← The Epstein Chronicles
The Epstein Chronicles
Mega Edition: The OIG Report Detailing The Investigation Into Epstein's NPA (Part 6-10) (4/5/26)
01:09:36
The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein’s 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) presents a disturbing portrait of federal cowardice, systemic failures, and deliberate abdication of prosecutorial duty....
Loading summary
Transcript13 lines
- [00:00]
A
This week with digital coupons at Safeway and Albertsons. Get beef rib roast for $7.97 per pound member price with minimum purchase of $50 or more in a single transaction. Exclusions apply. See Store for details and Broccoli, cauliflower or Russet potatoes are $0.97 per pound Member price limit 6 pounds plus. Selected sizes and varieties of Lucerne Butter Cheese or Philadelphia cream cheese are $1.97 each member price. Visit safewayralbertsons.com for more deals and ways
- [00:29]
B
to save what's up everyone? And welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're picking up where we left off with the OIG report into Jeffrey Epstein's non Prosecution agreement. B the State Attorney's Office Decides to present the Case to a state grand jury State Attorney Barry Krisher explained to OPR that that the Epstein case was unusual and that police brought the case to his office without having made an arrest. Kreiser was unfamiliar with Epstein and the case was assigned to the Crimes Against Children Unit. Palm Beach Chief Michael Ryder stated in a 2009 civil deposition that when the PBPD initially brought the case to the State attorney's office in 2005, Krisher was supportive of the investigation and told Ryder, let's go for it because given the nature of the allegations, Epstein was somebody we have to stop. Kreisher told opr, however, that both detectives and the prosecutors came to recognize that there were witness problems. Assistant State Attorney and Crimes Against Children Unit Chief Lana Belihovlick told OPR that she and an experienced Assistant State attorney who initially worked with her on the case were at a disagreement with Palm beach police over what the state could ethically charge. According to Bellehovlich, she did not believe the evidence the police presented would satisfy the elements of proof required to charge Epstein with the two felony crimes the police wanted filed unlawful sexual activity with a minor Florida Statute, Section 794.051, and Lewd and lascivious molestation of a minority Florida statute, Section 804, and the police were not happy with that. In addition, victims had given contradictory statements to police and the original complainant, who could have supported a charge requiring sexual offender registration, recanted her allegation of sexual contact. Belijovlik offered Epstein a resolution that would result in a five year term of probation, which he rejected. Records publicly released by the state attorney show that Beginning in early 2006, attorneys for Epstein Epstein sought to persuade the state prosecutors to allow Epstein to plead no contest rather than guilty to that end, the defense team aggressively investigated victims and presented the state attorney's office with voluminous material in an effort to undermine some of the victims credibility, including criminal records. Victims social media postings such as MySpace pages about their own sexual activity and drug use and victim statements that appeared throughout undercut allegations of criminal activity and Epstein's knowledge of victims ages. Krisher told OPR that Epstein's local counsel brought attorney Alan Dershowitz to see Kreisher and the assistant state attorney. But Dershowitz was overly aggressive and threatened. We're going to destroy your witnesses. Don't go to court because we're going to destroy those girls. According to Kreisher, Dershowitz so tainted the waters that Epstein also hired local attorney Jack Goldberger was with whom Krisher had a working relationship because the husband of the assistant state attorney was Goldberger's law partner. Belahovlich recused the assistant state attorney to remove even the appearance of any kind of conflict of interest and Belihovlick took over the case. Goldberger, together with Gerald Lefcourt, a nationally known New York criminal defense attorney also representing Epstein, then directed their efforts at Bella Hovlik and and Krisher to dissuade the office from prosecuting Epstein, largely by attacking the credibility of the victim witnesses. Meanwhile, the state attorney's office took the unusual step of preparing to present the case to a grand jury. Krisher told OPR that under state law, as it existed until it changed in 2016, his office prosecuted minors as young as 14 for prostitution. The possibility that Epstein's victims themselves could have been prosecuted caused great consternation within the office and according to Krisher, resulted in the decision to put the case before the grand jury. Bella Hovlic told OPR that her office took the allegations against Epstein seriously because it was an organized scheme to involve young girls by offering them money. And I wouldn't say that we thought they were prostitutes, but I think there was solicitation. However, she said, although Epstein's behavior was was reprehensible, I'm limited by the state statutes as to what I can charge, Krish told opr. There were so many issues involving the victim witnesses that to my mind, in consultation with my prosecutors, the only way to achieve, to my mind real justice was to present the case to the grand jury and not to direct file criminal charges against Epstein. C. Florida State Procedure for Bringing Criminal Charges Federal criminal procedure requires that a felony charge, that is any charge punishable by imprisonment for one year or more, be brought by a grand jury unless waived by a defendant. Under Florida law, however, a grand jury is required to bring criminal charges only in a death penalty case. For all other cases, a state attorney has concurrent authority to file criminal charges by means of a document called an information or to seek grand jury indictment. Although Florida criminal cases are routinely charged by information, state grand juries are often utilized in sensitive or high profile cases such as those involving allegations of wrongdoing by public officials. Florida grand jury proceedings are subject to strict secrecy rules that, among other things, prohibit anyone from being present while grand jurors deliberate and vote and and proscribe the release of the notes, records and transcripts of the grand jury. D Palm Beach Chief Ryder becomes concerned with the State Attorney's office handling of the state investigation and seeks a federal investigation in 2006, Palm Beach Chief Michael Ryder perceived that Krisher's attitude had changed and according to Reiter's statements in his 2009 deposition, Kreisher said that that he did not believe the victims were credible. Reiter was disturbed that when Krisher suggested that the PBPD issue a notice for Epstein to appear in court on misdemeanor charges, leading Ryder to begin questioning Kreisher's objectivity and the State Attorney's office approach to the case. As Ryder explained in his deposition, this was a case that I felt absolutely needed the attention of the State Attorney's office that needed to be prosecuted in state court. It's not generally something that's prosecuted in a federal court, and I knew that it didn't really matter what the facts were in the case. It was pretty clear to me that Mr. Krisher did not want to prosecute this case. On May 1, 2006, Ryder submitted to Krisher probable cause affidavits and a case filing package relating to Epstein, one of his personal assistants, and a young local woman whom Epstein first victimized and then used to recruit others. In his transmittal letter, which was later made public, Ryder criticized Kreisher, noting that he found the State Attorney's office treatment of these cases to be highly unusual. Ryder urged Kreisher to examine the unusual course that your office handling of this matter is taken and to consider disqualifying himself from prosecuting Epstein. Section 3 the FBI and the USAO investigate Epstein and and the defense team engages with the USAO a May 2006 February 2007 the federal investigation is initiated and the USAO opens a case file. In early 2006, a West Palm Beach FBI special agent who worked closely with a USA Anne Marie Vilafana on child exploitation cases and who is referred to in this report as the case agent mentioned to Vilafana in casual conversations. Having learned that the Palm beach police was investigating a wealthy Palm beach man who recruited minors for sexual activity, the case agent told Vilafana that Palm beach had reached out to the FBI because the state Attorney's office was considering either not charging the case or allowing the defendant to plead to a misdemeanor. Vilafana suggested meeting with with the Palm beach police, but the case agent explained that before formally presenting the case to the FBI, Palm beach wanted to see how the State Attorney's office decided to charge Epstein. One the Palm beach police present the matter to the FBI and the USAO. In May 2006, the lead detective handling the state's investigation met with Vilafana and the FBI case agent to summarize for them the information learned during the state's investigation. At the time, neither Vilafana nor the case agent had heard of Epstein or any knowledge of his background. According to Vilafana, during the meeting, the detective expressed concern that pressure had been brought to bear on Krischer by Epstein's attorneys, and he and Chief Ryder were concerned the state would charge Epstein with only a misdemeanor or not at all. The detective explained that the defense had hired private investigators to trail Ryder, and the detective had raised claims of various improprieties by the police and in view of the Palm Beach Police Department, had orchestrated the removal of the assistant state attorney initially assigned to handle the matter, who was viewed as an aggressive prosecutor. By hiring a defense attorney whose relationship with the assistant state attorney created a conflict of interest for the prosecutor, further giving the missing computer equipment and surveillance camera videotapes, the detective believed Epstein may have been tipped off in advance of the search warrant. During the meeting, Vilafana reviewed the US Code to see what federal charges could be brought against Epstein. She focused on US Code 18, Section 2422, enticement of minors into prostitution or other illegal sexual activity and the use of a facility of interstate or foreign commerce to persuade or induce a minor to engage in prostitution or or other illegal sexual activity and 2423 travel for purposes of engaging in illegal sexual conduct. As they discussed the charges, the detective told Vilafana that Epstein and his assistants had traveled at a Palm Beach International Airport on Epstein's private airplane and flight logs sometimes referred to the passenger as female, without a name or an age, which the detectives suspected might be references to underage girls. However, the detective acknowledged that he was unable to confirm that suspicion and did not have any firm evidence indicating that Epstein had transported any girls in her state or internationally. Nevertheless, Vilafana believed Epstein could be prosecuted federally, in part because of his own interstate and international travel to the Southern District of Florida to abuse girls. Vilafana discussed with the detective and the case agent the additional investigation needed to prove violations of the federal statutes that she had identified. She told them that if the evidence supported it, the case could be prosecuted federally. But she assured them the opening of federal investigation would not preclude the state Attorney's office from charging Epstein should it choose to do so. All right, we're going to wrap up this episode here and then the next episode we're going to pick up with May 2006 the USAO accepts the case and opens a case file this week
- [12:04]
A
with digital coupons at Safeway and Albertsons get beef rib roast for $7.97 per pound member price with minimum purchase of $50 or more in a single transaction. Exclusions apply. See Store for details and Broccoli, cauliflower or russet potatoes are $0.97 per pound member price limit £6 plus selected sizes and varieties of Lucerne Butter Cheese or Philadelphia cream cheese are $1.97 each member price. Visit safewayeralbertsons.com for more deals and ways to save.
- [12:33]
B
All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box. What's up everyone and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're picking up where we left off with the OIG report into Jeffrey Epstein's non prosecution agreement. 2. May 2006 the USAO accepts the case and and opens a case file. On May 23, 2006, Vilafana prepared the paperwork to open a USAO case file. Vilafana told OPR that several aspects of the case implicated federal interests and potentially merited a federal one the victimization of minors through the use of facilities of interstate commerce, the telephone and airports 2 the number of victims involved 3 the possibility that Epstein had been producing or possessing child porn two possibilities suggested by the removal of the computer equipment from his residence and 4 the possibility that improper political pressure had affected the state Attorney's office handling of the case. The investigation was named Operation Leap Year because the state investigation had identified approximately 29 girls as victims of Epstein's conduct. Vilafana told OPR that from the outset of the federal investigation she understood that the case would require a great deal of time and effort given the number of potential victims and Epstein's financial resources. Nonetheless, Vilafana was willing to put in the effort and believed that the FBI was similarly committed to the case. Vilafana discussed the case with her immediate supervisor, who also thought it would be a good case and approved it to be opened within the USAO's file management system, and on May 23, 2006 it was formally initiated. 3 July 14, 2006 Villefana informs Acosta and Sloman about the Case Because Vilafana was not familiar with Epstein, she researched his background and learned that he took a scorched earth approach to litigation. Vilafana was aware that Epstein had hired multiple lawyers to interact with the state Attorney's office in an effort to derail the state case, and she believed he would likely do the same in connection with with any federal investigation. Therefore, Vilafana arranged to meet with U.S. attorney Alexander Acosta and Jeffrey Sloman, who at the time was the criminal division chief. Vilafana told OPR that she never before asked to meet with executive management about initiating a case, but the allegations that Epstein had improperly influenced the State Attorney's office greatly troubled her. Vilafana explained to OPR that she wanted to ensure that that her senior supervisors were on board with the Epstein investigation. In addition, she viewed Sloman as a friend in whom she had a particular confidence at this point. Although Vilafana's immediate supervisor was aware of the case, Vilafana did not inform Andrew Laurie, who was then in charge of the West Palm beach office and her second line supervisor, about the matter or that she was briefing Acosta and Sloman. Vilafana met with Acosta and Sloman in Miami on July 14, 2006. She told OPR that at the meeting she informed them that the PBPD had identified a group of girls who had provided to Epstein massages that were sexual in nature and that Epstein had used various types of pressure to avoid prosecution by the state, including hiring attorneys who had personal connections to the state attorney. The Vilafana said that part of her goal in speaking to Acosta and Sloman at the outset of the federal investigation was to sensitize them to the tactics Epstein's legal team would likely employ. Vilafana explained, when you have a case that you know people are going to be getting calls about, you just want to make sure that they know about it so they don't get a call from out of the blue. According to Vilafana, she told Acosta and Sloman that the FBI was willing to put the necessary resources into into the case and she was willing to put in the time, but she didn't want to get to the end and have the same situation occur with a federal prosecution that occurred with the state, she told opr. I remember specifically saying to them that I expected a case would be time and resource intensive and I did not want to invest the time and the FBI's resources if the office would just back down to pressure at the end. According to Vilafana, Acosta and Sloman promised that if the evidence is there, the we will prosecute the case. In a later email to Lori and her immediate supervisor, Vilafana recounted that she spoke with Acosta and Sloman because she knew that what has happened to the state prosecution can happen to a federal prosecution if the U.S. attorney isn't on board. But Acosta and Sloman had given her the green light to go forward with the Epstein investigation. Both Acosta and Sloman told OPR that they did not recall the July 2006 meeting with Vilafana. Each told OPR that at the time the federal investigation was initiated, he had not previously heard of Epstein. Acosta told OPR that he understood from the outset that the case involved a wealthy man who was doing sordid things with girls and that it seemed a reasonable matter to pursue federally. Epstein's wealth and status did not raise any concerns for him because, as Acosta told opr, the USAO had prosecuted lots of influential folks. When asked by OPR to articulate the federal interest he perceived at the time to be implicated by the case, Acosta responded the exploitation of girls or minor females. Regarding Vilafana's view that she had been given a green light to proceed with the investigation, Acosta told OPR that he would not likely have explicitly told Villefana to go spend your time on the case. Rather, his practice would have been simply to acknowledge the information she shared with about the case and confirmed that a federal investigation sounded reasonable. Sloman told OPR that he could not recall what he initially knew about the Epstein investigation other than that a basic understanding that the state Attorney's office had abdicated their responsibility to investigate and prosecute Epstein. In his OPR interview, Sloman did not recall with specificity Vilafana's concern about Epstein's team pressuring the state Attorney's office. But he said he was never concerned that political pressure would affect the USAO, noting that as of July 2006, the USAO had recently prosecuted wealthy and politically connected lobbyist Jack Abramoff. 4 Late July 2006 the state indicts Epstein and the USAO moves forward with a federal investigation Several days after Vilafana spoke with Acosta and sloman, the On July 19, 2006, Assistant State Attorney Bella Hovlich presented the case to the state grand jury. Krisher told OPR that the whole thing was put before the grand jury, according to a statement made at the time by the State Attorney's office spokesman. The grand jury was presented with a list of charges from highest to lowest without a recommendation by the prosecutor and deliberated with the prosecutor out of the room. The state grand jury returned an indictment charging Epstein with one count of felony solicitation of prostitution and violation of Florida's statute section796.07, a felony under state law because it alleged three or more instances of solicitation. The indictment did not identify the person or person solicited and made no mention of the fact that Epstein had solicited minors. On July 23, 2006, Epstein Epstein self surrendered to be arrested on the indictment but was not detained and the charges were made public. Villafana told OPR that she decided to move forward with the federal investigation at that point because she believed the State Attorney's office would permit Epstein to enter a plea to a reduced misdemeanor charge that once he entered a guilty plea, the department's petite policy might preclude a federal prosecution. Vilafana told OPR that at the time she definitely believed that that we were going to proceed to a federal indictment assuming that we had sufficient evidence. On July 24, 2006, Vilafana alerted Sloman, who informed Acosta that the State Attorney's office had charged and arrested Epstein. On that same day, the FBI in West Palm beach formally opened the case, assigning the case agent and later a co case agent to investigate it. Vilafana told Sloman that the FBI agents are getting copies along of all the evidence and we are going to review everything at the FBI on Wednesday and she noted that her target date for filing federal charges Against Epstein was August 25, 2006. Acosta emailed Sloman asking whether it was appropriate to approach State Attorney Kreischer and give him a heads up where we might go. Sloman replied no for fear that it will be leaked straight to Epstein. Although Lori learned of the case at this point from Sloman and eventually took a more active role in supervising the investigation, Vilafana continued to update Acosta and Sloman directly on the progress of the case. Vilafana's immediate supervisor in West Palm beach had little involvement in supervising the Epstein investigation and at times. Vilafana directed her emails to Sloman, Menschel and Lori without copying her immediate supervisor. In the immediate supervisor's view, however, Miami purposefully assumed all the authority for the case, which the immediate supervisor regarded as highly unusual. By late August 2006, Villefana and the FBI had identified several additional victims and obtained some flight manifests, telephone messages, and cell phone records that show the communication and travel in interstate commerce by Epstein and his associates. Vilafana reported to her supervisors that the state Attorney's office would not provide transcripts from the state grand jury voluntarily and that she would be meeting with Chief Ryder to convince him to relinquish the evidence to the FBI. Vilafana told her supervisors that she expected a number of fights over her document demands and that some parties were refusing to comply after having contact with Epstein or his attorneys. Vilafana's reference to anticipated fights and lack of compliance led Sloman to to ask whether she was referring to the victims. Vilafana responded that the problems did not involve victims, but rather a former employee of Epstein and some business entities that had objected to document demands as overly burdensome. Vilafana explained to Sloman and Lori that some of the victims were scared and or embarrassed and some had been intimidated by the defense, but everyone with whom the agents have spoken so far has been willing to tell her story. Vilafana also informed Sloman and Lori that the FBI was re interviewing victims who had given tape statements to the PBPD to ensure their stories have not changed and that any discrepancies will not be noted and considered. She conceded that getting them to tell their stories in front of a jury at trial may be much harder, but expressed confidence that the two key victims will stay the course. She acknowledged that the case needs to be rock solid. The case agent told OPR that in this initial stage of the investigation, the FBI partnered up very well with the usao. She recalled that there was a little higher level management oversight either from the FBI or the USAO and we were allowed to do what we needed to do to get our job done. This included continuing to identify, locate and interview victims and Epstein employees and obtaining records relating to Epstein's travel, communications and financial transactions.
- [24:21]
A
This week with digital coupons at Safeway and Albertsons get beef rib roast for $7.97 per pound member price with minimum purchase of $50 or more in a single transaction. Exclusions apply. See Store for details and Broccoli, cauliflower or Russet potatoes are $0.97 per pound Member price limit £6 plus selected sizes are varieties of Lucerne Butter Cheese or Philadelphia cream cheese are 197 each member price. Visit safewayralbertsons.com for more deals and ways
- [24:49]
B
to save the case agent viewed the case as strong all right, we're going to wrap up right there and in the next episode we're going to Pick up with five October 2006 through February 2007 Epstein's defense counsel initiate contact with Villafauna, Lori and Sloman and press for a meeting. All the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box. What's up everyone? And welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're gonna get right back to the OIG report into Jeffrey Epstein's non prosecution agreement. 5. October 2006 February 2007 Epstein's defense counsel initiate contact with Vilafana, Lori and Sloman and press for a meeting Just as Epstein had learned of the Palm Beach Police investigation at its early stage, he quickly became aware of the federal investigation, both because the FBI was interviewing his employees and because the government was seeking records from his businesses. One of Epstein's New York attorneys, Gerald Lefcourt, made initial contact with Vilafana in August of 2006. As the investigation progressed, Epstein took steps to persuade the USAO to decline federal prosecution. As with the state investigation, Epstein employed attorneys who had experience with the department and relationships with individual USAO personnel. One of Epstein's Miami lawyers, Guy Lewis, a former career AUSA and U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida, made an overture on Epstein's behalf. In Early November of 2006, Lewis telephoned Vilafana, a call that Sloman joined at Vilafana's request. Louis offered to provide Vilafana anything she wanted without necessity of legal process. Lewis asked to meet with Vilafana and Sloman to discuss the Epstein investigation, but Vilafana declined. Shortly thereafter, Lilian Sanchez, a former ausa, contacted Sloman and advised him that she also represented Epstein. Sanchez was employed by the USAO from 2000 to September 2005 and had been a deputy chief of the USAO's major crime section at the time, Menshel was the chief, according to Sloman's contemporaneous email recounting the conversation. When Sanchez indicated to him that his participation in Lewis call with Vilafana led the defense team to believe that the matter had been elevated within the usao, Sloman tried to disabuse her of that notion. Sanchez said that Epstein wanted to be as transparent and cooperative as possible in working with the usao. Despite the fact that Lewis had already made contact with the USAO on Epstein's behalf, Sanchez sent a letter to Vilafana on November 15, 2006, in which she asserted that she and Gerald Lefcourt were representing Epstein and asked the USAO to direct all contact or communications about Epstein to them. In response, Vilafana requested that the defense provide documents and information pertinent to the federal investigation, including the documents and information that Epstein previously provided to the state's Attorney's office and computers, hard drives, CPUs, and any other computer media removed from Epstein's home before the Palm beach raid and search warrant was executed in October of 2005. In January 2007, Sanchez contacted Vilafana to schedule a meeting, but Vilafana responded that she wanted to receive and review the documents before scheduling a meeting with Sanchez. Immediately after receiving Vilafana's response, Sanchez Sanchez bypassed Vilafana and phoned Lori, with whom she had worked when she was in ausa, to press for a meeting. Lori agreed to meet with Sanchez and left court. Lori explained to Vilafana that Sanchez was concerned that federal charges were imminent and wanted to meet with the USAO and make a pitch and promised that once given the opportunity to do so, if the USAO wanted to interview Epstein, that would be a possibility. Vilafana told Lori that Sanchez had not yet provided the documents she had promised and Vilafana wanted the documents, not the pitch. Laurie explained to opr, however, that it was his practice to grant meetings to defense counsel. He considered it good for us to learn the defense theories of a case and believe that information is power. Laurie further explained that learning what information the defense viewed as important could help the USAO form its strategy and determine which counts relating to which victims should be charged. Lori also believed that as a general matter, prosecutors should grant defense requests to make a presentation because part of the process is for them to believe they are heard. In addition to agreeing to a meeting, Lori sent Sanchez a narrow document request which responded to Sanchez's complaint and that the USAO's earlier request was overbroad but which retained the demand for the computer related items removed from Epstein's home. The meeting was scheduled for February 1, 2007, and Lori asked Sanchez to provide the documents and materials to the USAO by January 25, 2007. Vilafana did not agree with Lori's decision to meet with Sanchez in Leftcourt. Indeed, two days after Lori agreed to the meeting, Vilafana alerted him that she had spoken again with Sanchez and learned that Epstein was not going to provide the requested documents. As Vilafana told Lori, I just get to listen to the pitch and hear about the girls are liars and drug users. She told OPR that in her view it was away too early to have a meeting. She already knew what the defense would say and she could not see how a meeting would benefit the federal investigation. She explained to Lori that basis for her objections to the meeting, but Lori disagreed with her position. Vilafana and the West Palm Beach AUSA with whom she was consulting about the investigation and who had served for a time as her co counsel, both recall meeting with Lori in his office to express their concerns about meeting with the defense counsel. They perceive Lori to be dismissive of their views. According to Vilafana, Lori believed that a meeting with the defense attorneys would be the USAO's chance to learn the defense legal theories and would position the USAO to arrange a debriefing of Epstein through which the USAO might learn information helpful to a prosecution. Vilafana told opr, however, that while this strategy might make sense in a white collar crime case, she did not believe it was appropriate or or worthwhile in a child exploitation case in which the perpetrator would be unlikely to confess to the conduct. Vilafana also told OPR that she did not believe the USAO could extract information about the defense legal theories without telling the defense the precise crimes the USAO intended to charge, which Vilafana did not want to reveal. 6. February 2007 Defense counsel meet with Laurie and Vilafana and present the defense objection to a federal case at the February 1, 2007 meeting with Laurie and Vilafana, Sanchez and Lefcourt set out arguments that would be repeated throughout the months long defense campaign to stop the federal investigation. In support of their arguments, the defense attorneys provided a 25 page letter along with documents the defense had obtained from the state's investigative file and potential impeachment material the defense had developed relating to the victims. In the letter and at the meeting, the defense counsel argued that one the allegations did not provide a basis for the exercise of federal jurisdiction, 2 the evidence did not establish that Epstein knew who provided him with massages were minors, 3 no evidence existed proving that any girl traveled interstate to engage in sex with Epstein, but four the USAO would violate the petite policy by initiating federal prosecution of a matter that had already been addressed by the state and five there were forensic barriers to prosecution. Referring to witness credibility issues, the letter suggested that misleading and inaccurate reports from Palm beach police Department may well have affected the USAO's view of the case. The letter also claimed that the State Attorney's office had taken into account the damaging histories of lies, illegal drug use and crime of the state's two principal witnesses identified by name in the letter, and argued that with witnesses of their ilk, the state might have been unable to make any case against Epstein at all. Lori told OPR that he did not recall the meeting, but Villefana told OPR that neither she nor Lori was persuaded by the defense presentation as at this listening session, February May 2007 Vilafana and the FBI continue to investigate Villofana drafts a prosecution memorandum and proposed indictment for USAO managers to review. Correspondence between Vilafana and the defense counsel show that Vilafana carefully considered the defense arguments concerning the victim's credibility and she reviewed audio tapes of the state's victims interviews and and partial transcripts provided by the defense counsel. Vilafana also pursued other investigative steps which included working with the FBI to locate the expert witness to testify about the effect of sexual abuse on victims. She also continued collecting records relating to Epstein's business entities, in part to help establish the interstate nexus of Epstein's activity. On several occasions, Vilafana sought guidance from CEOs which had considerable national expertise in child exploitation cases about legal issues relating to the case, such as whether charges she was considering required proof that the defendant knew a minor victim's age. USAO procedures generally required that a proposed indictment be accompanied by a prosecution memorandum from the AUSA handling the case. The prosecution memorandum was expected to explain the factual and legal basis for the proposed charges and address any significant procedural, factual and legal issues of which the AUSA were witness related issues Expected Defenses and Sentencing Issues Routine prosecutions could be approved by lower level supervisors, but in high profile or complex cases, proposed indictments might require review and and approval by the Criminal Division Chief, the FAUSA, or even the US Attorney. Accordingly, Vilafana drafted an 82 page prosecution memorandum directed to Acosta Sloman Menshel, who had replaced sloman as the USAO's criminal division chief the previous October when sloman became the FAUSA, Laurie and her immediate supervisor dated May 1, 2007 supporting a proposed 60 count indictment that charged Epstein with various federal crimes relating to sexual conduct with the trafficking of minors. The prosecution memorandum set forth legal issues and potential defenses relating to each proposed charge, explained why certain other statutes were rejected as proposed charges, described the evidence supporting each count and potential evidentiary issues, and addressed the viability and credibility of of each of the victims who were expected to testify at trial. Vilafana's immediate supervisor told OPR that she read the prosecution memorandum, had only a few small edits to the indictment, and advised Lori that she approved it. The immediate supervisor told OPR that she viewed the case as prosecutable but recognized that the case was complex and that Vilafana would need co counsel this week
- [36:55]
A
with digital coupons at Safeway and Albertsons, get beef rib roast for $7.97 per pound member price with minimum purchase of $50 or more in a single transaction. Exclusions apply. See Store for details and Broccoli, cauliflower or russet potatoes are $0.97 per pound member price limit £6 plus selected sizes and varieties of Lucerne butter cheese or Philadelphia cream cheese are $1.97 each member price. Visit safewayoralbertsons.com for more deals and ways
- [37:23]
B
to save in his OPR interview, Laurie recalled thinking that that prosecution memorandum and proposed indictment were very thorough and contained a lot of hard work, but that he wanted to employ a different strategy for charging the case, focusing initially only on the victims that presented the toughest cases for Epstein, meaning about those whom Epstein had not already raised credibility issues to use in cross examination. Lorre told OPR that although he had some concerns about the case, particularly the government's ability to to prevail on certain legal issues and the credibility challenges some of the victims would face, he did not see these concerns as insurmountable and was generally in favor of going forward with the prosecution. Although indictments coming out of the West Palm beach office usually did not require approval in Miami, in this case, Laurie understood that because there was front office involvement from the get go, he would not be the one making the final decision whether to go forward with the charges in this case. Lori forwarded a copy of the prosecution memorandum to Menchel. Lori's transmittal message read, Marie did a 50 page pro memo in the Epstein case. I'm going to start reading it tonight. It's a major case because the target is one of the richest men in the country and it has been big news. He has a stable of attorneys including Dershowitz, Roy Black, Lefcourt Lewis and Lily Sanchez. Jeff Sloman is familiar with the investigation. The state intentionally torpedoed it in the grand jury so it was brought to us. I'm going to forward the prose memo to you so you can start reading it at the same time I do. The FBI is pushing to do it in mid May, which I think is not critical but we might as well get a jump on it. I have some ideas about the indictment needs to be Ultralean with only clean victims, so I am not sending that yet. Lori explained to OPR that by clean victims he meant those for whom the defense did not leave or have impeachment evidence to use against them. A few days later, Lorre e mailed Menschel asking if Menschel had read the prosecution memorandum. Lori directed Menschel's attention to particular pages of the prosecution memorandum, noting that the keys were whether the USAO could prove that Epstein traveled for the purpose of engaging in sexual acts and the fact that some minor victims told EPSTEIN they were 18. Lori asked for Menschel's very general opinion is a case you think the office should do and reminded Menchel that the State Attorney's office went out of their way to get a no bill on this and thus only charged adult solicitation which they would bargain away to nothing. During his OPR interview, Menchel said that Lori emailed transmitting the prosecution memorandum was was his official introduction to the case and at that point in time he had never heard of Epstein and had no information about his background. He recalled that USAO had been asked to review the case because the state had not handled it appropriately. Menshel told opr, however, that he had little memory about the facts of the case or what contemporaneous opinions he formed about it. Acosta told OPR that he could not recall whether he ever read Vilafana's prosecution memorandum, explaining that he would typically rely on senior staff who had more prosecutorial experience and that instead of reading the memorandum he may have discussed the case with Sloman, Menchel and Lori, who he assumed have read the document. Acosta recalled generally having conversations with Sloman and Menchel about the Epstein case, but he could not recall with specificity when those conversations took place or the details of those discussions. Sloman told OPR that because of his broad responsibilities as fausa, he left it to Menschel, as a highly experienced trial attorney and the criminal division chief, to work directly with Acosta, and Sloman recalled that it was Menschel and Lori who conducted a granular review of the charging package. Acosta confirmed to OPR that Sloman and Menshel were a team who became involved in issues as needed and if Sloman perceived that Menshel was taking the lead on the Epstein matter, Sloman may have deferred to to mention all right, we're going to wrap up with this episode here and in the next episode we're going to pick up with Part C May through June 2007 Miami managers consider the Prosecution Memorandum and Proposed Charges all of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box. What's up everyone and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're getting right back to it and we're going to pick up where we left off. And with the OIG report into the Jeffrey Epstein Non prosecution agreement May June 2007 Miami managers consider the Prosecution Memorandum and Proposed Charges when she submitted the prosecution memorandum, Vilafana intended to file charges by May 15, 2007 and the FBI planned to arrest Epstein immediately thereafter. Vilafana, however, had not obtained authorization to indict on that schedule. The managers in Miami wanted time to analyze the lengthy prosecution memorandum and consider the potential charges and charging strategy. Just a few days after he received the prosecution memorandum and after learning that the FBI was planning a press conference for May 15, Sloman advised Vilafana that this office has not approved the indictment, therefore please do not commit us to anything as at this time. On May 10, 2007, with Menschel's concurrence, Lori sent a copy of Vilafana's prosecution memorandum to CEO chief Andrew Osterbahn, who in turn sent it to his deputy and another CEOs attorney asking them to assess the legal issues involved in the case and describing it as a highly sensitive case involving a high profile, very rich defendant. After CEOs reviewed the materials, Osterbahn responded to Lori with an email stating that the memorandum was exhaustive and well done and noting that Vilafana has correctly focused on the issues as we see them. He summarized CEO's analysis of the application of key facts to the statutes she proposed charging concurring in Vilafana's assessments but noting that further research was needed to determine whether certain statutes required proof of a defendant's knowledge of a victim's age. Osterbahn offered to assign a CEO's attorney to work with Vilafana on the case. Lori forwarded Osterban's email to Menshel and Vilafana. Meanwhile, contemporaneous email shows that Lori at least was at least considering an early resolution of the case through pre indictment plea agreement. When Lori spoke to the FBI squad supervisor on May 9, 2007, she to explain that charges against Epstein would not be quickly approved. He reported to Menschel that the FBI was not happy about the delay, adding, I did not even tell them I think we should bring Epstein in once we decide to charge him and offer pre indictment deal, figuring a judge might never agree to such a deal post indictment that would have sent them through the roof. Lori explained to OPR that he thought a judge, after seeing an indictment charging the full nature and scope of Epstein's conduct, might not agree to a plea involving substantially less time or to dismiss substantive charges. Lori told opr, and despite Osterbahn's favorable opinion of the case, this was a bit of uncharted territory involving facts that were unlike the case law Osterbahn had cited. Although Lori had some concerns about the legal issues and about witnesses, he probably did not see any impediment to going forward with the case. In fact, Laurie was not in favor of walking away, which is what the defense wanted the USAO to do. But while Laurie thought we could have won and we could have prevailed through appeal, he didn't think the odds were nearly as good as you want in a criminal case. And the things that we had gotten to gain through a plea agreement were much more than in a normal criminal case in which the only cost of a loss would be that the defendant did not go to jail. Laurie told OPR that to the best of his recollection, he thought a plea agreement would be a good result. And although the government might not have to give up some jail time, there were other benefits to a plea, such as the ability to require Epstein to register as a sex offender and the availability of monetary damages for the victims. Lori recalled thinking that that this case should be settled and we should set it up so we can settle it by, for example, charging Epstein by complaint and then negotiating a plea to limited charges in a criminal information. Vilafana told OPR that she agreed with Lori that a criminal complaint charging an omnibus conspiracy containing all of the information related that the case would be about would be a good way to get things moving toward a pre indictment plea. Although Lori and Vilafana believed a pre indictment plea agreement was the desired resolution, there was no guarantee that Epstein would agree to plead guilty and they continued to work together to shape an indictment. On May 10, 2007, Lori emailed Vilafana. I believe that Epstein's attorneys are scared of the victims. They don't know. Epstein has no doubt told them that there were many. Thus, I believe that the first indictment should contain only the victims. They have nothing on at all. We can add in the other ones that have MySpace pages and prior testimony in a superseding indictment. I think for the first strike we should make all their nightmares come true. Thoughts? Lori followed up this email to Vilafana with one to mental, in which Lori reiterated the potential benefits of a pre indictment plea, explaining that he and Vilafana believed the best thing to do is is charge Epstein by complaint. Assuming we decide to charge him, the sentencing guidelines will be in the 20 year range, so we would need to plead him to one or two conspiracies to cap him and there is no telling if a judge would go for that once we indict. Menschel responded that he and Acosta would read the prosecution memorandum and we can discuss after that. Later that afternoon, Vilafana sent Lori an email which Lori forwarded to Menshel explaining that a conservative calculation of Epstein's potential sentencing exposure under the US sentencing guidelines would be 168 to 210 months and that in her view, the facts warranted an upward departure from that range. Vilafana told OPR that although Lori proposed some changes to the draft indictment at that point, no one had told her that the evidence was insufficient to support the proposed charges or that the office did not want to go forward with the case. In an email to Acosta and Menshel on May 11, 2007, Laurie recommended charging Epstein by complaint and seeking a pre indictment plea. My current thoughts are that we should charge him. Not sure that I agree with the charging strategy as it is now, but at this point I think we only need to get on the same page as to whether the statutes cover the conduct and whether the conduct is the type of that we should charge. I think that the answer to both is yes, although there is some risk on some of the statutes as this is unchartered territory to some degree. We can decide later what the charging document should look like precisely and which victims should be charged. I also think if we choose to go forward, we should start with a complaint, arrest him, detain him, and then try to see if he wants a pre indictment resolution. That would give us more control over a plea than if we indict him and need the court's approval to dismiss counts. We will need to cap him with conspiracy counts to make a plea attractive and the court could give us a hard time with that if we try to dismiss indicted counts. Although her supervisors were communicating among themselves about the case, Vilafana was unaware of those discussions and was frustrated that she was not receiving more feedback. She continued preparing to charge Epstein and two weeks after submitting the prosecution memorandum on May 14, 2007, Vilafana informed Lori and Menshel by email that Epstein was flying to New Jersey from the Virgin Islands and Asked whether she could file charges the next day, Menshel responded that you will not have the approval to go forward tomorrow and explained that Acosta has your prosecution memo but was out at an out of town conference and adding that this is obviously a very significant case and Alex wants to take his time in making sure he is comfortable before proceeding. Menschel told Villefana he had trouble understanding why she was in a rush given how long this case had been pending. OPR questioned Lori, Menchel, Sloman and Acosta about the timeline for reviewing the prosecution memorandum and the proposed charges. Acosta and Menchel believe Villefana's timeline was unrealistic from the start. Acosta told OPR that Vilafana was very hard charging, but her timeline for filing charges in the case was really, really fast.
- [50:30]
A
This week with digital coupons at Safeway and Albertsons get beef rib roast for $7.97 per pound member price with minimum purchase of $50 or more in a single transaction. Exclusions apply. See Store for details and Broccoli, cauliflower or russet potatoes are $0.97 per pound member price limits plus selected sizes and varieties of Lucerne Butter cheese or Philadelphia cream cheese are 197 each member price. Visit safewayralbertsons.com for more deals and ways to save.
- [51:00]
B
Menchel described Vilafana as out over her skis a little bit and ahead of Acosta in terms of his analysis of the case. Menchel said it was clear to him that Acosta was going to be the one making the call about whether to go forward with the charges and Acosta needed more time to make a decision. This was not a case we were going to review in two weeks and make a decision on. Sloman told OPR that although he did not conduct a granular review of the proposed charges, he believed Menschel and Lori had done so and obviously had concluded that the facts and the law didn't suggest that the right thing to do was to automatically indict. Lori told OPR that he believed the case was moving ahead. Vilafana continued to seek direction from her managers. On May 15, 2007, she emailed Sloman, noting that it seemed from our discussion yesterday that pestering Alex will not do any good. Am I right about that? Sloman responded yes. On May 21, 2007, three weeks after submitting the prosecution memorandum, Vilafana emailed Sloman and Menshel asking for a sense of the direction where we are headed, that is Approval of an indictment, something like the current draft, a complaint to allow for pre indictment negotiations, an indictment drastically different from the current draft. Sloman responded only taken care of. D Defense Counsel seek a Meeting with Senior USAO managers, which Vilafana opposes. Meanwhile, Epstein's defense counsel continued to seek additional information about the federal investigation and a meeting with senior USAO managers, including Acosta. In a May 10, 2007 email to Menshel, Lori reported that Epstein's attorneys want me to tell them the statutes we are contemplating so Dershowitz can tell us why they don't apply. Lori told I don't see the downside but added Maria's against it. Responded that it was premature to provide the information during his OPR interview. Menshel she could not specifically recall why he believed it was premature to provide the defense with the requested information, but speculated that it was too soon after the prosecution memorandum had been circulated for Acosta to have made a decision about how he wanted to proceed. This recollection is consistent with the May 2007 emails reflecting that Acosta wanted time to consider the proposed prosecutions. On May 22, 2007, defense counsel left court emailed Lori a letter to confirm that Epstein's attorneys would be given an opportunity to meet with Lori before the USAO reached the final decision on charging Epstein. Lurie forwarded the letter to Menshel and Sloman, but noted that Epstein's defense team was really ready for the next level. Rather than another meeting with him, Lori suggested that Menshel meet with the defense counsel, adding whether Alex would be present or grant them another meeting after that is his call. Lori also emailed Lefcourt, clarifying that Lori had not promised to call Epstein's counsel before filing charges and suggesting that Epstein's counsel make their presentation to Menshell. Although Lori's emails show that he had no objection to more senior USAO managers meeting with defense counsel, Vilafana opposed such a meeting. Several emails indicate that Menshel traveled to West Palm beach to meet with Lori and Vilafana on the afternoon of May 23, 2007. On that same day, Vilafana drafted an email which she planned to send to Sloman and Menshel expressing her disagreement with meeting the defense counsel. Although the email was written for Sloman and Menshel, Vilafana sent it as a draft only to her immediate supervisor seeking her guidance and counsel as to how to proceed. Hi Jeff and Matt, I just want to again voice my disagreement with the promising to have a meeting or have a meeting with Left Court or or any of Epstein's Attorneys, as I mentioned, this is not a case where we will be shutting down to negotiate whether a defendant will serve one year versus two years of probation. This is a case where the defendant is facing the possibility of dozens of years in prison time. Just as the defense will defend a case like that differently than they would handle a probation type case, we need to handle the case differently. Part of our prosecution strategy. We was already disclosed at the last meeting and I'm concerned that more will be disclosed at a future meeting. My co chair, who has prosecuted more of these cases than the rest of us combined and who actually worked on the drafting of some of the child exploitation statutes, also opposed the meeting. We have been accused of not being strategic thinkers because of our position and our opposition to these meetings, but we are simply looking at this case as a violent crime prosecution involving stiff penalties, rather than as a white collar or public corruption case where the parties can amicably work out a light sentence with respect to the policy reasons that Leftcourt wants to discuss, those were already raised in his letter, which is part of the indictment package and during his meeting with Andy and myself. Those reasons are one he wants the petite policy to trump our ability to prosecute Epstein, 2 this shouldn't be a federal offense, and 3 the victims were willing participants, so the crime shouldn't be prosecuted at all. Unless the office thinks that any of those arguments will be persuasive, a meeting will not be beneficial to the prosecution. It will only benefit the defense. With respect to Left Court's promised legal analysis that also has already been provided. The only way to get additional analysis is to expose to the defense the other charges that we are considering. In my opinion, this would seriously undermine the prosecution. The defense is anxious to have a meeting in order to delay the investigation prosecution to find out more about our investigation and to use political pressure to stop the investigation. I have no control over the office's decisions regarding whether to meet with the defense or to whom the facts and analysis of the case will be disclosed. However, if you all do decide to go forward with the meetings and in a way that is detrimental to the investigation, then I will have to ask to have the case reassigned to an AUSA who is in agreement with the handling of the case. After receiving this draft, the immediate supervisor cautioned Vilafana, let's talk before you send this, please. Vilafana told OPR that the supervisor counseled Vilafana not to send the email to Sloman or Menshel because Vilafana could be viewed as insubordinate. She also told Vilafana that if Vilafana did not stay with the case, the case would go away and Epstein would never serve a day in jail. Vilafana told OPR that at that point in time she believed the USAO was preparing to file charges against Epstein, despite agreeing to accommodate the defense request for meetings. She told opr, on the other hand, that she feared the USAO was going down the same path that the State Attorney's office had gone down. Vilafano believed the purpose of the defense request for the meetings was to cause delay, but the people in my office either couldn't see that or didn't want to see that, perhaps because of their lack of experience with these types of cases or a misguided belief that Epstein's attorneys would not engage in this behavior. Vilafana told OPR that she could not seem to get her supervisors to understand the seriousness of Epstein's behavior and the fact that he was probably continuing to commit the behavior and that there was a need to move with necessary speed. Nonetheless, Vilafana followed the guidelines of her immediate supervisor and did not send the email. Like Laurie, Menchel told OPR that he believed meeting with defense counsel was good practice. Menschel told OPR that he saw no downside to hearing the defense point of view. Defense counsel might make a persuasive point that actually is going to change our mind or alternatively present arguments the defense would inevitably raise if the case went forward, and Menshel believed it would be to the USAO's advantage to learn about such arguments in advance. Menschel also told OPR that he did not recall Villefana ever articulating a concern that Epstein was continuing to offend. And in Menshel's view, Epstein was already under a microscope, at least in Florida, and would have been the highest stupidity for Epstein to continue to offend in those circumstances. Alright, we're going to wrap up this episode here and then the next episode dealing with the topic we'll pick up with Part E. June 2007 Vilafauna supplements the prosecution memorandum. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box. What's up everyone? And welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're getting right Back to the OIG report into the Jeffrey Epstein non prosecution agreement. June 2007 Vilafana supplements the prosecution memorandum. While Vilafana supervisors were considering whether to go forward with the proposed charges, Vilafana took additional steps to support them. On June 14, 2007, she supplemented the prosecution memorandum with with an addendum addressing credibility concerns relating to one of the victims. In the email transmitting the addendum to Lori Menchel, Sloman and her immediate supervisor, Vilafana reported another Jane Doe had been identified and interviewed, and the different strategies about how to structure the charges left Vilafana unsure whether to make changes now or wait until we have received approval of the current charging strategy. The addendum itself related to a particular victim referred to as a minor who saw Epstein most frequently and who had allegedly engaged in sexual activity with both Epstein and an Epstein assistant. In the addendum, Vilafana identified documents she had found corroborating four separate statements made by this victim. Vilafana told OPR that the only victim about whom any supervisor ever articulated specific credibility issues was the victim discussed in the addendum. Lori told OPR that he had no specific recollection of the addendum, but it was reasonable to assume that the addendum addressed one particular victim because no one had identified specific concerns relating to any other victim. Vilafana's immediate supervisor similarly told OPR that to her recollection, the discussions about credibility issues were generic rather than tied to specific victims. The June 26, 2007 meeting with Defense Counsel Menschel agreed to meet with defense counsel on June 26, 2007, communicating directly with Sanchez about the arrangements. At menschel's instruction, on June 18, 2007, Vilafana sent a letter to the defense counsel identifying what she described as the statutes under consideration. On that same day, Vilafana email Lori, Menschel, Sloman and and her immediate supervisor complaining that she had received no reply to her query about making changes to the proposed indictment and asking again for feedback. During the OPR interview, Lori observed that Vilafana's request for feedback reflected her desire to charge this case sooner than everybody else. But Acosta was still considering what strategy to pursue. Sloman told OPR that he did not know whether Vilafana received any response to her request, but he believed that at the point in time Menshel and Laurie were evaluating the case to make a decision about how to proceed. The day before the June 26 meeting, defense counsel left court transmitted to The USAO a 19 page letter intended to provide an overview of our position and the materials we plan to present in order to demonstrate that none of the statutes identified by you can rightly be applied to the conduct at issue here. Reiterating their prior arguments and themes, defense counsel strongly contested the appropriateness of federal involvement in the matter. Among other issues left Court's letter argued voluntary sexual activity involving young adults 16 or 17 years of age was strictly a state concern. Federal statutes were not meant to apply to circumstances in which the defendant reasonably believed that the person with whom he engaged in sexual activity was was 18 years of age. One of the chief statutes the USAO had focused upon. US Code 18, Section2422 was intended to address use of the Internet to prey upon child victims through Internet trolling, but Epstein did not use the Internet to lure victims. The travel statute U.S. code 18 section 2423 prohibits travel for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, but Epstein traveled to Florida to visit family, oversee the Florida based flight operations, and engage in the routine activities of daily living. Left Court also argued again that irregularities had tainted the state's case and would have a significant impact on any federal prosecution. Laurie sentimental with a copy to Villefana an email dividing the defense arguments into weaker and stronger points. Laurie disagreed with the arguments and that the US Code 18 section2422 was limited to Internet trolling and described this as our best charge and the most defensible for federal interest. On the other hand, Lori believed the defense argument that Epstein did not travel to Florida with the purpose of engaging in illicit sex with a minor was more persuasive. Laurie opined that the government could argue that over time Epstein set up a network of illegal high school massage recruits that would be difficult to duplicate anywhere else, which supported the conclusion that the massages must have been a motivating purpose of his travel, if not the sole purpose. However, Lori expressed concern about getting to the jury on this issue and noted that he had not found the legal case factually on point. Vilafana told OPR that she disagreed with Lori's analysis of the purpose of travel issue and had discussed the matter with him. Vilafana also recalled that there were aspects of the defense submissions she and her colleagues considered particularly weak. On June 26, 2007, Sloman Menchel Lori Vilafana, the case agent and the West Palm beach squad supervisor, met at the Miami USAO with Epstein's attorneys, Dershowitz, Black Leftcourt, and Sanchez. Dershowitz led the defense team's presentation. From the USAO's perspective, the the meeting was merely a listening session. Echoing the arguments made in Lefcourt's letter, Dershowitz argued that the USAO should permit the state to handle the case because these were traditionally state offenses. The case agent recalled being uncomfortable that the defense was asking questions in an attempt to gain information about the federal investigation, including the number of victims and types of sexual contact that had been involved. Vilafana told OPR that when Epstein's attorneys left the meeting, they appeared to be under the impression that they had convinced us not to proceed. But Menshel told OPR they obviously did not persuade the USAO because we didn't drop the investigation. According to Vilafana, Lori and Menshel during a short post meeting discussion at which Lori expressed concern about the purpose of travel issue and Menchel raised issues related to general credibility of the victims. The prevailing sense among the USAO participants was that the defense presentation had not been persuasive. Vilafana told OPR that she left the meeting with a feeling and an impression that they were continuing towards filing charges.
- [66:39]
A
This week with digital coupons at Safeway and Albertsons get beef rib roast for $7.97 per pound member price with minimum purchase of $50 or more in a single transaction. Exclusions apply. See Store for details and Broccoli, cauliflower or russet potatoes are $0.97 per pound member price limit £6 plus selected sizes and varieties of Lucerne Butter cheese or Philadelphia cream cheese are $1.97 each member price. Visit safeway or albertsons.com for more deals
- [67:07]
B
and ways to save part four Acosta decides to offer Epstein a two year state plea to resolve the Federal investigation USAO internal communications show that in July 2007, Acosta developed or adopted the broad outline of an agreement that could resolve the federal investigation. The agreement would leave the case in state court by requiring Epstein to plead guilty to state charges, but would accomplish three goals important to the federal Epstein's incarceration, his registration as a sexual offender and a mechanism to provide for the victims to recover monetary damages during a two month period. The subject attorneys were involved to varying degrees in converting the broad outline into specific terms, resulting in the NPA signed by Epstein on September 24, 2007. The subjects, including Acosta, were generally able to explain to OPR both the larger goals and the case related factors they likely considered during the process conceptualizing, negotiating and and finalizing this resolution. However, the contemporaneous emails and other records do not reflect all of the conversations among the decision makers and their deliberative and decision making process is therefore not entirely clear. In particular, Menshel and Acosta had offices located near each other and likely spoke in person about the case, but neither had a clear memory of their conversations. Therefore, OPR could not determine all the facts surrounding the development of of the two year state plea resolution or the npa. In the following account, OPR discusses the initial key decision to resolve the federal investigation through state rather than federal charges and set forth many of the numerous communications that reflect the negotiations between the parties that led to the final npa. OPR questioned each of the subjects about how the decision was reached to pursue the state resolution and OPR includes below the subject's explanations. The subject's memories of particular conversations about this topic were unclear, but from their statements to opr, a general consensus emerged that there were overlapping concerns about the viability of the legal theories, the willingness of the victims to testify, the impact of a trial on the victims, and the overall strength of the case that had been developed at that time and the uncertainty about the USAO's ability to prevail at trial and through appeal. In addition, Acosta was concerned about usurping the state's authority to prosecute a case involving an offense that was traditionally handled by state prosecutors. Based on this evidence, OPR concludes that Acosta may well have formulated the initial plan to resolve the matter through a state plea. In any event, Acosta acknowledged to OPR that at a minimum, he he approved of the concept of a state based resolution after being made aware of the allegations and the evidence against Epstein. Epstein is set forth in Vilafana's prosecution memorandum and furthermore, Acosta approved of the final terms of the NPA. June, July 2007 the USAO proposes a state Plea resolution which the Defense rejects. A few days after the June 26, 2007 meeting, Sanchez emailed Vilafana advising her that Epstein's defense team would submit additional material to the USAO by July 11, 2007 and hoped to be able to reach a state based resolution shortly thereafter. In a July 3, 2007 email, Vilafana told Sloman Menshel Lori and her immediate supervisor that she intended to initiate plea discussions by inviting Sanchez to discuss a resolution of the federal investigation that could include concurrent time. The email primarily concerned other issues and Vilafana did not explain what the resolution she had in mind would entail. Vilafana requested to be advised if anyone has communicated anything to Epstein's attorneys that is contrary to this, Vilafana, who was aware that Menshel and Laurie had been directed in contact with the defense counsel about the case, explained to OPR that she made this request because people were communicating with the defense attorneys and she suspected that those communications may have included discussions about a possible plea. In response to Vilafana's email, Menchel notified Vilafana that he had told Sanchez the state plea with jail time and sex offender status may satisfy the U.S. attorney, but Sanchez had responded that it was a non starter for them. During his OPR interview, Menchel had no independent recollection of his conversation with Sanchez and did not remember why the defense deemed the proposal a non starter. However, Menshel explained that he would not have made the proposal to Sanchez without Acosta's knowledge. He also pointed out that in numerous emails before the June 26, 2007 meeting, he repeatedly noted that Acosta was still deciding what he wanted to do with the Epstein case. Acosta agreed to telling OPR that although he did not remember a specific conversation with Menshel concerning a state based resolution, Menshel would not have discussed a potential resolution with Sanchez without having discussed it with him. Alright, we're gonna wrap up this episode right here and in the next episode we're gonna pick up with Acosta's explanation for his decision to pursue a state based resolution. All the information that goes with this episode can be found in the Description box.
- [72:36]
A
This week with digital coupons at Safeway and Albertsons get beef rib roast for $7.97 per pound member price with minimum purchase of $50 or more in a single transaction. Exclusions apply. See Store for details and Broccoli, cauliflower or russet potatoes are 97 cents per pound. Member price limit 6 pounds plus selected sizes and varieties of Lucerne Butter Cheese or Philadelphia cream cheese are $1.97 each member price. Visit safeway or albertsons.com for more deals and ways to save.