:13
Speaker 1: travel for purposes of engaging in illegal sexual conduct. As
10:17
Speaker 1: they discussed the charges, the detective told Villa Fauna that
10:21
Speaker 1: Epstein and his assistants had traveled at a Palm Beach
10:24
Speaker 1: International Airport on Epstein's private airplane, and flight logs sometimes
10:28
Speaker 1: referred to the passenger as female without a name or
10:31
Speaker 1: an age, which the detective suspected might be references to
10:35
Speaker 1: underage girls. However, the detective acknowledged that he was unable
10:40
Speaker 1: to confirm that suspicion and did not have any firm
10:43
Speaker 1: evidence indicating that Epstein had transported any girls interstate or internationally. Nevertheless,
10:49
Speaker 1: Villa Fauna believed Epstein could be prosecuted federally, in part
10:53
Speaker 1: because of his own interstate and international travel to the
10:56
Speaker 1: Southern District of Florida to abuse girls. Discussed with the
11:00
Speaker 1: detective and the case agent the additional investigation needed to
11:04
Speaker 1: prove violations of the federal statutes that she had identified.
11:09
Speaker 1: She told them that if the evidence supported it, the
11:12
Speaker 1: case could be prosecuted. Federally, but she assured them the
11:16
Speaker 1: opening of federal investigation would not preclude the State Attorney's
11:19
Speaker 1: office from charging Epstein should it choose to do so.
11:22
Speaker 1: All right, we're going to wrap up this episode here
11:25
Speaker 1: and in the next episode we're going to pick up
11:27
Speaker 1: with May two thousand and six, the USAO accepts the
11:30
Speaker 1: case and opens the case file. All of the information
11:34
Speaker 1: that goes with this episode can be found in the
11:37
Speaker 1: description box. What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the
11:40
Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're picking up where we
11:44
Speaker 1: left off with the OIG report into Jeffrey Epstein's non
11:48
Speaker 1: prosecution agreement. Two May two thousand and six, the USAO
11:54
Speaker 1: accepts the case and opens a case file. On May
11:57
Speaker 1: twenty third, two thousand and six, Villa Fauna prepared the
12:00
Speaker 1: paperwork to open a USAO case file. Villa Fauna told
12:04
Speaker 1: OPR that several aspects of the case implicated federal interests
12:08
Speaker 1: had potentially merited a federal prosecution. One the victimization of
12:12
Speaker 1: minors through the use of facilities of interstate commerce, the telephone,
12:16
Speaker 1: and airports. Two, the number of victims involved. Three the
12:20
Speaker 1: possibility that Epstein had been producing or possessing child porn,
12:25
Speaker 1: suggested by the removal of the computer equipment from his residence,
12:28
Speaker 1: and for the possibility that in proper political pressure had
12:33
Speaker 1: affected the State Attorney's office handling of the case. The
12:36
Speaker 1: investigation was named Operation Leap Year because the state investigation
12:41
Speaker 1: had identified approximately twenty nine girls as victims of Epstein's conduct.
12:46
Speaker 1: Villa Fauna told OPR that from the outset of the
12:49
Speaker 1: federal investigation, she understood that the case would require a
12:53
Speaker 1: great deal of time and effort, given the number of
12:56
Speaker 1: potential victims and Epstein's financial resources. Nonetheless, yes, Villa Fanna
13:00
Speaker 1: was willing to put in the effort and believe that
13:03
Speaker 1: the FBI was similarly committed to the case. Villa Funa
13:07
Speaker 1: discussed the case with their immediate supervisor, who also thought
13:10
Speaker 1: it would be a good case and approved it to
13:13
Speaker 1: be opened within the usao's file management system, and on
13:16
Speaker 1: May twenty third, two thousand and six, it was formally initiated.
13:20
Speaker 1: Three July fourteenth, two thousand and six, Villa Fanna informs
13:24
Speaker 1: Acosta and Slowman about the case. Because Villa Fanna was
13:28
Speaker 1: not familiar with Epstein, she researched his background and learned
13:31
Speaker 1: that he took a scort shirt approach to litigation. Villafana
13:35
Speaker 1: was aware that Epstein had hired multiple lawyers to interact
13:38
Speaker 1: with the State Attorney's office in an effort to derail
13:40
Speaker 1: the state case, and she believed he would likely do
13:43
Speaker 1: the same in connection with any federal investigation. Therefore, Villafana
13:48
Speaker 1: arranged to meet with US Attorney Alexander Acosta and Jeffrey Slowman,
13:52
Speaker 1: who at the time was a Criminal Division chief. Villa
13:55
Speaker 1: Fanna told OPR that she never before asked to meet
13:59
Speaker 1: with executive men management about initiating a case, but the
14:02
Speaker 1: allegations at Epstein had improperly influenced the State Attorney's office
14:06
Speaker 1: greatly troubled her. Villa Fauna explained to OPR that she
14:10
Speaker 1: wanted to ensure that her senior supervisors were on board
14:14
Speaker 1: with the Epstein investigation. In addition, she viewed Slowman as
14:17
Speaker 1: a friend in whom she had a particular confidence. At
14:21
Speaker 1: this point, although Villa Fauna's immediate supervisor was aware of
14:24
Speaker 1: the case, Villa Fauna did not inform Andrew Laurie, who
14:28
Speaker 1: was then in charge of the West Palm Beach office,
14:30
Speaker 1: and her second line supervisor about the matter or that
14:34
Speaker 1: she was briefing Acosta in Sloman. Vila Fauna met with
14:38
Speaker 1: Acosta in Sloman in Miami on July fourteenth, two thousand
14:41
Speaker 1: and six. She told OPR that at the meeting, she
14:44
Speaker 1: informed them that the PBPD had identified a group of
14:48
Speaker 1: girls who had provided to Epstein massages that were sexual
14:52
Speaker 1: in nature, and that Epstein had used various types of
14:55
Speaker 1: pressure to avoid prosecution by the state, including hiring attorneys
15:00
Speaker 1: who had personal connections to the state attorney. Villa Fauna
15:03
Speaker 1: said that part of her goal in speaking to Acosta
15:06
Speaker 1: and Sloman at the outset of the federal investigation was
15:09
Speaker 1: to sensitize them to the tactics Epstein's legal team would
15:13
Speaker 1: likely employ. Villa Fauna explained, when you have a case
15:16
Speaker 1: that you know people are going to be getting calls about,
15:19
Speaker 1: you just want to make sure that they know about
15:22
Speaker 1: it so they don't get a call from out of
15:24
Speaker 1: the blue. According to Villa Fauna, she told a Costa
15:27
Speaker 1: and Sloman that the FBI was willing to put the
15:29
Speaker 1: necessary resources into the case, and she was willing to
15:33
Speaker 1: put in the time, but she didn't want to get
15:35
Speaker 1: to the end and have the same situation occur with
15:38
Speaker 1: a federal prosecution that occurred with the state. She told OPR,
15:42
Speaker 1: I remember specifically saying to them that I expected a
15:45
Speaker 1: case would be time and resource intensive, and I did
15:48
Speaker 1: not want to invest the time and the FBI's resources
15:51
Speaker 1: if the office would just back down to pressure. At
15:54
Speaker 1: the end, according to Villafauna, a Costa and Sloman promised
15:58
Speaker 1: that if the evidence is there, we will prosecute the case.
16:01
Speaker 1: In a later email to Lourie and her immediate supervisor,
16:05
Speaker 1: Villa Fauna recounted that she spoke with Acosta and Sloman
16:08
Speaker 1: because she knew that what has happened to the state
16:11
Speaker 1: prosecution can happen to a federal prosecution if the US
16:14
Speaker 1: attorney isn't on board. But a Costa in Sloman had
16:18
Speaker 1: given her the green light to go forward with the
16:20
Speaker 1: Epstein investigation. Both a Costa and Sloman told OPR that
16:25
Speaker 1: they did not recall the July two thousand and six
16:27
Speaker 1: meeting with Villa Fauna. Each told OPR that at the
16:30
Speaker 1: time the federal investigation was initiated, he had not previously
16:34
Speaker 1: heard of Epstein. A Costa told OPR that he understood
16:38
Speaker 1: from the outset that the case involved a wealthy man
16:41
Speaker 1: who was doing sort things with girls, and that it
16:44
Speaker 1: seemed a reasonable matter to pursue federally. Epstein's wealth and
16:48
Speaker 1: status did not raise any concerns for him, because, as
16:51
Speaker 1: a Costa told OPR, the USAO had prosecuted lots of
16:55
Speaker 1: influential folks. When asked by OPR to articulate the federal
16:59
Speaker 1: inchries he perceived at the time to be implicated by
17:02
Speaker 1: the case, a Costa responded the exploitation of girls or
17:06
Speaker 1: minor females. Regarding Villa Fauna's view that she had been
17:09
Speaker 1: given a green light to proceed with the investigation, a
17:13
Speaker 1: Costa told OPR that he would not likely have explicitly
17:16
Speaker 1: told Villa Fauna to go spend your time on the case. Rather,
17:19
Speaker 1: his practice would have been simply to acknowledge the information
17:22
Speaker 1: she shared about the case and confirm that a federal
17:26
Speaker 1: investigation sounded reasonable. Sloman told OPR that he could not
17:31
Speaker 1: recall what he initially knew about the Epstein investigation, other
17:35
Speaker 1: than that a basic understanding that the State Attorney's office
17:38
Speaker 1: had abdicated their responsibility to investigate and prosecute Epstein. In
17:43
Speaker 1: his OPR interviews, Sloman did not recall with specificity Villafana's
17:47
Speaker 1: concern about Epstein's team pressuring the State Attorney's office, but
17:52
Speaker 1: he said he was never concerned that political pressure would
17:55
Speaker 1: affect the USAO, noting that as of July two thousand
17:58
Speaker 1: and six, the USA had recently prosecuted wealthy and politically
18:03
Speaker 1: connected lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Four late July two thousand and six,
18:09
Speaker 1: the state indicts Epstein, and the USAO moves forward with
18:12
Speaker 1: a federal investigation. Several days after Villafana spoke with a
18:17
Speaker 1: Costa and Sloman. On July nineteenth, two thousand and six,
18:20
Speaker 1: Assistant State Attorney Bellohovlik presented the case to the state
18:24
Speaker 1: grand jury. Krisher told OPR that the whole thing was
18:28
Speaker 1: put before the grand jury. According to a statement made
18:30
Speaker 1: at the time by the State Attorney's Office spokesman, the
18:33
Speaker 1: grand jury was presented with a list of charges from
18:36
Speaker 1: highest to lowest, without a recommendation by the prosecutor, and
18:40
Speaker 1: deliberated with the prosecutor out of the room. The state
18:44
Speaker 1: grand jury returned an indictment, charging Epstein with one count
18:48
Speaker 1: of felony, solicitation of prostitution, and violation of Florida Statute
18:52
Speaker 1: Section seven ninety six seven a felony under state law
18:56
Speaker 1: because it alleged three or more instances of citation. The
19:01
Speaker 1: indictment did not identify the person or a person solicited,
19:04
Speaker 1: and made no mention of the fact that Epstein had
19:07
Speaker 1: solicited miners. On July twenty third, two thousand and six,
19:10
Speaker 1: Epstein self surrendered to be arrested on the indictment, but
19:14
Speaker 1: was not detained, and the charges were made public. Villa
19:18
Speaker 1: Fauna told OPR that she decided to move forward with
19:21
Speaker 1: a federal investigation at that point because she believed the
19:25
Speaker 1: State Attorney's office would permit Epstein to enter a plea
19:28
Speaker 1: to a reduced misdemeanor charge, that once he entered a
19:31
Speaker 1: guilty plea, the department's petit policy might preclude a federal prosecution.
19:36
Speaker 1: Villa Fauna told OPR that at the time, she definitely
19:39
Speaker 1: believed that we were going to proceed to a federal indictment,
19:43
Speaker 1: assuming that we had sufficient evidence. On July twenty fourth,
19:47
Speaker 1: two thousand and six, Villa Fauna alerted Slowman, who informed
19:50
Speaker 1: the Costa that the State Attorney's office had charged and
19:53
Speaker 1: arrested Epstein. On that same day. The FBI in West
19:57
Speaker 1: Palm Beach formally opened the case, assigning the case agent
20:00
Speaker 1: and later a co case agent to investigate it. Villa
20:04
Speaker 1: Fauna told Sloman that the FBI agents are getting copies
20:07
Speaker 1: of all the evidence and we are going to review
20:10
Speaker 1: everything at the FBI on Wednesday, and she noted that
20:14
Speaker 1: her target date for filing federal charges against Epstein was
20:18
Speaker 1: August twenty fifth, two thousand and six. Acosta emailed Slowman
20:22
Speaker 1: asking whether it was appropriate to approach State Attorney Krisher
20:25
Speaker 1: and give him a heads up where we might go.
20:28
Speaker 1: Sloman replied no, for fear that it will be leaked
20:31
Speaker 1: straight to Epstein. Although Lori learned of the case at
20:35
Speaker 1: this point from Slowman and eventually took a more active
20:37
Speaker 1: role in supervising the investigation, Villa Fauna continued to update
20:41
Speaker 1: Acosta and Slowman directly on the progress of the case.
20:45
Speaker 1: Villa Fauna's immediate supervisor in West Palm Beach had little
20:48
Speaker 1: involvement in supervising the Epstein investigation, and at times Villa
20:52
Speaker 1: Fauna directed her emails to Slowman, Menchell, and Louri without
20:56
Speaker 1: copying her immediate supervisor. In the immediate super's view, however,
21:01
Speaker 1: Miami purposely assumed all the authority for the case, which
21:05
Speaker 1: the immediate supervisor regarded as highly unusual. By late August
21:10
Speaker 1: two thousand and six, Villa Fauna and the FBI had
21:13
Speaker 1: identified several additional victims and obtained some flight manifests, telephone messages,
21:18
Speaker 1: and cell phone records that show the communication and travel
21:22
Speaker 1: in interstate commerce by Epstein and his associates. Billifana reported
21:27
Speaker 1: to her supervisors that the State Attorney's office would not
21:30
Speaker 1: provide transcripts from the State Grand Jerry voluntarily and that
21:33
Speaker 1: she would be meeting with Chief Writer to convince him
21:36
Speaker 1: to relinquish the evidence to the FBI. Billa Fauna told
21:40
Speaker 1: her supervisors that she expected a number of fights over
21:43
Speaker 1: her document demands and that some parties were refusing to
21:46
Speaker 1: comply after having contact with Epstein or his attorneys. Billa
21:51
Speaker 1: Fauna's reference to anticipated fights and lack of compliance led
21:54
Speaker 1: Slowman to ask whether she was referring to the victims.
21:58
Speaker 1: Bill of Fauna responded that the problem did not involve victims,
22:01
Speaker 1: but rather a former employee of Epstein and some business
22:05
Speaker 1: entities that had objected to document demands as overly burdensome,
22:09
Speaker 1: Villa Fauna explained to Sloman and Laurie that some of
22:12
Speaker 1: the victims were scared and or embarrassed, and some had
22:15
Speaker 1: been intimidated by the defense, but everyone with whom the
22:19
Speaker 1: agents have spoken so far has been willing to tell
22:22
Speaker 1: her story. Villa Fauna also informed Slowman and Laurie that
22:26
Speaker 1: the FBI was reinterviewing victims who had given tape statements
22:29
Speaker 1: to the PBPD to ensure their stories have not changed
22:33
Speaker 1: and that any discrepancies will not be noted and considered.
22:38
Speaker 1: She conceded that getting them to tell their stories in
22:40
Speaker 1: front of a jury at trial may be much harder,
22:43
Speaker 1: but express confidence that the two key victims will stay
22:46
Speaker 1: the course. She acknowledged that the case needs to be
22:49
Speaker 1: rock solid. The case agent told OPR that in this
22:53
Speaker 1: initial stage of the investigation, the FBI partnered up very
22:56
Speaker 1: well with the USAO. She recalled that there was a
23:00
Speaker 1: little higher level management oversight, either from the FBI or
23:03
Speaker 1: the USAO, and we were allowed to do what we
23:06
Speaker 1: needed to do to get our job done. This included
23:09
Speaker 1: continuing to identify, locate, and interview victims and EPSTEIN employees,
23:14
Speaker 1: and obtaining records relating to Epstein's travel, communications, and financial transactions.
23:20
Speaker 1: The case agent viewed the case as strong. All right,
23:23
Speaker 1: we're gonna wrap up right there, and in the next
23:25
Speaker 1: episode we're gonna pick up with five October two thousand
23:29
Speaker 1: and six through February two thousand and seven, Epstein's defense
23:33
Speaker 1: counsel initiate contact with Villa, Fauna, Lori, and Sloman and
23:37
Speaker 1: press for a meeting. All the information that goes with
23:40
Speaker 1: this episode can be found in the description box. What's up, everyone,
23:45
Speaker 1: and welcome back to the Epstein chronicles. In this episode,
23:49
Speaker 1: we're going to get right back to the OIG report
23:52
Speaker 1: into Jeffrey Epstein's non prosecution agreement. Five October two thousand
23:58
Speaker 1: and six through February two tho thousand and seven, Epstein's
24:01
Speaker 1: defense counsel initiate contact with Villa, Fauna, Lori, and Sloman
24:06
Speaker 1: and pressed for a meeting. Just as Epstein had learned
24:09
Speaker 1: of the Palm Beach police investigation at its early stage,
24:13
Speaker 1: he quickly became aware of the federal investigation, both because
24:16
Speaker 1: the FBI was interviewing his employees and because the government
24:20
Speaker 1: was seeking records from his businesses. One of Epstein's New
24:24
Speaker 1: York attorneys, Gerald Lefcourt made initial contact with Villa Fauna
24:28
Speaker 1: in August of two thousand and six. As the investigation progressed,
24:32
Speaker 1: Epstein took steps to persuade the USAO to decline federal prosecution.
24:38
Speaker 1: As with the state investigation, Epstein employed attorneys who had
24:42
Speaker 1: experience with the department and relationships with individual USAO personnel.
24:48
Speaker 1: One of Epstein's Miami lawyers, Guy Lewis, a former career
24:51
Speaker 1: AUSA n us attorney for the Southern District of Florida,
24:55
Speaker 1: made an overture on Epstein's behalf in early November of
24:59
Speaker 1: two six. Lewis telephone Villa Fauna. I'll call that slowman joined.
25:03
Speaker 1: At Villafana's request, Lewis offered to provide Villa Fauna anything
25:08
Speaker 1: she wanted without necessity of legal process. Lewis asked to
25:12
Speaker 1: meet with Villa Fauna and Sloman to discuss the Epstein investigation,
25:16
Speaker 1: but Villa Fauna declined. Shortly thereafter, Lillian Sanchez, a former AUSA,
25:22
Speaker 1: contacted Sloman and advised him that she also represented Epstein.
25:26
Speaker 1: Sanchez was employed by the USAO from two thousand to
25:31
Speaker 1: September two thousand and five and had been a deputy
25:34
Speaker 1: Chief of the usao's Major Crime Section at the time,
25:37
Speaker 1: Menchell was the chief. According to Slowman's contemporaneous email recounting
25:42
Speaker 1: the conversation, when Sanchez indicated to him that his participation
25:46
Speaker 1: in Lewis's call with Villa Fauna led the defense team
25:49
Speaker 1: to believe that the matter had been elevated within the USAO,
25:54
Speaker 1: Slowman tried to disabuse her of that notion. Sanchez said
25:58
Speaker 1: that Epstein wanted to be as transparent and cooperative as
26:01
Speaker 1: possible in working with the USAO, despite the fact that
26:05
Speaker 1: Lewis had already made contact with the USAO on Epstein's behalf.
26:10
Speaker 1: Sanchez sent a letter to Villa Fauna on November fifteenth,
26:13
Speaker 1: two thousand and six, in which she asserted that she
26:16
Speaker 1: and Gerald Leftcourt were representing Epstein and asked the USAO
26:20
Speaker 1: to direct all contact or communications about Epstein to them.
26:25
Speaker 1: In response, Villa Fauna requested that the defense provide documents
26:29
Speaker 1: and information pertinent to the federal investigation, including the documents
26:33
Speaker 1: and information that Epstein previously provided to the State's Attorney's office,
26:38
Speaker 1: and computers, hard drives, CPUs, and any other computer media
26:42
Speaker 1: removed from Epstein's home before the Palm beach raid and
26:47
Speaker 1: search warrant was executed in October of two thousand and five.
26:51
Speaker 1: In January two thousand and seven, Sanchez contacted Villa Fauna
26:55
Speaker 1: to schedule a meeting, but Villafana responded that she wanted
26:58
Speaker 1: to receive and view the documents before scheduling a meeting
27:02
Speaker 1: with Sanchez. Immediately after receiving Villa Fauna's response, Sanchez bypassed
27:08
Speaker 1: Villa Fauna and phoned Laurie, with whom she had worked
27:11
Speaker 1: when she was an AUSA, to press for a meeting.
27:15
Speaker 1: Laurie agreed to meet with Sanchez and left court. Laurie
27:18
Speaker 1: explained to Villa Fauna that Sanchez was concerned that federal
27:21
Speaker 1: charges were imminent and wanted to meet with the USAO
27:26
Speaker 1: and make a pitch, and promised that once given the
27:28
Speaker 1: opportunity to do so, if the USAO wanted to interview Epstein,
27:33
Speaker 1: that would be a possibility. Villa Fauna told Lourie that
27:36
Speaker 1: Sanchez had not yet provided the documents she had promised,
27:40
Speaker 1: and Villa Fauna wanted the documents, not the pitch. Laurie
27:44
Speaker 1: explained to OPR, however, that it was his practice to
27:47
Speaker 1: grant meetings to defense Council. He considered it good for
27:50
Speaker 1: us to learn the defense theories of a case and
27:52
Speaker 1: believe that information is power. Laurie further explained that learning
27:57
Speaker 1: what information the defense views FOD as important could help
28:01
Speaker 1: the USAO form its strategy and determine which counts relating
28:05
Speaker 1: to which victims should be charged. Laurie also believed that
28:09
Speaker 1: as a general matter, prosecutors should grant defense requests to
28:12
Speaker 1: make a presentation because part of the process is for
28:15
Speaker 1: them to believe they are heard. In addition to agreeing
28:19
Speaker 1: to a meeting, LORII sent Sanchez a narrow document request,
28:23
Speaker 1: which responded to sanchez complaint that the usao's earlier request
28:27
Speaker 1: was overbroad, but which retained the demand for the computer
28:31
Speaker 1: related items removed from Epstein's home. The meeting was scheduled
28:35
Speaker 1: for February first, two thousand and seven, and LORII asked
28:38
Speaker 1: Sanchez to provide the documents and materials to the USAO
28:42
Speaker 1: by January twenty fifth, two thousand seven. Villa Fauna did
28:46
Speaker 1: not agree with Lori's decision to meet with Sanchez in
28:48
Speaker 1: left court. Indeed, two days after Louri agreed to the meeting,
28:52
Speaker 1: Villa Fauna alerted him that she had spoken again with
28:55
Speaker 1: Sanchez and learned that Epstein was not going to provide
28:58
Speaker 1: the requested documents. As Villa Fauna told Lourie, I just
29:02
Speaker 1: get to listen to the pitch and hear about the
29:04
Speaker 1: girls or liars and drug users. She told OPR that
29:08
Speaker 1: in her view, it was a way too early to
29:11
Speaker 1: have a meeting. She already knew what the defense would say,
29:14
Speaker 1: and she could not see how a meeting would benefit
29:17
Speaker 1: the federal investigation. She explained to Laurie that basis for
29:21
Speaker 1: her objections to the meeting, but Laurie disagreed with her position.
29:26
Speaker 1: Villa Fauna and the West Palm Beach, a USA with
29:29
Speaker 1: whom she was consulting about the investigation and who had
29:32
Speaker 1: served for a time as her co council, both recalled
29:35
Speaker 1: a meeting with Lourie in his office to express their
29:37
Speaker 1: concerns about meeting with the Defense council. They perceived Lorie
29:41
Speaker 1: to be dismissive of their views. According to Villa Fauna,
29:45
Speaker 1: Lourie believed that a meeting with the defense attorneys would
29:48
Speaker 1: be the usao's chance to learn the defense legal theories
29:52
Speaker 1: and would position the USAO to arrange a debriefing of Epstein,
29:56
Speaker 1: through which the USAO might learn information helpful to a prosecution.
30:02
Speaker 1: Villa Fauna told OPR, however, that while this strategy might
30:05
Speaker 1: make sense in a white collar crime case, she did
30:08
Speaker 1: not believe it was appropriate or worthwhile in a child
30:11
Speaker 1: exploitation case in which the perpetrator would be unlikely to
30:15
Speaker 1: confess to the conduct. Villa Fauna also told OPR that
30:20
Speaker 1: she did not believe the USAO could extract information about
30:23
Speaker 1: the defense legal theories without telling the defense the precise
30:27
Speaker 1: crimes the USAO intended to charge, which Villa Fauna did
30:31
Speaker 1: not want to reveal. Six February two thousand and seven,
30:35
Speaker 1: Defense counsel meet with Lori and Villa Fauna and present
30:38
Speaker 1: the defense objection to a federal case. At the February first,
30:43
Speaker 1: two thousand and seven meeting with Lorii and Villa Fauna,
30:45
Speaker 1: Sanchez and left Court set out arguments that would be
30:49
Speaker 1: repeated throughout the month's long defense campaign to stop the
30:52
Speaker 1: federal investigation. In support of their arguments, the defense attorneys
30:56
Speaker 1: provided a twenty five page letter, along with documents the
30:59
Speaker 1: defense had obtained from the state's investigative file and potential
31:03
Speaker 1: impeachment material the defense had developed relating to the victims.
31:07
Speaker 1: In the letter and at the meeting, the Defense Council
31:10
Speaker 1: argued that one, the allegations did not provide a basis
31:13
Speaker 1: for the exercise of federal jurisdiction. Two, the evidence did
31:17
Speaker 1: not establish that Epstein knew who provided him with massages
31:21
Speaker 1: were miners. Three no evidence existed proving that any girl
31:25
Speaker 1: traveled inter state to engage in sex with Epstein. Four
31:29
Speaker 1: the USAO would violate the petit policy by initiating federal
31:33
Speaker 1: prosecution of a matter that had already been addressed by
31:36
Speaker 1: the state, and five there were forensic barriers to prosecution.
31:40
Speaker 1: Referring to witness credibility issues, the letter suggested that misleading
31:45
Speaker 1: and inaccurate reports from Palm Beach Police Department may well
31:48
Speaker 1: have affected the usao's view of the case. The letter
31:52
Speaker 1: also claimed that the State Attorney's office had taken into
31:55
Speaker 1: account the damaging histories of lies a legal drug use
31:58
Speaker 1: and crime of the state. Two principal witnesses identified by
32:02
Speaker 1: name in the letter, and argued that with witnesses of
32:06
Speaker 1: their ilk, the state might have been unable to make
32:09
Speaker 1: any case against Epstein at all. Laurie told O PR
32:13
Speaker 1: that he did not recall the meeting, but Villafana told
32:15
Speaker 1: o PR that neither she nor Laurie was persuaded by
32:19
Speaker 1: the defense presentation at this listening session b February May
32:24
Speaker 1: two thousand and seven. Villa Fauna and the FBI continue
32:27
Speaker 1: to investigate. Villa Fauna drafts a prosecution memorandum and proposed
32:31
Speaker 1: indictment for USAO managers to review. Correspondence between Villa Fauna
32:37
Speaker 1: and the Defense Council show that Villa Fauna carefully considered
32:40
Speaker 1: the defense arguments concerning the victim's credibility, and she reviewed
32:44
Speaker 1: audio tapes of the state's victims interviews and partial transcripts
32:49
Speaker 1: provided by the Defense Council. Villa Fauna also pursued other
32:53
Speaker 1: investigative steps, which included working with the FBI to locate
32:57
Speaker 1: the expert witness to testify about the affaffect of sexual
33:01
Speaker 1: abuse on victims. She also continued collecting records relating to
33:05
Speaker 1: Ebstein's business entities, in part to help establish the interstate
33:09
Speaker 1: nexus of Epstein's activity. On several occasions, Villa Fauna sought
33:14
Speaker 1: guidance from CEOs, which had considerable national expertise in child
33:19
Speaker 1: exploitation cases. About legal issues relating to the case, such
33:23
Speaker 1: as weather charges she was considering required proof that the
33:27
Speaker 1: defendant knew a minor victim's age. USAO procedures generally required
33:33
Speaker 1: that a proposed indictment being accompanied by a prosecution memorandum
33:37
Speaker 1: from the AUSA handling the case. The prosecution memorandum was
33:42
Speaker 1: expected to explain the factual and legal basis for the
33:45
Speaker 1: proposed charges and address any significant procedural, factual, and legal
33:50
Speaker 1: issues of which the AUSA were aware, witness related issues,
33:55
Speaker 1: expected defenses, and sentencing issues. Routine prosecutions could be approved
34:00
Speaker 1: by lower level supervisors, but in high profile or complex cases,
34:04
Speaker 1: proposed indictments might require review and approval by the Criminal
34:08
Speaker 1: Division Chief, the fa USA, or even the US Attorney. Accordingly,
34:14
Speaker 1: Villafauna drafted an eighty two page prosecution memorandum directed to
34:19
Speaker 1: Acosta Sloman Menchel, who had replaced Slowman as the usao's
34:24
Speaker 1: Criminal Division chief the previous October, when Slowman became the
34:28
Speaker 1: fa USA LORI and her immediate supervisor, dated May one,
34:32
Speaker 1: two thousand and seven, supporting a proposed sixty count indictment
34:36
Speaker 1: that charged Depstein with various federal crimes relating to sexual
34:40
Speaker 1: conduct with the trafficking of miners. The prosecution memorandum set
34:44
Speaker 1: forth legal issues and potential defenses relating to each proposed charge,
34:48
Speaker 1: explained why certain other statutes were rejected as proposed charges,
34:53
Speaker 1: described the evidence supporting each count and potential evidentiary issues,
34:57
Speaker 1: and address the viability and credibility of each of the
35:01
Speaker 1: victims who were expected to testify a trial. Villa Fauna's
35:04
Speaker 1: immediate supervisor told OPR that she read the prosecution memorandum,
35:09
Speaker 1: had only a few small edits to the indictment, and
35:12
Speaker 1: advised Lori that she approved it. The immediate supervisor told
35:15
Speaker 1: OPR that she viewed the case as prosecutable, but recognized
35:19
Speaker 1: that the case was complex and that Villa Fauna would
35:22
Speaker 1: need co counsel. In his OPR interview, Lourie recalled thinking
35:27
Speaker 1: that prosecution memorandum and proposed indictment were very thorough and
35:31
Speaker 1: contained a lot of hard work, but that he wanted
35:33
Speaker 1: to employ a different strategy for charging the case, focusing
35:37
Speaker 1: initially only on the victims that presented the toughest cases
35:40
Speaker 1: for Epstein, meaning about those whom Epstein had not already
35:44
Speaker 1: raised credibility issues to use in cross examination. Lourie told
35:48
Speaker 1: OPR that although he had some concerns about the case,
35:52
Speaker 1: particularly the government's ability to prevail on certain legal issues
35:56
Speaker 1: and the credibility challenges some of the victims would face,
35:59
Speaker 1: he did not see these concerns as insurmountable and was
36:02
Speaker 1: generally in favor of going forward with the prosecution. Although
36:06
Speaker 1: indictments coming out of the West Palm Beach office usually
36:09
Speaker 1: did not require approval in Miami, in this case, Laurie
36:12
Speaker 1: understood that because there was front office involvement from the
36:16
Speaker 1: get go, he would not be the one making the
36:18
Speaker 1: final decision whether to go forward with the charges in
36:21
Speaker 1: this case. Laurie forwarded a copy of the prosecution memorandum
36:25
Speaker 1: to Menchell. Lourie's transmittal message read, Marie did a fifty
36:30
Speaker 1: page pro memo in the Epstein case. I'm going to
36:33
Speaker 1: start reading it tonight. It's a major case because the
36:35
Speaker 1: target is one of the richest men in the country
36:38
Speaker 1: and it has been big news. He has a stable
36:40
Speaker 1: of attorneys including Dershowitz, Roy Black, Leftcourt Lewis, and Louis Sanchez.
36:46
Speaker 1: Jeff Slowman is familiar with the investigation. The state intentionally
36:49
Speaker 1: torpedoed it in the grand jury, so it was brought
36:52
Speaker 1: to us. I'm going to forward the pro's memo to
36:54
Speaker 1: you so you can start reading it at the same
36:57
Speaker 1: time I do. The FBI is pushing to do it
36:59
Speaker 1: in in mid May, which I think is not critical,
37:02
Speaker 1: but we might as well get a jump on it.
37:04
Speaker 1: I have some ideas about the indictment needs to be
37:06
Speaker 1: ultralean with only clean victims, so I am not sending
37:10
Speaker 1: that yet. Lurie explained to OPR that by clean victims
37:14
Speaker 1: he meant those for whom the defense did not leave
37:17
Speaker 1: or have impeachment evidence to use against them. A few
37:20
Speaker 1: days later, Lourie emailed Menchell, asking if Menchell had read
37:24
Speaker 1: the prosecution memorandum. Lourie directed Menchel's attention to particular pages
37:29
Speaker 1: of the prosecution memorandum, noting that the keys were whether
37:33
Speaker 1: the USAO could prove that Epstein traveled for the purpose
37:36
Speaker 1: of engaging in sexual acts, and the fact that some
37:39
Speaker 1: minor victims told Epstein they were eighteen. Laurie asked for
37:43
Speaker 1: Menchell's very general opinion, is a case you think the
37:46
Speaker 1: office should do, and reminded Menchell that the State Attorney's
37:50
Speaker 1: Office went out of their way to get a no
37:52
Speaker 1: bill on this and thus only charged adult solicitation, which
37:56
Speaker 1: they would bargain await to nothing. During his OPR interview,
38:00
Speaker 1: you Menchell said that Laurie email transmitting the prosecution memorandum
38:04
Speaker 1: was his official introduction to the case, and at that
38:07
Speaker 1: point in time he had never heard of Epstein and
38:10
Speaker 1: had no information about his background. He recalled that USAO
38:14
Speaker 1: had been asked to review the case because the state
38:16
Speaker 1: had not handled it appropriately. Menchell told OPR, however, that
38:20
Speaker 1: he had little memory about the facts of the case
38:23
Speaker 1: or what contemporaneous opinions he formed about it. Acosta told
38:27
Speaker 1: OPR that he could not recall whether he ever read
38:30
Speaker 1: Villafana's prosecution memorandum, explaining that he would typically rely on
38:34
Speaker 1: senior staff who had more prosecutorial experience, and that instead
38:38
Speaker 1: of reading the memorandum, he may have discussed the case
38:41
Speaker 1: with Sloman, Menchell, and Lourie, who he assumed have read
38:44
Speaker 1: the document. Acosta recalled generally having conversations with Slowman and
38:48
Speaker 1: Menchell about the Epstein case, but he could not recall
38:51
Speaker 1: with specificity when those conversations took place or the details
38:55
Speaker 1: of those discussions. Slowman told OPR that because of his
38:59
Speaker 1: broad responsibilities as FAUSA, he left it to Menchell, as
39:04
Speaker 1: a highly experienced trial attorney and the Criminal Division chief,
39:07
Speaker 1: to work directly with. Acosta and Sloman recalled that it
39:11
Speaker 1: was Menchel and Lorie who conducted a granular review of
39:14
Speaker 1: the charging package. Acosta confirmed OPR that Slowman and Menchell
39:19
Speaker 1: were a team who became involved in issues as needed,
39:22
Speaker 1: and if Slowman perceived that Menchell was taking the lead
39:25
Speaker 1: on the Epstein matter, Slowman may have deferred to Menchell.
39:29
Speaker 1: All right, we're going to wrap up with this episode
39:31
Speaker 1: here and in the next episode, we're going to pick
39:33
Speaker 1: up with part C May through June two thousand and seven,
39:37
Speaker 1: Miami Managers consider the Prosecution Memorandum and proposed charges. All
39:42
Speaker 1: of the information that goes with this episode can be
39:45
Speaker 1: found in the description box. What's up, everyone, and welcome
39:49
Speaker 1: back to the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're getting
39:52
Speaker 1: right back to it and we're going to pick up
39:54
Speaker 1: where we left off with the OIG report into the
39:57
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein non prosecution agree See May through June two
40:03
Speaker 1: thousand and seven. Miami Managers consider the Prosecution Memorandum and
40:07
Speaker 1: proposed charges. When she submitted the prosecution memorandum, Villa Fauna
40:12
Speaker 1: intended to file charges by May fifteenth, two thousand and seven,
40:16
Speaker 1: and the FBI planned to arrest Epstein immediately thereafter. Villa Fauna, however,
40:21
Speaker 1: had not obtained authorization to indict on that schedule. The
40:25
Speaker 1: managers in Miami wanted time to analyze the lengthy prosecution
40:30
Speaker 1: memorandum and consider the potential charges and charging strategy. Just
40:34
Speaker 1: a few days after he received the prosecution memorandum, and
40:38
Speaker 1: after learning that the FBI was planning a press conference
40:41
Speaker 1: for May fifteenth, Sloman advised Villa Fauna that this office
40:45
Speaker 1: has not approved the indictment. Therefore, please do not commit
40:48
Speaker 1: us to anything at this time. On May tenth, two
40:52
Speaker 1: thousand and seven, with Metchell's concurrence, Lori sent a copy
40:55
Speaker 1: of Villa Fauna's prosecution memorandum to CEO Chief Andrew Osterbon,
41:01
Speaker 1: who in turn sent it to his deputy and another
41:03
Speaker 1: CEOs attorney, asking them to assess the legal issues involved
41:08
Speaker 1: in the case and describing it as a highly sensitive
41:11
Speaker 1: case involving a high profile, very rich defendant. After CEOs
41:17
Speaker 1: reviewed the materials, Osterbon responded to Lori with an email,
41:21
Speaker 1: stating that the memorandum was exhaustive and well done, and
41:24
Speaker 1: noting that Villa Fauna has correctly focused on the issues
41:27
Speaker 1: as we see them. He summarized CEO's analysis of the
41:31
Speaker 1: application of key facts to the statutes she proposed charging,
41:35
Speaker 1: concurring in Villa Fauna's assessments, but noting that further research
41:39
Speaker 1: was needed to determine whether certain statutes required proof of
41:43
Speaker 1: a defendant's knowledge of a victim's age. Osterbon offered to
41:47
Speaker 1: assign a CEO's attorney to work with Villa Fauna on
41:51
Speaker 1: the case. Louri forwarded Osterbon's email to Minchell and Villa Fauna. Meanwhile,
41:56
Speaker 1: contemporaneous email shows that Lauri at least was at lead
42:00
Speaker 1: considering an early resolution of the case through pre indictment
42:04
Speaker 1: plea agreement. When Laurie spoke to the FBI squad supervisor
42:08
Speaker 1: on May ninth, two thousand and seven, to explain that
42:10
Speaker 1: charges against Epstein would not be quickly approved, he reported
42:14
Speaker 1: to Menchell that the FBI was not happy about the delay,
42:18
Speaker 1: adding I did not even tell them. I think we
42:20
Speaker 1: should bring Epstein in once we decide to charge them
42:23
Speaker 1: and offer pre indictment deal. Figuring a judge might never
42:26
Speaker 1: agree to such a deal post indictment that would have
42:29
Speaker 1: sent them through the roof. Laurie explained to OPR that
42:32
Speaker 1: he thought a judge, after seeing an indictment charging the
42:36
Speaker 1: full nature and scope of Epstein's conduct, might not agree
42:39
Speaker 1: to a plea involving substantially less time or to dismiss
42:43
Speaker 1: substantative charges. Laurie told OPR, and despite Osterbon's favorable opinion
42:49
Speaker 1: of the case, this was a bit of uncharted territory
42:52
Speaker 1: involving facts that were unlike the case law Osterbon had cited.
42:57
Speaker 1: Although Lourie had some concerns about the legal ise and
43:00
Speaker 1: about witnesses, he probably did not see any impediment to
43:04
Speaker 1: going forward with the case. In fact, Lourie was not
43:07
Speaker 1: in favor of walking away, which is what the defense
43:10
Speaker 1: wanted the USAO to do. But while Lourie thought we
43:13
Speaker 1: could have won, and we could have prevailed through appeal,
43:16
Speaker 1: he didn't think the odds were nearly as good as
43:19
Speaker 1: you want in a criminal case, and the things that
43:22
Speaker 1: we had gotten to gain through a plea agreement were
43:25
Speaker 1: much more than in a normal criminal case in which
43:28
Speaker 1: the only cost of a loss would be that the
43:31
Speaker 1: defendant did not go to jail. Laurie told OPR that,
43:35
Speaker 1: to the best of his recollection, he thought a plea
43:38
Speaker 1: agreement would be a good result, and although the government
43:41
Speaker 1: might not have to give up some jail time, there
43:43
Speaker 1: were other benefits to a plea, such as the ability
43:46
Speaker 1: to require Epstein to register as a sex offender and
43:49
Speaker 1: the availability of monetary damages for the victims. Laurie recalled
43:53
Speaker 1: thinking that this case should be settled, and we should
43:57
Speaker 1: set it up so we can settle it by, for example,
44:00
Speaker 1: charging Epstein by complaint and then negotiating a plea to
44:04
Speaker 1: limited charges in a criminal information Villa Fauna told OPR
44:08
Speaker 1: that she agreed with Lori that a criminal complaint charging
44:11
Speaker 1: an omnibus conspiracy containing all of the information related that
44:16
Speaker 1: the case would be about, would be a good way
44:19
Speaker 1: to get things moving toward a pre indictment plea. Although
44:23
Speaker 1: Louri and Villa Fauna believed the pre indictment plea agreement
44:26
Speaker 1: was a desired resolution, there was no guarantee that Epstein
44:29
Speaker 1: would agree to plead guilty, and they continued to work
44:32
Speaker 1: together to shape an indictment. On May tenth, two thousand
44:35
Speaker 1: and seven, LORII, emailed Villa Fauna, Marie. I believe that
44:40
Speaker 1: Epstein's attorneys are scared of the victims. They don't know.
44:43
Speaker 1: Epstein is no doubt told them that there were many. Thus,
44:47
Speaker 1: I believe that the first indictment should contain only the
44:50
Speaker 1: victims they have nothing on at all. We can add
44:52
Speaker 1: in the other ones that have MySpace pages and prior
44:55
Speaker 1: testimony in a superseding indictment. I think for the first
44:59
Speaker 1: strike should make all their nightmares come true. Thoughts. Lourie
45:03
Speaker 1: followed up this email to Villa Fauna with one to Menschell,
45:07
Speaker 1: in which Louri reiterated the potential benefits of a pre
45:10
Speaker 1: indictment plea, explaining that he and Villa Fauna believe the
45:13
Speaker 1: best thing to do is charge Epstein by complaint. Assuming
45:17
Speaker 1: we decide to charge them, the sentencing guidelines will be
45:21
Speaker 1: in the twenty year range, so we would need to
45:23
Speaker 1: plead him till one or two conspiracies to cap him,
45:26
Speaker 1: and there is no telling if a judge would go
45:28
Speaker 1: for that once we indict. Menchell responded that he and
45:31
Speaker 1: Acosta would read the prosecution memorandum and we can discuss
45:35
Speaker 1: after that. Later that afternoon, Villa Fauna sent Laurie an
45:39
Speaker 1: email which Louri forwarded to Menchel, explaining that a conservative
45:43
Speaker 1: calculation of Epstein's potential sentencing exposure under the US sentencing
45:48
Speaker 1: guidelines would be one hundred and sixty eight to two
45:51
Speaker 1: hundred and ten months, and that in her view, the
45:53
Speaker 1: facts warranted and upward departure from that range. Villa Fauna
45:57
Speaker 1: told OPR that although Louri proposed some changes to the
46:01
Speaker 1: draft indictment, at that point, no one had told her
46:04
Speaker 1: that the evidence was insufficient to support the proposed charges
46:08
Speaker 1: or that the office did not want to go forward
46:10
Speaker 1: with the case. In an email to Acosta and Mencheal
46:13
Speaker 1: on May eleventh, two thousand and seven, LORI recommended charging
46:17
Speaker 1: Epstein by complaint and seeking a pre indictment plea. My
46:21
Speaker 1: current thoughts are that we should charge them. Not sure
46:23
Speaker 1: that I agree with the charging strategy as it is now,
46:26
Speaker 1: but at this point I think we only need to
46:28
Speaker 1: get on the same page as to whether the statutes
46:31
Speaker 1: cover the conduct and whether the conduct is the type
46:34
Speaker 1: that we should charge. I think that the answer to
46:37
Speaker 1: both is yes, although there is some risk on some
46:40
Speaker 1: of the statutes as this is uncharted territory to some degree,
46:44
Speaker 1: we can decide later what the charging document should look
46:47
Speaker 1: like precisely and which victims should be charged. I also
46:51
Speaker 1: think if we choose to go forward, we should start
46:54
Speaker 1: with a complaint, arrest them, detain them, and then try
46:57
Speaker 1: to see if he wants a pre indictment resolution would
47:00
Speaker 1: give us more control over a plea than if we
47:02
Speaker 1: indict him and need the court's approval to dismiss counts.
47:06
Speaker 1: We will need to cap them with conspiracy counts to
47:08
Speaker 1: make a plea attractive, and the court could give us
47:11
Speaker 1: a hard time with that if we try to dismiss
47:13
Speaker 1: indicted counts. Although her supervisors were communicating among themselves about
47:18
Speaker 1: the case, Villa Fauna was unaware of those discussions and
47:22
Speaker 1: was frustrated that she was not receiving more feedback. She
47:25
Speaker 1: continued preparing to charge Epstein, and two weeks after submitting
47:29
Speaker 1: the prosecution memorandum, on May fourteenth, two thousand and seven,
47:32
Speaker 1: Villa Fauna informed Louri and Menchell by email that Epstein
47:36
Speaker 1: was flying to New Jersey from the Virgin Islands and
47:39
Speaker 1: asked whether she could file charges the next day. Menchell
47:42
Speaker 1: responded that you will not have the approval to go
47:45
Speaker 1: forward tomorrow and explain that Acosta has your prosecution memo
47:50
Speaker 1: but was out at an out of town conference, adding
47:54
Speaker 1: that this is obviously a very significant case and Alex
47:57
Speaker 1: wants to take his time in making sure he is
47:59
Speaker 1: comfortable before proceeding. Menchell told Villa Fauna he had trouble
48:04
Speaker 1: understanding why she was in a rush, given how long
48:07
Speaker 1: this case had been pending. OPR questioned Laurie Menchell, Slowman,
48:11
Speaker 1: and Acosta about the timeline for reviewing the prosecution memorandum
48:15
Speaker 1: and the proposed charges. Acosta and Menchell believe Villa Fauna's
48:19
Speaker 1: timeline was unrealistic from the start. Acosta told OPR that
48:23
Speaker 1: Villa Fauna was very hard charging, but her timeline for
48:26
Speaker 1: filing charges in the case was really really fast. Menchell
48:30
Speaker 1: described Villa Fauna as out over her skis a little
48:34
Speaker 1: bit and ahead of Acosta in terms of his analysis
48:36
Speaker 1: of the case. Menchell said it was clear to him
48:39
Speaker 1: that Acosta was going to be the one making the
48:41
Speaker 1: call about whether to go forward with the charges, and
48:45
Speaker 1: Acosta needed more time to make a decision. Menchell told
48:48
Speaker 1: o PR this was not a case we were going
48:50
Speaker 1: to review in two weeks and make a decision on
48:53
Speaker 1: Slowman told OPR that although he did not conduct a
48:56
Speaker 1: granular review of the proposed charges, he believed Menchell and
49:00
Speaker 1: Laurie had done so and obviously had concluded that the
49:02
Speaker 1: facts and the law didn't suggest that the right thing
49:05
Speaker 1: to do was to automatically indict. Laurie told OPR that
49:09
Speaker 1: he believed the case was moving ahead. Villa Fauna continued
49:13
Speaker 1: to seek direction from her managers. On May fifteenth, two
49:17
Speaker 1: thousand and seven, she emailed Slowman, noting that it seemed
49:20
Speaker 1: from our discussion yesterday that pestering Alex will not do
49:23
Speaker 1: any good? Am I right about that? Sloman responded yes.
49:27
Speaker 1: On May twenty first, two thousand and seven, three weeks
49:30
Speaker 1: after submitting the prosecution memorandum, Villafauna emailed Slowman and Mentchel
49:35
Speaker 1: asking for a sense of the direction where we are headed,
49:38
Speaker 1: ie approval of an indictment something like the current draft,
49:41
Speaker 1: a complaint to allow for pre indictment negotiations, an indictment
49:46
Speaker 1: drastically different from the current draft. Sloman responded, only taken
49:50
Speaker 1: care of d defense counsel seek a meeting with senior
49:54
Speaker 1: USAO managers, which Villa Fanna opposes. Meanwhile, Evstein's defense counsel
49:59
Speaker 1: Can continued to seek additional information about the federal investigation
50:03
Speaker 1: and a meeting with senior USAO managers, including Acosta. In
50:08
Speaker 1: a May tenth, two thousand and seven email to Menchell,
50:10
Speaker 1: Laurier reported that Epstein's attorneys want me to tell them
50:14
Speaker 1: the statutes we are contemplating, so Dershowitz can tell us
50:17
Speaker 1: why they don't apply. Louri told Menchel, I don't see
50:21
Speaker 1: the downside, but added Maria's against it. Menchell responded that
50:25
Speaker 1: it was premature to provide the information. During his OPR interview,
50:29
Speaker 1: Menchell could not specifically recall why he believed it was
50:32
Speaker 1: premature to provide the defense with the requested information, but
50:36
Speaker 1: speculated that it was too soon after the prosecution memorandum
50:40
Speaker 1: had been circulated for Acosta to have made a decision
50:44
Speaker 1: about how we wanted to proceed. This recollection is consistent
50:47
Speaker 1: with the May two thousand and seven emails reflecting that
50:50
Speaker 1: Acosta wanted time to consider the proposed prosecutions. On May
50:55
Speaker 1: twenty second, two thousand and seven, Defense Council left Court
50:58
Speaker 1: emailed Lori a letter to confirm that Epstein's attorneys would
51:02
Speaker 1: be given an opportunity to meet with Lourie before the
51:05
Speaker 1: USAO reached the final decision on charging Epstein. Lourie forwarded
51:10
Speaker 1: the letter to Minchell and Slowman, but noted that Epstein's
51:12
Speaker 1: defense team was really ready for the next level. Rather
51:15
Speaker 1: than another meeting with them, Laurie suggested that Menchell meet
51:19
Speaker 1: with the Defense Council, adding whether Alex would be present
51:22
Speaker 1: or grant them another meeting after that is his call.
51:25
Speaker 1: Laurie also emailed Left Court clarifying that Lourie had not
51:29
Speaker 1: promised to call Epstein's council before filing charges, and suggesting
51:33
Speaker 1: that Epstein's council make their presentation to Menchell. Although Lourie's
51:38
Speaker 1: emails show that he had no objection to more senior
51:41
Speaker 1: USAO managers meeting with Defense Council, Villa Fauna opposed such
51:45
Speaker 1: a meeting. Several emails indicate that Menchell traveled to West
51:49
Speaker 1: Palm Beach to meet with Louri and Villa Fauna on
51:52
Speaker 1: the afternoon of May twenty three, two thousand and seven.
51:55
Speaker 1: On that same day, Villa Fauna drafted an email which
51:58
Speaker 1: she planned to send to Slowman and Menchel, expressing her
52:01
Speaker 1: disagreement with meeting the Defense Council. Although the email was
52:05
Speaker 1: written for Sloman and Menchel Bill a Fauna sent it
52:08
Speaker 1: as a draft only to our immediate supervisor, seeking her
52:11
Speaker 1: guidance in council as to how to proceed. Hi, Jeff
52:15
Speaker 1: and Matt, I just want to again voice my disagreement
52:17
Speaker 1: with the promising to have a meeting or have a
52:20
Speaker 1: meeting with Left Court or any of Epstein's attorneys. As
52:24
Speaker 1: I mentioned, this is not a case where we will
52:26
Speaker 1: be shutting down to negotiate whether a defendant will serve
52:30
Speaker 1: one year versus two years of probation. This is a
52:32
Speaker 1: case where the defendant is facing the possibility of dozens
52:36
Speaker 1: of years in prison time. Just as the defense will
52:39
Speaker 1: defend a case like that differently than they would handle
52:42
Speaker 1: a probation type case, we need to handle the case differently.
52:45
Speaker 1: Part of our prosecution strategy was already disclosed at the
52:49
Speaker 1: last meeting, and I'm concerned that more will be disclosed
52:52
Speaker 1: at a future meeting. My co chair, who was prosecuted
52:55
Speaker 1: more of these cases than the rest of us combined,
52:58
Speaker 1: and who actually worked on the drafting of some of
53:00
Speaker 1: the child exploitation statutes, also opposed a meeting. We have
53:04
Speaker 1: been accused of not being strategic thinkers because of our
53:08
Speaker 1: position and our opposition to these meetings. But we are
53:11
Speaker 1: simply looking at this case as a violent crime prosecution
53:14
Speaker 1: involving stiff penalties, rather than as a white collar or
53:18
Speaker 1: a public corruption case where the parties can amicably work
53:21
Speaker 1: out a light sentence. With respect to the policy reasons
53:25
Speaker 1: that Left Court wants to discuss those were already raised
53:29
Speaker 1: in his letter, which is part of the indictment package,
53:32
Speaker 1: and during his meeting with Andy and myself. Those reasons
53:35
Speaker 1: are one, he wants the petit policy to trump our
53:38
Speaker 1: ability to prosecute Epstein. Two, this shouldn't be a federal offense,
53:42
Speaker 1: and three the victims were willing participants, so the crime
53:45
Speaker 1: shouldn't be prosecuted at all. Unless the Office thinks that
53:49
Speaker 1: any of those arguments will be persuasive, a meeting will
53:52
Speaker 1: not be beneficial to the prosecution. It will only benefit
53:56
Speaker 1: the defense. With respect to Left Court's promise legal analysis
54:00
Speaker 1: that also has already been provided, the only way to
54:03
Speaker 1: get additional analysis is to expose to the defense the
54:06
Speaker 1: other charges that we are considering. In my opinion, this
54:09
Speaker 1: would seriously undermine the prosecution. The defense is anxious to
54:13
Speaker 1: have a meeting in order to delay the investigation, prosecution
54:17
Speaker 1: to find out more about our investigation, and to use
54:20
Speaker 1: political pressure to stop the investigation. I have no control
54:24
Speaker 1: over the office's decisions regarding whether to meet with the
54:27
Speaker 1: defense or to whom the facts and an analysis of
54:30
Speaker 1: the case will be disclosed. However, if you all do
54:33
Speaker 1: decide to go forward with the meetings in a way
54:35
Speaker 1: that is detrimental to the investigation, then I will have
54:38
Speaker 1: to ask to have the case reassigned to an AUSA
54:42
Speaker 1: who is in agreement with the handling of the case.
54:45
Speaker 1: After receiving this draft, the immediate supervisor cautioned Villa Fauna,
54:49
Speaker 1: let's talk before you send this please. Villa Fauna told
54:52
Speaker 1: OPR that the supervisor counseled Villa Fauna not to send
54:55
Speaker 1: the email to Slowman or Menchel because Villa Fauna could
54:58
Speaker 1: be viewed as in subor. She also told Villa Fauna
55:02
Speaker 1: that at Villa Fauna did not stay with the case,
55:04
Speaker 1: the case would go away and Epstein would never serve
55:07
Speaker 1: a day in jail. Villa Fauna told OPR that at
55:11
Speaker 1: that point in time, she believed the USAO was preparing
55:14
Speaker 1: to file charges against Epstein. Despite agreeing to accommodate the
55:19
Speaker 1: defense requests for meetings, she told OPR, on the other hand,
55:22
Speaker 1: that she feared the USAO was going down the same
55:26
Speaker 1: path that the State Attorney's office had gone down. Villa
55:29
Speaker 1: Fauna believed the purpose of the defense request for the
55:31
Speaker 1: meetings was to cause delay, but the people in my
55:34
Speaker 1: office either couldn't see that or didn't want to see that,
55:37
Speaker 1: perhaps because of their lack of experience with these types
55:40
Speaker 1: of cases or a misguided belief that Epstein's attorneys would
55:44
Speaker 1: not engage in this behavior. Villa Fauna told OPR that
55:48
Speaker 1: she could not seem to get her supervisors to understand
55:51
Speaker 1: the seriousness of Epstein's behavior and the fact that he
55:55
Speaker 1: was probably continuing to commit the behavior, and that there
55:58
Speaker 1: was a need to move with nets necessary speed. Nonetheless,
56:01
Speaker 1: Villa Fauna followed the guidelines of our immediate supervisor and
56:05
Speaker 1: did not send the email. Like Lorie, Menchell told OPR
56:09
Speaker 1: that he believed meeting with defense council was good practice.
56:12
Speaker 1: Menchell told OPR that he saw no downside to hearing
56:15
Speaker 1: the defense point of view. Defense counsel might make a
56:18
Speaker 1: persuasive point that actually is going to change our mind
56:21
Speaker 1: or alternatively present arguments the defense would inevitably raise if
56:26
Speaker 1: the case went forward, and Menchell believed it would be
56:29
Speaker 1: to the usao's advantage to learn about such arguments in advance.
56:34
Speaker 1: Menchell also told OPR that he did not recall Villa
56:37
Speaker 1: Fauna ever, articulating a concern that Epstein was continuing to offend,
56:42
Speaker 1: and in Menchell's view, Epstein was already under a microscope
56:45
Speaker 1: at least in Florida, and would have been the highest
56:48
Speaker 1: stupidity for Epstein to continue to offend in those circumstances.
56:53
Speaker 1: All Right, we're going to wrap up this episode here
56:55
Speaker 1: and in the next episode dealing with the topic, we'll
56:57
Speaker 1: pick up with part e. June two thouh thousand and seven.
57:00
Speaker 1: Villa Fauna supplements the prosecution memorandum. All of the information
57:06
Speaker 1: that goes with this episode can be found in the
57:08
Speaker 1: description box. What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the
57:12
Speaker 1: Epstein chronicles. In this episode, we're getting right back to
57:16
Speaker 1: the OIG report into the Jeffrey Epstein non prosecution Agreement party.
57:22
Speaker 1: June two thousand and seven, Villa Fauna supplements the prosecution memorandum.
57:27
Speaker 1: While Villa Fauna supervisors were considering whether to go forward
57:31
Speaker 1: with the proposed charges, Vila Fauna took additional steps to
57:34
Speaker 1: support them. On June fourteenth, two thousand and seven, she
57:38
Speaker 1: supplemented the prosecution memorandum with an addendum addressing credibility concerns
57:43
Speaker 1: relating to one of the victims. In the email transmitting
57:46
Speaker 1: the addendum to Lori Menchell Sloman and her immediate supervisor,
57:50
Speaker 1: Villafana reported another Jane Doe had been identified and interviewed,
57:55
Speaker 1: and the different strategies about how to structure the charges
57:59
Speaker 1: that Villa Fauna unsure whether to make changes now or
58:02
Speaker 1: wait until we have received approval of the current charging strategy.
58:07
Speaker 1: The addendum itself related to a particular victim, referred to
58:10
Speaker 1: as a miner who saw Epstein most frequently and who
58:13
Speaker 1: had allegedly engaged in sexual activity with both Epstein and
58:17
Speaker 1: an Epstein assistant. In the addendum, Villa Fauna identified documents
58:21
Speaker 1: she had found corroborating four separate statements made by this victim.
58:25
Speaker 1: Villafauna told OPR that the only victim about whom any
58:29
Speaker 1: supervisor ever articulated specific credibility issues was the victim discussed
58:34
Speaker 1: in the addendum. Lourie told OPR that he had no
58:37
Speaker 1: specific recollection of the addendum, but it was reasonable to
58:41
Speaker 1: assume that the addendum addressed one particular victim because no
58:44
Speaker 1: one had identified specific concerns relating to any other victim.
58:48
Speaker 1: Villafana's immediate supervisor similarly told OPR that to her recollection,
58:54
Speaker 1: the discussions about credibility issues were generic rather than tied
58:58
Speaker 1: to specific victims. The June twenty sixth, two thousand and
59:03
Speaker 1: seven meeting with Defense Council, Menchell agreed to meet with
59:06
Speaker 1: Defense Council on June twenty six, two thousand and seven,
59:09
Speaker 1: communicating directly with Sanchez about the arrangements. At Menchell's instruction.
59:14
Speaker 1: On June eighteenth, two thousand and seven, Villa Fauna sent
59:17
Speaker 1: a letter to the Defense Council identifying what she described
59:21
Speaker 1: as the statutes under consideration. On that same day, Villa
59:25
Speaker 1: Fauna emailed Laurie Menchell, Sloman, and her immediate supervisor, complaining
59:29
Speaker 1: that she had received no reply to her query about
59:32
Speaker 1: making changes to the proposed indictment, and asking again for feedback.
59:36
Speaker 1: During the OPR interview, Laurie observed that Villa Fauna's requests
59:39
Speaker 1: for feedback reflected her desire to charge this case sooner
59:43
Speaker 1: than everybody else, but Acosta was still considering what strategy
59:47
Speaker 1: to pursue. Sloman told OPR that he did not know
59:51
Speaker 1: whether Villa Fauna received any response to her request, but
59:54
Speaker 1: he believed that at the point in time, Menchell and
59:57
Speaker 1: Laurie were evaluating the case to make a decision about
1:00:00
Speaker 1: how to proceed. The day before the June twenty sixth meeting,
1:00:03
Speaker 1: Defense Council left Court transmitted to the USAO a nineteen
1:00:07
Speaker 1: page letter intended to provide an overview of our position
1:00:12
Speaker 1: and the materials we plan to present in order to
1:00:14
Speaker 1: demonstrate that none of the statutes identified by you can
1:00:18
Speaker 1: rightly be applied to the conduct at issue here. Reiterating
1:00:22
Speaker 1: their prior arguments and themes, defense Councils strongly contested the
1:00:26
Speaker 1: appropriateness of federal involvement in the matter. Among other issues.
1:00:30
Speaker 1: Left Court's letter argued, voluntary sexual activity involving young adults
1:00:35
Speaker 1: sixteen or seventeen years of age was strictly a state concern.
1:00:39
Speaker 1: Federal statutes were not meant to apply to circumstances in
1:00:42
Speaker 1: which the defendant reasonably believed that the person with whom
1:00:45
Speaker 1: he engaged in sexual activity was eighteen years of age.
1:00:49
Speaker 1: One of the chief statutes the USAO had focused upon.
1:00:52
Speaker 1: US Code eighteen, section twenty four to twenty two B
1:00:56
Speaker 1: was intended to address use of the Internet to prey
1:00:58
Speaker 1: upon child victims through Internet trolling, but Epstein did not
1:01:02
Speaker 1: use the Internet to lure victims. The travel statue US
1:01:06
Speaker 1: Code eighteen, section twenty four to twenty three B prohibits
1:01:09
Speaker 1: travel for the purpose of engaging illicted sexual conduct, but
1:01:13
Speaker 1: Epstein traveled to Florida to visit family, oversee the Florida
1:01:17
Speaker 1: based flight operations, and engage in the routine activities of
1:01:21
Speaker 1: daily living. Left Court also argued again that irregularities had
1:01:26
Speaker 1: tainted the state's case and would have a significant impact
1:01:29
Speaker 1: on any federal prosecution. Lourie sentimental with a copy to
1:01:33
Speaker 1: Villa Fauna in email, dividing the defense arguments into weaker
1:01:37
Speaker 1: and stronger points. Lourie disagreed with the arguments that the
1:01:41
Speaker 1: US Code eighteen, section twenty four to twenty two B
1:01:44
Speaker 1: was limited to Internet trolling and described this as our
1:01:47
Speaker 1: best charge and the most defensible for federal interest. On
1:01:50
Speaker 1: the other hand, Lourie believed the defense argument that Epstein
1:01:54
Speaker 1: did not travel to Florida with the purpose of engaging
1:01:57
Speaker 1: in illicit sect with a minor. Was more persuas Lourie
1:02:01
Speaker 1: opined that the government could argue that over time, Epstein
1:02:05
Speaker 1: set up a network of illegal high school massage recruits
1:02:08
Speaker 1: that would be difficult to duplicate anywhere else, which supported
1:02:11
Speaker 1: the conclusion that the massages must have been a motivating
1:02:14
Speaker 1: purpose of his travel, if not the sole purpose. However,
1:02:18
Speaker 1: Lorii expressed concern about getting to the jury on this
1:02:22
Speaker 1: issue and noted that he had not found the legal
1:02:25
Speaker 1: case factually on point. Villa Fauna told OPR that she
1:02:28
Speaker 1: disagreed with Lorie's analysis of the purpose of travel issue
1:02:32
Speaker 1: and had discussed the matter with him. Villa Fauna also
1:02:35
Speaker 1: recalled that there were aspects of the defense submissions she
1:02:38
Speaker 1: and her colleagues considered particularly weak. On June twenty six,
1:02:42
Speaker 1: two thousand and seven, Sloman Menchel Lorii, Villa Fauna, the
1:02:46
Speaker 1: case agent, and the West Palm Beach Squad supervisor met
1:02:50
Speaker 1: at the Miami USAO with Epstein's attorneys Dershowitz, Black left Court,
1:02:55
Speaker 1: and Sanchez. Dershowitz led the defense team's presentation from the
1:02:59
Speaker 1: USA perspective, the meeting was merely a listening session, Echoing
1:03:04
Speaker 1: the arguments made in left Court's letter, Dershowitz argued that
1:03:07
Speaker 1: the USAO should permit the state to handle the case
1:03:10
Speaker 1: because these were traditionally state offenses. The case agent recalled
1:03:15
Speaker 1: being uncomfortable that the defense was asking questions in an
1:03:18
Speaker 1: attempt to gain information about the federal investigation, including the
1:03:22
Speaker 1: number of victims and types of sexual contact that had
1:03:25
Speaker 1: been involved. Villafauna told OPR that when Epstein's attorneys left
1:03:29
Speaker 1: the meeting, they appeared to be under the impression that
1:03:32
Speaker 1: they had convinced us not to proceed, but Menchell told
1:03:35
Speaker 1: OPR they obviously did not persuade the USAO because we
1:03:39
Speaker 1: didn't drop the investigation. According to Villa Fauna, Louri and Menchel,
1:03:44
Speaker 1: during a short post meeting discussion at which Lori expressed
1:03:47
Speaker 1: concern about the purpose of travel issue and Mental raised
1:03:50
Speaker 1: issues related to general credibility of the victims, the prevailing
1:03:54
Speaker 1: sense among the USAO participants was that the defense presentation
1:03:59
Speaker 1: had not been persuasive. Bilifana told OPR that she left
1:04:03
Speaker 1: the meeting with a feeling and an impression that they
1:04:06
Speaker 1: were continuing towards filing charges. Part four, Acosta decides to
1:04:11
Speaker 1: offer Epstein a two year state plea to resolve the
1:04:14
Speaker 1: federal investigation. USAO internal communications show that in July two
1:04:20
Speaker 1: thousand and seven, Acosta developed or adopted the broad outline
1:04:23
Speaker 1: of an agreement that could resolve the federal investigation. The
1:04:27
Speaker 1: agreement would leave the case in state court by requiring
1:04:30
Speaker 1: Epstein to plead guilty to state charges, but would accomplish
1:04:33
Speaker 1: three goals important to the federal prosecutors, Epstein's incarceration, his
1:04:38
Speaker 1: registration as a sexual offender, and a mechanism to provide
1:04:41
Speaker 1: for the victims to recover monetary damages. During a two
1:04:45
Speaker 1: month period, the subject attorneys were involved to varying degrees
1:04:49
Speaker 1: in converting the broad outline into specific terms, resulting in
1:04:52
Speaker 1: the NPA signed by Epstein on September twenty fourth, two
1:04:56
Speaker 1: thousand and seven. The subjects, including Acosta, were general able
1:05:00
Speaker 1: to explain to OPR both the larger goals and the
1:05:03
Speaker 1: case related factors they likely considered during the process conceptualizing, negotiating,
1:05:08
Speaker 1: and finalizing this resolution. However, the contemporaneous emails and other
1:05:13
Speaker 1: records do not reflect all of the conversations among the
1:05:16
Speaker 1: decision makers and their deliberative and decision making process is
1:05:20
Speaker 1: therefore not entirely clear. In particular, Menchal and Acosta had
1:05:25
Speaker 1: offices located near each other and likely spoke in person
1:05:28
Speaker 1: about the case, but neither had a clear memory of
1:05:30
Speaker 1: their conversations. Therefore, OPR could not determine all the facts
1:05:35
Speaker 1: surrounding the development of the two year State Plea Resolution
1:05:39
Speaker 1: or the NPA. In the following account, OPR discusses the
1:05:43
Speaker 1: initial key decision to resolve the federal investigation through state
1:05:47
Speaker 1: rather than federal charges, and set forth many of the
1:05:51
Speaker 1: numerous communications that reflect the negotiations between the parties that
1:05:55
Speaker 1: led to the final NPA. OPR questioned each of the
1:05:59
Speaker 1: subjects about how the decision was reached to pursue the
1:06:01
Speaker 1: state resolution, and OPR includes below the subject's explanations. The
1:06:07
Speaker 1: subject's memories of particular conversations about this topic were unclear,
1:06:12
Speaker 1: but from their statements to OPR, a general consensus emerged
1:06:16
Speaker 1: that there were overlapping concerns about the viability of the
1:06:20
Speaker 1: legal theories, the willingness of the victims to testify the
1:06:23
Speaker 1: impact of a trial on the victims, and the overall
1:06:26
Speaker 1: strength of the case that had been developed at that time,
1:06:29
Speaker 1: and the uncertainty about the usao's ability to prevail at
1:06:32
Speaker 1: trial and through appeal. In addition, Acosta was concerned about
1:06:37
Speaker 1: usurping the state's authority to prosecute a case involving an
1:06:40
Speaker 1: offense that was traditionally handled by state prosecutors. Based on
1:06:44
Speaker 1: this evidence, OPR concludes that Acosta may well have formulated
1:06:48
Speaker 1: the initial plan to resolve the matter through a state plea.
1:06:51
Speaker 1: In any event, a Costa acknowledged to OPR that at
1:06:54
Speaker 1: a minimum, he approved of the concept of a state
1:06:57
Speaker 1: based resolution after being made aware of the allegations and
1:07:00
Speaker 1: the evidence against Epstein. Epstein has set forth in Villa
1:07:04
Speaker 1: Fanna's prosecution memorandum, and further More, Acosta approved of the
1:07:08
Speaker 1: final terms of the NPA a June through July two
1:07:14
Speaker 1: thousand and seven. The USAO proposes a state plea resolution,
1:07:18
Speaker 1: which the defense rejects. A few days after the June
1:07:22
Speaker 1: twenty six, two thousand and seven meeting, Sanchez emailed Villa Fauna,
1:07:26
Speaker 1: advising her that Epstein's defense team would submit additional material
1:07:29
Speaker 1: to the USAO by July eleventh, two thousand and seven.
1:07:33
Speaker 1: And hope to be able to reach a state based
1:07:35
Speaker 1: resolution shortly thereafter. In a July third, two thousand and
1:07:38
Speaker 1: seven email, Villa Fauna told Sloman, Menchell, Lori, and her
1:07:42
Speaker 1: immediate supervisor that she intended to initiate plead discussions by
1:07:46
Speaker 1: inviting Sanchez to discuss a resolution of the federal investigation
1:07:50
Speaker 1: that could include concurrent time. The email primarily concerned other issues,
1:07:55
Speaker 1: and Villa Fauna did not explain what the resolution she
1:07:58
Speaker 1: had in mind would Entailana requested to be advised if
1:08:01
Speaker 1: anyone has communicated anything to Epstein's attorneys that is contrary
1:08:05
Speaker 1: to this. Vila Fauna, who was aware that Menchell and
1:08:08
Speaker 1: Laurie had been directed in contact with the Defense Council
1:08:12
Speaker 1: about the case, explained to OPR that she made this
1:08:15
Speaker 1: request because people were communicating with the defense attorneys and
1:08:19
Speaker 1: she suspected that those communications may have included discussions about
1:08:23
Speaker 1: a possible plea. In response to Villafana's email, Menchell notified
1:08:28
Speaker 1: Villa Fauna that he had told Sanchez the state plea
1:08:31
Speaker 1: with jail time and sex offender status may satisfy the
1:08:34
Speaker 1: US attorney, but Sanchez had responded that it was a
1:08:38
Speaker 1: non starter. For them. During his OPR interview, Menchell had
1:08:42
Speaker 1: no independent recollection of his conversation with Sanchez and did
1:08:45
Speaker 1: not remember why the defense deemed the proposal a non starter. However,
1:08:50
Speaker 1: Menchell explained that he would not have made the proposal
1:08:53
Speaker 1: to Sanchez without Acosta's knowledge. He also pointed out that
1:08:57
Speaker 1: in numerous emails before the June twenty sixth to thousand
1:09:00
Speaker 1: and seven meeting, he repeatedly noted that Acosta was still
1:09:03
Speaker 1: deciding what he wanted to do with the Epstein case.
1:09:06
Speaker 1: Acosta agreed, telling OPR that although he did not remember
1:09:10
Speaker 1: a specific conversation with Menchell concerning a state based resolution,
1:09:14
Speaker 1: Menchell would not have discussed a potential resolution with Sanchez
1:09:18
Speaker 1: without having discussed it with him. All right, we're going
1:09:21
Speaker 1: to wrap up this episode right here, and then the
1:09:23
Speaker 1: next episode we're going to pick up with Acosta's explanation
1:09:26
Speaker 1: for his decision to pursue a state based resolution. All
1:09:30
Speaker 1: the information that goes with this episode can be found
1:09:33
Speaker 1: in the description box.