Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Marie Villafana And Her Defense Of The NPA (Part 2)

Transcript

Marie Villafana And Her Defense Of The NPA (Part 2) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
• 0:02
  Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick up
• 0:06
  where he left off with Marieville Fauna and traffied David
• 0:10
  in regards to the CVRA. During the course of the
• 0:14
  suit filed by Jane do one and Jane do two,
• 0:16
  the petitioners have alleged that the case agents, the US
• 0:20
  Attorney's Office, and I personally committed acts that violated their
• 0:24
  rights under the CVRA. They have pointed to various pieces
• 0:28
  of correspondence with counsel for Epstein to suggest that the
• 0:32
  negotiations were not at arm's length or that certain things
• 0:35
  were done inappropriately in order to keep the victims from
• 0:39
  finding out about the NPA. Their interpretations and assertions are incorrect.
• 0:45
  In the summer of two thousand and seven, Jeffrey Epstein,
• 0:47
  through his attorneys in the US Attorney's Office for the
• 0:50
  Southern District of Florida, entered into negotiations to resolve the investigation.
• 0:55
  Prior to that, Epstein's attorneys had made several attempts to
• 0:58
  convince the office to discontinue its investigation and not pursue
• 1:02
  any possible federal prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein. These attempts were rejected.
• 1:09
  At that time, mister Epstein had already been charged by
• 1:12
  the State of Florida with solicitation of prostitution and violation
• 1:16
  of Florida's Statute Section seven ninety six dot seven. Mister
• 1:20
  Epstein's attorneys sought a global resolution for that matter. The
• 1:24
  Office instructed me to engage in negotiation to reach an
• 1:27
  agreement with Epstein to defer federal prosecution in favor of
• 1:31
  prosecution by the State of Florida so long as certain
• 1:34
  basic preconditions were met. Epstein would have to serve a
• 1:37
  jail sentence for two years later reduced to eighteen months.
• 1:41
  Epstein would have to register as a sex offender, and
• 1:44
  Epstein would have to accept liability to the victims identified
• 1:47
  in the federal investigation for damages in lieu of the
• 1:51
  restitution that would have been mandatory if Epstein had been
• 1:54
  convicted of the federal offenses under investigation. Prior to the
• 1:59
  Office making its decision to direct me to engage in
• 2:01
  negotiation with Epstein's counsel, I discussed the strength and weaknesses
• 2:06
  of the case with members of the Office management and
• 2:09
  inform them that most of the victims had expressed significant
• 2:12
  concerns about having their identities disclosed. While I was not
• 2:16
  part of the final decision making at the office that
• 2:19
  arrived at the two year sentence requirement, I was part
• 2:22
  of the discussions regarding sex offender registration and the restitution provision.
• 2:27
  It's my understanding from these and other discussions at these
• 2:30
  factors that is the various strengths and weaknesses of the
• 2:34
  case and the various competing interests of the many different victims,
• 2:38
  including the privacy concerns expressed by many, together with the
• 2:42
  office desire to obtain guaranteed sentence of incarceration for Epstein,
• 2:46
  the equivalent of uncontested restitution for the victims, and guaranteed
• 2:51
  sexual offender registration by Epstein to help protect other miners
• 2:55
  throughout the country in the future were among the factors
• 2:58
  that informed the offices acrestionary decision to negotiate a resolution
• 3:02
  of the matter and ultimately enter into the NPA after
• 3:07
  the fact. Petitioners are critical of the NPA's terms. They
• 3:10
  have alleged that Epstein would easily have been convicted and
• 3:13
  that all of the victims were eager to participate in
• 3:16
  a full fledged federal prosecution. Alternatively, they have suggested that
• 3:20
  a successful federal prosecution could have been mounted based solely
• 3:24
  on Epstein's actions with Jane do one and Jane do two.
• 3:28
  As the prosecutor who handled the investigation, I can say
• 3:31
  that these contentions overlook the facts that existed at the
• 3:34
  time the NPA was negotiated. First, as set out above,
• 3:40
  Jane Do two clearly stated her opposition to assisting the investigation,
• 3:44
  much less a prosecution. She was not alone. As noted
• 3:47
  in Special Agent Kirkandahl's declaration, many victims expressed reservations about
• 3:52
  assisting in the investigation. For example, Special Agent Timothy Slater
• 3:57
  described how one victim told them she did not want
• 4:00
  to be bothered again. She had moved away to distance
• 4:02
  herself from the situation, and she wanted to let it
• 4:05
  be in the past. Similarly, the person whom petitioners referred
• 4:10
  to as Jane dol five also had been approached by
• 4:12
  the investigative team in two thousand and seven, but refused
• 4:16
  to speak with them. Regardless of the perceived strength of
• 4:19
  the corroborating evidence, it was and remains my professional opinion
• 4:23
  as an experienced prosecutor that a successful prosecution would have
• 4:27
  required convincing all of the identified victims to come forward
• 4:31
  and speak publicly at trial, knowing that they would face
• 4:34
  public scrutiny and withering cross examination. Well, maybe, just maybe,
• 4:38
  to interject here, you shouldn't have had Jeffrey Epstein's lawyers
• 4:41
  defending them too. That might have helped out a little bit. No,
• 4:45
  using my best efforts to accord all of the victims
• 4:48
  their rights to be treated with fairness and with respect
• 4:51
  for their dignity and privacy, and in the exercise of
• 4:54
  my prosecutorial discretion, I believed and still believed that a
• 4:58
  negotiated resolution of the matter was in the best interest
• 5:01
  of the office and the victims as a whole. The
• 5:04
  Office also reached the same conclusion. Second, the suggestion that
• 5:09
  a successful prosecution could have been mounted naming only Jane
• 5:12
  Doe one and Jane Doe two as victims is overly
• 5:15
  optimistic at best. The investigative team and I worked tirelessly
• 5:19
  to put together the evidence necessary to prove beyond a
• 5:22
  reasonable doubt that Epstein committed federal offenses. We recognized how
• 5:27
  difficult a trial would be, and that a successful case
• 5:30
  could only be made of a jury heard from a
• 5:32
  long series of credible victims who did not know each
• 5:35
  other to avoid an allegation of collusion, and who had
• 5:38
  all been subjected to the same treatment at Epstein's hands.
• 5:42
  A case involving just two victims who knew each other,
• 5:45
  including one who had previously stated on videotape that she
• 5:48
  never engaged in sexual contact with Epstein, would never have
• 5:51
  been charged to the federal case, much less resulted in
• 5:55
  a conviction. Negotiations to resolve the Epstein matter were difficult,
• 5:59
  and it was not clear that they would be successfully completed.
• 6:03
  If Epstein did not enter an agreement with the office,
• 6:05
  then the office needed to be in the best position
• 6:08
  it could be to charge in convictim. Accordingly, I did
• 6:12
  not want to share with victims at the office was
• 6:14
  attempting to secure for them the ability to obtain monetary
• 6:17
  compensation for the harm they had suffered. I was aware
• 6:21
  that if disclosed that and the negotiations fell through, Epstein's
• 6:25
  counsel would impeach the victims and my credibility by asserting
• 6:29
  that I had told victims they could receive money for
• 6:32
  implicating Epstein. In fact, Epstein's attorneys made exactly that claim.
• 6:37
  And a deposition of one of the victims. Attorney Michael ten,
• 6:40
  who represented Epstein, asked one of the identified victims the
• 6:44
  following questions. Ten, now, tell me about when the federal
• 6:48
  prosecutor has told you about getting reimbursed. Answer, I have
• 6:52
  no idea what you're talking about. Ten, tell me about
• 6:55
  when the federal prosecutors spoke to you about getting money
• 6:58
  you feel you're entitled to from mister Epstein. Answer, I
• 7:02
  don't know what you're talking about. Question by TN. Do
• 7:05
  you know Marievill Lafauna? Answer no. Question did you ever
• 7:09
  meet with any federal prosecutors? Answer? I think yeah, I
• 7:13
  think there were. I think there were like FBI TN.
• 7:16
  Uh huh did you meet with federal prosecutors? Answer? They
• 7:19
  came to my house one time? Ten? When did they
• 7:23
  come to your house? Answer? Very long ago? TN? Was
• 7:26
  it the year two thousand and eight? Answer it was
• 7:28
  not this year? No, TN, was it two thousand and seven?
• 7:32
  Answer I'd have to say at least two years or
• 7:34
  a year ago. Yeah, so it would be two thousand
• 7:36
  and seven, two thousand and six, but it was a
• 7:38
  while ago. TN. So if I say the name Marievia Lafauna,
• 7:42
  you don't know who that is? Answer no, sir ten.
• 7:46
  How many women and how many men came to your house?
• 7:49
  Answer I want to say two ladies and two guys. Ten.
• 7:52
  Did someone named Jeffrey Sloman come to your house? Answer
• 7:55
  I don't know name, Sir tn. Do you know who
• 7:57
  Jeffrey Sloman is? Answer no, sir ten. And you say
• 8:01
  you don't know who Jeffrey Sloman is, Answer no, sir ten.
• 8:05
  Does a refresher recollection that he's the number two prosecutor
• 8:09
  at the US Attorney's Office? Answer no, question that he
• 8:13
  is Marie Villafana's boss, answer no. Question. Did you meet
• 8:17
  with an agent named Nesbit Kirkandaal a woman? Answer I
• 8:20
  don't know. Question did miss Kirkandahl speak to you about
• 8:25
  getting reimbursed from mister Epstein? Answer I've never had a
• 8:29
  discussion with anyone about getting reimbursed from mister Epstein. Ten.
• 8:34
  And we've learned many of the girls, some of whom
• 8:37
  are as old as twenty three, were told by the
• 8:39
  government that they would get money at the end of
• 8:41
  the criminal prosecution. Does that sound familiar to you? Answer no, sir, Well,
• 8:46
  I knew that none of the special agents or I
• 8:48
  had discussed lawsuits or even restitution with any of the
• 8:51
  victims during any of their interviews, and that the first
• 8:54
  assistant US Attorney, Sloman, had never met any of the victims.
• 8:58
  This was exactly the type of ross examination that I
• 9:01
  anticipated Epstein's attorneys would try a trial the office, and
• 9:06
  I concluded that opening up the possibility for such impeachment
• 9:09
  would be detrimental to the prosecution of Epstein if a
• 9:12
  negotiated resolution failed and Epstein were thereafter to be criminally charged.
• 9:17
  As noted above, the negotiations were difficult, and at times
• 9:21
  I urged the office to break off negotiations when I
• 9:24
  felt Epstein's attorneys were proceeding in bad faith. Despite my reservations,
• 9:30
  I attempted to conduct the negotiations professionally and cordially. Petitioners
• 9:34
  in this case have attempted to construce some of my
• 9:37
  communications to suggest that I was overly friendly with Epstein's
• 9:41
  counsel to the detriment of the victims, or that I
• 9:44
  was taking steps to undercut the victim's ability to be
• 9:46
  present at any change of plea. These allegations are erroneous.
• 9:52
  I was simply being professional and cordial with opposing counsel.
• 9:56
  For example, I'm chided for an email regarding researching misdemeanor charges,
• 10:00
  but as noted above, I was instructed to construct a
• 10:02
  plea to federal or state offenses that resulted in a
• 10:06
  sentence of two years later reduced eighteen months. This required
• 10:10
  me to find a relevant charge with the agreed upon
• 10:13
  statutory maximum, and then determine whether the facts developed in
• 10:16
  the investigation fit that charge. I was unable to find
• 10:20
  a relevant federal charge that had a statutory maximum of
• 10:23
  two years and that required me to research the possibility
• 10:27
  of stacking two federal misdemeanor charges. The petitioners also suggest
• 10:32
  that I attempted to contrive to establish jurisdiction away from
• 10:36
  the location where the crimes actually occurred and away from
• 10:39
  where the victims actually lived, so as to avoid the
• 10:42
  public finding out about anything. This is also false. By
• 10:46
  the time of that email, there was already intense press
• 10:49
  coverage of the case, including efforts to publicly identify victims,
• 10:53
  as noted above and in the declaration of Special Agent Kirkanhal,
• 10:57
  and even in the letters from Jane do Twos counsel.
• 11:00
  The victims who have been interviewed in the federal investigation
• 11:03
  were most concerned about keeping their identity secret. The possibility
• 11:07
  of press coverage was a strong deterrent to that participation
• 11:11
  in the investigation and possible prosecution. My reason for recommending
• 11:16
  filing charges in Miami was to protect the privacy interests
• 11:19
  of the victims in the case by allowing them the
• 11:22
  opportunity to attend court proceedings, by definition, proceedings open to
• 11:26
  the public, with a reduced chance that their identities would
• 11:30
  be compromised. The FBI and the U. S. Attorney's Office
• 11:34
  regularly transport victims from their homes to court proceedings, and
• 11:38
  the same would have occurred if federal charges against Epstein
• 11:41
  were filed in Miami. Similarly, with regard to the selection
• 11:45
  of attorney representatives for the victims, I recommend two Miami
• 11:49
  attorneys who I know to have reputations for being tenacious, skillful,
• 11:54
  and committed to protecting their clients rather than burnishing their
• 11:57
  reputations in the press. Although I understood that any civil
• 12:01
  suits that were filed would be publicly available, in light
• 12:05
  of stated desire of most victims to remain anonymous, I
• 12:08
  did not believe that any attorney representative who actively sought
• 12:12
  press coverage would be best suited to represent the victims
• 12:15
  in this case and protect their privacy interests. All right, folks,
• 12:19
  we're going to wrap up right here, and in the
• 12:21
  next episode dealing with the topic, we're gonna pick up
• 12:23
  where we left off. All of the information that goes
• 12:26
  with this episode can be found in the description box.