Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Late 2007 Documents Show Continued Effort to Shield Epstein From Federal Exposure (Part 1) (10/20/26)

Transcript

Late 2007 Documents Show Continued Effort to Shield Epstein From Federal Exposure (Part 1) (10/20/26) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

• 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 begin taking
• 0:07
  Speaker 1: a look at a letter that was sent from Kenneth
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: Starr to Alex Acosta. And this was during the time
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: that they were trying to hammer out the plea agreement.
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: And I think that these kinds of documents are very,
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: very important because they give us a window into what
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: these people were thinking at the time. So with that said,
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: let's just dive right in. Dear Alex, As we discussed
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: during our telephone conversations on both Friday and Monday, yesterday,
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: we are submitting two separate letters that address our broad
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: areas of deep concern on this matter. First, the cluster
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: of fundamental policy issues surrounding the use and implementation of 2255,
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: a richly policy-laden but unchartered area of federal law. And second,
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: our profound concerns as to the background and conduct of
• 0:58
  Speaker 1: the investigation. Consistent with our conversations, we submit these letters
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: with the assurance and understanding that our doing so in
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: no matter constitutes a breach of the non-prosecution agreement or
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: unwinds the agreement. We're grateful for your courtesy in agreeing
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: to receive and consider these submissions and the need to
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: meet to discuss them. As you undertake your study and reflection,
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: kindly allow me to make the pivotal point. In the
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: combined 250 years experience of Jeffrey's defense team, We have
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: together and individually concluded that this case is not only
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: extraordinary and unprecedented, it's deeply and uniquely troubling. The constellation
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: of issues, large and small, renders Jeffrey's matter entirely sui generis.
• 1:42
  Speaker 1: We say this not lightly. Indeed, as you will glean
• 1:46
  Speaker 1: from our two letters, we are gravely concerned that in
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: addition to its odd conceptualization and genesis, the matter in
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: its day-to-day implementation is has been handled in a manner
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: that raises deeply troubling questions with respect to both federal
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: policy and individual judgment in a system that is, at
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: its best, assiduously devoted to the rule of law. The
• 2:08
  Speaker 1: latest episode involving 2255 notification to the alleged victims put
• 2:13
  Speaker 1: illustratively in bold relief our concerns that the end of justice,
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: time and again, are not being served. By the way
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: of illustration, but it's only one among a cascading list
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: of grave concerns. We now understand that the U.S. Assistant Attorney,
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: whose conduct has troubled us from day one, has quite
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: recently reached out to the attorney for redacted and provided
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: oral notification of the victim notification letter. This notification, as
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: we have stated time and time again, is profoundly unfair.
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: But quite apart from our substantive concerns, which are abiding
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: and which had prompted our appeal to the Assistant Attorney
• 2:51
  Speaker 1: General In the first instance, we had thought that the
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: notification process had been held in abeyance until contemplation of
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: our ongoing discussion. With respect to that process, that appears
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: not to be so. This latest and a baleful line
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: of prosecutorial actions is dripping with irony. We respectfully call
• 3:09
  Speaker 1: your attention to the transcript of the interview with redacted
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: and guide you as a duly confirmed executive branch official
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: charged with making judgments consistent with our constitutional order. to
• 3:21
  Speaker 1: the telling fact that Redacted did not, in any manner,
• 3:24
  Speaker 1: view herself as a victim. Quite to the contrary, she
• 3:27
  Speaker 1: is not alone. We draw attention to this episode, but
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: a recent indication of the deepening need for your thoughtful
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: and independent review. And for your agreeing to provide that review,
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: our defense team is very grateful. Now this next letter
• 3:43
  Speaker 1: is from Jay Lefkowitz, and it's being sent to Honorable R. Redacted,
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: United States Attorney, United States Attorney's Office. So whoever that is,
• 3:54
  Speaker 1: we have no idea. Dear Redacted, I appreciate the opportunity
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: that you've provided to review some of the issues and
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: concerns of Mr. Epstein's defense team. Importantly, I appreciate your
• 4:05
  Speaker 1: agreement that this submission would neither be understood by you
• 4:09
  Speaker 1: as constituting a breach of the non-prosecution agreement nor result
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: in any unwinding of that agreement by your office. Implicit
• 4:16
  Speaker 1: in this agreement is the understanding that I can share
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: with you our concerns, and request a review on the
• 4:22
  Speaker 1: basis for these concerns, while at the same time assure
• 4:25
  Speaker 1: my client that the submission will not in any respect
• 4:28
  Speaker 1: result in a formal or informal repercussion or attempt by
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: any member of the prosecution or investigative team to involve
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: themselves to Mr. Epstein's detriment in any matter related to
• 4:39
  Speaker 1: the agreement, particularly in the state prosecution. This letter is
• 4:44
  Speaker 1: intended to support our assertion to you that the manner
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: in which both The investigation of allegations against Mr. Epstein
• 4:51
  Speaker 1: and the resolution thereof were highly irregular and warrant a
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: full review. We appreciate your willingness to consider the evidence.
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: We respectfully request that you review Judge Stern's letter to
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: Alan Dershowitz faxed to you on December 7, 2007, in
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: connection with concerns we set forth in this submission. 1.
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: FEDERAL INVESTIGATORS RELIED UPON TANTED EVIDENCE We have serious concerns
• 5:15
  Speaker 1: that the summaries of the evidence that have been presented
• 5:18
  Speaker 1: to you have been materially inaccurate. As you may know,
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: the principal witnesses in the case were first interviewed by
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: Detective Redacted of the Palm Beach Police Department and other
• 5:29
  Speaker 1: state law enforcement officers. These interviews, the witness statements, were
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: often tape recorded, thus providing a verbatim and detailed record
• 5:37
  Speaker 1: of the recollections of the witnesses at a point in
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: time prior to any federal involvement. Unfortunately, the police report
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: authored by Detective Redacted and certain affidavits executed by him
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: contained both material misstatements regarding the specifics of what he
• 5:52
  Speaker 1: was told by his witnesses and also contained omissions of
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: critical and often exculpatory information that was recorded verbatim during
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: the taped interview sessions. The federal investigation involved interviews with
• 6:05
  Speaker 1: many of the same witnesses. We are aware that at
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: least one federal interview Redacted was recorded We understand that
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: Detective Redacted provided his police report and certain affidavits to
• 6:16
  Speaker 1: the federal authorities, but did not provide the actual witness
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: statements of the taped interviews to your office or to
• 6:21
  Speaker 1: the FBI. These witness statements constitute the best evidence available.
• 6:26
  Speaker 1: They are verbatim and earlier in time to the federal interviews,
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: and they contain statements that are highly exculpatory to Mr. Epstein.
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: Because understanding the compromised nature of the evidence against Mr.
• 6:37
  Speaker 1: Epstein is key to a proper view of the case.
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: We summarize it in detail below. A. The witness statements
• 6:44
  Speaker 1: establish that Mr. Epstein did not target masseuses under 18. Indeed,
• 6:50
  Speaker 1: the witness statements demonstrate that the opposite's true. First, the
• 6:54
  Speaker 1: evidence shows that many of the masseuses were 18 or over,
• 6:57
  Speaker 1: including redacted, redacted, redacted, redacted, redacted, redacted, and redacted at
• 7:02
  Speaker 1: the time they visited Mr. Epstein's home. Also, there's substantial
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: evidence found in the sworn statements of the women themselves,
• 7:09
  Speaker 1: which indicate to the extent others were in fact under
• 7:12
  Speaker 1: the age of 18. Many affirmatively lied about her age.
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: As Redacted herself told the PBPD, Redacted told me to
• 7:20
  Speaker 1: say I was 18 because Redacted said, if you're not,
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: then Epstein won't really let you into his house. So
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: I said I was 18. Detective Redacted, however, largely ignored
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: these critical admissions in his police report. and probable cause affidavit. Redacted, question,
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: at any time did he speak to you, and does
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: he know how old you are? Did he know how
• 7:42
  Speaker 1: old you were? Answer, as a matter of fact, redacted
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: told me to say, I was 18. Because redacted said,
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: tell him you're 18, because if you're not, then he
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: won't really let you into his house. So I said
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: I was 18. As I was giving him a massage,
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: he's like, how old are you? And I was like 18,
• 7:58
  Speaker 1: but I kind of said it really fast, because I
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: didn't want to make it sound like I was lying
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: or anything. Sworn statement, 315, 05. Redacted, did he ask
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: you your age? Answer, yeah, I told him I was 18.
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: Sworn statement, 10505. Redacted, question, did he know your age? Answer,
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: I don't think. I think he did. Redacted was like, oh, well,
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: if they ask you how old you are, say you're 18.
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: But he never asked me how old I was. I
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: thought you had to be 18 to give massages. Redacted,
• 8:28
  Speaker 1: we were supposed to say we were 18. Question, who
• 8:30
  Speaker 1: told you to say that? Answer, redacted. Redacted. Answer, I
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: told them I was 18. Redacted concerning redacted. Well, with redacted,
• 8:40
  Speaker 1: I don't know how old she is because she lied
• 8:42
  Speaker 1: about her age. She lied to me when I first
• 8:44
  Speaker 1: met her. When I was 18, she told me she
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: was 18. Well, she left her purse at my house
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: and she told me to make sure that I didn't
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: look in her purse. So I went through her purse.
• 8:55
  Speaker 1: I found her state license that said she was 16.
• 8:58
  Speaker 1: So she lied to me about her age. Question, how
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: old were you when you first started going there? Answer, 18.
• 9:04
  Speaker 1: I'm 19 now, this last March. Sworn statement of 10-12-05. Redacted. Question,
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: all this occurred when you were 18 though? Answer, uh-huh.
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: I had been 18 for like eight months. Nine months already.
• 9:18
  Speaker 1: My birthday is in June, so I had been 18
• 9:20
  Speaker 1: for a while. Sworn statement to 3-0-5. Redacted. Okay. How
• 9:25
  Speaker 1: old are you now? Answer, I'm 20. Question, you're 20,
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: so a couple months ago you would have been 19. Answer, uh-huh. Question, alright.
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: So July, August, you would have been 19 or 20,
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: on the verge of 20? Answer, uh-huh. Question, we believe
• 9:40
  Speaker 1: that other witnesses have similarly told the FBI that Mr.
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: Epstein attempted to monitor the ages of the masseuses who
• 9:47
  Speaker 1: came to his home. We further believe that these transcripts
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: would show the federal interest in prosecuting Mr. Epstein for
• 9:54
  Speaker 1: state offenses was far less compelling than the inaccurate police
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: report suggests. B, detective redacted made crucial misstatements in the
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: public report and probable cause affidavits. We've reviewed the sworn
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: and recorded witness statements of many of the individuals who
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: were interviewed, conducted in person or by telephone, as well
• 10:14
  Speaker 1: as the number of the control calls cited in the
• 10:17
  Speaker 1: police report. Time after time we found statements in the
• 10:20
  Speaker 1: police report attributed to statements made in the sworn recordings
• 10:24
  Speaker 1: that either simply were not said, or in some instances
• 10:28
  Speaker 1: are flatly contradicted by the witnesses who purportedly made the statement.
• 10:32
  Speaker 1: In fact, they often stand in stark contrast to representations
• 10:36
  Speaker 1: made by detective redacted in both the official police report
• 10:40
  Speaker 1: and affidavit signed by him under oath. We highlight the
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: most significant ones identified to date. Redacted did not report
• 10:48
  Speaker 1: that Epstein told her to lie about her age. The
• 10:50
  Speaker 1: probable cause affidavit indicates that during her sworn statement, redacted
• 10:54
  Speaker 1: advised that during her frequent visits, Epstein asked for her
• 10:58
  Speaker 1: real age. Redacted stated she was 16 and that Epstein
• 11:02
  Speaker 1: advised her not to tell anyone her real age. Arrest
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: probable cause affidavit at 11. The statement appears nowhere in
• 11:09
  Speaker 1: the sworn statement. Redacted did not state that Epstein photographed
• 11:13
  Speaker 1: her having sex. Detective redacted also reports redacted as claiming
• 11:17
  Speaker 1: that Epstein would photograph Redacted and her naked and having
• 11:20
  Speaker 1: sex and proudly displays the photographs within the home. Again,
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: this statement is not in Redacted's sworn statement. To the contrary,
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: the transcript reflects that Redacted stated, I was just like
• 11:32
  Speaker 1: it was me standing in front of a big white
• 11:34
  Speaker 1: marble bathtub in the guest bathroom in his master suite.
• 11:39
  Speaker 1: And it wasn't like I was, you know, spreading my
• 11:41
  Speaker 1: legs or anything for the camera. I was like standing up.
• 11:44
  Speaker 1: I think I was standing up and I just kind
• 11:46
  Speaker 1: of like It was me, kind of looking over my shoulder,
• 11:48
  Speaker 1: kind of smiling. And that was it. Sworn statement, 10-11-05
• 11:53
  Speaker 1: at 35. Redacted said Epstein did not touch her inappropriately.
• 11:58
  Speaker 1: Detective Redacted recounts that Redacted advised that Epstein grabbed her
• 12:03
  Speaker 1: buttocks and pulled her close to him. Probable cause affidavit
• 12:06
  Speaker 1: at 6. Redacted never made this statement. In fact, when
• 12:11
  Speaker 1: Detective Redacted asked, he did not touch you inappropriately? Redacted responded, no.
• 12:16
  Speaker 1: Sworn statement of 10405 at 11. Redacted was not 16
• 12:21
  Speaker 1: when she first went to Epstein's home. Detective redacted states
• 12:25
  Speaker 1: redacted also states she was 16 years old when she
• 12:28
  Speaker 1: first went to Epstein's house. Incident report at 52. However,
• 12:33
  Speaker 1: redacted affirmatively states that she was 17 when she first
• 12:36
  Speaker 1: went to Epstein's home. Question okay, how old were you
• 12:40
  Speaker 1: when you first went there? Answer 17, question 17. Answer,
• 12:44
  Speaker 1: and I was 17 the last time I went there too.
• 12:47
  Speaker 1: I turned 18 this past June. Sworn statement 11-14-05. Redacted
• 12:52
  Speaker 1: told Detective Rakari that Epstein did not take out sex toys.
• 12:57
  Speaker 1: The probable cause affidavit indicates that redacted stated Epstein redacted
• 13:03
  Speaker 1: used a massager vibrator, which also described as white in
• 13:07
  Speaker 1: color and a large head. Epstein would rub the vibrator
• 13:10
  Speaker 1: massager on her vaginal area as he would masturbate. Probable
• 13:14
  Speaker 1: cause affidavit at 14. Report 11-05 at 49. Epstein would
• 13:20
  Speaker 1: use a massager vibrator which he described as white in
• 13:23
  Speaker 1: color with a large head on her. This statement appears
• 13:25
  Speaker 1: nowhere in the transcript of Redacted's sworn statement. In fact,
• 13:29
  Speaker 1: when Detective Redacted asked whether Mr. Epstein had ever taken
• 13:33
  Speaker 1: out any toys, Redacted responded no. Sworn statement of 11-08-05
• 13:39
  Speaker 1: at 17. Redacted did not recall Mr. Epstein masturbating. Detective
• 13:43
  Speaker 1: redacted counts that redacted advised she was sure Mr. Epstein
• 13:47
  Speaker 1: was masturbating based on his hand movements going up and
• 13:50
  Speaker 1: down on his penis area. Question, okay, did he ever
• 13:55
  Speaker 1: take off? Did he ever touch himself? Answer, I don't
• 13:57
  Speaker 1: think so. Question, no. Did he ever masturbate himself in
• 14:01
  Speaker 1: front of you? Answer, I don't remember him doing that.
• 14:05
  Speaker 1: He might have, but I really don't remember. Wanalesi stated
• 14:10
  Speaker 1: that only one girl looked young. Police report at 57.
• 14:15
  Speaker 1: Alessi stated that towards the end of his employment, the
• 14:17
  Speaker 1: masseuses were younger and younger. However, he said, no such thing. Question,
• 14:22
  Speaker 1: did they ever seem young to you? Answer, no sir,
• 14:25
  Speaker 1: mostly no. We saw one or two young ones in
• 14:27
  Speaker 1: the last year. Before that, it was all adults. I
• 14:30
  Speaker 1: remember one girl was young. We never asked how old
• 14:33
  Speaker 1: she was. It was not in my job, but I
• 14:35
  Speaker 1: imagine she was 16, 17. Sworn statement of 11-21-05. All right,
• 14:41
  Speaker 1: we're going to wrap up episode one right here and
• 14:43
  Speaker 1: in the next episode, pick up where we left off.
• 14:46
  Speaker 1: All the information that goes with this episode can be
• 14:48
  Speaker 1: found in the description box.