# docs_fts_content

c1: EFTA00008585
c2: DataSet 6
c3: VOL00006
c4: DataSet 6/VOL00006/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00008585.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
ORIGINAL
Page 1
1
2
UNITED STATES GRAND JURY
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
3
X
4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
:
5
August 2018
-v-
: Additional
6
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
:
7
Defendant.
:
8
X
9
10
UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE
11
40 Foley Square
New York, New York 10007
12
13
July 2, 2019
12:43 p.m.
14
15
16
APPEARANCES:
17
ESQ.
Assistant United States Attorney
18
ESQ.
19
Assistant United States Attorney
20
ESQ.
Assistant United States Attorney
21
22
Acting Grand Jury Reporter
23
24
25
26
Fink & Carney Reporting and Video Services
39 West 37th Street * New York, New York 10018
(800) NYC-FINK * (212) 869-3063
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000089
EFTA00008585

=== Page 2 ===
Page 2
1
7/2/19
2
(Colloquy Precedes.)
3
(Witness Enters Room.)
4
(Time noted: 12:47 p.m.)
5
called as a witness, having
6
been first duly sworn by the Foreperson of the Grand
7
Jury, was examined and testified as follows:
8
EXAMINATION
9
BY MS.
:
10
Q. Could you please state and spell your name for
11
the record?
12
A.
13
Q. Good afternoon, Special Agent
14
A. Good afternoon.
15
Q. Where do you work?
16
A. The FBI.
17
Q. What's your title at the FBI?
18
A. Special agent.
19
Q. How long have you worked as a special agent
20
for the FBI?
21
A. For over two years now.
22
Q. Did you testify before this grand jury on
23
June 18th, 2019?
24
A. I did.
25
Q. Can you just remind the grand jury about your
26
background? What types of work do you do at the FBI?
Fink & Carney Reporting and Video Services
39 West 37th Street * New York, New York 10018
(800) NYC-FINK * (212) 869-3063
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000090
EFTA00008586

=== Page 3 ===
Page 3
1
7/2/19
2
A. I work on the Violent Crimes Against Children
3
Squad, so we work child exploitation, human
4
trafficking, and international parental kidnapping
5
matters.
6
Q. Have you participated in an investigation of
7
Jeffrey Epstein and his associates?
8
A. Yes.
9
Q. Have you spoken to other people, including
10
other law enforcement officers, about this
11
investigation?
12
A. Yes.
13
Q. Have you reviewed reports and documents
14
prepared by others regarding this case?
15
A. Yes.
16
Q. And is your testimony today based in part on
17
those conversations with other law enforcement officers
18
and documents that you have reviewed?
19
A. Yes.
20
MS.
:
Ladies and gentlemen, some of the
21
testimony that you're going to hear today will
22
include hearsay. As you know, that means that the
23
witness will not be testifying solely from her own
24
observations, but that she'll also be reporting
25
what others have told her and what she's read in
26
reports and documents prepared by others.
Fink & Carney Reporting and Video Services
39 West 37th Street * New York, New York 10018
(800) NYC-FINK * (212) 869-3063
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000091
EFTA00008587

=== Page 4 ===
Page 4
1
7/2/19
2
As you know, hearsay evidence is admissible in
3
these grand jury proceedings, and you're free to
4
rely on it in determining whether there is
5
probable cause to indict the proposed defendant.
6
If, however, you would like to hear the
7
testimony of any other witness, you have the right
8
to request it, and we will make reasonable efforts
9
to bring that witness before you.
10
BY MS.
:
11
Q. So, Special Agent
I placed in front of
12
you a stack of exhibits. I want to talk through them
13
now one by one.
14
We were discussing earlier that you recall
15
testifying before this grand jury on June 18, 2019; is
16
that correct?
17
A. Yes.
18
Q. So, I placed in front of you what's marked as
19
Grand Jury Exhibit 3. Is that a fair and accurate
20
transcript of your testimony on that date?
21
A. Yes.
22
l. I've also placed in front of you Grand Jury
23
Exhibit 1. Is that a PowerPoint presentation that you
24
reviewed with this grand jury on June 18th, 2019?
25
A. Yes.
26
Q. So picking up where we left off last time, I
Fink & Carney Reporting and Video Services
39 West 37th Street * New York, New York 10018
(800) NYC-FINK * (212) 869-3063
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000092
EFTA00008588

=== Page 5 ===
Page 5
1
7/2/19
2
want to follow up regarding the presentation. If you
3
could turn to page 28 of that presentation.
4
Now, Special Agent
do you recall
5
testifying about your interviews with a young woman
6
named
?
7
A. Yes.
8
Q. And do you recall that there was a question
9
from the grand jury about the date on one of the slides
10
in this presentation?
11
A. Yes.
12
Q. Just want to follow up on that. So on this
13
page, just to orient ourselves, do you recall
14
testifying about phone records of a call between a
15
phone number subscribed to
and
16
1 S cell phone on January 3rd?
17
A. Yes.
18
Q. Have you reviewed the underlying phone records
19
that are excerpted in this slide?
20
A. Yes.
21
Q. Is the call highlighted on this slide from
22
January 3rd, 2005?
23
A. Yes.
24
Q. Directing your attention to the top of the
25
slide where it says 2004, is that a typo?
26
A. Yes.
Fink & Carney Reporting and Video Services
39 West 37th Street * New York, New York 10018
(800) NYC-FINK * (212) 869-3063
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000093
EFTA00008589

=== Page 6 ===
Page 6
1
7/2/19
2
Q. Have you confirmed that the underlying records
3
are, in fact, from January 3rd, 2005?
4
A. Yes.
5
Q. Turning to the next slide, on page 29. So the
6
header on this slide is January 4, 2005. Is that the
7
same date that's on the deposit slip excerpted in that
8
slide?
9
A. Yes.
10
Q. So does the date on this slide accurately
11
reflect the date on the deposit slip?
12
A. Yes.
13
Q. So when you testified that based on the phone
14
records we just discussed and this deposit slip, that
15
it appears that they were on back-to-back days, was
16
that in fact accurate?
17
A. Yes.
18
Q. All right. So I want to switch gears now and
19
ask you, do you recall testifying before this grand
20
jury regarding a woman named
21
A. Yes.
22
Q. If you could turn now to what's before you and
23
marked Grand Jury Exhibit 4. Do you recognize this?
24
A. Yes.
25
Q. What is this document?
26
A. So this is a list of messages that to -- that
Fink & Carney Reporting and Video Services
39 West 37th Street * New York, New York 10018
(800) NYC-FINK * (212) 869-3063
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000094
EFTA00008590

=== Page 7 ===
Page 7
1
7/2/19
2
appear to be left for Jeffrey Epstein.
3
Q. Taking a step back for a moment, how did the
4
FBI obtain this document?
5
A. We received this from the Palm Beach Police
6
Department.
7
Q. What is your understanding, based on your
8
review of law enforcement reports and your review of
9
the case file, of how the Palm Beach Police Department
10
obtained this document?
11
A. They would have received it from a trash pull.
12
So a trash pull is, one of the detectives had gone to
13
the residence and went through the trash that was left
14
on the curb.
15
l. Is this document from one of those trash
16
pulls?
17
A. Yes.
18
Q. Approximately when was this pulled from the
19
trash, based on your review of law enforcement reports?
20
A. April 13, 2005.
21
Q. In a previous presentation, you discussed a
22
number of residences. Do you know specifically where
23
this was pulled from the trash?
24
A. The Palm Beach residence.
25
Q. Did you personally participate in gathering
26
this evidence?
Fink & Carney Reporting and Video Services
39 West 37th Street * New York, New York 10018
(800) NYC-FINK * (212) 869-3063
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000095
EFTA00008591

=== Page 8 ===
Page 8
1
7/2/19
2
A. I was not a part of the trash pull, but I have
3
received the evidence since.
4
Q. So let's talk through this document.
5
Looking first at the first page at the top,
6
what does this document appear to be?
7
A. It's records listed for Jeffrey Epstein,
8
4/11/2005 to 4/11/2005.
9
Q. What are the fields at the top?
10
A. So the left side has who it's from, the middle
11
has the message, and then on the right it has -- some
12
of them have phone numbers listed.
13
Q. Does the name
appear in this document?
14
A. Yes.
15
Q. Let's turn to the fourth page of this
16
document. Focusing on the last line, do you see where
17
it says callers?
18
A. Yes.
19
Q. What is listed in the field to the right?
20
A. It lists
21
22
Q. Turning to page 2 of this document, focusing
23
on the bottom three lines, can you point out to the
24
grand jury where you see the name
at the bottom
25
of this document?
26
A. So
is listed twice.
Fink & Carney Reporting and Video Services
39 West 37th Street * New York, New York 10018
(800) NYC-FINK * (212) 869-3063
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000096
EFTA00008592

=== Page 9 ===
Page 9
1
7/2/19
2
(Indicating.)
3
Q. What are the messages to the right of the name
4
?
5
A. The first message lists, I'm back in New York.
6
Q.
What's the second one?
7
A.
is back.
8
Q. Is there a phone number listed next to the
9
message?
10
A. Yes.
11
Q. And what is the area code for that phone
12
number?
13
A.
14
Q. Does that appear to be a New York City area
15
code?
16
A. Yes.
17
Q. In your interviews with
have
18
you asked her whether or not she recognizes this phone
19
number?
20
A. Yes.
21
Q. What did she tell you?
22
A. She did not recognize it.
23
Q. What, if anything, did she tell you about the
24
phones that she was using during this time period?
25
A. She said that she was using a lot of different
26
phones, that she'd gone a lot of different places, so
Fink & Carney Reporting and Video Services
39 West 37th Street * New York, New York 10018
(800) NYC-FINK * (212) 869-3063
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000097
EFTA00008593

=== Page 10 ===
Page 10
1
7/2/19
2
she didn't recall all the numbers that she had used in
3
the past.
4
Q. Have you obtained phone records for this phone
5
number?
6
A. Yes.
7
Q. Who was listed for the subscriber in 2005?
8
A. It came back to an individual in Maspeth.
9
Q. Based on your participation in this
10
investigation, does that particular individual have any
11
significance to this investigation, as far as you can
12
tell?
13
A. No.
14
Q. If these messages had been left by
in
15
New York, would some type of communication have had to
16
occur across state lines in order for these messages to
17
have been found in Florida?
18
A. Yes.
19
Q. Do you recall testifying about
and
20
having remembered receiving phone calls
21
from Epstein's assistant,
?
22
A. Yes.
23
Q. Did they recall that occasionally when they
24
would get phone calls from
that she would say
25
that she was calling from New York?
26
A. Yes.
Fink & Carney Reporting and Video Services
39 West 37th Street * New York, New York 10018
(800) NYC-FINK * (212) 869-3063
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000098
EFTA00008594

=== Page 11 ===
Page 11
1
7/2/19
2
Q. If
and
were in Florida when they
3
got those calls and those calls had, in fact, been
4
placed from New York, would those calls have traveled
5
across state lines?
6
A. Yes.
7
Q. A few final questions about
8
In your conversations with her, did she ever describe
9
to you receiving phone calls regarding the massages
10
that she was scheduling?
11
A. Yes.
12
Q. Who would call her?
13
A.
14
Q. Did she recall speaking to anyone else on the
15
phone?
16
A. Epstein.
17
Q. And did she explain the context in which she
18
would receive calls and speak to Epstein?
19
A. Yes. She said that when she spoke with
20
Epstein on the phone, it would always be through
21
So
would contact her and then put him
22
on the phone to speak with her.
23
Q. What was her understanding of who
was?
24
A. His assistant.
25
Q. In these conversations with
and
26
Epstein, did
recall whether or not either of
Fink & Carney Reporting and Video Services
39 West 37th Street * New York, New York 10018
(800) NYC-FINK * (212) 869-3063
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000099
EFTA00008595

=== Page 12 ===
Page 12
1
7/2/19
2
them had ever asked her to bring a particular girl to
3
the house?
4
A. Yes.
5
Q. Did she recall whether
ever asked her
6
to bring a particular girl?
7
A. Yes.
8
Q. What does she remember about that?
9
A. That
would ask her, do you have this
10
particular girl or can this girl come tonight or on
11
whatever day that they had chosen.
12
Q. When she would speak with Epstein on the
13
phone, did she recall whether or not Epstein would ever
14
ask her to bring a particular girl?
15
A. Yes.
16
Q. What did she remember about that?
17
A. Along the same lines, can you bring this girl.
18
Q. Just one moment.
19
Special Agent
have you told the grand
20
jury everything that you know about this case, or have
21
you just answered the questions that I've asked?
22
A. I've just answered the questions you've asked.
23
Q. When you testified about the documents you
24
reviewed or the conversations that you had with others,
25
were you testifying to the exact words that were used
26
or just the substance of the documents or
Fink & Carney Reporting and Video Services
39 West 37th Street * New York, New York 10018
(800) NYC-FINK * (212) 869-3063
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000100
EFTA00008596

=== Page 13 ===
Page 13
1
7/2/19
2
conversations?
3
A. Substance.
4
Q. Are you willing to return to the grand jury if
5
the grand jury has any further questions for you?
6
A. Yes.
7
MS.
With the Foreperson's permission, I
8
would ask that Special Agent
be excused.
9
THE FOREPERSON: You're excused.
10
(Witness Excused.)
11
(Time noted: 1:00 p.m.)
12
(Colloquy Follows.)
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Fink & Carney Reporting and Video Services
39 West 37th Street * New York, New York 10018
(800) NYC-FINK * (212) 869-3063
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000101
EFTA00008597

=== Page 14 ===
Page 14
1
2
CERTIFICATE
3
4
5
STATE OF NEW YORK
)
6
)
7
COUNTY OF KINGS
)
8
9
10
I,
hereby certify
11
that the foregoing is a true and accurate
12
transcript, to the best of my skill and ability,
13
from my stenographic notes of this proceeding.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Active Grand Jury Reporter
21
22
23
24
25
26
Fink & Carney Reporting and Video Services
39 West 37th Street New York, New York 10018
(800) NYC-FINK (212) 869-3063
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000102
EFTA00008598


c1: EFTA00008631
c2: DataSet 6
c3: VOL00006
c4: DataSet 6/VOL00006/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00008631.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
1
2
3
UNITED STATES GRAND JURY
4
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
5x
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
:
6
-V-
: November 19, 2019 Additional
7
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
8
(2018R01618)
:
-x
9
10
United States Courthouse
300 Quaroppas Street
11
White Plains, New York
12
June 29, 2020
10:04 a.m.
13
14
APPEARANCES:
15
Assistant United States Attorney
16
17
Assistant United States Attorney
18
19
20
21
22
23
Acting Grand Jury Reporter
24
25
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000131
EFTA00008631

=== Page 2 ===
06/29/20
2
1
(Colloquy Precedes)
2
(Witness Enters Room)
3
(Time Noted: 10:16 a.m.)
4
called as a witness, having been duly sworn by
5
the Foreperson of the Grand Jury, was examined and
6
testified as follows:
7
BY MS.
8
Q.
Good morning.
9
A.
Morning.
10
Q.
Can you please state your full name for the
11
record?
12
A.
13
Q.
So I recognize that you are wearing a mask and
14
behind Plexiglas. There's a microphone in front of you, if
15
you could just make an effort to speak into the mic and keep
16
your voice up that would be great.
17
A.
No problem.
18
Q.
Where do you currently work?
19
A.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation.
20
Q.
What is your title?
21
A.
Special agent.
22
Q.
How long have you worked as a special agent?
23
A.
About three years, three years now.
24
Q.
Where are you currently assigned?
25
A.
I work for the -- on the Violent Crimes against
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000132
EFTA00008632

=== Page 3 ===
06/29/20
3
1
Children squad.
2
Q.
What are your duties and responsibilities as a
3
special agent on that squad?
4
A.
We investigate crimes that have to do with child
5
sexual abuse material, sextortion, exploitation, and
6
enticement of minors, sex trafficking.
7
GRAND JUROR. Maybe if she could take the mask
8
off. I'm having -- is anybody having difficulty
9
understanding her?
10
MS.
Thanks for letting me know. Would that
11
be okay with you if the witness took her mask off?
12
GRAND JUROR.
We're okay with the Plexiglas,
13
right?
14
GRAND JUROR.
Yeah.
15
MS.
Thanks very much. Thank you.
16
BY MS.
17
Q.
All right. So I'm just going to go back and ask
18
a few of those questions again just to make sure that
19
everyone can hear. You testified earlier that you're a
20
special agent with the FBI. Is that correct?
21
A.
Yes.
22
Q.
Where are you currently assigned?
23
A.
I work on the Violent Crimes against Children
24
squad.
25
Q.
And what are your duties and responsibilities as a
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000133
EFTA00008633

=== Page 4 ===
06/29/20
4
1
special agent on that squad?
2
A.
We investigate crimes that involve child sexual
3
abuse material, sextortion, enticement, and exploitation of
4
minors, sex trafficking, international parental kidnappings.
5
MS.
Let me just pause here. Can everyone
6
hear the witness?
7
GRAND JUROR.
Yes.
8
MS.
Okay. Thank you. And Special Agent
9
if you could just try to keep your voice up, I really
10
appreciate it. It's a little difficult under the
11
circumstances.
12
BY MS.
13
Q.
Have you participated in an investigation of
14
Ghislaine Maxwell?
15
A.
Yes, I have.
16
Q.
Have you spoken to other people, including other
17
law enforcement officers, about this investigation?
18
A.
Yes.
19
Q.
Have you reviewed reports and documents prepared
20
by others regarding this case?
21
A. Yes.
22
Q.
Is your testimony today based in part on those
23
conversations with other law enforcement officers and
24
documents that you have reviewed?
25
A.
Yes.
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000134
EFTA00008634

=== Page 5 ===
06/29/20
5
1
MS.
Ladies and gentlemen, let me just give
2
you a brief instruction. Some of the testimony that you'll
3
hear today will include what's called hearsay. As you know,
4
that means that the witness will not be testifying solely
5
from her own observations, but that she'll also be reporting
6
to you what others have told her and what she's read in
7
reports and documents prepared by other people.
8
Hearsay evidence is admissible in these grand jury
9
proceedings, and you're free to rely on it in determining
10
whether there's probable cause to indict the proposed
11
defendant.
12
If, however, you would like to hear the testimony
13
of any other witness, you have the right to request it and
14
we will make reasonable efforts to bring that witness before
15
you.
16
BY MS.
17
Q.
Special Agent
we placed on the desk in
18
front of you a PowerPoint that is Grand Jury Exhibit 2,
19
which we're entering into the record. Do you recognize
20
this?
21
A.
Yes.
22
Q.
What is it?
23
A.
It's a PowerPoint presentation to assist in
24
testifying today.
25
Q.
Did you participate in preparing this exhibit in
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000135
EFTA00008635

=== Page 6 ===
06/29/20
6
1
connection with your testimony today?
2
A.
Yes, I did.
3
Q.
If you could please turn to the first slide. Who
4
are the individuals depicted in these photographs?
5
A.
The picture on the left is Ghislaine Maxwell, and
6
the picture on the right is Jeffrey Epstein with
7
Ghislaine Maxwell.
8
Q.
Based on your participation in this investigation
9
and your review of public source materials, have Maxwell and
10
Epstein been photographed together many times over the
11
years?
12
A.
Yes.
13
Q.
Based on your participation in this investigation
14
and your review of public materials, where is Maxwell from?
15
A.
Maxwell was born in France. She grew up in the
16
United Kingdom, was educated in Oxford, and is from a
17
wealthy family.
18
Q.
Is she a citizen of France, the United Kingdom,
19
and the United States?
20
A.
Yes.
21
Q.
How old is she currently?
22
A.
58.
23
Q.
Has the FBI investigated Maxwell and Epstein's
24
conduct with minors during the 1990's?
25
A.
Yes
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000136
EFTA00008636

=== Page 7 ===
06/29/20
7
1
Q.
Generally speaking, what have you learned about
2
the relationship between Maxwell and Epstein during the
3
1990's?
4
A.
Epstein and Maxwell had a romantic relationship,
5
and she also worked for him; managing his homes, hiring and
6
firing individuals.
7
Q.
During that time period, was she one of his
8
closest associates?
9
A.
Yes.
10
Q.
During the course of this investigation, have you
11
learned where Epstein maintained properties in the 1990's?
12
A.
Yes.
13
Q.
Where did he maintain properties?
14
A.
New York, Palm Beach, and New Mexico.
15
Q.
Turning to the next slide, did he maintain an
16
address in Manhattan located at 9 East 71st Street?
17
A. Yes.
18
Q.
Does this slide fairly and accurately depict the
19
residence?
20
A.
Yes.
21
Q.
Can you please describe that property for the
22
grand jury?
23
A.
It's a seven story home; it's located near Central
24
Park. It's reportedly the largest residence in Manhattan.
25
Q.
Based on your participation in this investigation,
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000137
EFTA00008637

=== Page 8 ===
06/29/20
8
1
did that house include a room that was used a massage room?
2
A.
Yes, it did.
3
Q.
All right. We'll talk more about that later, but
4
for now, moving on to the other properties. Did he maintain
5
an address in Palm Beach, Florida, located at 358 El Brillo
6
Way?
7
A.
Yes.
8
Q.
Turning to the next slide. Does this slide fairly
9
and accurately depict that residence?
10
A.
Yes, it does.
11
Q.
Could you please describe that property for the
12
grand jury?
13
A.
It's a waterfront estate. It has an in ground
14
pool and a detached dwelling or pool house on the property
15
as well.
16
Q.
And from your participation in this investigation
17
and your review of other materials, did that house include a
18
room that was used as a massage room?
19
A.
Yes.
20
Q.
Turning to the next property. Did Epstein also
21
own a ranch in New Mexico?
22
A.
Yes, he did.
23
Q.
And turning to the next slide. Was that property
24
located at 49 Zorro Ranch Road in Stanley, New Mexico?
25
A.
Yes.
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000138
EFTA00008638

=== Page 9 ===
06/29/20
9
1
Q.
Looking at the photograph on this slide, does this
2
accurately depict that property?
3
A.
Yes, it does.
4
Q.
And we've been talking about the properties that
5
Epstein owned during this time period. Did he also own a
6
private jet?
7
A.
Yes.
8
Q.
Is it fair to say that he was a multimillionaire
9
during this time period?
10
A.
Yes.
11
Q.
During the 1990's did Epstein have an employee
12
who ran his house in Palm Beach?
13
A.
Yes, he did.
14
Q.
What was his job?
15
A.
His job was making sure that everything in the
16
house ran smoothly. He referred -- he described that
17
Epstein liked to have his house run live a five-star hotel;
18
that everything had to be in its proper place. So he was
19
responsible for managing that.
20
Q.
Have you interviewed
21
A.
Yes.
22
Q.
How many times?
23
A.
Twice.
24
Q.
And is the information you're about to provide
25
based on your interviews with
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000139
EFTA00008639

=== Page 10 ===
06/29/20
10
1
A.
Yes.
2
Q.
Did
begin working for Epstein in the early 3
1990's?
4
A.
Yes, he did.
5
Q.
And at the time
came to work for Epstein in
6
Palm Beach, was Epstein dating Ghislaine Maxwell at that
7
point?
8
A.
Not at that time.
9
Q.
Was it a few years before Epstein began dating
10
Maxwell after
started working there?
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
From what
told you, how did
13
work change once Maxwell arrived on the scene?
14
A.
described Epstein as being more pleasant to
15
work with prior to Maxwell coming into the picture. Once
16
she came into the picture, he said things became more
17
secretive. He wasn't allowed to be in the room with guests,
18
wasn't allowed to talk with them, associate with them. It
19
became a different environment.
20
Q.
You talked about some of the rules that were
21
placed changing. Were there any rule changes about eye
22
contact once Maxwell began staying in the Palm Beach house?
23
A.
Yes.
wasn't allowed to make eye contact
24
with Epstein and others.
25
Q.
In general, how did he describe what it was like
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000140
EFTA00008640

=== Page 11 ===
06/29/20
11
1
to work for Maxwell?
2
A.
He said she was very demanding; she was on top of
3
him all the time. He described her as a "bitch." "
4
Q.
Is that the word that he used?
5
A.
That is the word he used.
6
Q.
Shifting gears. I want to talk to you about
7
someone else that you've interviewed during this
8
investigation. During the course of this investigation,
9
have you participated in interviews with an individual named
10
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
So for these purposes I'm just going to refer to
13
her as
Is that okay?
14
A.
Yes.
15
Q.
How many times have you interviewed
16
A.
Approximately five times.
17
Q.
If you could please just page through the next two
18
slides in front of you. Are these photographs of
19
A.
Yes.
20
Q.
Is it your understanding that these photographs
21
depict
from approximately ages 13 to approximately 17?
22
A.
Yes, it does.
23
Q.
Okay. Let's take a look at some of those
24
photographs. I'm going to publish the next slide. Is
25
date of birth
?
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000141
EFTA00008641

=== Page 12 ===
06/29/20
12
1
A.
Yes.
2
Q.
And are these two photographs of
3
A.
Yes, they are.
4
Q.
If you could turn to the second slide of
5
photographs. Are these also photographs of
6
A.
Yes.
7
Q.
Based on your participation in this investigation
8
and your interviews with
where was she living when
9
she was approximately 14?
10
A.
She was living in Palm Beach, Florida.
11
Q.
Who was she living with when she was 14?
12
A.
Her mother and her siblings.
13
Q.
What was her whole life like at that time?
14
A.
At that time, her father had passed away the year
15
prior, so the family was struggling financially and having
16
some difficulties.
17
Q.
What did
father do before he passed away?
18
What was his profession?
19
A.
He was involved in
.
.
21
Q.
Was
involved in
?
22
A.
Yes, she was.
23
Q.
Were her siblings?
24
A.
Yes.
25
Q.
What kinds of
were they involved in?
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000142
EFTA00008642

=== Page 13 ===
06/29/20
13
1
A.
Singing, she was a singer.
2
Q.
Like what kind of singer?
3
A.
Opera.
4
Q.
In the summer of 1994, how old was
5
A.
She was 13 going on 14.
6
Q.
You testified earlier that her birthday is in
7
,
so did she turn 14 in
of 1994?
8
A.
Yes.
9
Q.
What did she do that summer?
10
A.
She attended an arts camp at Interlochen Center
11
for the Arts.
12
Q.
And is Interlochen Summer Arts Program located in
13
Michigan?
14
A.
Yes.
15
Q.
Did
meet Jeffrey Epstein and
16
Ghislaine Maxwell that summer?
17
A.
Yes, she did.
18
Q.
Did she meet them at summer camp?
19
A.
Yes.
20
Q.
What did she tell you about that?
21
A.
She said that she was sitting at a picnic table
22
with friends when Epstein and Maxwell walked by. They
23
stopped to talk to her, engaged her in conversation, asked
24
her if she liked her classes, her teachers. During that
25
conversation, they found out that she was also from Palm
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000143
EFTA00008643

=== Page 14 ===
06/29/20
14
1
Beach and that he said that he gives scholarships to
2
students.
3
Q.
How did they leave the conversation? Was there
4
any contact information exchanged?
5
A.
They asked for
phone number.
6
Q.
As part of your investigation, have you attempted
7
to gather records to corroborate that
Maxwell, and
8
Epstein were all at that summer camp that summer?
9
A.
Yes.
10
Q.
If you could turn to the next slide, please. Have
11
you obtained records from Interlochen for the summer of
12
1994?
13
A. Yes.
14
Q.
And what are we looking at on this slide?
15
A.
This shows who -- some of the individuals that
16
were there -- were present for that camp in '94. On here is
17
,
and
18
Q.
And have you investigated whether Maxwell and
19
Epstein were also at Interlochen that summer of 1994 as
20
described?
21
A. Yes.
22
Q.
Based on your review of records from Interlochen,
23
what is your understanding of Epstein's relationship with
24
Interlochen?
25
A.
My understanding was that he was a donor to the
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000144
EFTA00008644

=== Page 15 ===
06/29/20
15
1
school.
2
Q.
Did he make any substantial donations?
3
A.
He did.
4
Q.
Did he donate a lodge to the camp in the summer of 5
1994?
6
A.
Yes, he did.
7
Q.
Did he have a long standing relationship as a
8
donor to Interlochen?
9
A. Yes.
10
Q.
Turning to the next slide. Is this an excerpt of
11
a letter from Interlochen to Epstein?
12
A.
Yes, it is.
13
Q.
And does this letter thank Epstein for donating a
14
scholarship lodge?
15
A. Yes.
16
Q.
Does it invite Epstein to visit in August of 1994?
17
A. Yes.
18
Q.
In 1994, did Epstein have a private jet?
19
A.
Yes, he did.
20
Q.
Have you obtained the flight logs for that jet?
21
A. Yes.
22
Q.
Do those logs include passenger lists and the
23
airport code for the airports that the plane flew into and
24
out of?
25
A.
Yes.
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000145
EFTA00008645

=== Page 16 ===
06/29/20
16
1
Q.
Turning to the next slide. Is this a page of the
2
flight logs that you've reviewed?
3
A.
Yes.
4
Q.
And on this excerpt of the flight logs where the
5
red arrow is, is that a log entry showing an August 18, 1994
6
flight to an airport with the airport code TVC?
7
A.
Yes.
8
Q.
Is TVC the airport code for Cherry Capital Airport
9
in Traverse City, Michigan?
10
A.
Yes, it is.
11
Q.
About how far is that airport from Interlochen by
12
car?
13
A.
It's about 25 minutes give or take.
14
Q.
And who were the listed passengers on this flight?
15
A.
Jeffrey Epstein,
(ph.), and
(ph.).
17
Q.
Turning to the next slide. Is this the same
18
excerpt but just with a different arrow?
19
A.
Yes.
20
Q.
Okay. So a few lines down is there a flight out
21
of Traverse City just two days later on August 20th, 1994?
22
A.
Yes.
23
Q.
And do the passengers listed in the flight out of
24
Traverse City include the initials G.M.?
25
A.
Yes, they do.
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000146
EFTA00008646

=== Page 17 ===
06/29/20
17
1
Q.
Are those Ghislaine Maxwell's initials?
2
A.
Yes.
3
Q.
Have you obtained any records from Interlochen to
4
indicate that Maxwell was at Interlochen in 1994?
5
A.
Yes.
6
Q.
If we could turn to the next slide. Can you
7
please explain for the grand jury what we're looking at on
8
this slide?
9
A.
This was a letter from Interlochen explaining --
10
addressed to Maxwell telling her that they had found an
11
envelope in the lodge that they had been staying in.
12
Q. All right. We were talking a few moments ago
13
about how
described meeting Maxwell and Epstein at
14
summer camp, and you testified that she provided them with
15
her phone number. Did
explain to you whether or not
16
she had any contact with Epstein or Maxwell after she
17
returned home to Palm Beach?
18
A.
Yes.
19
Q.
When was the next time that happened?
20
A.
Shortly thereafter.
21
Q.
And how did that occur?
22
A.
She was invited to his house. So her and her
23
mother went to Epstein's house to visit.
24
Q.
What did
tell you about that visit to
25
Epstein's house with her mother?
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000147
EFTA00008647

=== Page 18 ===
06/29/20
18
1
A.
She said it was -- wait, can you rephrase that?
2
Q.
Of course.
Did
go to the house by herself
3
or with her mother?
4
A.
With her mother.
5
Q.
Okay. And when they went to the house, what did
6
they do there?
7
A.
They had tea.
8
Q.
Who was there when they had tea at the house?
9
A.
Epstein and Maxwell.
10
Q.
What did they discuss as they had tea?
11
A.
They just talked about her life and, you know,
12
what she wanted to do.
13
Q.
Did Epstein make any offers?
14
A.
He said that he gives scholarships. He likes to
15
mentor people.
16
Q.
How did
mother react when Epstein said
17
this?
18
A.
She was happy for her daughter and oftentimes
19
referred to Epstein as
Godfather.
20
Q.
After that occasion when they went over to the
21
house, thereafter did
subsequently begin regularly
22
spending time with Maxwell and Epstein at Epstein's house in
23
Palm Beach?
24
A.
Yes.
25
Q.
And did that start when she was approximately age
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000148
EFTA00008648

=== Page 19 ===
06/29/20
19
1
14?
2
A.
Yes.
3
Q.
Did it continue until she was about age 17?
4
A.
Yes, it did.
5
Q.
And during those years, did she regularly go over
6
to Epstein's house in Palm Beach and spend time with Maxwell
7
and Epstein?
8
A.
Yes.
9
Q.
What happened in the summer of 1997 when
10
was 17 and about to turn 18?
11
A.
She moved to New York City.
12
Q.
Why did she move to New York City?
13
A.
She wanted to pursue a career in acting and
14
modeling.
15
Q.
We'll talk about that in a moment, but for now I
16
want to focus on the years you talked about in Palm Beach
17
from ages 14 to 17 when
would regularly go to
18
Epstein's house. In the beginning, in the first few months
19
when she went there, what kinds of things did she do when
20
she would visit the house when Maxwell and Epstein were
21
there?
22
A.
They'd hang out by the pool, he -- they would take
23
her to the movies, take her shopping. She described the
24
behavior as grooming.
25
Q.
When you say grooming, did she explain what she
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000149
EFTA00008649

=== Page 20 ===
06/29/20
20
1
meant by that?
2
A.
She meant that they were building a relationship
3
with her, giving her things, taking her places. And then
4
usually when the grooming happens, an offender will -- once
5
they gain that trust, they will make the relationship turn
6
sexual.
7
Q.
Now, you testified just a moment ago that
8
described to you that she felt at this time period that they
9
were grooming her. Is that right?
10
A.
Yes.
11
Q.
Is that something that she realized at the time
12
when she was 14, or is that something that she's described
13
to you now?
14
A.
Something she's described now. She didn't realize
15
that at the time.
16
Q.
So we'll talk a little bit more about grooming in
17
a moment, but just to give context are you familiar with the
18
term grooming based on your experience investigating crimes
19
involving a sexual exploitation of minors?
20
A.
Yes.
21
Q.
Generally speaking, -- you were touching on this a
22
moment ago, but if you just could explain in full. What is
23
grooming?
24
A.
Grooming is when someone builds a relationship
25
with a child. They find a vulnerability or a need and then
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000150
EFTA00008650

=== Page 21 ===
06/29/20
21
1
they work on gaining a child's trust, and then oftentimes
2
gaining a parent's trust. Once they have that trust, they
3
show that in ways that they care about them by giving them
4
gifts and promises. And then once that's established, they
5
then turn the relationship sexual, oftentimes making sexual
6
comments and normalizing the behavior.
7
Q. Now, during these visits that you've been
8
describing that
told you about, did
say whether
9
Epstein ever gave her anything?
10
A.
Yes, she did.
11
Q.
What did he give her?
12
A.
He gave her cash. Sometimes he'd tell her to give
13
the cash to her mom because he knew that they needed it. He
14
paid for her voice lessons as well.
15
Q.
Now, you were describing how
has
16
characterized these visits now. But based on your
17
conversations with her, at the time did she feel that these
18
visits were strange at all?
19
A.
She thought they were strange, but Maxwell
20
normalized it for her. She was like a cool older sister and
21
made comments like this is what grownups do.
22
Q.
You used the phrase cool older sister. Is that a
23
phrase that
used to describe how she felt about
24
Maxwell at the time and what Maxwell was like?
25
A.
Yes, those are her words.
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000151
EFTA00008651

=== Page 22 ===
06/29/20
22
1
Q.
Did there come a time -- these visits when
2
saw Maxwell topless by the pool?
3
A.
Yes.
4
Q.
What did she tell you about that?
5
A.
She was a little taken back, but Maxwell just
6
acted normal.
7
Q.
Did
tell you about an incident several
8
months into this arrangement when she was alone with Epstein
9
in the pool house?
10
A.
Yes.
11
Q.
And when they were alone together, did Epstein ask
12
what she wanted to do with her life?
13
A.
He did.
14
Q.
What did she say?
15
A.
She said she wanted to be an actress and a model.
16
Q.
How did Epstein respond?
17
A.
He told her that he was best friends with the
18
owner of Victoria Secret. Told her that she would have to
19
have photographs taken and that she got to be comfortable in
20
her underwear, and not to be a prude. When she asked what
21
that meant, he pulled her to his lap and masturbated.
22
Q.
What was her reaction?
23
A.
She felt paralyzed. She froze.
24
Q.
After this incident, did
encounters with
25
Epstein begin to include sexual contact?
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000152
EFTA00008652

=== Page 23 ===
06/29/20
23
1
A.
Yes.
2
Q.
Over time, did the sexual abuse escalate?
3
A.
It did.
4
Q.
From what she's described to you, did the abuse
5
include Epstein digitally penetrating
6
A.
Yes.
7
Q.
Did it include Epstein using a vibrator on her?
8
A.
Yes.
9
Q.
Did she describe to you that there were times when
10
Epstein would direct
to massage him while he
11
masturbated?
12
A.
Yes.
13
Q.
Did
explain to you what her memories are
14
like of the abuse?
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
What did she say about that?
17
A.
She said that it happened so often that it all
18
kinds -- it all runs together for her. That it's hard to
19
separate out some of the different instances of abuse.
20
Q.
You were describing how
explained to you
21
that the abuse began. Did that occur based on what
22
told you within the first year that she met Epstein and
23
Maxwell?
24
A.
Yes.
25
Q.
Now, did
also describe to you that once this
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000153
EFTA00008653

=== Page 24 ===
06/29/20
24
1
abuse started, Epstein would also bring her into his massage
2
room in the house?
3
A.
Yes.
4
Q.
And were there times where he did this where there
5
are other women present including Maxwell?
6
A.
Yes.
7
Q.
Was
abused during those episodes?
8
A.
Yes, she was.
9
Q.
During these group encounters what were
and
10
the adult women wearing?
11
A.
They were usually just in their underwear.
12
Q.
Once they were all in the massage room, how would
13
these episodes generally start?
14
A.
They would generally start with one of the girls
15
massaging Epstein.
was usually massaging his feet.
16
Maxwell was kind of teasing the girls; she'd grab the girls'
17
breasts and she would direct the girls on what to do.
18
Q.
When these episodes would start, in general was
19
Epstein generally lying face down on the massage table?
20
A.
Yes.
21
Q.
What would happen as things progressed generally
22
speaking from what she described to you?
23
A.
When Epstein would decide he was kind of done with
24
the regular massage, he would turn over to his back and he'd
25
grab whichever girl he wanted to either touch him or
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000154
EFTA00008654

=== Page 25 ===
06/29/20
25
1
whatever girl he wanted to touch.
2
Q.
Did these episodes include sex acts that over time
3
in various instances included Epstein masturbating, Epstein
4
receiving oral sex, and Epstein engaging in intercourse?
5
A.
Yes.
6
Q.
You were describing for a moment what
told
7
you about Maxwell's role during these group encounters.
8
Would Maxwell sometimes guide the women and give
9
instructions about what to do?
10
A.
Yes, she would.
11
Q.
What would
typically do during these
12
episodes?
13
A.
She would try to not look at Maxwell because she
14
gave off that sister vibe so it felt weird for her. She
15
would try to be invisible in that room so they would ignore
16
her as much as possible.
17
Q.
In the beginning when
was approximately 14
18
or 15, would she generally begin by just massaging Epstein's
19
feet?
20
A.
Yes.
21
Q.
Is that something she was told to do?
22
A. Yes.
23
Q.
Did she -- you mentioned that she tried to be
24
invisible. Was -- I believe that was your testimony?
25
A. Yes.
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000155
EFTA00008655

=== Page 26 ===
06/29/20
26
1
Q.
And over time -- has she described to you that
2
over time she believes she became more involved in the
3
sexual activity which varied in each encounter?
4
A.
Yes.
5
Q.
Were there times -- let me rephrase that. How did
6
-- you touched on this for a moment, but just to be clear,
7
how did
describe Maxwell's attitude during these
8
incidents?
9
A.
It was very casual. She acted like this was
10
normal. She gave off that vibe to her and -- yeah.
11
Q.
Did that make her feel more comfortable with what
12
was happening?
13
A.
It did.
14
Q.
Was
sometimes fully nude during these
15
episodes?
16
A.
Yes.
17
Q.
And during these episodes, did the abuse include
18
Epstein touching
breast?
19
A.
Yes.
20
Q.
Did it include directing
to touch Epstein's
21
genitals?
22
A.
Yes.
23
Q.
Beginning when
was approximately 14, does
24
she begin to travel with Epstein and Maxwell to New York
25
City on occasion?
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000156
EFTA00008656

=== Page 27 ===
06/29/20
27
1
A.
Yes, she did.
2
Q.
Was that to the property you testified about
3
earlier? The townhouse on the Upper East Side?
4
A.
Yes.
5
Q.
When
traveled to New York City, did she stay
6
at Epstein's townhouse in New York City?
7
A.
Yes, she did.
8
Q.
Did she recall that Maxwell and Epstein took her
9
shopping on one of her early trips to New York City?
10
A. Yes.
11
Q.
Did she remember them buying her anything?
12
A.
She recalled them buying her white cotton
13
underwear. Her description was that they were, like, little
14
girls underwear.
15
Q.
From ages 14 to 17, did Epstein ask
to
16
periodically fly to New York for weekends at that townhouse
17
in New York?
18
A.
I'm sorry, say it again?
19
Q.
You testified that she began traveling to New York
20
City at age 14. Did she then periodically travel to New
21
York City in a similar manner from ages 14 to 17?
22
A.
Yes.
23
Q.
Were there times when she traveled on those trips
24
when she flew on Epstein's private jet?
25
A. Yes.
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000157
EFTA00008657

=== Page 28 ===
06/29/20
28
1
Q.
Did she also sometimes fly commercially?
2
A.
Yes, she did.
3
Q.
Was Maxwell sometimes present on the trips to New
4
York?
5
A.
Yes.
6
Q.
You testified earlier that
was sexually
7
abused in Palm Beach. Did she describe to you that she was
8
also sexually abused on these trips to New York?
9
A.
Yes, she did.
10
Q.
Did Maxwell encourage
to go on these trips?
11
A. Yes.
12
Q.
What does
-- what did
tell you about
13
her memory of how these trips were arranged?
14
A.
She recalled that Maxwell was usually the one that
15
would schedule her flights. If she was flying commercially,
16
she would schedule the flights, sometimes calling her mother
17
to schedule.
18
Q.
Was that her general impression of how they were
19
arranged?
20
A.
Yes.
21
Q.
In addition to the trips to New York City that you
22
just described, did
also remember traveling at least
23
once to Epstein's ranch in New Mexico?
24
A.
Yes, she did.
25
Q.
Did she remember whether or not she was sexually
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000158
EFTA00008658

=== Page 29 ===
06/29/20
29
1
abused in New Mexico?
2
A.
She couldn't recall. She couldn't remember.
3
Q.
In general, how would
get to the airport in
4
Florida when she would fly on Epstein's jet? What did she
5
describe to you?
6
A.
Usually a driver -- one of Epstein's drivers would
7
pick her up from her house and take her to the airport.
8
Q.
Now, you testified earlier that you reviewed
9
flight records for Epstein's private jet. Is that correct?
10
A. Yes.
11
Q.
And have you reviewed records from the 1990's to
12
see if that there -- whether there's a person named
13
listed on the records?
14
A.
Yes.
15
Q.
Turning to the next slide. Is this an excerpt
16
from those records?
17
A.
Yes, it is.
18
Q.
And does the red arrow point to -- just one
19
moment. Does the red arrow point to a November 11th, 1996
20
flight?
21
A.
Yes, it does.
22
Q.
And is this a -- does this flight log reflect that
23
it was a flight from Palm Beach, Florida to Teterboro, New
24
Jersey?
25
A.
Yes.
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000159
EFTA00008659

=== Page 30 ===
06/29/20
30
1
Q.
Is there a private airfield in Teterboro, New
2
Jersey?
3
A.
Yes, there is.
4
Q.
What's it called?
5
A.
Teterboro Airport.
6
Q.
Are the passengers listed on this entry J.E.?
7
A. Yes.
8
Q.
Are the -- do the entries also include
plus
9
friend,
(ph.), family,
(ph.) child,
10
(ph.), and
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
Was
-- based on your awareness of
13
date of birth and the date of this flight, was
16 on
14
the date of this flight?
15
A.
Yes, she was.
16
Q.
Turning to the next slide. You testified earlier
17
about Teterboro Airport. What are we looking at on this
18
slide?
19
A.
This is directions from Teterboro Airport to
20
Epstein's residence here in Manhattan.
21
Q.
So based on your review of this map, if someone
22
were to fly into Teterboro Airport and travel to New York
23
City, would they -- would the most natural root be to travel
24
from Teterboro Airport and crossing into New York through
25
Manhattan?
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000160
EFTA00008660

=== Page 31 ===
06/29/20
31
1
A.
Yes.
2
Q.
Turning to the next slide. Is this also an
3
excerpt from the flight records that you've reviewed?
4
A.
Yes, it is.
5
Q.
And does this show a May 9, 1997 flight from
6
Teterboro, New Jersey to Santa Fe, New Mexico?
7
A.
Yes, it does.
8
Q.
And are the passengers listed on this log J.E.,
9
G.M.,
10
A.
Yes.
11
Q.
Based on your knowledge of
birthdate and
12
the date of this flight, would
have been 16 on the
13
date of this flight?
14
A.
Yes, she would've been.
15
Q.
Turning to the next slide. Is this also an
16
excerpt from the flight records?
17
A. Yes.
18
Q.
And does the red arrow point to a flight entry on 19
May 3rd, 1998?
20
A.
Yes, it does.
21
Q.
Based on the airport codes, does this reflect that
22
there is a flight on that date from Palm Beach, Florida to
23
Teterboro, New Jersey?
24
A.
Yes.
25
Q.
And are the passengers listed on this log J.E.,
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000161
EFTA00008661

=== Page 32 ===
06/29/20
32
1
G.M., E.T.,
Glen (ph.),
(ph.),
2
(ph.), Manny (ph.),
(ph.) ?
3
A.
Yes.
4
Q.
Based on your knowledge of
birthdate and
5
the date of this flight, would
have been 17 on this
6
date?
7
A.
Yes.
8
Q.
Am I correct that you testified earlier that in
9
addition to sometimes flying on Epstein's private jet, she
10
also traveled on commercial airlines, is that correct?
11
A. Yes, it is.
12
Q.
Based on your review of these flight logs, does
13
every flight entry list the name of every single passenger,
14
or are there times when a passenger is noted female?
15
A.
There's time where a passenger is just noted
16
female.
17
Q. I'm going to talk to you about two examples of
18
that. Turning ahead two slides. Looking at slide 18, does
19
this reflect a January 3rd, 1995 flight where the flight log
20
says J.E., two females?
21
A.
Yes, it does.
22
Q.
And do the two entries below also just list female
23
next to the initials J.E.?
24
A.
Yes, they do.
25
Q.
Turning to the next slide, slide 19. Is this
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000162
EFTA00008662

=== Page 33 ===
06/29/20
33
1
another example of an entry like that? Focusing on the
2
entry on February 12th, 1995?
3
A.
Yes.
4
Q.
Does that entry also say female?
5
A.
Yes, it does.
6
Q.
Now, you testified that
sometimes flew on
7
commercial airlines and that arrangements for her travel
8
were made for her to fly commercially for these trips. Is
9
that right?
10
A.
Yes.
11
Q.
Have you been able to obtain commercial flight
12
records?
13
A.
We tried. We were not able to obtain those
14
records.
15
Q.
Why is that?
16
A.
Airlines do not keep records past a certain year.
17
Q.
Does
recall group sexualized massages
18
involving Epstein and Maxwell in both the New York and
19
Florida residences during the time period we've been talking
20
about?
21
A. Yes.
22
Q.
You testified earlier about the time that Epstein
23
and Maxwell would spend together and the activities that
24
they were involved in. During this time period, did
25
have occasions to talk with Maxwell?
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000163
EFTA00008663

=== Page 34 ===
06/29/20
34
1
A.
She -- I'm sorry, can you ask the question again?
2
Q.
During the -- beginning when she was 14 when she
3
began spending time with Epstein and Maxwell and through the
4
years, did
often have conversations with Maxwell about
5
her life?
6
A.
Yes.
7
Q.
Did they talk about that often?
8
A.
They did.
9
Q.
Did Maxwell ask
about her family, her
10
classes, and other aspects of her life?
11
A.
Yes, she did.
12
Q.
You testified earlier that just before she turned
13
18,
moved to New York City. Is that right?
14
A.
Yes.
15
Q.
Did she go to school there in New York City for
16
her senior year?
17
A.
Yes, she did.
18
Q.
What school did she go to?
19
A.
She went to
.
20
Q.
What is
?
21
A.
They cater to individuals who want to pursue
22
careers in the arts.
23
Q.
Have you reviewed records from
24
?
25
A.
Yes.
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000164
EFTA00008664

=== Page 35 ===
06/29/20
35
1
Q.
If you could turn to slide 17. Can you please
2
explain for the grand jury what we're looking at here?
3
A.
This is an excerpt from
application to
4
.
On it is listed who is
5
financially responsible for her, and that is
6
Jeffrey Epstein.
7
Q.
From what
told you, did Maxwell encourage
8
to accept Epstein's financial help?
9
A. Yes.
10
Q.
When
moved to New York City who was she
11
living with?
12
A.
She lived with her mother and brother in
13
.
14
Q.
Did Epstein help pay for her rent?
15
A.
He did.
16
Q.
During that year, her senior year of high school
17
when she was in New York City, did
remain in contact
18
with Epstein?
19
A.
Yes.
20
Q.
What was the nature of their contact like during
21
this time period?
22
A.
During this time he was still sexually abusing
23
her.
24
Q.
Did that continue to occur in his townhouse in
25
Manhattan that year?
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000165
EFTA00008665

=== Page 36 ===
06/29/20
36
1
A.
Yes, it did.
2
Q.
What happened at the end of her senior year of
3
high school?
4
A.
She moved to Los Angeles to pursue a career in
5
acting.
6
Q.
Did she get a job as an actress when she was 18?
7
A.
She did.
8
Q.
Has
lived in Los Angeles and worked as an
9
actress on television ever since then?
10
A.
Yes.
11
Q.
After she moved to Los Angeles did she continue
12
being in touch with Epstein?
13
A.
For a short period of time.
14
Q.
Did she ultimately break contact with him?
15
A.
Yes, she did.
16
Q.
Is
currently pursuing a civil lawsuit
17
against Maxwell and Epstein's estate?
18
A.
Yes.
19
Q.
Have you talked with
about whether when she
20
was a teenage girl when all of this was happening whether
21
she told anyone that she was being sexually abused?
22
A.
Yes, she said she didn't tell anyone. She felt
23
like she couldn't. She -- the -- nothing was talked about
24
outside of that room, so it made it so that she couldn't
25
talk about it. And then she also -- her mother is Middle
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000166
EFTA00008666

=== Page 37 ===
06/29/20
37
1
Eastern, and her mother raised her that women are supposed
2
to do what they're told even if someone is beating you.
3
And when she was 13 and her father passed, she was
4
-- she went to a guidance counselor at school to talk about
5
it, and her mother found out about it and smacked her. So
6
she felt like she couldn't talk to anyone about it.
7
Q.
Did
mother encourage her to accept
8
Epstein's financial assistance?
9
A.
Yes, she did.
10
Q.
Have you become aware that in 2005, police
11
officers from the Palm Beach Police Department executed a
12
search warrant at Epstein's house at the El Brillo Way
13
address in Palm Beach?
14
A.
Yes.
15
Q.
Have you reviewed some of the materials seized
16
during the search?
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
Did they find massage tables and sex toys?
19
A.
Yes, they did.
20
Q.
Did they find any photographs of
21
A.
Yes.
22
Q.
Was one of the photographs signed by
23
A.
Yes, it was.
24
Q.
Did it say
?
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000167
EFTA00008667

=== Page 38 ===
06/29/20
38
1
A.
Yes.
2
Q.
During your interviews with
did
tell
3
you how she felt about Epstein and Maxwell in the '90's when
4
she was a young girl?
5
A.
She did. She expressed that she felt like they
6
loved her, she felt like they were her family. That they
7
supported her and that she felt she was made to feel like
8
that she needed to be grateful to them.
9
Q. Okay. Did she tell you that she felt like they
10
were trying to help her?
11
A. Yes.
12
Q. Have you talked with
about how she feels
13
about this now?
14
A. Yes.
15
Q.
What was
demeanor like when she described
16
to you what Epstein and Maxwell had done to her?
17
A.
She was upset. She recognized that now, it's
18
affected her life to a great degree. She's struggled in
19
relationships with opening up to people and trusting people,
20
both personal and professional relationships.
21
Q.
Did she tell you that she struggled to tell anyone
22
what had happened to her for most of her adulthood?
23
A. Yes.
24
Q.
When was the first time that you interviewed
25
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000168
EFTA00008668

=== Page 39 ===
06/29/20
39
1
A.
Last fall.
2
Q.
Was that the first time she'd ever reported this
3
to law enforcement?
4
A.
Yes, it was.
5
Q.
Now, you testified earlier about your interviews
6
with
who worked at Epstein's Palm Beach house.
7
Did he remember a girl named
coming to the house
8
during that time?
9
A.
Yes, he did.
10
Q.
Did he recall
Maxwell, and Epstein being in
11
the Palm Beach house together?
12
A.
Yes.
13
Q.
What was his understanding of why
was there?
14
A.
He thought that Epstein was helping her, that's
15
what Epstein had told him, and
had told him that
16
Epstein was helping her.
17
Q.
Did he ever observe Epstein interacting with
18
physically?
19
A.
Yes.
20
Q.
What did he see?
21
A.
He saw Epstein kiss
cheek and pat her on
22
the bottom.
23
Q.
Did he have any knowledge about what was happening
24
with Epstein or Maxwell when he wasn't present?
25
A.
He didn't.
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000169
EFTA00008669

=== Page 40 ===
06/29/20
40
1
Q.
Did
ever recall picking up
from her
2
house?
3
A.
Yes.
4
Q.
And when he would pick her up from her house,
5
would he then bring her back to the Palm Beach house?
6
A.
Yes.
7
Q.
Did he remember who in general would tell him to
8
pick up
from her house?
9
A.
Maxwell would be the one to tell him to pick her
10
up.
11
Q.
Did he recall ever driving
to the movies?
12
A.
Yes.
13
Q.
What did he tell you about that?
14
A.
That it would usually be Epstein, Maxwell, and
15
They'd go to the movies and it would usually be late
16
at night.
17
Q.
Did he tell you about what his memory was about
18
how old
was?
19
A.
He said she was young and that he knew that
20
because he had picked her up from school and that he knew
21
she was too young to drive.
22
Q.
Switching gears. I want to talk to you about a
23
different aspect of your interviews with
Based
24
on what he told you about his job duties, were there ever
25
times when he would have to clean Epstein's massage room?
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000170
EFTA00008670

=== Page 41 ===
06/29/20
41
1
A.
Yes.
2
Q.
What did he tell you about that?
3
A.
He said that he found sex toys in the massage room
4
and he had to wash them afterwards.
5
Q.
Aside from those experiences, was he aware of
6
there being sex toys in the house?
7
A.
Yes. There was a basket of sex toys that were
8
kept in Maxwell's closet.
9
Q.
Did
stop working for Epstein in
10
approximately 2002?
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
Was he told that he was being replaced?
13
A. Yes.
14
Q.
And was he generally aware that the person who
15
replaced him was much younger?
16
A.
Yes.
17
Q.
Did
tell you that a few months after he
18
left working for Epstein he became suicidal because of
19
issues in his marriage?
20
A.
Yes.
21
Q.
Did he tell you that he went to Epstein's house
22
and tried to take Epstein's gun?
23
A.
Yes, he did.
24
Q.
Did he tell you he took several thousand dollars?
25
A. Yes.
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000171
EFTA00008671

=== Page 42 ===
06/29/20
42
1
Q.
Did Epstein discover this and confront him about
2
it?
3
A.
Yes, he did.
4
Q.
Did
admit to Epstein and the police what
5
he'd done?
6
A.
Yes.
7
Q.
Did Epstein also tell the police his gun was
8
missing?
9
A.
Yes.
10
Q.
Were there any charges filed?
11
A. No.
12
Q.
Was he ever arrested?
13
A.
I don't believe SO.
14
Q.
And did Epstein pursue any charges about this
15
incident?
16
A.
No, he didn't pursue anything.
17
Q.
Have you interviewed one of Epstein's former
18
pilots?
19
A. Yes.
20
Q.
Is that pilot named
?
21
A. Yes.
22
Q.
Was he one of the pilots for Epstein's private jet
23
in the 1990's?
24
A.
Yes.
25
Q.
Did he remember
traveling on the je
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000172
EFTA00008672

=== Page 43 ===
06/29/20 43
1
in the 90's?
2
A.
He remembered her traveling, but he didn't
3
remember specifics.
4
Q.
So just to be clear, is your testimony that he
5
didn't remember the specific dates of the flights, but he
6
remembered her traveling on the jet during the 1990's?
7
A. Yes.
8
Q.
And did he remember
specifically as
9
a person who traveled?
10
A. Yes.
11
Q.
Did you discuss with him the flight records that
12
we talked about earlier that lists a person named
as a
13
passenger?
14
A. Yes.
15
Q.
Did he have a specific memory of those exact
16
flights?
17
A. No.
18
Q.
But was he aware of any other
flying on the
19
jet besides
in the 1990's?
20
A.
No, no other
at that time.
21
Q.
Earlier when we were looking at Interlochen
22
attendance records for the summer of 1994, you noted that
23
was one of the names on that record. Is that
24
right?
25
A. Yes.
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000173
EFTA00008673

=== Page 44 ===
06/29/20 44
1
Q.
Is that
?
2
A.
Yes.
3
Q.
Have you interviewed
4
A.
Yes, I have.
5
Q.
Did he tell you that he remembered
talking
6
that summer at camp about having met Jeffrey Epstein?
7
A. Yes.
8
Q.
Did he tell you that he remembered
going
9
over to Epstein's house in Palm Beach when they were in high
10
school?
11
A. Yes.
12
Q.
Did he remember that
would often talk about
13
spending time with Maxwell and Epstein during this time?
14
A. Yes.
15
Q.
Did he remember
telling him when they were
16
in high school about at least one trip to New York City that
17
she took with Epstein?
18
A. Yes.
19
Q.
Did he remember
describing Epstein's
20
townhouse in Manhattan?
21
A. Yes.
22
Q.
And does he remember
talking often about
23
Ghislaine Maxwell?
24
A.
Yes.
25
Q.
Now, based on your interviews with
did he
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000174
EFTA00008674

=== Page 45 ===
06/29/20
45
1
tell you whether he knew back then when they were in high
2
school whether
was being sexually abused by Epstein?
3
A.
He didn't know back then.
4
Q.
Did
ever meet Ghislaine Maxwell?
5
A.
Yes, he did.
6
Q.
What did he remember about that?
7
A.
He remembered Epstein, Maxwell, and
being
8
near a movie theatre and he was approximately 16 at the time
9
and
would've been 15, and just the little bit of
10
interaction they had. And then after that,
had told
11
him that Maxwell had said something to the effect I could
12
teach
a thing or two.
13
Q.
Is that something that he remembers
telling
14
him back then that Maxwell had said?
15
A. Yes.
16
Q.
During the course of this investigation, have you
17
participated with interviews with an individual named
18
19
A.
Yes.
20
Q.
So for today's purposes I'm just going to refer to
21
her as
How many times have you interviewed
22
A.
Approximately twice.
23
Q.
Now, does
know
Have they
24
ever met as far as you know?
25
A.
As far as I know, no.
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000175
EFTA00008675

=== Page 46 ===
06/29/20
46
1
Q.
Turning to the next slide. Are these photographs
2
of
when she was in high school?
3
A.
Yes.
4
Q.
And is her date of birth
5
A.
Yes.
6
Q.
When
was approximately 16 and a junior in
7
high school, where was she living?
8
A.
She was living in Arizona with her mother.
9
Q.
Does she have any siblings?
10
A.
An older sister.
11
Q.
What did her older sister do?
12
A.
Her older sister lived -- worked for Epstein.
13
Q.
Where did she work for Epstein?
14
A.
Here in New York.
15
Q.
Did there come a time in approximately December
16
1995 when
had a phone conversation with her sister
17
about traveling to New York City?
18
A.
Yes.
19
Q.
What did they discuss?
20
A.
They discussed her coming to New York and meeting
21
Epstein.
22
Q.
What did her sister tell
about why she
23
should meet Epstein?
24
A.
She said that he could help her with college.
25
Q.
And did she say -- did the sister say whether the
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000176
EFTA00008676

=== Page 47 ===
06/29/20
47
1
sister wanted her to meet Epstein or did she say whether
2
Epstein wanted to meet
3
A.
Epstein wanted to meet
4
Q.
Now, let me just pause here. You testified that
5
this happened in approximately December of 1995. Just for
6
context, the years that we were talking about with
7
was that 1994 through 1997?
8
A.
Yes.
9
Q.
So is this approximately the same time period
10
while what you described
telling you happened?
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
So in January of 1996, did
fly on a
13
commercial airline to New York City to spend a weekend with
14
her sister and meet Jeffrey Epstein?
15
A. Yes.
16
Q.
Did she tell you that?
17
A. Yes.
18
Q.
During the trip, did
tell you that she met
19
Epstein at his townhouse in New York City?
20
A.
Yes, she did.
21
Q.
Did she tell you that Epstein discussed her plans
22
for college applications and offered to help her?
23
A. Yes.
24
Q.
What was
first impression of
25
Jeffrey Epstein?
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000177
EFTA00008677

=== Page 48 ===
06/29/20
48
1
A.
She was very impressed by him.
2
Q.
What did she -- what was her impression based on
3
this conversation of what Epstein was going to do for her?
4
A.
That he was going to help her with her future
5
plans for college.
6
Q.
During that trip to New York City, did she stay at
7
Epstein's townhouse or at her sister's apartment?
8
A.
Her sister's apartment.
9
Q.
During that trip, did she tell you that she saw
10
Epstein a second time when he took
and her sister to
11
the movies?
12
A.
Yes.
13
Q.
What did she tell you happened at the movies?
14
A.
She said that they were sitting in the theatre and
15
Epstein was between
and her sister, and Epstein put
16
his hand on her leg, he rubbed her arm and held hands with
17
her.
18
Q.
From what she told you what was her impression
19
about whether her sister could see what was going on?
20
A.
She felt like her sister couldn't see.
21
Q.
What was her reaction to this happening?
22
A.
She was uncomfortable.
23
Q.
After the movie did she tell her sister what had
24
happened?
25
A.
No, she didn't.
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000178
EFTA00008678

=== Page 49 ===
06/29/20
49
1
Q.
Did she say why not?
2
A.
She said that she knew
-- her sister really
3
liked Epstein and that Epstein could help them, so she
4
didn't tell her.
5
Q.
After this trip did
go back home to
?
6
A.
Yes.
7
Q.
Did Epstein contact her afterwards?
8
A.
Yes.
9
Q.
Did he discuss with her her ongoing college plans?
10
A.
Yes, he did.
11
Q.
Did he invite her to a weekend at his ranch in New
12
Mexico in the spring of 1996?
13
A.
Yes.
14
Q.
Was she 16 at the time?
15
A.
Yes, she was.
16
Q.
From what she told you, what was
17
impression of who would be on this trip to New Mexico?
18
A.
She knew Maxwell would be there.
19
Q.
Did she -- was she told anyone else was going to
20
be present during this trip?
21
A.
She said that there would be, like, other students
22
her -- kids her age.
23
Q.
And what was her understanding of who these other
24
kids were and why they'd be there? Sorry, let me --
25
A.
Rephrase.
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000179
EFTA00008679

=== Page 50 ===
06/29/20
50
1
Q.
-- rephrase the questions. You testified that she
2
was told that on this trip that there would be other
3
students. Was she under the impression that there would be
4
other young students like her on the trip who were also
5
being mentored by Epstein?
6
A. Yes.
7
Q.
Now, you testified just a moment ago that she was
8
also told that Maxwell would be there. Are you referring to
9
Ghislaine Maxwell?
10
A. Yes.
11
Q.
At the point that she was told that
12
Ghislaine Maxwell would be on this trip, had she ever met
13
Ghislaine Maxwell?
14
A.
No, she hadn't.
15
Q.
Had she heard her sister talk about
16
Ghislaine Maxwell?
17
A. Yes.
18
Q.
How did -- from what she described to you, how did
19
her expectation that Maxwell would be on this trip make her
20
feel about the trip?
21
A.
It made her comfortable. Her sister had talked
22
highly of Maxwell.
23
Q.
Did
tell you that she flew to New Mexico
24
that spring when she was 16?
25
A. Yes.
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000180
EFTA00008680

=== Page 51 ===
06/29/20
51
1
Q.
Did she meet Ghislaine Maxwell when she arrived in
2
New Mexico?
3
A.
Yes, she did.
4
Q.
How did she describe Maxwell's demeanor and
5
attitude when she met her?
6
A.
She described Maxwell as being very charming. She
7
gave her a tour of the house and Maxwell took
8
shopping, which made her feel special.
9
Q.
What does she remember talking about with
10
Ghislaine Maxwell?
11
A.
They talked about school, homework, trips.
12
Q.
Did she talk with her about applying to college?
13
A. Yes.
14
Q.
Did she talk about her classes in high school?
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
Did she talk with her about the homework that she
17
had to do that weekend?
18
A.
Yes.
19
Q.
Did she talk with Maxwell about her family?
20
A.
Yes.
21
Q.
Did she talk with her about her home life and
22
living with her mother?
23
A.
Yes.
24
Q.
From what
told you, when she got there who
25
else was at the ranch besides Ghislaine Maxwell and
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000181
EFTA00008681

=== Page 52 ===
06/29/20
52
1
Jeffrey Epstein?
2
A.
It was just them.
3
Q.
Was it just the three of them the entire weekend
4
of the visit?
5
A.
Yes.
6
Q.
Were there any other school kids there?
7
A. No.
8
Q.
When they were at the ranch, from what
told
9
you, did Maxwell say anything to
about massages?
10
A.
Yes.
11
Q.
Did she say anything to her about foot massages?
12
A.
Yes.
13
Q.
What did
tell you about that?
14
A.
Maxwell told
to give Epstein a foot massage,
15
and then she showed her and instructed her how to do it.
16
was a little uncomfortable, but Maxwell was joking
17
around so she just followed her lead.
18
Q.
Did
tell you what Maxwell and Epstein took
19
her to the movies that weekend?
20
A.
Yes.
21
Q.
What did she tell you about that trip to the
22
movies?
23
A.
She said that when they went outside the theatre
24
Maxwell was joking around and pulled Epstein's pants down a
25
little bit. And then once they went inside the theatre,
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000182
EFTA00008682

=== Page 53 ===
06/29/20
53
1
Epstein -- when they were sitting down, Epstein touched
2
leg, he rubbed her arm, held her hand. And this
3
time he --
felt that he wasn't trying to hide it from
4
Maxwell.
5
Q.
What was
reaction to all of this?
6
A.
She was uncomfortable.
7
Q.
During the same weekend, was there another
8
occasion when Maxwell talked about massages?
9
A.
Yes.
10
Q.
What happened?
11
A.
Maxwell had asked
if she ever had a massage,
12
and Maxwell told her she could give her one.
So
was
13
on her back and Maxwell had pulled the sheet down exposing
14
her chest, she was nude from the top up, and proceeded to
15
massage around her chest and breast area.
16
Q.
From what
told you when she was describing
17
to you what you just described to the grand jury, how did
18
she feel while this was happening?
19
A.
She felt really uncomfortable.
20
Q.
Did
also tell you about an incident that
21
happened one morning when she was in New Mexico?
22
A.
Yes.
23
Q.
What did she tell you happened?
24
A.
She said she was in bed and Epstein came into the
25
room and told her that he wanted to cuddle. So he laid down
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000183
EFTA00008683

=== Page 54 ===
06/29/20
54
1
next to her and spooned her. She told him she had to go to
2
the bathroom to get out of the situation.
3
Q.
What was her reaction to that when Epstein got
4
into her bed?
5
A.
She was uncomfortable. She didn't know what to
6
do.
7
Q.
Did
go back home to
when the weekend
8
was over?
9
A.
Yes, she did.
10
Q.
Did she tell anyone when she got home about what
11
happened?
12
A. No.
13
Q.
Is that for the same reason you described earlier?
14
A. Yes.
15
Q.
Did Epstein end up paying for
to go on a
16
trip to Thailand that summer?
17
A. Yes.
18
Q.
Did
have any contact with Maxwell or Epstein
19
after that trip?
20
A.
Not that she recalled.
21
Q.
When you interviewed
what was her demeanor
22
like when she described her interactions with
23
Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell?
24
A.
She became upset, emotional.
25
Q.
Is
currently pursuing a civil lawsuit
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000184
EFTA00008684

=== Page 55 ===
06/29/20
55
1
against Maxwell and Epstein's estate?
2
A.
Yes, she is.
3
Q.
What does
do for a living now?
4
A.
She's a psychologist who works with trauma
5
victims.
6
Q.
During the course of this investigation, have you
7
interviewed someone named
8
A.
Yes.
9
Q.
For today's purposes, I'm just going to refer to
10
her as
How many times have you interviewed
11
approximately?
12
A.
Approximately three times.
13
Q.
Turning to the next slide. Is this a photograph
14
of
that she provided to you?
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
And did she tell you that this was taken when she
17
was in -- approximately 16 or 17 years old?
18
A.
Yes.
19
Q.
Is
date of birth
?
20
A.
Yes.
21
Q.
Did
grow up in England?
22
A.
Yes, she did.
23
Q.
Did she tell you that there came a point when she
24
met Ghislaine Maxwell when she was about 17?
25
A.
Yes.
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000185
EFTA00008685

=== Page 56 ===
06/29/20
56
1
Q.
How did she tell you that they met?
2
A.
She said they met through a mutual friend.
3
Q.
Did she tell you that this would' happened in 4
around 1994 or 1995?
5
A.
Yes.
6
Q.
And is that within the same time period that we've
7
been talking about today?
8
A.
Yes.
9
Q.
What happened after she was introduced to
10
Ghislaine Maxwell from what she told you?
11
A.
She said Maxwell treated her like they were
12
sisters. Her quote was, "like naughty school girls" is how
13
Maxwell treated with -- her.
14
Q.
Did she tell you that Maxwell seemed to
15
immediately take an interest in her?
16
A.
Yes.
17
Q.
Did she tell you that they began spending time
18
together in London?
19
A.
Yes.
20
Q.
And just to be clear, was Maxwell in her 30's
21
while this was happening?
22
A.
Yes.
23
Q.
Did Maxwell -- did
ever remember Maxwell
24
ever talk about having a boyfriend named Jeffrey Epstein?
25
A.
Yes.
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000186
EFTA00008686

=== Page 57 ===
06/29/20
57
1
Q.
What did she tell
about that?
2
A.
Maxwell told
that Epstein was going to
3
like her.
4
Q.
Did there come a time when she was 17 that
5
described that Maxwell introduced her to Jeffrey Epstein?
6
A.
Yes.
7
Q.
How did she describe that occurring?
8
A.
Epstein had flown to London. He was at Maxwell's
9
residence in London and Maxwell had called
over. So
10
went over and when she got there, Maxwell was saying
11
to Epstein kind of -- the words
used was giving him
12
a resume of her attributes. Saying she's so pretty, she's
13
so strong, and then Maxwell asked her to give Epstein a
14
massage.
15
Q.
Now, you testified just a moment ago that Maxwell
16
-- that
described to you that Maxwell asked her to
17
give Epstein a massage during this first meeting. Is that
18
correct?
19
A.
Yes.
20
Q.
Did Maxwell say to her in sum and substance since
21
you're so strong I'd appreciate it if you give Jeffrey a
22
massage because he needs a massage every day or I get in
23
trouble?
24
A.
Yes, she said that.
25
Q.
Is that what
said to you in sum and
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000187
EFTA00008687

=== Page 58 ===
06/29/20
58
1
substance?
2
A.
Yes.
3
Q.
When that happened, did
remember Maxwell
4
leading her to a room in the house?
5
A.
Yes.
6
Q.
What happened?
7
A.
When
went in the room, Epstein was in a
8
robe. He took his robe off and she started massaging him,
9
and then he touched
and pulled her hand to his
10
penis.
11
Q.
What does
remember Epstein saying when he
12
did this?
13
A.
Don't be frigid.
14
Q.
What was her reaction to this happening from what
15
she told you?
16
A.
She was taken back by it.
17
Q.
When this episode ended and
left the room
18
did she tell you that she remembered Maxwell being just
19
outside the room when she left?
20
A.
Yes.
21
Q.
Did she remember Maxwell saying to her, did you
22
have fun? Did he like it?
23
A.
Yes.
24
Q.
Does she remember Maxwell calling her several days
25
afterwards or at some short period of time afterwards?
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000188
EFTA00008688

=== Page 59 ===
06/29/20
59
1
A.
Yes, she did.
2
Q.
Did
remember Maxwell saying to her on the
3
phone call in sum and substance, well, aren't you a clever
4
girl, Jeffrey was very impressed?
5
A.
Yes.
6
Q.
Shortly after this incident, does she remember
7
Maxwell asking her to come back over to the house?
8
A.
Yes.
9
Q.
And when she got there did she tell you she
10
remembered Maxwell saying to her, in substance, thank God
11
you're here; if it's not you or someone it falls to me?
12
A.
Yes.
13
Q.
Does she remember Maxwell bringing her up the
14
stairs to the house on that occasion?
15
A.
Yes, she did.
16
Q.
What does she remember happening when Maxwell
17
opened the door to the room?
18
A.
Epstein was standing there nude.
19
Q.
Does she remember Maxwell then saying I'll leave
20
you guys to it?
21
A. Yes.
22
Q.
After these first two encounters, did Epstein and
23
Maxwell invite
to travel with them to Palm
24
Beach, U.S. Virgin Islands, Paris, and New York for the next
25
several years?
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000189
EFTA00008689

=== Page 60 ===
06/29/20
60
1
A.
Yes, they did.
2
Q.
Does she remember whether these trips began before
3
or after her 18th birthday?
4
A.
She couldn't remember specifically.
5
Q.
Before these trips started, you were describing
6
earlier when
told you about the time that she spent
7
with Maxwell when they first met when she was 17. Is that
8
right?
9
A.
Yes.
10
Q.
During these conversations when she would spend
11
time with Maxwell, did
remember talking with her
12
about her life and her family, and her personal
13
circumstances with Maxwell?
14
A. Yes.
15
Q. Now, you testified a moment ago that
told
16
you that at some point she began traveling with Maxwell and
17
Epstein, and she wasn't sure whether or not whether these
18
trips started before she turned 18. Is that right?
19
A. Yes.
20
Q.
Did
describe to you that Epstein sexually
21
abused her during these trips, typically in the context of a
22
sexualized massage?
23
A.
Yes, he did.
24
Q.
Did Epstein give her money?
25
A.
Yes.
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000190
EFTA00008690

=== Page 61 ===
06/29/20
61
1
Q.
Did she tell you that he would give her cash?
2
A.
Yes.
3
Q.
Did she describe to you that the abuse included,
4
among other things, Epstein groping her and using a massager
5
device on her genitals?
6
A.
Yes.
7
Q.
And was the massager device like a vibrator?
8
A.
Yes, it was.
9
Q.
From what
told you, was Maxwell in the
10
room during these encounters?
11
A.
Maxwell wasn't in the room.
12
Q.
What did she tell you would typically happen when
13
left the room after these episodes; was Maxwell
14
typically nearby?
15
A.
Yes. She was usually right near the room.
16
Q.
Does she remember Maxwell asking her, after she'd
17
leave the room from one of these sessions, 'how was it, is
18
he happy?'
19
A.
Yes.
20
Q.
Did she also tell you that she remembers Maxwell
21
telling her at some point, in sum and substance, 'you know
22
how he is when he's not happy and you know what makes him
23
happy, he has to have sex all the time, he's like a super
24
hero?'
25
A.
Yes, she said that.
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000191
EFTA00008691

=== Page 62 ===
06/29/20
62
1
Q.
Did
tell you about an incident that
2
occurred after she turned 18 in Palm Beach when she was
3
staying at the Palm Beach house?
4
A.
Yes.
5
Q.
Did the incident she described to you involve a
6
school-girl outfit?
7
A.
Yes, it did.
8
Q.
Could you please describe for the grand jury what
9
told you about that incident?
10
A.
said that Maxwell had shown her to a
11
bedroom and on the bed was a school-girl outfit and Maxwell
12
told her when --
confronted her about it and Maxwell
13
said 'well, I thought it would be adorable if you gave
14
Jeffrey his tea in this. 1 So
felt like she had to
15
put it on so she put it on, took Epstein his tea, and
16
Epstein then slapped her on the buttocks and reached under
17
the skirt and touched her.
18
Q.
What was her demeanor like when she described this
19
incident to you?
20
A.
She was crying; she was very upset.
21
Q.
When
described seeing the school-girl
22
outfit and talking to Maxwell about it, did she remember
23
Maxwell telling her 'don't be so frigid?'
24
A.
Yes.
25
Q.
Does she remember that later in the day, after she
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000192
EFTA00008692

=== Page 63 ===
06/29/20
63
1
had delivered Epstein his tea and he assaulted her, does she
2
remember Maxwell telling her 'I heard you did well?'
3
A.
Yes.
4
Q.
During the years that
was in contact with
5
Maxwell and Epstein did she remember whether Maxwell would
6
ever ask her if she knew any other girls who could massage
7
Epstein?
8
A.
Yes.
9
Q.
Does she remember Maxwell saying, in sum and
10
substance, 'do you know anyone who can give him a blow job
11
today; I don't feel like it?'
12
A.
Yes.
13
Q.
Does she remember Maxwell saying, when she asked
14
her to bring other girls, that they have to look young at
15
least?
16
A.
Yes.
17
Q.
From your conversations with
did she tell
18
you whether or not she ever brought any other girls?
19
A.
didn't bring any girls.
20
Q.
Did she tell you why not?
21
A.
She didn't want anyone else to go through that.
22
Q.
From your interviews with
did she tell you
23
that there came a time when she was in her early 20s when
24
she stopped traveling with Maxwell and Epstein?
25
A.
Yes.
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000193
EFTA00008693

=== Page 64 ===
06/29/20
64
1
Q.
Was she struggling with substance abuse at that
2
point?
3
A.
Yes, she was.
4
Q.
Did she tell you that she got sober in her 20s?
5
A.
Yes, she did.
6
Q.
What is her current profession?
7
A.
She runs a non-profit for people who struggle with
8
addiction and trauma.
9
Q.
Did
provide you with several emails that
10
she exchanged with Epstein in the early 2000s?
11
A.
Yes, she did.
12
Q.
And were those emails very friendly in tone?
13
A.
Yes, they were.
14
Q.
What did she say to you when you talked with her
15
about those emails?
16
A.
She said she didn't, at the time, want to
17
acknowledge what was going on to her; that looking back on
18
it's different.
19
Q.
Did your squad at the FBI execute a search warrant
20
at Jeffery Epstein's townhouse in Manhattan in July 2019?
21
A. Yes.
22
Q.
Did you personally participate in the search of
23
Epstein's residence?
24
A.
Yes, I did.
25
Q.
Did the townhouse include a massage room?
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000194
EFTA00008694

=== Page 65 ===
06/29/20
65
1
A.
Yes.
2
Q.
Have you yourself been in that massage room?
3
A.
Yes, I have.
4
Q.
Could you please describe for the grand jury what
5
that massage room looked like?
6
A.
It was dark. It had dark draperies covering the
7
windows. There was a massage table. There were oils.
8
There was a hand-held massager in there along with
9
handcuffs, a whip, and along the walls were nude photographs
10
of young females.
11
Q.
I believe you testified a moment ago that
12
told you that there was a time when Maxwell
13
asked her to wear a school-girl outfit for Epstein when they
14
were in Palm Beach. Did you find a school-girl outfit in
15
Epstein's New York townhouse?
16
A.
Yes, we did.
17
Q.
Where did you find it?
18
A.
It was found in a room next to the massage room.
19
Q.
And to be clear, did the FBI find sex toys during
20
the search?
21
A.
Yes.
22
Q.
What was found?
23
A.
Butt plugs, dildo, vibrators.
24
Q.
We've talked about three minor girls today,
25
and
is that right?
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000195
EFTA00008695

=== Page 66 ===
06/29/20
66
1
A.
Yes.
2
Q.
Have you reviewed the proposed indictment, marked
3
Grand Jury Exhibit 1?
4
A.
Yes, I have.
5
Q.
Is
the individual referred to as Victim 1 in
6
the proposed indictment?
7
A.
Yes.
8
Q.
Is
the individual referred to as Victim 2 in
9
the proposed indictment?
10
A.
Yes.
11
Q.
Is
the individual referred to as Victim 3
12
in the indictment?
13
A. Yes.
14
Q.
During all of Maxwell's interactions with the
15
victims when they were underage girls, based on the
16
timeframe and your knowledge of Maxwell's birth date, was
17
she in her 30s?
18
A.
Yes, she was.
19
Q.
Just one moment. All right. Switching gears.
20
Have you become aware that in or about 2016 Maxwell gave
21
sworn testimony in a civil deposition in connection with a
22
lawsuit?
23
A.
Yes.
24
Q.
Could you please explain for the grand jury what
25
is a deposition?
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000196
EFTA00008696

=== Page 67 ===
06/29/20
67
1
A.
It is a statement made under oath.
2
Q.
And in the course of civil litigation is it common
3
for witnesses or the parties of the lawsuit to give a
4
deposition under oath where they testify about the substance
5
of the case?
6
A.
Yes.
7
Q.
And is deposition testimony live and in person and
8
under oath?
9
A.
Yes.
10
Q.
Is a court reporter present when a deposition
11
takes place?
12
A.
Yes.
13
Q.
Now before we talk about Maxwell's deposition
14
testimony, I want to talk with you about the lawsuit that
15
the testimony was about.
Have you become aware that in or
16
about 2015 an individual named
filed a
17
lawsuit against Ghislaine Maxwell here in the Southern
18
District of New York?
19
A.
Yes.
20
Q.
And was
suing Maxwell for defamation?
21
A.
Yes, she was.
22
Q.
Was the lawsuit captioned
against
23
Ghislaine Maxwell with Docket Number 15-CV-7433 here in the
24
Southern District of New York?
25
A.
Yes.
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000197
EFTA00008697

=== Page 68 ===
06/29/20
68
1
Q.
Generally speaking, in broad strokes, what was the
2
lawsuit about? What was the claim that
was bringing
3
against Maxwell?
4
A.
had stated that she had been sexually
5
abused by Epstein and Maxwell as a minor. Maxwell came
6
forward publically and called her a liar. So
sued
7
her for defamation.
8
MS.
So just a small legal instruction on
9
this topic. Ladies and gentleman, I instruct you that the
10
allegations in the lawsuit are not being presented to you as
11
evidence that those incidents occurred. I instruct you that
12
you should not consider those allegations for their truth;
13
instead, the circumstances of the lawsuit are being
14
presented to you so that you can consider the context of the
15
case and the circumstances under which Maxwell made
16
statements under oath.
17
BY MS.
18
Q.
Turning back to the deposition. Did Maxwell's
19
deposition take place over two different days?
20
A.
Yes.
21
Q.
On both days did she give testimony in Manhattan?
22
A.
Yes, she did.
23
Q.
Is that where the deposition took place?
24
A.
Yes.
25
Q.
And on both days was Maxwell sworn under oath?
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000198
EFTA00008698

=== Page 69 ===
06/29/20
69
1
A.
Yes.
2
Q.
If you could flip through the remaining slides in
3
the presentation. Do those slides contain true and accurate
4
excerpts of the transcript of that deposition?
5
A.
Yes.
6
Q.
Turning to the next slide, is this the cover page
7
of the transcript of the first deposition that took place on
8
April 22, 2016?
9
A.
Yes.
10
Q.
And does it have the case caption on it?
11
A.
Yes, it does.
12
Q.
Turning to the next slide, is this an excerpt from
13
the transcript?
14
A. Yes.
15
Q. I imagine the grand juries can't read it from
16
their seats so if you could read it with me, I'll read the
17
questions and if you could read the answers.
18
Question: "Did Jeffrey Epstein have a scheme to
19
recruit underage girls for underage massages?"
20
And it appears there was an objection from the
21
lawyer.
22
Question: "If you know."
23
A.
Answer: "I don't know what you are talking about." "
24
Q.
Just to be clear with the question and answer, is
25
the answer here Maxwell's testimony?
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000199
EFTA00008699

=== Page 70 ===
06/29/20
70
1
A.
Yes.
2
Q.
Just to be clear, you testified earlier that
3
participated in sexualized massages with Epstein and
4
Maxwell; is that right?
5
A.
Yes.
6
Q.
And
was a minor when that occurred?
7
A.
Yes.
8
Q.
And did you also testify earlier that Maxwell --
9
that
told you that Maxwell asked her to
10
give Epstein massages when she was a minor?
11
A. Yes.
12
Q.
If you could turn to the next slide, please. Is
13
this another excerpt from that same deposition?
14
A.
Yes, it is.
15
Q.
All right. I'll read the question and you can
16
read the answer.
17
Question: "List all the people under the age of 18
18
that you've interacted with at any of Jeffrey Epstein's
19
properties?"
20
A.
Maxwell's answer: "I'm not aware of anybody that I
21
interacted with, other than obviously
who was 17
22
at this point. "
23
Q.
Just to be clear, you testified earlier about two
24
girls under the age of 18 who interacted with Maxwell at
25
Epstein's properties; is that correct?
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000200
EFTA00008700

=== Page 71 ===
06/29/20
71
1
A.
Yes.
2
Q.
And those individuals were
and
3
who told you that, correct?
4
A.
Yes, that's correct.
5
Q.
Turning to the next slide, is this the cover page
6
of the transcript from the deposition that took place on
7
July 22, 2016?
8
A.
Yes.
9
Q.
And again, was this Maxwell giving testimony as
10
part of the testimony under oath here in Manhattan?
11
A. Yes.
12
Q.
If you could please turn to the next slide. Is
13
that an excerpt -- are these two excerpts from that
14
deposition?
15
A. Yes.
16
Q.
Again, I'll read the questions if you could please
17
read the answers.
18
Question: "Were you aware of the presence of sex
19
toys or devices used in sexual activities in Mr. Epstein's
20
Palm Beach house?"
21
There's an objection from the lawyer.
22
A.
Maxwell's answer: "No, not that I recall.'
23
Q.
"Do you know whether Mr. Epstein possessed sex
24
toys or devices used in sexual activities?"
25
There's an objection from the lawyer.
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000201
EFTA00008701

=== Page 72 ===
06/29/20
72
1
A.
Maxwell's answer: "No."
2
Q.
Just to be clear, you testified earlier that
3
told you he found sex toys in the massage room
4
in Palm Beach and also that he had seen that Maxwell had a
5
basket of sex toys in her closet there; is that correct?
6
A.
Yes, that's correct.
7
Q.
And is it correct that you testified earlier that
8
Epstein had used a vibrator on
is that
9
correct?
10
A.
Yes, that's correct.
11
Q.
And did you also testify earlier that
12
told you he did that, as well?
13
A.
Yes, that's correct.
14
Q.
And did you also testify earlier that sex toys
15
were found by the police in the Palm Beach house in 2005; is
16
that right?
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
And did you also testify earlier that the FBI
19
found sex toys in Epstein's New York City townhouse in 2019?
20
A.
Yes, that's correct.
21
Q.
If you could please turn to the next slide. This
22
is on page 27. Is this -- are these also excerpts from that
23
same deposition?
24
A.
Yes.
25
Q.
Again, I'll read the questions if you could please
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000202
EFTA00008702

=== Page 73 ===
06/29/20
73
1
read the answers.
2
Questions: "Other than yourself, and the blonde
3
and brunette that you have identified as having been
4
involved in three-way sexual activities, with whom did
5
Mr. Epstein have sexual activities?"
6
There's an objection from the lawyer.
7
A.
Maxwell's answer: "I wasn't aware that he was
8
having sexual activities with anyone when I was with him
9
other than myself."
10
Q.
Question: "I want to be sure that I'm clear, is it
11
your testimony that in the 1990s and 2000s you were not
12
aware that Mr. Epstein was having sexual activities with
13
anyone other than yourself and the blonde and brunette on
14
those few occasions when they were involved with you?"
15
A.
Maxwell's answer: "That is my testimony. That is
16
correct. "
17
Q.
Have you reviewed the deposition transcript --
18
A.
Yes.
19
Q.
-- in full? Now, the excerpt we just read has a
20
reference to a blonde and brunette. Are those individuals
21
completely different from the individuals we've been talking
22
about today?
23
A.
Yes.
24
Q.
Just to be clear, is it correct that you testified
25
earlier that
and
told you that Epstein
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000203
EFTA00008703

=== Page 74 ===
06/29/20
74
1
sexually abused them repeatedly; is that correct?
2
A. Yes.
3
Q.
And did you also testify earlier that Maxwell was
4
occasionally present when Epstein was abusing
based
5
on what she told you?
6
A.
Yes, that's correct.
7
Q.
Turning to the next slide, is this also an excerpt
8
from the same deposition?
9
A.
I'm sorry?
10
Q.
I'm so sorry. Turning to the next slide, on page
11
28, is this also an excerpt from the same deposition?
12
A.
Yes.
13
Q.
Thank you. Okay. Again, if we could read that
14
together I'll take the question if you could take the
15
answer.
16
Question: "Let's just tie that down. Is it your
17
testimony that you've never given anybody a massage?"
18
A.
Maxwell's answer: "I have not given anyone a
19
massage."
20
Q.
"You never gave Mr. Epstein a massage; is that
21
your testimony?"
22
A.
Maxwell's answer: "That is my testimony."
23
Q.
"You never gave
a massage; is that
24
your testimony?"
25
A.
Maxwell's answer: "I never gave
a
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000204
EFTA00008704

=== Page 75 ===
06/29/20
75
1
massage.
"
2
Q.
Just to be clear, as you testified earlier, is it
3
correct that
told you that Maxwell gave her a
4
massage when they were in New Mexico?
5
A.
Yes.
6
Q.
Have you told the grand jury everything that you
7
know about this case or have you just answered the questions
8
that I've asked?
9
A.
I've just answered the questions you've asked.
10
Q.
And when you testified about the documents that
11
you reviewed or the conversations that you had with others,
12
were you testifying to the exact words used or just the
13
substance of the documents or conversations?
14
A.
The substance?
15
Q.
And are you willing to return to the grand jury if
16
the grand jury has any further questions for you?
17
A. Yes.
18
MS.
With the Foreperson's permission I'd
19
ask that the witness be excused at this time.
20
FOREPERSON. You're excused.
21
MS.
Thank you.
22
(Witness Excused)
23
(Time Noted: 11:41 a.m.)
24
(Colloquy Follows)
25
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000205
EFTA00008705

=== Page 76 ===
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000206
EFTA00008706

=== Page 77 ===
1
CERTIFICATE
2
3
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and
4
accurate transcription, to the best of my skill and ability,
5
from my electronic notes of this proceeding.
6
7
July 6, 2020
Date
8
Acting Grand Jury Reporter
Free State Reporting, Inc.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000207
EFTA00008707


c1: EFTA00008870
c2: DataSet 6
c3: VOL00006
c4: DataSet 6/VOL00006/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00008870.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Messages
Page 1 of 4
Records Listed For: JEFFREY EPSTEIN from 04/11/2005 to 04/11/2005
From
Message
Phone
Done
1. Call Gabriel Perahia
2. Call William
reminders
Gowen
7:43AM
3. Peter Mandelson In Paris on
Thursday 4. Pinto in Paris this week
Just FYI flight info:
and me Jetblue 623 arriving 12.20pm
WPB.
8:54AM
678 jetblue, leaving WPB 11.10 am, arriving JFK
1.45pm. Citicar picking up
Cecilia
LM for Emad to talk to Paul Gandy re phone system and electric
9:35AM
distribution.
Cecilla
Yanush is picking up
and
9:35AM
Miles
9:37AM
Will email photos of beach house floor.
Jean Luc
9:55AM
I lost my cell phone, but will be in the office after 10:30.
You had wanted me to put the tiles on the Midnight express for
G
the cabana - the midnight express has not left yet as you know -
10:13AM
should I wait for the boat to come to FLA or orgnaise for the tiles
to be sent to PB
Warren
Elsenstein
Where should I mail the DVD?
10:17AM
I'm available all week except for Thurs, If you're around.
10:20AM
Ira
Zicherman
Bought 50 000 CELG at $437.068
10:22AM
Pls call.
10:24AM
Looking in a realestate magazine - there are 2 hses for sale PB
G
w/ direct ocean front - Christine COndon in PB
+
10:27AM
another Carole Koeppel
they were in the NY
times realestate mag
Cecilia
10:33AM
Lm for G to just send the tiles.
Ira
Stock is trading at 36.79. I understand there are some
Zicherman
additional shares, some blocks available in this area. Do you
10:35AM
have any interest?
Cecilia
10:49AM
LM for Jean Luc to call.
G
Jean bought bought the two vases (6.500 Euros) and the large
11:06AM
console (4.200 Euros - nice surprise).
http://domsrv01/foxhaven/wc.dll7Gmax-MsgDisplay
GRAND JURY
EXHIBIT
4/11/2005
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000342
EFTA00008870

=== Page 2 ===
Messages
Page 2 of 4
Jean Luc
11:07AM
Call me at the office (I tried to connect you).
Prof. Camhi
Pis call.
11:16AM
Miles
Schnitman
Just calling to see where we stand.
11:24AM
Eric
11:34AM
Dr. Landon's $25k quartly payment is due, please approve.
Dan
Sperberg
Calling re meeting. I'm in NY until Mon. Pls email your reply.
11:38AM
George
Reenstra
Via email re photos of other 76 s: That is on temp hold,
11:40AM
apparently we are now painting all black with a camel stripe
Cecilia
LM for
re is any of her friends
12:17PM
back?
Naomi
Via email: Hello, naomi here would like to know when I can
Campbell
speak with Jeffery, regarding my swimsuit line. For a meeting
12:18PM
with VS to see,I have pics and some of the sults with me.. Hope
is well
Cecilia
12:26PM
LM and emailed Dan Sperberg to call.
Bill Karr
12:27PM
I will email the plans later today.
Dr. Jarecki
Please call.
12:33PM
Cecilia
12:43PM
LM for Jerry Goldsmith re has lawyer letter been sent out yet?
Amy Evans
Calling for Congressman Tom Reynolds regarding the June 14th
12:50PM
annual dinner with Bush. NRCC Business Advisory.
G
Spoke to Miles re sending the blue tiles for the cabana to PB -
12:51PM
you sd to him last week to keep them for the Tiki house kitchen
- plse advise
Kenneth
Cole
Returning your call.
12:51PM
I'm back in NY.
1:45PM
Melanie
From Dr. Moskovltz' office. We're trying to find some place in NY
2:04PM
where
can have her heart test done.
is back.
2:29PM
Call me re what we talked about.
http://domsrv01/foxhaven/wc.dll7Gmax-MsgDisplay
4/11/2005
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000343
EFTA00008871

=== Page 3 ===
Messages
Page 3 of 4
2:38PM
Fiona
2:39PM
From Dr. Jarecki's. Pls call.
From Dr. Moskowitz's office.
can get the heart test done
Melanie
on Fri In NY, Appt at 3.30pm, check-in 3.15pm. Faculty practice
2:43PM
radiology 530 1st ave, G elevator to 13th floor, $1656 total,
2:44PM
Is there a check for me?
Eric
Please confirm that I am wiring $3mm from your account to MJ
2:54PM
LLC.
2:55PM
Can Danielle and I work this week?
Jerry
Goldsmith
Gowdy was out of town, but the letter will be delivered today.
2:57PM
Leighton Chandler doesn't know if she can organize for me to
see the mansion this week as it is just getting on the market.
G
She will check to see if she get me in tomorrow. If not, it will
3:02PM
have to be the next time I'm in town. *** Copied From
GHISLAINE MAXWELL *** Original Date and Time: 04/11/2005
at 2:19P
via my email: Please let Jeffrey know that If he intends to
Greg Hersch
participate in the Emerging Market Special Opportunities fund
3:08PM
that the deadline for subscription docs is next Wednesday, April
20 for May 1 trading. Thanks!
Cecilia
3:11PM
Jojo will pick up
S prescription. WHere should I fedex it?
Eric
FYI: on the Dr. Landon quarterly payments, we (NYSG) billed
3:11PM
LHW/Abigail In advance as we have In prior years.
Pls call.
3:29PM
Larry
Newman
I just need a few more minutes if you have time.
3:39PM
4:17PM
Just calling to check in.
G
The Tel Aviv ticket was not a fraud. It was to get a renewal for
4:21PM
your 2nd valid passport. We're getting a refund for it.
manu
The pool specialist can't come tomorrow in PB. He can only come
4:26PM
on wednesday morning If it's ok for you. Pls advice
Fro the power symposium, we are looking at 4 days between
Cecile
January 6, 2006 and January 17th or 18th. The participants
4:27PM
working on their schedules and need to know ASAP. We also
need to let the hotel 50 we don't lose our $20,000 deposit.
Cecilia
http://domsrv01/foxhaven/wc.dllGmax-MsgDisply
4/11/2005
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000344
EFTA00008872

=== Page 4 ===
Messages
Page 4 of 4
4:27PM
I had
on the line for you.
Dr. Victor
Pls call.
4:28PM
can work tomorrow at 4pm.
4:29PM
Cecilia
I had Dan Sperberg on the line for you. He will call back since he
4:41PM
has no reception in the library.
Cecilia
I forwarded helicopter pictures from George Reenstra to your
4:45PM
yahoo.
Cecilia
I had Dr. Jarecki on the line.
4:47PM
G
4:50PM
Lydia got her aesthetician license and can not do facials.
manu
GYM works in Paris: 3 weeks 1/2 to finish. Pinto waiting for a
4:54PM
starting date ( possibly 8 days of advance to organize it).
Bill Karr
The mail server Is down, but I will email the plans as soon as I
4:55PM
can.
Outstanding
did not call back
4:56PM
Callers
Prof. Camhi, Miles Schnitman,
4:56PM
Dr. Victor.
Mark Checked Messages as Read
Copyright (c) 2000-2004, Epstein interests, Inc. All Rights Reserved
http://domsrv01/foxhaven/wc.dll7Gmax-MsgDisplay
4/11/2005
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000345
EFTA00008873


c1: EFTA00008716
c2: DataSet 6
c3: VOL00006
c4: DataSet 6/VOL00006/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00008716.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
United States V. Ghislaine Maxwell
June 29, 2020 Grand Jury Presentation
1
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000103

=== Page 2 ===

=== Page 3 ===
9 East 71st Street, New York, New York
3
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000105
EFTA00008718

=== Page 4 ===
358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Florida
4
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000106

=== Page 5 ===
49 Zorro Ranch Road, Stanley, New Mexico
5
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000107
EFTA00008720

=== Page 6 ===
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000108

=== Page 7 ===
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000109

=== Page 8 ===
Interlochen Arts Camp
Filtered By
Show: All accounts
School equals Interlochen Center for the Arts
Completion Year greater or equal 1994
Completion Year less or equal 1998
Completion Year
First Name
Last Name
Education Type
1994
8
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000110
EFTA00008723

=== Page 9 ===
I
Interlochen
February 9, 1994
Mr. Jeffrey Epstein
J. Epstein and Company, Inc.
The Villard House
457 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Dear Jeffrey:
I have talked to you and Ghislaine on several occasions to
say thank you. But, I wanted to express in writing my
personal and professional gratitude for the very generous
gift of $200,000 for a new scholarship lodge. It is truly
an extraordinary gesture.
Under the charitable contribution act, you are
permitted use of the lodge for two weeks each
year, without any negative implications in respect
to the full tax deductibility of your gift.
Naturally, we would like you to visit the new
lodge this summer. So that we might begin to book
the lodge, I would ask you to consider what two
weeks you would like reserved for your use.
Perlman will be giving his concert on August 7,
1994. I have enclosed the appropriate tax code
9
for your file.
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000111
EFTA00008724

=== Page 10 ===
August 18, 1994 Flight
Date
Aircraft Make
Aircraft
1994
Points of Departure & Arrival
Miles
and Model
Flight
identification Mark
Remarks, Procedures,
Flown
No.
Maneuvers, Endorsements
From
To
JUL
28
HS125-700
N988JE
TEB
DCA
555
JEFFREY EPSACIM
IIM
main
28
"
"
DCA
IAD
556
REPOSITION
IIM
WHROLD
28
"
"
IAO
TEB
557
JE,
1 FEMALE
ICM
WORK
30
"
"
TEB
CMH
558
JE,
naw, 2 condly
san
30
will
"
"
CMH
PBI
559
J6,
IFEMALE
JIM
AUG
7
G1159B
war
N 908JE
SAV
SAV
B
WAYNE
AL
GATTO
8
"
"
SAV
SAV
C
VIRGEL WOLFE-TEST POLOT
AL
9
GATTO
"
"
SAV
SAV
D
VIRGIL WOLFE-TEST PELOT
AL
11
"
Garro
"
SAV
SAV
E
AL
VIRGIL WOLFG-TEST PILOT
GATTO
11
"
"
SAV
PBI
F
SEAN LANCASTER
AL
GATTO
14
V
"
PBI
MOW
569
IE,GM
AL
CATTO
14
"
n
MOW
CMH
570
JE,GM
AL
lb
CATTO
"
"
CMH
MOW
571
JE,
AL
16
GATTO
"
"
MDW
ASE
512
IE,
AL
GATTO
18
=
"
ASE
TVC
573
sc,
AL
x
GATTO
20
is
TVC
TEB
574
JG,GM,
30
"
"
TEB
SAF
IC,GM
AL
SEP
575
GASTO
;
"
SAF
ASE
516
36, GM, J. ROBERTSON
AL
GATTO
I
"
"
ASE
PBI
577
JE, GM
96
GATTO
10
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000112

=== Page 11 ===
August 20, 1994 Flight
Date
Aircraft Make
Aircraft
Points of Departure & Arrival
1994
Miles
and Model
Flight
identification Mark
Remarks, Procedures,
Flown
No.
Maneuvers, Endorsements
From
To
JUL
28
HS125-700
N988IE
TEB
DCA
555
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
3IM
28
"
"
DCA
IAD
556
REPOSITION
IIM
-
28
is
"
IAO
TEB
557
JE,
1 FEMALE
ICM
wornut
30
"
"
TEB
CMH
558
It,
inals, 2 condles
san
30
were
"
"
CMH
PBI
559
J6,
IFEMALE
JIM
AUG
was
7
G1159B
N 908JE
SAV
SAV
B
WAYNE
R
GATTO
8
"
"
SAV
SAV
C
VIRGEL WOLFE-TEST POLOT
AL
9
"
GATTO
"
SAV
SAV
D
VIRGIL WOLFE. RST PELOT
AL
11
"
Garro
"
SAV
SAV
E
AL
VIRGIL WOLFG-TEST PILOT
GATTO
"
"
"
SAV
PBI
F
SCAN LANCASTER
AL
GATTO
14
V
"
PBI
MOW
569
IE,GM
AL
CATTO
14
"
n
MOW
CMH
570
JE,GM
AL
lb
CATTO
"
"
CMH
MOW
571
JC,
AC
16
GATTO
"
"
MDW
ASE
512
JE,
AL
GATTO
18
=
"
ASE
TVC
573
IC
AC
GATTO
20
x
"
TVC
TEB
574
JG,GM,
30
"
"
TEB
SAF
IC,GM GM
AL
SEP
575
GASTO
/
"
SAF
ASE
576
36, GM, J. ROBERTSON
AL
GATTO
1
"
"
ASE
PBI
577
JE, GM
96
GATTO
11
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000113

=== Page 12 ===
I
Interlochen
December 23, 1994
*
Ghislaine Maxwell
c/o J. Epstein & Company, Inc.
The Villard House
457 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Dear Ghislaine:
Enclosed is the envelope we recently found in cleaning the
Epstein Lodge. Apparently it lodged between the wall and
the dresser. It was not discovered until the unit was moved
for cleaning.
12
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000114
EFTA00008727

=== Page 13 ===
November 11, 1996 Flight
Date
Aircraft Make
Aircraft
Points of Departure & Arrival
Miles
Flight
Remarks, Procedures,
18%
Number
and Model
Identification Mark
Flown
No.
Maneuvers, Endorsements
SEP
of Landings
From
To
26
G1159B
N908JE
TEB
CMH
896
JE
1/1
26
"
"
CMH
PBI
897
JE
86
is
"
PBI
TEB
900
JE, GM, DEDICR
1/1
10
"
"
TCB
PBI
902
JE
14
X
"
PBI
TEB
903
JE, , FEMALE
1/1
-
15
"
"
TEB
CMH
904
TO CMH FOR PICK-UP
1/1
15
"
"
CMH
TEB
905
J6, DARREN IRA
JEFF SCHANTZ
#
19
"
"
TEB
PBI
906
IC, DIDREAZADUMEC
1/1
22
by
"
PBI
TCB
907
JE, GM, DIDFER CAZAUDUMEL
1/1
24
"
"
TEB
SAF
908
It, GM, LARRY
25
"
"
SAF
PBI
909
JE, GM,
1/
27
"
NO
PBI
TEB
910
JE, GM, JOE PASHCOW,
30
"
"
TEB
DCA
911
34, ANDY STEWART,
BRIAN MATHES, Laster POLLOCK,
1/1
30
-
"
PCA
TEB.
912
JO,ANOY STEWARS, LESLIE GELB, 3PAK
1/1
31
"
"
TEB
PBI
413
JE, GM, DIDIER CALOUDUME
NOV
f
"
"
PBI
TEB
914
IC,GM, DEDDER CAZUDUMES
1/1
J
"
"
TEB
PBI
915
JE
Jeff SCHANTZ KAMSW (4)
GLGNN, CHOLD NAME 160mg
"
"
11
PBI
TEB
916
36,
SERIONS SCHALTZ CAMPLE
sucin MANNY
15
"
"
TCB
CMH
917
JE,CM, JEFF SCHANTZ, ARREN
13
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000115
EFTA00008728

=== Page 14 ===
Teterboro Airport
Lodi
Cliffs
KING SBRIDGE
21
Garfield
180 Expect
WILLIA
EAST
9W
INWOOD
*
New York
Overpeck
Botanical
County Park
Garden
ssaic
Teterboro Airport
Ridgefield
NEW YORK JERSEY NEW JERSEY
FORDHAM
9A
HEIGHTS
Temporarily
Park
closed
Fort Lee
WEST BRONX
MOR
Palisades Park
₱
95
THE BRONK
Moonachie
93
WASHINGTON
Carlstadt
5
HEIGHTS
East
Rutherford
/ /
PARKC
Ridgefield
63
Yankee Stadium
Temporarily closed
Rutherford
120
UPPER
SOUNDVIEW
MANHATTAN
12
Meadowlands
yndhurst
Sports Complex
BA
HARLEM
MOTT HAVEN
HUNTS POINT
17
33 min
29 min
16.5 miles
15 8 miles
Richard W De
THE
Rikers Island
Secaucus
West New
278
York
Korte Park
95
MANHATTAN
Union City
DITMARS
STEINWAY
495
278
EAST ELMHURST
9 East 71st Street
13
Weehawken
7
HELL S.KITCHEM
ASTORIA
MIDTOWN
JACKSON
MANHATTAN
WOODSIDE
HEIGHTS
THE HEIGHTS
14
280
278
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000116

=== Page 15 ===
May 9, 1997 Flight
Date
Aircraft Make
Aircraft
Points of Departure & Arrival
Miles
1997
Flight
and Model
Identification Mark
Remarks, Procedures,
Flown
No.
Maneuvers, Endorsements
MAY
From
To
5
G1159B
N9085E
EGGW
LSGG
975
JE
5
"
"
LSGG
LFPB
976
JE
6
"
"
LFPB
CYJT
977
JE, GM
6
is
"
CYJT
TEB
978
JO, GM
9
be
"
TEB
SAF
979
J6, GM1
"
12
"
SAF
VNY
980
JE
14
"
"
VNY
SAF
981
JE,
15
"
n
SAF
DFW
982
JGGM,
JACK
15
1.
"
DFW
PBI
983
J6,
23
"
"
PBI
JFK
984
REPOSITION TO JFK
24
"
1.
JFK
PBI
985
JG,
MIDELFART,
JUN
SOUTHGATE
"
"
1
PBI
TEB
986
JC,
5
1.
"
TEB
PBI
987
JE, GM, DIDIER
9
=
"
PBI
TEB
988
JE, GM
21
"
"
TEB
MVY
989
IC,
RUSS
21
"
"
MVY
PBI
990
JE,
K USS HORS
23
"
"
PBI
CMH
991
JE,
Russ
KUPPS
23
:
"
CMH
TEB
992
JE,
Ross
KEPPES
27
"
n
TEB
PBI
993
JG,GM
Russ
KIPPES
15
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000117
EFTA00008730

=== Page 16 ===
May 3, 1998 Flight
Date
Aircraft Make
Aircraft
Points of Departure & Arrival
Miles
1998
and Model
Flight
identification Mark
Remarks, Procedures,
Flown
No.
Maneuvers, Endorsements
APR
From
To
17
G1159B
N908JE
PBI
PBI
1098
CERTIFICATION For CPS APPROACHES
17
C421
N908GM
PBI
X21
CHRSS WAGNER
Acrpuns OPERATIONS
17
C421
"
X21
TIX
SAME as ABOVE
17
"
"
TIX
CRG
KRDTI RODGORS,
Stl CLEMBS DESCGNS TUICNS
18
"
"
CRG
LAL
St',
TURS
18
11
s
LAL
PBI
CHRIS WAGNER,
PELOPAGE, RADIALS, RADIO comm
19
G1159B
N908JE
PBI
CMH
1099
It,
HAZE, I FOMALE
20
"
"
CMH
LUK
1100
30,
20
"
"
LUK
TEB
1101
K,
24
"
"
TEB
PBI
110.2
JC,GM, JC, GM,
CT,
25
C172
NTSRR
LNA-PAI-LAIA
CHRIS WAGNER- No FLAP APPROAKA
25
EMERGENCY PROCEDURES CLASSC
"
"
LNA
LNA
SHORT, SOFT RESECTED TAKEOFF,
EMERGENCY
26
"
"
LNA-PBI
LNA
WAFFIL PATTERN EMERGENCY
LANDINGS, CLASS C operations
26
Gli59B
N908JE
PBI
TEB
1103
IC,GM,ET
MAY
1
"
"
TCB
PBI
1104
V GMGT, GLEN 04038,
ANANNY
4
C172
NTSRR
LNA-PBI
-LNA
CHRIS
WHENER
SHORS - 5055 PEOLP Tax, EMERLING
G1159B
LANDENCE TAS CLASS OPERATION
3
N908JE
PBI
TEB
1105
36,GM,CT,
GLENY
comes
"
NANIY,
5
"
TCB
BCD
1106
JG,
S
"
"
BED
TEB
1107
JE,
s SEVEN
16
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000118

=== Page 17 ===
Date 6/25/98
SECTION A.
[ ] Male 1 Female
Name of student (legal name)
SSN
Grade applied for 12
For entrance (month/year) 9/98
Date of birth
Birthplace (city/state)
Permanent address
"
Local address
City/state/zip
City/state/zip
"
SECTION E.
Who has financial responsibility? Mr. Jeffrey Epstein
Address 457 Madison Ave.
City/state/zip New York, N.Y. 10022
Bank reference (name and branch) J.P. Morgan, 5th Ave.
Do you expect to apply for financial assistance? [ ]
Yes
X
]
No
17
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000119
EFTA00008732

=== Page 18 ===
January 3, 1995 Flight
Date
Aircraft Make
Aircraft
1994
and Model
Identification Mark
Points of Departure & Arrival
Miles
Flight
Remarks, Procedures,
NOV
Flown
From
No.
To
Maneuvers, Endorsements
25
G1159B
N908JE
SAEZ
SARI
"
619
JE, CM
25
"
SARI
TNCC
620
JG, CM
25
"
"
TNCC
PBI
621
J6, 36,cm CM
29
"
=
760
PBI
TEB
622
50
HS125-700
N988JE
JC,
PBI
PBI
626
10
G1159B
TEST FLIGHT
N908JE
SAV
TEB
627
REPOSITION
10
"
"
TCB
PBI
628
16
J6,
HS125-700
N988JE
PBI
SAT
(3)
SGAN LANCASTER
JUDO
19
G1159B
N908JE
PBI
TEB
632
I6
UCCKGRT
21
G1159B
N908J6
1995
TEB
PBI
633
36
JAN3
"
"
secure MASHIN FATHER RUPERT,
PBI
TCB
5
634
Jc, 2 FEMALES
"
"
TEB
CMH
635
JE, ) FEMALE
s
11
"
CMH
PBI
8
636
JC, 1 FEMALE
"
"
PBI
IAD
637
V SEMMLE Goodle METCHELL
8
"
"
IAD
TEB
638
16, RUL PASIK GASHOR, 2 PAX
13
"
2004
sace PASITION *FATHER,
:
TEB
PBI
17
639
JC, MARK cm, I FEMALE
"
11
PBI
TEB
19
640
50, GM, ANDY STEWART
=
"
TEB
PBI
641
J6, GM
21
"
"
PBI
TEB
642
certify that the statements made by me on this form are true.
J6, GM
18
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000120

=== Page 19 ===
February 12, 1995 Flight
Date
Aircraft Make
Aircraft
Points of Departure & Arrival
Miles
Flight
Remarks, Procedures,
1995
and Model
Identification Mark
Flown
No.
Maneuvers, Endorsements
JAN
From
To
23
G1159B
N908JE
TEB
CMH
643
3/=
23
is
"
CMH
TEB
644
JE
28
is
"
TEB
DCA.
645
JE, LUBA
28
is
"
DCA
IAD
646
REPOSITION
28
is
"
IAD
CMH
647
REPOSITION
28
in
"
CMH
PBI
648
JG
-30-2°
"
SEMULARE
G1159 RECORRENT TRAINING -SAV
FOB
6
"
N9085E
PBI
TEB
651
JG, ANDY STEWART
9
"
in
TCB
Bos
652
- GM, ANDY
9
"
"
BOS
TCB
653
GM, ANDY, HENRY ROSOVSKI
9
n
"
TCB
PBI
654
J6, GM, ANOY, HENRY ROSEVSKI,U39
12
"
"
PBI
TEB
LESS
J6, GM, ANDY, HENRY RESURSES, I FEMALE
12
4
"
TEB
BOS
656
- HENRY ROSEVSKY
12
"
"
Bos
SAV
657
REPOSITION FOR a MONTH INSPECTION
MAR
T
"
"
SAV
TEB
658
REPOSITION
I
:
"
TEB
SAF
659
IC, GM, ANDY, JACK
2
"
n
SAF
PBI
660
J6, GM, ANDY
6
"
"
PBI
TEB
661
J6, GM, ANDY
JSM
WORDEN
7
"
"
TEB
SAV
612
DAKE SCOLE
REPOSITION FOR Nike cona
19
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000121
EFTA00008734

=== Page 20 ===
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000122

=== Page 21 ===
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000123

=== Page 22 ===
April 22, 2016 Deposition
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
X
Plaintiff,
Case No.:
-against-
15-cv-07433-RWS
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendants.
X
**CONFIDENTIAL**
Videotaped deposition of GHISLAINE
MAXWELL, taken pursuant to subpoena, was
held at the law offices of BOIES
SCHILLER & FLEXNER, 575 Lexington
Avenue, New York, New York, commencing
April 22, 2016, 9:04 a.m., on the above
date, before Leslie Fagin, a Court
Reporter and Notary Public in the State
of New York.
22
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000124
EFTA00008737

=== Page 23 ===
Q.
Did Jeffrey Epstein have a scheme
to recruit underage girls for sexual
massages?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the
form and foundation.
Q.
If you know.
A.
I don't know what you are talking
about.
23
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000

=== Page 24 ===
Q. List all the people under the age
of 18 that you interacted with at any of
Jeffrey's properties?
A. I'm not aware of anybody that I
interacted with, other than obviously
who was 17 at this point?
24
GM_GJ_SDNY_0000012

=== Page 25 ===
July 22, 2016 Deposition
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
X
Plaintiff,
Case No.:
-against-
15-cv-07433-RWS
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendant.
X
**CONFIDENTIAL**
Continued Videotaped Deposition of
GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the Defendant herein,
taken pursuant to subpoena, was held at
the law offices of Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, LLP, 575 Lexington Avenue, New
York, New York, commencing July 22,
2016, 9:04 a.m., on the above date,
before Leslie Fagin, a Court Reporter
and Notary Public in the State of New
York.
25
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000127

=== Page 26 ===
Q. Were you aware of the presence of
sex toys or devices used in sexual activities
in Mr. Epstein's Palm Beach house?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to form
and foundation.
A. No, not that I recall.
Q. Do you know whether Mr. Epstein
possessed sex toys or devices used in sexual
activities?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to form
and foundation.
A. No.
26

=== Page 27 ===
Q. Other than yourself and the blond
and brunette that you have identified as
having been involved in three-way sexual
activities, with whom did Mr. Epstein have
sexual activities?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to form
and foundation.
A. I wasn't aware that he was having
sexual activities with anyone when I was with
him other than myself.
Q. I want to be sure that I'm clear.
Is it your testimony that in the 1990s and
2000s, you were not aware that Mr. Epstein
was having sexual activities with anyone
other than yourself and the blond and
brunette on those few occasions when they
were involved with you?
A. That is my testimony, that is
correct.

=== Page 28 ===
massage.
a
елеб лелеи I
A
massage is your testimony?
a
елеб лелеи nox .0
A. That is my testimony.
massage, is that your testimony?
Q. You never gave Mr. Epstein a
A. I have not given anyone a massage.
anybody a massage?
your testimony that you've never given
ST 7I "имор 7847 to 7snf s,7et .0


c1: EFTA00008874
c2: DataSet 6
c3: VOL00006
c4: DataSet 6/VOL00006/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00008874.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
GRAND JURY
EXHIBIT
GJX-1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
X
:
SEALED
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
:
INDICTMENT
:
- V. -
:
20 Cr.
:
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
:
:
Defendant.
:
:
X
COUNT ONE
(Conspiracy to Entice Minors to Travel to Engage in
Illegal Sex Acts)
The Grand Jury charges:
OVERVIEW
1. The charges set forth herein stem from the role
of GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, in the sexual exploitation
and abuse of multiple minor girls by Jeffrey Epstein. In
particular, from at least in or about 1994, up to and including
at least in or about 1997, MAXWELL assisted, facilitated, and
contributed to Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of minor girls by, among
other things, helping Epstein to recruit, groom, and ultimately
abuse victims known to MAXWELL and Epstein to be under the age
of 18. The victims were as young as 14 years old when they were
groomed and abused by MAXWELL and Epstein, both of whom knew
that certain victims were in fact under the age of 18.
2. As a part and in furtherance of their scheme to
abuse minor victims, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, and
Jeffrey Epstein enticed and caused minor victims to travel to
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000346
EFTA00008874

=== Page 2 ===
Epstein's residences in different states, which MAXWELL knew and
intended would result in their grooming for and subjection to
sexual abuse. Moreover, in an effort to conceal her crimes,
MAXWELL repeatedly lied when questioned about her conduct,
including in relation to some of the minor victims described
herein, when providing testimony under oath in 2016.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
3.
During the time periods charged in this
Indictment, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, had a personal and
professional relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and was among his
closest associates. In particular, between in or about 1994 and
in or about 1997, MAXWELL was in an intimate relationship with
Epstein and also was paid by Epstein to manage his various
properties. Over the course of their relationship, MAXWELL and
Epstein were photographed together on multiple occasions,
including in the below image:
2
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000347
EFTA00008875

=== Page 3 ===
4.
Beginning in at least 1994, GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
the defendant, enticed and groomed multiple minor girls to
engage in sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein, through a variety of
means and methods, including but not limited to the following:
a.
MAXWELL first attempted to befriend some of
Epstein's minor victims prior to their abuse, including by
asking the victims about their lives, their schools, and their
families. MAXWELL and Epstein would spend time building
friendships with minor victims by, for example, taking minor
victims to the movies or shopping. Some of these outings would
involve MAXWELL and Epstein spending time together with a minor
victim, while some would involve MAXWELL or Epstein spending
time alone with a minor victim.
b.
Having developed a rapport with a victim,
MAXWELL would try to normalize sexual abuse for a minor victim
by, among other things, discussing sexual topics, undressing in
front of the victim, being present when a minor victim was
undressed, and/or being present for sex acts involving the minor
victim and Epstein.
C. MAXWELL'S presence during minor victims'
interactions with Epstein, including interactions where the
minor victim was undressed or that involved sex acts with
Epstein, helped put the victims at ease because an adult woman
was present. For example, in some instances, MAXWELL would
3
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000348
EFTA00008876

=== Page 4 ===
massage Epstein in front of a minor victim. In other instances,
MAXWELL encouraged minor victims to provide massages to Epstein,
including sexualized massages during which a minor victim would
be fully or partially nude. Many of those massages resulted in
Epstein sexually abusing the minor victims.
d. In addition, Epstein offered to help some
minor victims by paying for travel and/or educational
opportunities, and MAXWELL encouraged certain victims to accept
Epstein's assistance. As a result, victims were made to feel
indebted and believed that MAXWELL and Epstein were trying to
help them.
e. Through this process, MAXWELL and Epstein
enticed victims to engage in sexual activity with Epstein. In
some instances, MAXWELL was present for and participated in the
sexual abuse of minor victims. Some such incidents occurred in
the context of massages, which developed into sexual encounters.
5. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, facilitated
Jeffrey Epstein's access to minor victims knowing that he had a
sexual preference for underage girls and that he intended to
engage in sexual activity with those victims. Epstein's
resulting abuse of minor victims included, among other things,
touching a victim's breast, touching a victim's genitals,
placing a sex toy such as a vibrator on a victim's genitals,
4
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000349
EFTA00008877

=== Page 5 ===
directing a victim to touch Epstein while he masturbated, and
directing a victim to touch Epstein's genitals.
MAXWELL AND EPSTEIN'S VICTIMS
6.
Between approximately in or about 1994 and in or
about 1997, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, facilitated
Jeffrey Epstein's access to minor victims by, among other
things, inducing and enticing, and aiding and abetting the
inducement and enticement of, multiple minor victims. Victims
were groomed and/or abused at multiple locations, including the
following:
a.
A a multi-story private residence on the
Upper East Side of Manhattan, New York owned by Epstein (the
"New York Residence"), which is depicted in the following
photograph:
5
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000350
EFTA00008878

=== Page 6 ===
b.
An estate in Palm Beach, Florida owned by
Epstein (the "Palm Beach Residence"), which is depicted in the
following photograph:
C.
A ranch in Santa Fe, New Mexico owned by
Epstein (the "New Mexico Residence"), which is depicted in the
following photograph:
6
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000351
EFTA00008879

=== Page 7 ===
d.
MAXWELL's personal residence in London,
England.
7. Among the victims induced or enticed by GHISLAINE
MAXWELL, the defendant, were minor victims identified herein as
Minor Victim-1, Minor Victim-2, and Minor Victim-3. In
particular, and during time periods relevant to this Indictment,
MAXWELL engaged in the following acts, among others, with
respect to minor victims:
a.
MAXWELL met Minor Victim-1 when Minor
Victim-1 was approximately 14 years old. MAXWELL subsequently
interacted with Minor Victim-1 on multiple occasions at
Epstein's residences, knowing that Minor Victim-1 was under the
age of 18 at the time. During these interactions, which took
place between approximately 1994 and 1997, MAXWELL groomed Minor
Victim-1 to engage in sexual acts with Epstein through multiple
means. First, MAXWELL and Epstein attempted to befriend Minor
Victim-1, taking her to the movies and on shopping trips.
MAXWELL also asked Minor Victim-1 about school, her classes, her
family, and other aspects of her life. MAXWELL then sought to
normalize inappropriate and abusive conduct by, among other
things, undressing in front of Minor Victim-1 and being present
when Minor Victim-1 undressed in front of Epstein. Within the
first year after MAXWELL and Epstein met Minor Victim-1, Epstein
began sexually abusing Minor Victim-1. MAXWELL was present for
7
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000352
EFTA00008880

=== Page 8 ===
and involved in some of this abuse. In particular, MAXWELL
involved Minor Victim-1 in group sexualized massages of Epstein.
During those group sexualized massages, MAXWELL and/or Minor
Victim-1 would engage in sex acts with Epstein. Epstein and
MAXWELL both encouraged Minor Victim-1 to travel to Epstein's
residences in both New York and Florida. As a result, Minor
Victim-1 was sexually abused by Epstein in both New York and
Florida. Minor Victim-1 was enticed to travel across state
lines for the purpose of sexual encounters with Epstein, and
MAXWELL was aware that Epstein engaged in sexual activity with
Minor Victim-1 after Minor-Victim-1 traveled to Epstein's
properties, including in the context of a sexualized massage.
b.
MAXWELL interacted with Minor Victim-2 on at
least one occasion in or about 1996 at Epstein's residence in
New Mexico when Minor Victim-2 was under the age of 18. Minor
Victim-2 had flown into New Mexico from out of state at
Epstein's invitation for the purpose of being groomed for and/or
subjected to acts of sexual abuse. MAXWELL knew that Minor
Victim-2 was under the age of 18 at the time. While in New
Mexico, MAXWELL and Epstein took Minor Victim-2 to a movie and
MAXWELL took Minor Victim-2 shopping. MAXWELL also discussed
Minor Victim-2's school, classes, and family with Minor Victim-
2. In New Mexico, MAXWELL began her efforts to groom Minor
Victim-2 for abuse by Epstein by, among other things, providing
8
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000353
EFTA00008881

=== Page 9 ===
an unsolicited massage to Minor Victim-2, during which Minor
Victim-2 was topless. MAXWELL also encouraged Minor Victim-2 to
massage Epstein.
C.
MAXWELL groomed and befriended Minor
Victim-3 in London, England between approximately 1994 and 1995,
including during a period of time in which MAXWELL knew that
Minor Victim-3 was under the age of 18. Among other things,
MAXWELL discussed Minor Victim-3's life and family with Minor
Victim-3. MAXWELL introduced Minor Victim-3 to Epstein and
arranged for multiple interactions between Minor Victim-3 and
Epstein. During those interactions, MAXWELL encouraged Minor
Victim-3 to massage Epstein, knowing that Epstein would engage
in sex acts with Minor Victim-3 during those massages. Minor
Victim-3 provided Epstein with the requested massages, and
during those massages, Epstein sexually abused Minor Victim-3.
MAXWELL was aware that Epstein engaged in sexual activity with
Minor Victim-3 on multiple occasions, including at times when
Minor Victim-3 was under the age of 18, including in the context
of a sexualized massage.
MAXWELL'S EFFORTS TO CONCEAL HER CONDUCT
8. In or around 2016, in the context of a deposition
as part of civil litigation, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant,
repeatedly provided false and perjurious statements, under oath,
regarding, among other subjects, her role in facilitating the
9
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000354
EFTA00008882

=== Page 10 ===
abuse of minor victims by Jeffrey Epstein, including some of the
specific events and acts of abuse detailed above.
STATUTORY ALLEGATIONS
9. From at least in or about 1994, up to and
including in or about 1997, in the Southern District of New York
and elsewhere, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, Jeffrey
Epstein, and others known and unknown, willfully and knowingly
did combine, conspire, confederate, and agree together and with
each other to commit an offense against the United States, to
wit, enticement, in violation of Title 18, United States Code,
Section 2422.
10. It was a part and object of the conspiracy that
GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and others
known and unknown, would and did knowingly persuade, induce,
entice, and coerce one and more individuals to travel in
interstate and foreign commerce, to engage in sexual activity
for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, in
violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422.
Overt Acts
11. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect
the illegal object thereof, the following overt acts, among
others, were committed in the Southern District of New York and.
elsewhere:
10
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000355
EFTA00008883

=== Page 11 ===
a.
Between in or about 1994 and in or about
1997, when Minor Victim-1 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL
participated in multiple group sexual encounters with Epstein
and Minor Victim-1 in New York and Florida.
b. In or about 1996, when Minor Victim-1 was
under the age of 18, Minor Victim-1 was enticed to travel from
Florida to New York for purposes of sexually abusing her at the
New York Residence, in violation of New York Penal Law, Section
130.55.
C. In or about 1996, when Minor Victim-2 was
under the age of 18, MAXWELL provided Minor Victim-2 with an
unsolicited massage in New Mexico, during which Minor Victim-2
was topless.
d. Between in or about 1994 and in or about
1995, when Minor Victim-3 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL
encouraged Minor Victim-3 to provide massages to Epstein in
London, England, knowing that Epstein intended to sexually abuse
Minor Victim-3 during those massages.
(Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.)
COUNT TWO
(Enticement of a Minor to Travel to Engage in Illegal Sex Acts)
The Grand Jury further charges:
12. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1
through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if
fully set forth within.
11
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000356
EFTA00008884

=== Page 12 ===
13. From at least in or about 1994, up to and
including in or about 1997, in the Southern District of New York
and elsewhere, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, knowingly did
persuade, induce, entice, and coerce an individual to travel in
interstate and foreign commerce to engage in sexual activity for
which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, and
attempted to do the same, and aided and abetted the same, to
wit, MAXWELL persuaded, induced, enticed, and coerced Minor
Victim-1 to travel from Florida to New York, New York on
multiple occasions with the intention that Minor Victim-1 would
engage in one or more sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein, in
violation of New York Penal Law, Section 130.55.
(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422 and 2.)
COUNT THREE
(Conspiracy to Transport Minors with Intent to
Engage in Criminal Sexual Activity)
The Grand Jury further charges:
14. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1
through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if
fully set forth within.
15. From at least in or about 1994, up to and
including in or about 1997, in the Southern District of New York
and elsewhere, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, Jeffrey
Epstein, and others known and unknown, willfully and knowingly
did combine, conspire, confederate, and agree together and with
each other to commit an offense against the United States, to
12
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000357
EFTA00008885

=== Page 13 ===
wit, transportation of minors, in violation of Title 18, United
States Code, Section 2423 (a).
16. It was a part and object of the conspiracy that
GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and others
known and unknown, would and did, knowingly transport an
individual who had not attained the age of 18 in interstate and
foreign commerce, with intent that the individual engage in
sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a
criminal offense, in violation of Title 18, United States Code,
Section 2423 (a) .
Overt Acts
17. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect
the illegal object thereof, the following overt acts, among
others, were committed in the Southern District of New York and
elsewhere:
a.
Between in or about 1994 and in or about
1997, when Minor Victim-1 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL
participated in multiple group sexual encounters with EPSTEIN
and Minor Victim-1 in New York and Florida.
b. In or about 1996, when Minor Victim-1 was
under the age of 18, Minor Victim-1 was enticed to travel from
Florida to New York for purposes of sexually abusing her at the
13
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000358
EFTA00008886

=== Page 14 ===
New York Residence, in violation of New York Penal Law, Section
130.55.
C. In or about 1996, when Minor Victim-2 was
under the age of 18, MAXWELL provided Minor Victim-2 with an
unsolicited massage in New Mexico, during which Minor Victim-2
was topless.
d. Between in or about 1994 and in or about
1995, when Minor Victim-3 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL
encouraged Minor Victim-3 to provide massages to Epstein in
London, England, knowing that Epstein intended to sexually abuse
Minor Victim-3 during those massages.
(Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.)
COUNT FOUR
(Transportation of a Minor with Intent to
Engage in Criminal Sexual Activity)
The Grand Jury further charges:
18. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1
through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if
fully set forth within.
19. From at least in or about 1994, up to and
including in or about 1997, in the Southern District of New York
and elsewhere, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, knowingly did
transport an individual who had not attained the age of 18 in
interstate and foreign commerce, with the intent that the
individual engage in sexual activity for which a person can be
charged with a criminal offense, and attempted to do so, and
14
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000359
EFTA00008887

=== Page 15 ===
aided and abetted the same, to wit, MAXWELL arranged for Minor
Victim-1 to be transported from Florida to New York, New York on
multiple occasions with the intention that Minor Victim-1 would
engage in one or more sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein, in
violation of New York Penal Law, Section 130.55.
(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2423 (a) and 2.)
COUNT FIVE
(Perjury)
The Grand Jury further charges:
20. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1
through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if
fully set forth within.
21. On or about April 22, 2016, in the Southern
District of New York, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, having
taken an oath to testify truthfully in a deposition in
connection with a case then pending before the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York under
docket number 15 Civ. 7344, knowingly made false material
declarations, to wit, MAXWELL gave the following underlined
false testimony:
Q.
Did Jeffrey Epstein have a scheme to recruit
underage girls for sexual massages? If you know.
A. I don't know what you're talking about.
15
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000360
EFTA00008888

=== Page 16 ===
Q.
List all the people under the age of 18 that you
interacted with at any of Jeffrey's properties?
A.
I'm not aware of anybody that I interacted with,
other than obviously [the plaintiff] who was 17
at this point.
(Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623.)
COUNT SIX
(Perjury)
The Grand Jury further charges:
22. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1
through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if
fully set forth within.
23. On or about July 22, 2016, in the Southern
District of New York, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, having
taken an oath to testify truthfully in a deposition in
connection with a case then pending before the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York under
docket number 15 Civ. 7344, knowingly made false material
declarations, to wit, MAXWELL gave the following underlined
false testimony:
a
Were you aware of the presence of sex toys or
devices used in sexual activities in Mr.
Epstein's Palm Beach house?
A:
No, not that I recall.
Q.
Do you know whether Mr. Epstein possessed sex
toys or devices used in sexual activities?
A. No.
16
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000361
EFTA00008889

=== Page 17 ===
Q.
Other than yourself and the blond and brunette
that you have identified as having been involved
in three-way sexual activities, with whom did Mr.
Epstein have sexual activities?
A.
I wasn't aware that he was having sexual
activities with anyone when I was with him other
than myself.
Q.
I want to be sure that I'm clear. Is it your
testimony that in the 1990s and 2000s, you were
not aware that Mr. Epstein was having sexual
activities with anyone other than yourself and
the blond and brunette on those few occasions
when they were involved with you?
A.
That is my testimony, that is correct.
Q.
Is it your testimony that you've never given
anybody a massage?
A.
I have not given anyone a massage.
Q.
You never gave Mr. Epstein a massage, is that
your testimony?
A.
That is my testimony.
Q. You never gave [Minor Victim-2] a massage is your
testimony?
A.
I never gave [Minor Victim-2] a massage.
(Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623.)
FOREPERSON
AUDREY Audy STRAUSS Straws
Acting United States Attorney
17
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000362
EFTA00008890

=== Page 18 ===
Form No. USA-33s-274 (Ed. 9-25-58)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
V.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendant.
INDICTMENT
(18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1623, 2422, 2423 (a),
and 2)
AUDREY STRAUSS
Acting United States Attorney
Foreperson
18
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000363
EFTA00008891


c1: EFTA00008599
c2: DataSet 6
c3: VOL00006
c4: DataSet 6/VOL00006/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00008599.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
United States V. Jeffrey Epstein
June 18, 2019 Presentation
1
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000001
EFTA00008599

=== Page 2 ===
9 East 71st Street, New York, New York
Google
2
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000002
EFTA00008600

=== Page 3 ===
358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Florida
Google
3
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000003
EFTA00008601

=== Page 4 ===
t

=== Page 5 ===
$

=== Page 6 ===
9

=== Page 7 ===
7

=== Page 8 ===
IMPORTANT MESSAGE
FOR
Mr.J.E.
DATE
9/30/04
TIME 6:27
A.M.
P.M.
M
OF
PHONE/
MOBILE
TELEPHONED
PLEASE CALL
CAME TO SEE YOU
WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU
RUSH
RETURNED YOUR CALL
SPECIAL ATTENTION
MESSAGE
She has Femles 1
for Mr. J.E
SIGNED
R
1184
8
GM GJ SDNY (

=== Page 9 ===
IMPORTANT MESSAGE
FOR
Mr. J.E.
DATE 11/08/04
TIME 1:15 A.M. P.M.
M
OF
PHONE/
MOBILE
TELEPHONED
PLEASE CALL
CAME TO SEE YOU
WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU
RUSH
RETURNED YOUR CALL
SPECIAL ATTENTION
MESSAGE
"I I have 2 Famile
for him
SIGNED
R
1184
9
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000009
EFTA00008607

=== Page 10 ===
IMPORTANT MESSAGE
IMPORTANT MESSAGE
FOR
Mr.J.E Mr. J.E
FOR OF
DATE 11/11/04 TIME 11:03PM P.M.
DATE
TIME 700 P.M. A.M.
M
Darion
OF
c
PHONE/
PRONE
MOBILE
MOBILE
TELEPHONED
PLEASE CALL
TELEPHONED
PLEASE CALL
CAME TO SEE YOU
WILL CALL AGAIN
CAME TO SEE YOU
WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU
RUSH
WANTS TO SEE YOU
RUSH
RETURNED YOUR CALL
SPECIAL ATTENTION
RETURNED YOUR CALL
SPECIAL ATTENTION
MESSAGE
He has the info
MESSAGE wondering if
you want her to
plaase call him.
work fomorrow
SIGNED
R
& what time
1184
SIGNED
1184
IMPORTANT MESSAGE
IMPORTANT MESSAGE
FOR JE
FOR In
DATE
TIME 5.15 P.M. A.M.
DATE
9:55 P.M. AM
M DonddTrump Dandd Trump
M
OF
OF
PHO
PHONE/
MOBI
MOBILE
TELEPHONED
PLEASE CALL
TELEPHONED
PLEASE CALL
CAME TO SEE YOU
WILL CALL AGAIN
CAME TO SEE YOU
WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU
RUSH
WANTS TO SEE YOU
RUSH
RETURNED YOUR CALL
SPECIAL ATTENTION
RETURNED YOUR CALL
SPECIAL ATTENTION
MESSAGE
MESSAGE
SIGNED
6
10
1184
SIGNED
1104
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000010
EFTA00008608

=== Page 11 ===
IMPORTANT MESSAGE
FOR
J.E
DATE
1/13/05
A.M.
TIME 7:30
P.M.
M
OF
PHONE/
MOBILE
TELEPHONED
PLEASE CALL
CAME TO SEE YOU
WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU
RUSH
RETURNED YOUR CALL
SPECIAL ATTENTION
MESSAGE
Ploase cell h6-
SIGNED
X
1184
11
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000

=== Page 12 ===
IMPORTANT MESSAGE
FOR
J.E
DATE 1/29/05
TIME 1:10
A.M.
P.M.
M
OF
PHONE
MOBILE
TELEPHONED
PLEASE CALL
CAME TO SEE YOU
WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU
RUSH
RETURNED YOUR CALL
SPECIAL ATTENTION
MESSAGE
'I have ? famels
for him
R
SIGNED
12
1184
GM_GJ_SDNY_00
EETA00

=== Page 13 ===
IMPORTANT MESSAGE
FOR Teffrey
DATE
TIME 340 A.M. P.M.
M
OF
PHONE/
MOBILE
TELEPHONED
PLEASE CALL
V
CAME TO SEE YOU
WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU
RUSH
RETURNED YOUR CALL
SPECIAL ATTENTION
MESSAGE
She has Q
Female friend for
you
Hense call bad
as soon us posside
a
SIGNED
1184
13
GM_GJ_SDNY_0000001

=== Page 14 ===
IMPORTANT MESSAGE
FOR leftery
DA 3/19/015
TIME 11:50 A.M. P.M.
M
OF
PHONE/
MOBILE
TELEPHONED
PLEASE CALL
CAME TO SEE YOU
WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU
RUSH
RETURNED YOUR CALL
SPECIAL ATTENTION
MESSAGE She will be
here at 4pm
But She needs
Aalk to before
that Place you call
has Bach.
14
SIGNED
1184
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000014
EFTA00008612

=== Page 15 ===
IMPORTANT MESSAGE
FOR J.E.
DATE
9/8/05
TIME 4:50PM A.M. P.M
M
OF
PHONE/
MOBILE
TELEPHONED
PLEASE CALL
CAME TO SEE YOU
WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU
RUSH
RETURNED YOUR CALL
SPECIAL ATTENTION
MESSAGE
Her new phone #
15
SIGNED I.
1184
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000015
EFTA00008613

=== Page 16 ===
IMPORTANT MESSAGE
FOR J.E.
DATE
3/18/05
TIME 7:33 P.M A.M.
M
OF
PHONE/
MOBILE
TELEPHONED
PLEASE CALL
CAME TO SEE YOU
WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU
RUSH
RETURNED YOUR CALL
SPECIAL ATTENTION
MESSAGE
Please! Call hee
SIGNED J.
16
1184
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000016
EFTA00008614

=== Page 17 ===
IMPORTANT MESSAGE
FOR Teffrey
DATE 3/18/05
TIME 06:15 A.M. P.M.
M
OF
PHONE/
MOBILE
TELEPHONED
PLEASE CALL
CAME TO SEE YOU
WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU
RUSH
RETURNED YOUR CALL
SPECIAL ATTENTION
MESSAGE
Shc Can be
tommorow here from
2pm to whenerer.
17
SIGNED
1184
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000017
EFTA00008615

=== Page 18 ===
IMPORTANT MESSAGE
FOR Jeffrey
DATE
TIME 5:11 A.M. P.M.
M
OF
PHONE/
MOBILE
TELEPHONED
PLEASE CALL
CAME TO SEE YOU
WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU
RUSH
RETURNED YOUR CALL
SPECIAL ATTENTION
MESSAGE has girl for
tonight
a
SIGNED
1184
18
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000018

=== Page 19 ===
IMPORTANT MESSAGE
FOR
J.E.
DATE 9/4/05
TIME 7:25 P.M.
A.M.
M
OF
PHONE/
MOBILE
TELEPHONED
X
PLEASE CALL
CAME TO SEE YOU
WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU
RUSH
RETURNED YOUR CALL
SPECIAL ATTENTION
MESSAGE Canceled
She wouldliketo speak
toyou. I belive about
college
Shoul I schedule any
one else ?
SIGNED J
1184
19
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000019
EFTA00008617

=== Page 20 ===
IMPORTANT MESSAGE
FOR m J Epstein
DATE J/6/05
TIME 4:11 P.M. A.M.
M
OF
PHONE/
MOBILE
TELEPHONED
PLEASE CALL
CAME TO SEE YOU
WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU
RUSH
RETURNED YOUR CALL
SPECIAL ATTENTION
MESSAGE
Wants to work
if you an in.
SIGNED
8
20
1184
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000020
EFTA00008618

=== Page 21 ===
IMPORTANT MESSAGE
FOR Pettrey
DATE 3/18/05
TIME 4:21 PM A.M.
M
OF
PHONE/
MOBILE
TELEPHONED
PLEASE CALL
CAME TO SEE YOU
WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU
RUSH
RETURNED YOUR CALL
SPECIAL ATTENTION
MESSAGE
K it ok if
will come
at 5 FOR ?
21
SIGNED
1184
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000021
EFTA00008619

=== Page 22 ===
IMPORTANT MESSAGE
FOR
JEFFREY
DATE AUG 2
TIME 12:45 A.M. P.M.
M
OF
PHONE/
MOBILE
TELEPHONED
PLEASE CALL
CAME TO SEE YOU
WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU
RUSH
RETURNED YOUR CALL
SPECIAL ATTENTION
MESSAGE
THEY ARE
AVAILABLE ALL WEEKEND
AND PASSIBL MAY BE
too
22
SIGNED
1184
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000022

=== Page 23 ===
23

=== Page 24 ===
24
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000024
EFTA00008622

=== Page 25 ===
October 12, 2004 Deposit
MEMBER'S COPY
GOLD COAST
if TRANSACTION 10-12-04 13:28:15
1 165 *GF
START TIME 13:27:25
FEDERAL
CREDIT UNION
RECEIVED
220.00 IN CASH
(561) 965-1000
10s:
0.00
20s:
20.00
50s:
0.00
100s:
200.00
DEPOSIT OF
220.00
|
Driver's License Number
Other I.D.
Member's Signature
NCUA
Check deposits are subject to your
Credit Union check hold policy.
25
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000025
EFTA00008623

=== Page 26 ===
November 9, 2004 Deposit
MEMBER'S COPY
GOLD COAST
iF TRANSACTION 11-09-04 13:21:19
1 165 *GF
START TIME 13:21:03
CREDIT UNION
RECEIVED
200.00 IN CASH
(561) 965-1000
10s:
0.00
20s:
0.00
50s:
0.00
100s:
200.00
DEPOSIT OF
200.00
Driver's License Number
Other I.D.
Member's Signature
NCUA
Check deposits are subject to your
Credit Union check hold policy.
26
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000026
EFTA00008624

=== Page 27 ===
Financially Liable Party
Name:
JEFFREY E EPSTEIN
Credit Address: 457 MADISON AVE, NEW YORK NY 10022-6843
Customer Since: 04/03/2004
Photo ID Type:
choto ID State:
Photo ID Number:
DOB:
05/05/1950
SSN:
Contact Name:
Contact Home Phone:
Contact Work Phone:
Contact Home Email:
Contact Work Email:
Billing Party
Account Number:
Name:
JEFFREY E EPSTEIN
Billing Address: 457 MADISON AVE, NEW YORK NYS 10022-6843
Account Status: Active
Billing Cycle: 2
User Information
MSISDN:
IMSI:
MSISDN Active:
IMEI/ESN
Name:
User Address:
457 MADISON AVE , NEW YORK N2 10022-6843
27
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000027
EFTA00008625

=== Page 28 ===
January 3, 2004 Calls
952 01/03 11:33A
NEW YORK NY
1 MIN
UNLIM MOBL TO MOBL
953 01/03 11:34A
INCOMING
1 MIN
INCLUDED MINUTES
954 01/03 11:49A
BOYNTONBCH FL
1 MIN
INCLUDED MINUTES
955 01/03 12:19P
BOYNTONBCH FL
1MIN
INCLUDED MINUTES
956 01/03 12:21P
WPALMBEACH FL
1MIN
UNLIM MOBL TO MOBL
957 01/03 12:24P
WPALMBEACH FL
1MIN
INCLUDED MINUTES
958 01/03 12:24P
BOYNTONBCH FL
1MIN
INCLUDED MINUTES
959 01/03 12:27P
BOYNTONBCH FL
1 MIN
INCLUDED MINUTES
960 01/03 12:45P
INCOMING
6MIN
INCLUDED MINUTES
961 01/03 12:53P
BOYNTONBCH FL
1 MIN
INCLUDED MINUTES
962 01/03 12:54P
INCOMING
1MIN
INCLUDED MINUTES
963 01/03 01:06P
NEW YORK NY
1MIN
UNLIM MOBL TO MOBL
964 01/03 02:26P
WPALMBEACH FL
1 MIN
UNLIM MOBL TO MOBL
1 EVT
MESSAGE DETDIEVAL
28
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000028
EFTA00008626

=== Page 29 ===
January 4, 2005 Deposit
MEMBER'S COPY
GOLD COAST
FEDERAL
GF TRANSACTION 01-04-05 14:49:28
1 160 *GF
CREDIT UNION
START TIME 14:49:16
(561) 965-1000
RECEIVED
130.00 IN CASH
10s:
1
COs:
2 50s:
0 100s:
1
Driver's License Number
DEPOSIT OF
50.00
PREV BAL
DEPOSIT OF
100.00
Other I.D.
PREV BAL
Member's Signature
-
NCUA
vus
Check deposits are subject to your
Credit Union check hold policy.
29
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000029
EFTA00008627

=== Page 30 ===
September 16, 2004 Calls
VOICE USAGE FOR
Continued
Number
Qnty
Charge
Item Date Time
Called
Calls To
Used
Rate
Description
125 09/15 08:45P
WPALMBEACH FL
4MIN
300 ADD'L ANYTME MIN
126 09/15 08:52P
WPALMBEACH FL
2MIN
300 ADD'L ANYTME MIN
127 09/15 09:04P
INCOMING
1 MIN
UNLIMITED N/WKND MIN
128 09/15 09:32P
INCOMING
1 MIN
UNLIMITED N/WKND MIN
129 09/15 10:39P
INCOMING
1 MIN
UNLIMITED N/WKND MIN
130 09/16 11:14A
INCOMING
1 MIN
300 ADD'L ANYTME MIN
131 09/16 02:07P
WPALMBEACH FL
1 MIN
UNLIM MOBL TO MOBL
1 EVT
MESSAGE RETRIEVAL
132 09/16 02:08P
NEW YORK NY
1 MIN
UNLIM MOBL TO MOBL
133 09/16 02:44P
LAKE WORTH FL
1 MIN
300 ADD'L ANYTME MIN
134 09/16 02:45P
WPALMBEACH FL
2 MIN
300 ADD'L ANYTME MIN
135 09/16 02:46P
INCOMING
2 MIN
300 ADD'L ANYTME MIN
136 09/16 02:48P
WPALMBEACH FL
4 MIN
300 ADD'L ANYTME MIN
137 09/16 02:54P
BOYNTONBCH FL
1 MIN
UNLIM MOBL TO MOBL
138 09/16 02:55P
BOYNTONBCH FL
3 MIN
300 ADD'L ANYTME MIN
139 09/16 03:44P
INCOMING
1 MIN
UNLIM MOBL TO MOBL
140 09/16 07:46P
WPALMBEACH FL
2 MIN
UNLIM MOBL TO MOBL
1 EVT
MESSAGE RETRIEVAL
141 09/16 09:55P
INCOMING
1 MIN
UNLIMITED N/WKND MIN
142 09/17 07:21A
WPALMBEACH FL
1 MIN
300 ADD'L ANYTME MIN
143 09/17 12:21P
INCOMING
2 MIN
300 ADD'L ANYTME MIN
144 09/17 03:16P
WPALMBEACH FL
1 MIN
300 ADD'L ANYTME MIN
30
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000030
EFTA00008628

=== Page 31 ===
September 16, 2004 Flight
Date
Aircraft Make
Aircraft
Points of Departure & Arrival
Miles
Flight
Remarks, Procedures,
$
and Model
Identification Mark
Flown
No.
Maneuvers, Endorsements
2004
From
To
AUG
3
13-727-31H
N908JE
LPAZ
TEST
281
36,M5,NM
TD,
IV
J6
in
6
"
11
TIST
PBI
282
E
TDN
Y
LM
"
1.
10
PBI
JFX
283
IG
LV
DAVED LM
13
11
"
JFK
ABQ
284
36,M5
LV
DAVED JR
LM
18
"
"
ABQ
VNY
285
IG,MS,NM,JK
7
LV
LM
19
11
"
VNY
PBI
286
JG,MS,NM,JK
FRAME
GAMELE
LM
24
"
16
PBI
SEGU
281
JE,GMINM
TD
LV
LM
25
"
"
SEGU
PBI
288
JE,GM,NM
TD
LV
LM
SEP
is
"
PBI
TIST
289
J6,NM
TO
LV
LM
2
G-1159B
N909JE
PBI
TEB
1727
LV
5
B-727-31H
N9C8JE
TIST
JFK
16 NM TD.JK,
LV
2%
P.OLPH PASCAUE:
16
"
"
JFK
PBI
291
J', J6, NM NM
JK, DAVID MULLEN LV LM
:N40/BP
PT.H
31
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000031
EFTA00008629

=== Page 32 ===
September 16, 2004 Flight
JEGE, INC.
PASSENGER MANIFEST
Registration Number: N908JE
Type: B-727-31
Pilots: Dave Rodgers, Larry Visoski
Flight Engineer:
Larry Morrison
DATE: 9.16 2004
FROM JFK
TO
PBI
Departure
8:05 AM PM
Arrival
AM
Trip
Time
Time
10:16
PM
Number
291
PASSENGERS
1. Jeffrey Epstein
FROM Identifier Defined
City
NEW YORK
State or Country
N.Y.
4.
TO Identifier Defined
5.
City
WEST PALM BEACH
6.
State or Country
FL
7.
Nautical Miles
893
32
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000032
EFTA00008630


c1: EFTA00008998
c2: DataSet 6
c3: VOL00006
c4: DataSet 6/VOL00006/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00008998.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
GRAND JURY
EXHIBIT
QTX-4 PH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
X
:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
:
SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT
:
- V. -
:
S1 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
:
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
:
:
Defendant.
:
:
X
COUNT ONE
(Conspiracy to Entice Minors to Travel to Engage in
Illegal Sex Acts)
The Grand Jury charges:
OVERVIEW
1. The charges set forth herein stem from the role
of GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, in the sexual exploitation
and abuse of multiple minor girls by Jeffrey Epstein. In
particular, from at least in or about 1994, up to and including
at least in or about 1997, MAXWELL assisted, facilitated, and
contributed to Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of minor girls by, among
other things, helping Epstein to recruit, groom, and ultimately
abuse victims known to MAXWELL and Epstein to be under the age
of 18. The victims were as young as 14 years old when they were
groomed and abused by MAXWELL and Epstein, both of whom knew
that certain victims were in fact under the age of 18.
2. As a part and in furtherance of their scheme to
abuse minor victims, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, and
Jeffrey Epstein enticed and caused minor victims to travel to
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000470
EFTA00008998

=== Page 2 ===
Epstein's residences in different states, which MAXWELL knew and
intended would result in their grooming for and subjection to
sexual abuse. Moreover, in an effort to conceal her crimes,
MAXWELL repeatedly lied when questioned about her conduct,
including in relation to some of the minor victims described
herein, when providing testimony under oath in 2016.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
3.
During the time periods charged in this
Indictment, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, had a personal and
professional relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and was among his
closest associates. In particular, between in or about 1994 and
in or about 1997, MAXWELL was in an intimate relationship with
Epstein and also was paid by Epstein to manage his various
properties. Over the course of their relationship, MAXWELL and
Epstein were photographed together on multiple occasions,
including in the below image:
2
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000471
EFTA00008999

=== Page 3 ===
4.
Beginning in at least 1994, GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
the defendant, enticed and groomed multiple minor girls to
engage in sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein, through a variety of
means and methods, including but not limited to the following:
a.
MAXWELL first attempted to befriend some of
Epstein's minor victims prior to their abuse, including by
asking the victims about their lives, their schools, and their
families. MAXWELL and Epstein would spend time building
friendships with minor victims by, for example, taking minor
victims to the movies or shopping. Some of these outings would
involve MAXWELL and Epstein spending time together with a minor
victim, while some would involve MAXWELL or Epstein spending
time alone with a minor victim.
b.
Having developed a rapport with a victim,
MAXWELL would try to normalize sexual abuse for a minor victim
by, among other things, discussing sexual topics, undressing in
front of the victim, being present when a minor victim was
undressed, and/or being present for sex acts involving the minor
victim and Epstein.
C.
MAXWELL'S presence during minor victims'
interactions with Epstein, including interactions where the
minor victim was undressed or that involved sex acts with
Epstein, helped put the victims at ease because an adult woman
was present. For example, in some instances, MAXWELL would
3
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000472
EFTA00009000

=== Page 4 ===
massage Epstein in front of a minor victim. In other instances,
MAXWELL encouraged minor victims to provide massages to Epstein,
including sexualized massages during which a minor victim would
be fully or partially nude. Many of those massages resulted in
Epstein sexually abusing the minor victims.
d. In addition, Epstein offered to help some
minor victims by paying for travel and/or educational
opportunities, and MAXWELL encouraged certain victims to accept
Epstein's assistance. As a result, victims were made to feel
indebted and believed that MAXWELL and Epstein were trying to
help them.
e.
Through this process, MAXWELL and Epstein
enticed victims to engage in sexual activity with Epstein. In
some instances, MAXWELL was present for and participated in the
sexual abuse of minor victims. Some such incidents occurred in
the context of massages, which developed into sexual encounters.
5. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, facilitated
Jeffrey Epstein's access to minor victims knowing that he had a
sexual preference for underage girls and that he intended to
engage in sexual activity with those victims. Epstein's
resulting abuse of minor victims included, among other things,
touching a victim's breast, touching a victim's genitals,
placing a sex toy such as a vibrator on a victim's genitals,
4
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000473
EFTA00009001

=== Page 5 ===
directing a victim to touch Epstein while he masturbated, and
directing a victim to touch Epstein's genitals.
MAXWELL AND EPSTEIN'S VICTIMS
6.
Between approximately in or about 1994 and in or
about 1997, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, facilitated
Jeffrey Epstein's access to minor victims by, among other
things, inducing and enticing, and aiding and abetting the
inducement and enticement of, multiple minor victims. Victims
were groomed and/or abused at multiple locations, including the
following:
a.
A a multi-story private residence on the
Upper East Side of Manhattan, New York owned by Epstein (the
"New York Residence"), which is depicted in the following
photograph:
5
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000474
EFTA00009002

=== Page 6 ===
b.
An estate in Palm Beach, Florida owned by
Epstein (the "Palm Beach Residence"), which is depicted in the
following photograph:
C.
A ranch in Santa Fe, New Mexico owned by
Epstein (the "New Mexico Residence"), which is depicted in the
following photograph:
6
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000475
EFTA00009003

=== Page 7 ===
d.
MAXWELL's personal residence in London,
England.
7.
Among the victims induced or enticed by GHISLAINE
MAXWELL, the defendant, were minor victims identified herein as
Minor Victim-1, Minor Victim-2, and Minor Victim-3. In
particular, and during time periods relevant to this Indictment,
MAXWELL engaged in the following acts, among others, with
respect to minor victims:
a.
MAXWELL met Minor Victim-1 when Minor
Victim-1 was approximately 14 years old. MAXWELL subsequently
interacted with Minor Victim-1 on multiple occasions at
Epstein's residences, knowing that Minor Victim-1 was under the
age of 18 at the time. During these interactions, which took
place between approximately 1994 and 1997, MAXWELL groomed Minor
Victim-1 to engage in sexual acts with Epstein through multiple
means. First, MAXWELL and Epstein attempted to befriend Minor
Victim-1, taking her to the movies and on shopping trips.
MAXWELL also asked Minor Victim-1 about school, her classes, her
family, and other aspects of her life. MAXWELL then sought to
normalize inappropriate and abusive conduct by, among other
things, undressing in front of Minor Victim-1 and being present
when Minor Victim-1 undressed in front of Epstein. Within the
first year after MAXWELL and Epstein met Minor Victim-1, Epstein
began sexually abusing Minor Victim-1. MAXWELL was present for
7
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000476
EFTA00009004

=== Page 8 ===
and involved in some of this abuse. In particular, MAXWELL
involved Minor Victim-1 in group sexualized massages of Epstein.
During those group sexualized massages, MAXWELL and/or Minor
Victim-1 would engage in sex acts with Epstein. Epstein and
MAXWELL both encouraged Minor Victim-1 to travel to Epstein's
residences in both New York and Florida. As a result, Minor
Victim-1 was sexually abused by Epstein in both New York and
Florida. Minor Victim-1 was enticed to travel across state
lines for the purpose of sexual encounters with Epstein, and
MAXWELL was aware that Epstein engaged in sexual activity with
Minor Victim-1 after Minor-Victim-1 traveled to Epstein's
properties, including in the context of a sexualized massage.
b. MAXWELL interacted with Minor Victim-2 on at
least one occasion in or about 1996 at Epstein's residence in
New Mexico when Minor Victim-2 was under the age of 18. Minor
Victim-2 had flown into New Mexico from out of state at
Epstein's invitation for the purpose of being groomed for and/or
subjected to acts of sexual abuse. MAXWELL knew that Minor
Victim-2 was under the age of 18 at the time. While in New
Mexico, MAXWELL and Epstein took Minor Victim-2 to a movie and
MAXWELL took Minor Victim-2 shopping. MAXWELL also discussed
Minor Victim-2's school, classes, and family with Minor Victim-
2. In New Mexico, MAXWELL began her efforts to groom Minor
Victim-2 for abuse by Epstein by, among other things, providing
8
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000477
EFTA00009005

=== Page 9 ===
an unsolicited massage to Minor Victim-2, during which Minor
Victim-2 was topless. MAXWELL also encouraged Minor Victim-2 to
massage Epstein.
C.
MAXWELL groomed and befriended Minor
Victim-3 in London, England between approximately 1994 and 1995,
including during a period of time in which MAXWELL knew that
Minor Victim-3 was under the age of 18. Among other things,
MAXWELL discussed Minor Victim-3's life and family with Minor
Victim-3. MAXWELL introduced Minor Victim-3 to Epstein and
arranged for multiple interactions between Minor Victim-3 and
Epstein. During those interactions, MAXWELL encouraged Minor
Victim-3 to massage Epstein, knowing that Epstein would engage
in sex acts with Minor Victim-3 during those massages. Minor
Victim-3 provided Epstein with the requested massages, and
during those massages, Epstein sexually abused Minor Victim-3.
MAXWELL was aware that Epstein engaged in sexual activity with
Minor Victim-3 on multiple occasions, including at times when
Minor Victim-3 was under the age of 18, including in the context
of a sexualized massage.
MAXWELL'S EFFORTS TO CONCEAL HER CONDUCT
8. In or around 2016, in the context of a deposition
as part of civil litigation, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant,
repeatedly provided false and perjurious statements, under oath,
regarding, among other subjects, her role in facilitating the
9
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000478
EFTA00009006

=== Page 10 ===
abuse of minor victims by Jeffrey Epstein, including some of the
specific events and acts of abuse detailed above.
STATUTORY ALLEGATIONS
9.
From at least in or about 1994, up to and
including in or about 1997, in the Southern District of New York
and elsewhere, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, Jeffrey
Epstein, and others known and unknown, willfully and knowingly
did combine, conspire, confederate, and agree together and with
each other to commit an offense against the United States, to
wit, enticement, in violation of Title 18, United States Code,
Section 2422.
10. It was a part and object of the conspiracy that
GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and others
known and unknown, would and did knowingly persuade, induce,
entice, and coerce one and more individuals to travel in
interstate and foreign commerce, to engage in sexual activity
for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, in
violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422.
Overt Acts
11. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect
the illegal object thereof, the following overt acts, among
others, were committed in the Southern District of New York and
elsewhere:
10
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000479
EFTA00009007

=== Page 11 ===
a.
Between in or about 1994 and in or about
1997, when Minor Victim-1 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL
participated in multiple group sexual encounters with Epstein
and Minor Victim-1 in New York and Florida.
b. In or about 1996, when Minor Victim-1 was
under the age of 18, Minor Victim-1 was enticed to travel from
Florida to New York for purposes of sexually abusing her at the
New York Residence, in violation of New York Penal Law, Section
130.55.
C.
In or about 1996, when Minor Victim-2 was
under the age of 18, MAXWELL provided Minor Victim-2 with an
unsolicited massage in New Mexico, during which Minor Victim-2
was topless.
d. Between in or about 1994 and in or about
1995, when Minor Victim-3 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL
encouraged Minor Victim-3 to provide massages to Epstein in
London, England, knowing that Epstein intended to sexually abuse
Minor Victim-3 during those massages.
(Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.)
COUNT TWO
(Enticement of a Minor to Travel to Engage in Illegal Sex Acts)
The Grand Jury further charges:
12. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1
through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if
fully set forth within.
11
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000480
EFTA00009008

=== Page 12 ===
13. From at least in or about 1994, up to and
including in or about 1997, in the Southern District of New York
and elsewhere, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, knowingly did
persuade, induce, entice, and coerce an individual to travel in
interstate and foreign commerce to engage in sexual activity for
which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, and
attempted to do the same, and aided and abetted the same, to
wit, MAXWELL persuaded, induced, enticed, and coerced Minor
Victim-1 to travel from Florida to New York, New York on
multiple occasions with the intention that Minor Victim-1 would
engage in one or more sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein, in
violation of New York Penal Law, Section 130.55.
(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422 and 2.)
COUNT THREE
(Conspiracy to Transport Minors with Intent to
Engage in Criminal Sexual Activity)
The Grand Jury further charges:
14. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1
through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if
fully set forth within.
15. From at least in or about 1994, up to and
including in or about 1997, in the Southern District of New York
and elsewhere, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, Jeffrey
Epstein, and others known and unknown, willfully and knowingly
did combine, conspire, confederate, and agree together and with
each other to commit an offense against the United States, to
12
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000481
EFTA00009009

=== Page 13 ===
wit, transportation of minors, in violation of Title 18, United
States Code, Section 2423 (a).
16. It was a part and object of the conspiracy that
GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and others
known and unknown, would and did, knowingly transport an
individual who had not attained the age of 18 in interstate and
foreign commerce, with intent that the individual engage in
sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a
criminal offense, in violation of Title 18, United States Code,
Section 2423(a).
Overt Acts
17. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect
the illegal object thereof, the following overt acts, among
others, were committed in the Southern District of New York and
elsewhere:
a. Between in or about 1994 and in or about
1997, when Minor Victim-1 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL
participated in multiple group sexual encounters with EPSTEIN
and Minor Victim-1 in New York and Florida.
b. In or about 1996, when Minor Victim-1 was
under the age of 18, Minor Victim-1 was enticed to travel from
Florida to New York for purposes of sexually abusing her at the
13
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000482
EFTA00009010

=== Page 14 ===
New York Residence, in violation of New York Penal Law, Section
130.55.
C. In or about 1996, when Minor Victim-2 was
under the age of 18, MAXWELL provided Minor Victim-2 with an
unsolicited massage in New Mexico, during which Minor Victim-2
was topless.
d. Between in or about 1994 and in or about
1995, when Minor Victim-3 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL
encouraged Minor Victim-3 to provide massages to Epstein in
London, England, knowing that Epstein intended to sexually abuse
Minor Victim-3 during those massages.
(Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.)
COUNT FOUR
(Transportation of a Minor with Intent to
Engage in Criminal Sexual Activity)
The Grand Jury further charges:
18. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1
through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if
fully set forth within.
19. From at least in or about 1994, up to and
including in or about 1997, in the Southern District of New York
and elsewhere, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, knowingly did
transport an individual who had not attained the age of 18 in
interstate and foreign commerce, with the intent that the
individual engage in sexual activity for which a person can be
charged with a criminal offense, and attempted to do so, and
14
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000483
EFTA00009011

=== Page 15 ===
aided and abetted the same, to wit, MAXWELL arranged for Minor
Victim-1 to be transported from Florida to New York, New York on
multiple occasions with the intention that Minor Victim-1 would
engage in one or more sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein, in
violation of New York Penal Law, Section 130.55.
(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2423 (a) and 2.)
COUNT FIVE
(Perjury)
The Grand Jury further charges:
20. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1
through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if
fully set forth within.
21. On or about April 22, 2016, in the Southern
District of New York, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, having
taken an oath to testify truthfully in a deposition in
connection with a case then pending before the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York under
docket number 15 Civ. 7433, knowingly made false material
declarations, to wit, MAXWELL gave the following underlined
false testimony:
Q.
Did Jeffrey Epstein have a scheme to recruit
underage girls for sexual massages? If you know.
A.
I don't know what you're talking about.
15
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000484
EFTA00009012

=== Page 16 ===
Q.
List all the people under the age of 18 that you
interacted with at any of Jeffrey's properties?
A.
I'm not aware of anybody that I interacted with,
other than obviously [the plaintiff] who was 17
at this point.
(Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623.)
COUNT SIX
(Perjury)
The Grand Jury further charges:
22. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1
through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if
fully set forth within.
23. On or about July 22, 2016, in the Southern
District of New York, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, having
taken an oath to testify truthfully in a deposition in
connection with a case then pending before the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York under
docket number 15 Civ. 7433, knowingly made false material
declarations, to wit, MAXWELL gave the following underlined
false testimony:
Q:
Were you aware of the presence of sex toys or
devices used in sexual activities in Mr.
Epstein's Palm Beach house?
A:
No, not that I recall.
Q.
Do you know whether Mr. Epstein possessed sex
toys or devices used in sexual activities?
A. No.
16
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000485
EFTA00009013

=== Page 17 ===
Q.
Other than yourself and the blond and brunette
that you have identified as having been involved
in three-way sexual activities, with whom did Mr.
Epstein have sexual activities?
A.
I wasn't aware that he was having sexual
activities with anyone when I was with him other
than myself.
Q.
I want to be sure that I'm clear. Is it your
testimony that in the 1990s and 2000s, you were
not aware that Mr. Epstein was having sexual
activities with anyone other than yourself and
the blond and brunette on those few occasions
when they were involved with you?
A.
That is my testimony, that is correct.
Q.
Is it your testimony that you' ve never given
anybody a massage?
A.
I have not given anyone a massage.
Q.
You never gave Mr. Epstein a massage, is that
your testimony?
A.
That is my testimony.
Q.
You never gave [Minor Victim-2] a massage is your
testimony?
A.
I never gave [Minor Victim-2] a massage.
(Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623.)
FOREPERSON
AUDREY STRAUSS
Acting United States Attorney
17
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000486
EFTA00009014

=== Page 18 ===
Form No. USA-33s-274 (Ed. 9-25-58)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
V.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendant.
SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT
S1 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
(18 U.S.C. $$ 371, 1623, 2422, 2423 (a),
and 2)
AUDREY STRAUSS
Acting United States Attorney
Foreperson
18
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000487
EFTA00009015


c1: EFTA00008708
c2: DataSet 6
c3: VOL00006
c4: DataSet 6/VOL00006/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00008708.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
1
2
3
UNITED STATES GRAND JURY
4
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
5
X
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
:
6
-v-
: November 19, 2019 Additional
7
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
:
8
(2018R01618)
-X
9
10
United States Courthouse
300 Quaroppas Street
11
White Plains, New York
12
July 8, 2020
10:05 a.m.
13
14
15
APPEARANCES:
16
Assistant United States Attorney
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Acting Grand Jury Reporter
25
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000208
EFTA00008708

=== Page 2 ===
United States V. Ghislaine Maxwell
07/08/20
2
1
PROCEEDINGS
2
(10:05 a.m.)
3
MS.
Let the record reflect that there are
4
17 grand jurors present and that the foreperson is present.
5
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is
6
and I am an Assistant United States Attorney
7
here in the Southern District of New York.
8
Can everyone hear me okay? All right. I see
9
everybody's heads nodding. Thank you.
10
I am here today to present for your consideration
11
a proposed superseding indictment charging Ghislaine Maxwell
12
in six counts. This indictment is virtually identical to
13
the indictment that you returned last week charging Maxwell
14
in those same six counts except that it corrects two
15
clerical errors, or two typographical errors that were
16
contained in Counts Five and Six which are the perjury
17
charges.
18
As a result, I will not be presenting any new
19
evidence or new witnesses today. Instead, I will identify
20
for you those two clerical errors in the indictment. I will
21
point out the portion of the exhibits that you saw last week
22
that provide the correct information. Then I will identify
23
the corrected portion of the superseding indictment in the
24
proposed superseding indictment.
25
Before I do that though, I must ask you all the
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000209
EFTA00008709

=== Page 3 ===
United States V. Ghislaine Maxwell
07/08/20
3
1
same preliminary questions that we went over last week.
2
First, do any of you believe that you personally know or
3
have met the proposed defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell? I see
4
no hands.
5
Next, have you any heard or read about, or learned
6
anything Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein or anyone else
7
related to this case, if you could just raise your hand? I
8
see a number of hands. Virtually every hand is in the air.
9
You can all put your hands down. Thank you.
10
As you know, you must make your determination as a
11
grand jury based on the evidence presented before you in the
12
grand jury, in this room alone. Accordingly, you must set
13
aside any other knowledge you may have about this case or
14
the people involved in it, and base your decision solely on
15
the evidence presented to this grand jury to determine
16
whether there is probable cause to believe that the charges
17
in the proposed indictment were committed.
18
Is there any grand juror here today who cannot
19
follow these instructions? I see no hands. Just to be
20
sure, is there any grand juror here who would have any
21
difficulty setting aside the outside information you may
22
have about the defendant or the facts of this case? I see
23
no hands.
24
Finally, do any of you believe you know me in
25
anything other than my professional capacity? I see no
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000210
EFTA00008710

=== Page 4 ===
United States V. Ghislaine Maxwell
07/08/20
4
1
hands.
2
Now, as I mentioned, I will not be calling any
3
witnesses today. Instead I will present you with the
4
exhibits from last week, the transcript of the testimony you
5
heard from last week and the proposed superseding
6
indictment. I will then walk you through the error that the
7
superseding indictment seeks to correct.
8
Please keep in mind though that what I say is not
9
evidence. Only the testimony of the witnesses and the
10
exhibits are evidence. So as I'm walking you through these
11
exhibits, your understanding of them and your understanding
12
of the evidence controls. I am just trying to provide you
13
with an overview.
14
With that instruction in mind, I am going to put
15
up onto the Elmo what was previously received and marked as
16
Grand Jury Exhibit 1. That is the proposed six-count
17
indictment that you voted to return last week. A copy of it
18
will be available for review when you deliberate.
19
You also received what has been marked as Grand
20
Jury Exhibit 2, which I will not put up on the Elmo. That
21
was a PowerPoint presentation containing photographs and
22
excerpts of certain documents that was shown to you during
23
the testimony last week. You also heard testimony from FBI
24
Special Agent
.
25
Today I am marking, as Grand Jury Exhibit 3, a
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000211
EFTA00008711

=== Page 5 ===
United States V. Ghislaine Maxwell
07/08/20
5
1
copy of the transcript of that testimony. It is up on the
2
Elmo now and it will be available for you to review if you
3
would like as you deliberate. I will not read it back to
4
you now, but you can read through it as you deliberate.
5
Finally, I am marking, as Grand Jury Exhibit 4,
6
the proposed superseding indictment, which I have now placed
7
up on the Elmo. As I mentioned, this proposed superseding
8
indictment corrects two clerical errors and is otherwise
9
identical to the original indictment, Grand Jury Exhibit 1.
10
I'm now going to walk you through the errors that
11
we're going to correct starting on Grand Jury Exhibit 1.
12
Page 15 contains the beginning of Count Five which charges
13
Maxwell with perjury. Paragraph 21 on that page refers to
14
the civil case in which Maxwell gave deposition testimony on
15
April 22nd, 2016, as 15 Civ. 7344. That is the error we are
16
going to correct.
17
Similarly, page 16 contains the beginning of Count
18
Six which charges another count of perjury. Paragraph 23 on
19
that page refers to the civil case in which Maxwell gave
20
deposition testimony on July 22nd, 2016, under the same
21
number, 15 Civ. 7344.
22
Turning now to Grand Jury Exhibit 2. Slide 22 of
23
that exhibit contains the first page of the deposition
24
transcript from the testimony that Maxwell gave on
25
April 22nd, 2016. As you can see here, the docket number
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000212
EFTA00008712

=== Page 6 ===
United States V. Ghislaine Maxwell
07/08/20
6
1
for that case is in fact 15 Civ. 7433 not 7344.
2
Similarly, slide 25 contains the first page of the
3
transcript from the July 22nd, 2016 deposition that Maxwell
4
gave. As you can see here, again, the docket number for
5
that case is 15 Civ. 7433 not 7344.
6
Finally, I will turn to the proposed indictment,
7
Grand Jury Exhibit 4. On page 15, you have again the same
8
perjury count with one change. Paragraph 21 corrects the
9
docket number for the civil case to be 15 Civ. 7433.
10
Similarly, on page 16, which contains the second
11
perjury count for the July 22nd, 2016 deposition, the docket
12
number is corrected to 15 Civ. 7433. There are otherwise no
13
changes to the substance of this indictment.
14
That is my presentation. Before I leave you to
15
deliberate, would anyone like me to read the full proposed
16
superseding indictment out loud? I see no hands.
17
I must advise you that you must independently find
18
probable cause, again, for each count in the superseding
19
indictment. The evidence before you in support of the
20
charges in the superseding indictment is the same evidence
21
that was before you when you considered the indictment last
22
week.
23
Does anyone have any questions about that
24
evidence? I see no hands.
25
The legal instructions that you received before
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000213
EFTA00008713

=== Page 7 ===
United States V. Ghislaine Maxwell
07/08/20
7
1
voting on the indictment last week are the same instructions
2
that apply to your consideration of the proposed superseding
3
indictment. Would anyone like me to read those instructions
4
out loud for you again? I see no hands.
5
Does anyone have any questions about the legal
6
instructions? I see no hands.
7
I will leave you now with the exhibits to
8
deliberate. As always, if you have any questions or
9
concerns about the proposed indictment, please let me know
10
before you vote so that I may answer any questions you may
11
have on the law, or bring any additional evidence before you
12
to consider. Thank you, all.
13
(Matter concluded)
14
(Time Noted: 10:14 a.m.)
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000214
EFTA00008714

=== Page 8 ===
1
CERTIFICATE
2
3
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and
4
accurate transcription, to the best of my skill and ability,
5
from my electronic notes of this proceeding.
6
7
July 22, 2020
Date
8
Acting Grand Jury Reporter
Free State Reporting, Inc.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000215
EFTA00008715


c1: EFTA00008863
c2: DataSet 6
c3: VOL00006
c4: DataSet 6/VOL00006/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00008863.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
United States V. Ghislaine Maxwell
March 29, 2021 Grand Jury Presentation
CNY

=== Page 2 ===
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000217

=== Page 3 ===
Federal Express Record
FedEx.
Invoice Number:
Invoice Date:
Oct 14, 2002
Account Number:
Page:
1 of 9
FedEx Tax ID:
JEFFREY E EPSTEIN
457 MADISON AVE
NEW YORK NY 10022-6843
Billing Account Shipping Address:
Invoice Questions?
JEFFREY E EPSTEIN
457 MADISON AVE
FedEx Account Services
NEW YORK NY 10022-6843 US
Phone:
(800) 622-1147 M-F 7-6 (CST)
Fax:
(800) 548-3020
Picked up: Oct 07, 2002
Payor: Shipper
Reference: NO REFERENCE INFORMATION
FedEx Internal Use:
Fuel Surcharge - FedEx has applied a fuel surcharge of 3.00% to this shipment.
Distance Based Pricing, Zone 6
InternetShip
Sender
Recipient
Tracking ID
Service Type FedEx Priority Overnight
JEFFREY E EPSTEIN
Package Type FedEx Envelope
457 MADISON AVE
Zone
6
NEW YORK NY 10022-6843 US
Pieces
1
Weight
1.0 lbs, 0.5 kgs
Transportation Charge
16.00
Delivered
Oct 08, 2002 09:23
Discount
-2.56
Service
Fuel Surcharge
0.40
Area Code
AA
Signed by
Total Transportation Charges
USD $
13.84
Bundle ID
000
3
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000218

=== Page 4 ===
December 11 & 14, 2000 Flights
Date
Aircraft Make
Aircraft
Points of Departure & Arrival
Miles
and Model
Flight
10=
Identification Mark
Remarks, Procedures,
Flown
No.
Maneuvers, Endorsements
2000
From
To
NOV
19
G-1159B
N908JE
BCD
TEB
1418
JE,
22
"
11
TEB
DCA
1419
Jt, Af,
22
"
11
BCA
PBI
1420
Jt, AP,
28
10
"
PBI
TIST
1421
JE, GM
30
"
11
TIST
PBI
1422
JE, GM
DEC
"
1
"
PBI
DFW
1423
JE, GM
1
"
11
DFW
ABQ
1424
JL, GM, RICARDO LEGURETTA
2
''
"
ABQ
SAF
1425
REPOSITION
2
"
"I
SAF
TEB
1426
JE, GM
5
10
"
TEB
LFPB
1427
JL, GM, ET,
6
is
11
LFPB
EGGIN
1428
J6, GM, ET,
J
:
"
EGGW
EGYM
JE, GM
1429
TOM PRITZ KER
alam ALL
7
"
"
EGYM
EGSH
SANDRINGHAM (MARHAM AIR FORCE rase)
1430
REPOSITION (NORWICH, (ENCLAND)
9
"
"
EGSH
CYQX
1431
JK, GN, ET,
9
k
(GLOWENG ON RUMWAY)
11
CYQX
PBI
1432
JL, GMET,
11
"
"
PBI
TEB
1433
JE,GM,ES,
14
"
"
TCB
TIST
1434
Jt, GNA, AP,
11.
4
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000219
EFTA00008866

=== Page 5 ===
January 2001 Flights
Date
Aircraft Make
Aircraft
Points of Departure & Arrival
Miles
Flight
19
and Model
Identification Mark
Remarks, Procedures,
Flown
No.
Maneuvers, Endorsements
2001
From
To
JAN
to
G-1159B
N908JE
PBI
LCQ
1437
JE,GM,ET
16
"
"
LCQ
TEB
1438
JE, GM, ET
17
"
n
TEB
PBI
1439
36,
22
"
"
PBI
TEB
1440
JG,GM,ET,AP
23
"
"
TEB
LFPB
1441
Jt,
25
"
10
LFPB
CYQX
1442
'2E
25
11
:
CYQX
FEB
1443
Jc,
26
"
11
TCB
PBI
1444
JE,GM,ET,
18
C172
N1446V
PBI
NA
PBILMA
C172 VOUT PETE SORENSON
18
11
"
LNA
LCQ
B727 CLOSING N N505LS
19
"I
11
LCQ
MCO
JONETHAN MAND -INSTRUMENT
COMPETANCY CHECK- SATS CALJURY
19
"
"
MCO
LNA
22
G11590
N908TE
PBI
TIST
1445
JE, GM, ET
30
11
11
TIST
PBI
1446
JE,GM,ET,
5
GM_GJ_SDNY_0000022

=== Page 6 ===
Message Pads from Epstein's Palm Beach Residence
IMPORTANT MESSAGE
IMPORTANT MESSAGE
FOR The Epstein
FOR
JE
DATE 03/11/03 TIME 124 A.M. P.M.
DATE 16/03/03
TIME 18:27 A.M. P.M.
M ISS
M_
OF
OF
PHONE
PHONE
AREA CO
EXTENSION
AREA CODE
NUMBER
EXTENSION
TELEPHONED
x
PLEASE CALL
X
TELEPHONED
PLEASE CALL
CAME TO SEE YOU
WILL CALL AGAIN
CAME TO SEE YOU
WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU
RUSH
WANTS TO SEE YOU
RUSH
RETURNED YOUR CALL
SPECIAL ATTENTION
RETURNED YOUR CALL
SPECIAL ATTENTION
MESSAGE
MESSAGE SHE WANTS
TO work
SIGNED
Evelyne
SIGNED
1184
6
1184
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000221

=== Page 7 ===
Message Pads from Epstein's Palm Beach Residence
IMPORTANT MESSAGE
IMPORTANT MESSAGE
FOR
Mr. JE
FOR
JE
12'
A.M.
3:15 A.M.
DATE
TIME
M.
DA
P.M.
M
M
OF
OF
PHONE/
PHONE
MOBILE
MOBILE
TELEPHONED
PLEASE CALL
TELEPHONED
PLEASE CALL
CAME TO SEE YOU
WILL CALL AGAIN
CAME TO SEE YOU
WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU
RUSH
WANTS TO SEE YOU
RUSH
RETURNED YOUR CALL
SPECIAL ATTENTION
RETURNED YOUR CALL
SPECIAL ATTENTION
MESSAGE
MESSAGE
wants to
work-
R
a
SIGNED
1184
SIGNED
1184
7
GM_GJ_SDNY_00000222


c1: EFTA00009016
c2: DataSet 7
c3: VOL00007
c4: DataSet 7/VOL00007/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00009016.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Page 200
1 day, you were calling for some edits that really reflected --
2 seemed to reflect a real discomfort - --
3
A
I --
4
Q
-- as you identify.
5
A
Again, I'm perhaps supporting - I'm supporting the
6
point you're trying to make that we were focused on getting
7
this done, and real concern that he would not go to jail.
8 And a question that I think is a valid one in my mind is, did
9
the focus on, let's just get this done and get a jail term,
10
mean that we didn't take a step back and say, let's evaluate
11
how this train is moving?
12
0
You --
13
A
From my perspective.
14
0
Okay. I want to just sort of round out the little
15
bit of this -- the state -- the state only resolution. You
16
used the term a couple of times backstopping. What do you
17
mean by that?
18
A
What I mean by that is, a sense that the state
19
wasn't doing enough, and perhaps backstopping is a polite way
20
of saying encouraging the state to do a little bit more.
21
Q
Mm-hmm. All right. Did you have any discussions
22
about whether this disposition comported with the Ashcroft
23 memo in that you were hunting to the state for a minor
24 charge, for a fairly minor charge, what you -- your office
25 had already understood from the evidence was a quite wide
EFTA00009016

=== Page 2 ===
Page 201
1
ranging scheme of predatory, my term, behavior regarding
2
minor victims?
3
A
So, I don't recall a discussion around the Ashcroft
4 memo. I would characterize what we did differently, in that
5
there are any number of instances where the federal
6
government or the state government can proceed, and state
7
charges are substantially less and different, and on a fairly
8
regular basis, the federal government allows the state -- not
9
allows, but stands aside and lets the state proceed.
10
Q
But in this case, you actually had an active
11
investigation that had been proceeding for a year.
12
A
So, let's take the drug context, where there might
13
be any number of active investigations where the federal
14
charges can be rather substantial, but ultimately, the
15
federal government says just let the state proceed with this,
16 or violent crime cases where the federal government could
17
bring gun charges using felon in possession or another
18 mandatory minimum, but the state goes forward with -- so, in
19
that sense --
20
Q
But the state goes forward with what?
21
A
Forward with different charges that -- that have a
22
lesser term. And so, I don't think it's unusual. We can
23
talk about, you know, whether this was the best disposition
24
or not, but I don't think it's unusual to have fact patterns
25
that are under investigation that proceed in state court,
EFTA00009017

=== Page 3 ===
Page 202
1
where the disposition is different than -- and would have
2
been if it had proceeded in federal court.
3
Q
All right. Do you have anything on that?
4
: On the two years, or something else?
5
: No. I'm going back to the two
6 years.
7
: Okay.
8
BY
:
9
Q
Did you think -- did you believe at the time, if
10
this was part of your thinking, that because it was so
11
important to get sex offender registration, and even later
12
developed damages -- monetary damages for the victims, under
13
the state plea arrangement, that pretty much the only thing
14
that the government had -- the federal government had to give
15
up in this negotiation was jail time? If you wanted -- you
16
wanted --
17
A
Right.
18
0
-- three things --
19
A
Correct.
20
Q
-- you've said, jail time, sex offender status, and
21
some kind of restitution or damages --
22
A
Right.
23
Q
-- mechanisms. Sex offender registration, there's
24
no -- really no give there. You either register or you
25 don't. I'm being binary --
EFTA00009018

=== Page 4 ===
Page 203
1
A
Right.
2
0
-- again, I'm sorry.
3
A
But it is binary, so --
4
Q
It is binary.
5
A
Yes.
6
0
And likewise, the --
7
A
Right.
8
Q
-- monetary recovery provisions. So, really, the
9
only thing to negotiate is time, right?
10
A
And so, your question is why did we not start at
11
three so we ended up at two?
12
0
Well, that's -- that's -- that's a consequence of
13
what --
14
A
So --
15
0
-- I was asking.
16
A
So, again, my recollection is I understood this to
17
reflect what he would have received as opposed to some
18
arbitrary, let's start at three so we end up at two. I
19
also -- I'm sorry, you have a question?
20
Q
No, go ahead. Go ahead. I'll get to my question.
21
A
You know, I also -- from my perspective, was, you
22
know, early on when we set firm on the two years, I thought
23
two years would have been the right outcome. We ended up on
24
18 months. I can't say how. There's some documents that
25 might help, but I -- but I was at least initially firm on
EFTA00009019

=== Page 5 ===
Page 204
1
those two years.
2
Q
Right, so you -- when you say, I thought the two
3
years was the right amount, is that based on your
4
understanding that that's what he would have gotten in the
5
state?
6
A
Correct.
7
0
All right.
8
A
That -- and the point I'm trying to convey there is
9
that this wasn't, to my understanding, a random number, but
10
it was informed by, this is what he would have received, and
11
therefore it is a reasonable -- agree or disagree with the
12
analysis, but it was an informed number to begin with.
13
BY
:
14
0
But you don't recall how that analysis was done, or
15
who conducted --
16
A
I --
17
Q
-- that analysis?
18
A
-- don't recall that.
19
BY
:
20
Q
Or even whether it was accurate, actually?
21
A
I -- again, I don't recall that.
22
0
All right.
23
BY
:
24
Q
And I understand the explanation.
25
A
Right.
EFTA00009020

=== Page 6 ===
Page 205
1
0
And --
2
A
Right.
3
0
-- what it's tied to, but was there any
4
consideration -- because this case --
5
A
Right.
6
Q
-- was not about one or two victims. It was a very
7
large scheme by this older, wealthy man, to essentially turn
8
minors into prostitutes, have sex with them, oral sex, get
9
other people involved.
10
You've described it in prior statements as
11
grotesque and deserving of punishment. What I'm not hearing
12
through this process is anybody taking a look at this overall
13
conduct, and saying, what is the appropriate punishment for
14
this man's conduct? Was there such a consideration, and did
15
you feel that two years adequately punished him for the scope
16
of his conduct?
17
A
Fair question, and perhaps going back to where we
18
started, which is petite. To my mind at the time, there was
19
a distinction between what would be the adequate punishment
20
if this was a purely federal case, versus what is necessary
21
so that it is not a -- to put it in petite language -- a
22
manifest injustice, so that it wouldn't have come to the
23
office in the first place.
24
And that I think is the important distinction,
25
because if the two years is what he would have received, and
EFTA00009021

=== Page 7 ===
Page 206
1
therefore it would not have come into the office under
2
petite, then if there is a state disposition to that, that is
3
one possible outcome.
4
It would be a different outcome if this was truly a
5
federal pro=section independent of the state, which goes back
6
to the point I was making about concern about a federal
7
precedent with this kind of sentence, because then when the
8
next person comes along, they say, well, here is this
9
precedent under 371, or whatnot.
10
And so, this was, rightly or wrongly, and I
11
understand the -- the pushback -- an analysis that
12
distinguished between what is necessary to prevent manifest
13
injustice, versus what is the appropriate federal outcome to
14
that. Agree or disagree with the logic is one thing, but did
15
I explain the logic?
16
Q
You've -- yes, you've explained the logic.
17
A
Okay.
18
Q
And I'm going to push back a little bit --
19
A
Right.
20
Q
-- on that, because the petite policy specifically
21
says it does not apply where the state conduct is only a
22
minor part -- an insignificant part of the entire course of
23
conduct, and they give examples about where you have some
24
type of a RICO scheme, and the state has indicted or
25
convicted the perpetrator based on something that could be
EFTA00009022

=== Page 8 ===
Page 207
1
one single overt act in the government's conspiracy, and
2
doesn't that really show what is going on here, that what the
3
state had done was really just a small, minor part of this
4
scheme that the federal government had a --
5
A
Right.
6
2
-- had a real opportunity to punish him for this
7
entire course of conduct?
8
A
So, possibly, but if I can circle back to your
9
question previously, it's interesting that you characterize
10
this as, he's turning these girls into prostitutes, and then
11
I think that's really interesting, because in 2019, 13 years
12
afterwards, despite all the changes in the law, there is
13
still some element somewhere that says he's turning these
14
girls into prostitutes, whereas this was a typical
15
trafficking case of the kind that you'd see in the Lou De
16
Baca days where, you know, it was called modern day slavery.
17
That's a very different fact pattern.
18
So, you know, a girl that's held captive, is forced
19
to service multiple men per day, where this is part of an
20
ongoing business arrangement. And so, I hear what you're
21
saying, but if here at this table at least some element of
22
that characterization is live, what would it mean in 2006
23
when these laws are still being developed? And that
24
consideration, rightly or wrongly, was part of this analysis.
25
BY
:
EFTA00009023

=== Page 9 ===
Page 208
1
0
Was it explicitly - in other words, was -- was
2
that aspect of it, the -- I -- the perception that this was
3
perhaps activity that -- in which the victims cooperated?
4
Was that part of the --
5
A
No, no. Let me -- let me distinguish. I didn't
6
say the perception that this was activities in which the
7
victims cooperated. What I was going to -- what I -- and
8
I've gone to before is, would jurors -- is there at least one
9
juror that might say, look, we've got conflicting victim
10 testimony.
11
Some of them said he did nothing wrong. They all
12
knew each other. They kept going back and taking payment.
13
Is this trafficking, or is this prostitution? I'm not -- I'm
14
not saying I agree with that, and I don't think -- I don't
15
think prosecutors do, I'm saying is there -- is there at
16
least a possibility of that? And --
17
O
Was that articulated to you by the people you were
18
listening to by
and --
19
A
So --
20
Q
--
?
21
A
So, that certainly was part of the discussions when
22
I talk about the victim issues, would at least some jurors
23
view it that way, rightly or wrongly?
24
Q
And you recall having that -- those --
25
A
I --
EFTA00009024

=== Page 10 ===
Page 209
1
0
-- conversations?
2
A
I recall having not only how would the witnesses
3
stand up in court, but how would jurors view them? And then
4
the second part of that is, as it goes up in the appellate
5 process with respect to the -- the federal nexus. And so, I
6
hear you, but you know, I -- it's -- it's sort of one of the
7 factors. And so --
8
BY
:
9
Q
And so --
10
A Yeah.
11
Q
-- what I'm getting though is that there didn't
12
seem like there was a consideration or discussion about, is
13
this two years capturing the scope of his conduct, versus,
14 we're just going to tie it to this potential state crime that
15
could have been charged?
16
A
Fair, and I would -- I would say that the two years
17
was not meant -- so, the petite policy has several prongs,
18
and to my recollection, the petite analysis was not based
19 on -- and let's not even call it petite analysis. That
20
overstates it.
21
But it was much more of a, is this a manifest
22
injustice, and -- and if the original -- and so, you sort of
23 see it in the Exhibit 3. This would not have been brought to
24
the office in the first place if -- you know, if he had plead
25 to jail time and registration, and rightly or wrongly, that
EFTA00009025

=== Page 11 ===
Page 210
1
was understood from the very beginning of the case, and was a
2
factor in how the case was viewed.
3
Q
And how do you know that it wouldn't have -- that
4
wouldn't have been upset with a minimal jail
5
time, even if there was sex registration?
6
A
So, I can't 12 years later say how we knew that. I
7
can say that my -- my general impression was that this was
8
proceeding at the state, that there were certain charges, and
9
that those charges changed when it went to a grand jury, and
10
that it went from -- I think they even changed the ASA
11
involved.
12
: They did.
13
THE WITNESS: I can't speak for certain, but you
14
probably have that from the record, and that when they
15
changed the ASA involved and took it to grand jury, the
16
charges that came back were substantially less.
17
BY
:
18
Q
Do you remember the circumstances? Did you know
19
the circumstances under which that ASA was changed?
20
A
I don't know.
21
Q
All right. The -- by the way, do you remember an
22
occasion in which
came to your office in Miami
23
to press you on what was going to be happening with the
24
federal case?
25
A
I don't recall.
EFTA00009026

=== Page 12 ===
Page 211
1
Q
You don't recall. I --
2
: Just one more,
--
3
: Yeah.
4
THE WITNESS: Yeah.
5
BY
:
6
Q
So, before we --
7
A
Yeah.
8
Q
-- leave this --
9
A
Yeah.
10
0
-- one little thing. So, if this case had come
11
into the federal system as apart from the --
12
A
Right.
13
0
-- taken the digression through the --
14
A
Right.
15
0
-- state system, do you think that the two years
16
was an appropriate punishment, given the scope of his
17
conduct?
18
A
I think if it had come into the federal system
19
apart from the whole state and the petite considerations and
20
all that, we may have ended up in a different place. I
21
viewed the two years, to my recollection, as a manifest
22
injustice standard, and not an appropriate punishment
23
standard.
24
Q
Meaning whether it was manifestly unjust that he
25
get two years?
EFTA00009027

=== Page 13 ===
Page 212
1
A
No, whether it was -- so, let me -- let me -- let
2 me rephrase. No jail time was a manifest injustice. If he
3 had gone to jail for two years in the state system and
4
registered, the question of whether it would have come to the
5
office at all, and to my recollection, the consensus was, and
6
/ based on Exhibit 3, agrees with that, that it would
7
never have come to the office in the first place, because we
8
would not view that under petite as a manifest injustice.
9
There are any number of cases that are prosecuted
10
around the country where an individual gets a jail time that
11 the federal government may not agree with, but that doesn't
12 mean that the federal government reprosecutes those cases.
13 The instances where the federal government reprosecutes a
14 state case are pretty rare, to my knowledge.
15
And so, under the petite standard, and the
16 petite -- the manifest injustice would -- it would have been
17 a manifest injustice to have zero jail time, and zero
18
registration, but if the original charges had remained, that
19 would be a different matter. That does not mean that that is
20 the best outcome in the state system.
21
and so, perhaps beating a -- you know, an issue,
22 but let me maybe give an example. One concern that I had was
23 that in the violent crime side, the state brings a case, and
24 you know, there is a deferment, no jail time. The state then
25 brings a second case, and there's minimal jail time. Well,
EFTA00009028

=== Page 14 ===
Page 213
1
now the person has done three violent crimes, they have a
2 gun, they go federal, and it's like, please don't do that.
3
Pretty please don't do that.
4
You know, we're going to punish you a little bit,
5 and then all of a sudden in comes the federal government with
6 the big, big punch to the face, because the federal sentences
7 are so different than the state sentences. And that happens
8 all the time in any number of contexts in Florida. That
9 doesn't mean that all of those cases get reprosecuted as gun
10 cases in Florida.
11
That means that we understand that the Florida
12 system is different than the federal system. And so, the way
13 we looked at, at least based on my recollection, those two
14 years was not, what would he have received if this was a
15 purely federal case, but would this case have been prosecuted
16 by the federal system additionally if he had received jail
17 time and registration in the state system?
18
Q
And would -- is it fair to say that this particular
19
concern about, for lack of a better word, federalism or the
20 petite policy, was that a primary concern of yours versus any
21 of your employees in terms of
or
?
22
A
I think it's fair to say that I focused more on the
23 legal side of things, and my team focused more on the trial
24
and how this would play out at trial, and both of them --
25 both of them sort of informed the outcome.
EFTA00009029

=== Page 15 ===
Page 214
1
0
And are you including this petite policy in your
2
consideration of the legal issues?
3
A
Yes. Yeah. I think those are all tied together.
4
BY
:
5
Q
So, you mentioned victim --
6
A
But -- but could I -- could I --
7
Q
Yes.
8
A
But to clarify, I thought we had sufficient to go
9
forward so it wasn't an ethical violation to proceed.
10
0
Mm-hmm. Okay. The victim -- you mentioned the
11
victims coming into state court, and you talked about all the
12
victims coming into state court. Do you have any idea what
13
victims formed the basis for the original charge that --
14
A
I do not.
15
0
-- he was indicted on? Do you know whether it was
16
one -- was it a felony assault pros of a non-minor.
17
A
Mm-hmm.
18
Q
It could have been -- it was three instances to
19
felonize it. You don't know whether it was one person three
20
times, three people?
21
A
I do not.
22
0
And you don't know whether that person was a minor
23
or not?
24
A
I do not.
25
Q
All right.
EFTA00009030

=== Page 16 ===
Page 215
1
A
I would assume they were, but I do not.
2
0
Likewise, do you know who was the victim, or who
3
the victims were who formed the basis for the 796.03 charge
4
to which Epstein ultimately pled in June of 2008?
5
A
I did not at the time. I've read various accounts
6
of that, but that's based on matters that I've read and not
7
an independent recollection.
8
&
And what's your understanding?
9
A
My understanding is that there's some that there
10
is at least some issue in the media over whether the -- the
11
right or the best victims were chosen from the prosecution's
12
perspective.
13
Q
And do you know was there any indication of who
14
the victims were? Do you know who the victims were who were
15
the subject of the state charges?
16
A
Which particular names? No, I don't.
17
Q
Right, I'm not asking you --
18
A
Yeah.
19
Q
-- other than names --
20
A
Yeah.
21
Q
-- I just want to know if you know who they are or
22
how many they were.
23
A
I -- I do not.
24
Q
Right, it could be one, right? For this -- for the
25
solicitation. It could be one conceivably. Both the charges
EFTA00009031

=== Page 17 ===
Page 216
1
could relate to one victim.
2
A
Right. So -- so, those matters were very much part
3 of the negotiation that
and to some extent Andy were
4 involved in. I did not --
5
Q What makes you think that -- that -- the -- your
6
people were negotiating which victims would form the basis?
7
A
Fair. Fair point.
8
Q Okay.
9
A
Fair point. I withdraw. They may not have. I
10 don't know -- I don't know how in the weeds and how much our
11 folks, as a federal system, sort of interacted with the state
12 in terms of what punishment. I -- there's at least some
13 discussion in the media regarding whether the punishment was
14 a function of the victims and registration, and I can't speak
15 to that.
16
Q
All right. Are you aware, just as a point of
17
interest, that the public record of the proceedings in the
18 state court related to Epstein are utterly silent as to who
19 or how many victims form the basis of the charges to which he
20 pled?
21
A
I -- no. I was not aware.
22
2
Okay. So, this idea of many victims coming forth
23 in state court and so on are not -- is not -- it's not really
24 in play. All right. So, you have a two year -- two years
25 has been now -- a two year state deal has been announced to
EFTA00009032

=== Page 18 ===
Page 217
1
the team by
-
2
A Yeah.
3
Q
With your knowledge and approval, right? Because
4
he wouldn't do it otherwise. Is that right?
5
A
Fair.
6
Q
Though at least one was surprised. Do you know
7
what drove the timing of the plea offer? In other words, why
8
did it have to be made at that point?
9
A
I do not.
10
O
Okay. You know that
submitted his
11
resignation on the 23rd of July.
12
A
I saw that in the --
13
0
Right.
14
A
-- in the -- in the documents.
15
Q
In the documents, and he submitted that to you
16
among other -- as well as the --
17
A Yeah.
18
0
-- HR people. Why not -- well, then there was a
19
July 31st meeting at which the term sheet was presented.
20
This document 15 is the term sheet that was presented, as
21
indicates in her September 6th cover note -- cover e-
22
mail. And you said you approved it. You happen to be copied
23 --
24
A
Right.
25
Q
-- though --
EFTA00009033

=== Page 19 ===
Page 218
1
A
So --
2
Q
--
3
A
Let me --
4
Q
-- forwards this, but --
5
A
Let me -- let me be -- let me be accurate. I
6
approved these terms, whether it was this specific term sheet
7
or another -- another document that might have been earlier
8
that looked highly similar to this.
9
My recollection is approving a, a -- you know,
10
approving a resolution that had him pleading to certain state
11
counts that had a binding two-year plus recommendation that -
12
- and that provided for 22.55 restitution.
13
Q
Right, but you don't know if it was this sheet of
14 paper?
15
A
I can't say 12 years after the fact whether it was
16
this specific sheet --
17
Q
Right.
18
A
-- or --
19
0
All right.
20
A
-- or others. I -- based on the fact that this was
21
in the e-mail, I think it's safe to -- to assume, but --
22
Q
To assume what?
23
A
To assume that it was this.
24
0
Oh.
25
A
But it's possible that there was as slight
EFTA00009034

=== Page 20 ===
Page 219
1
difference in --
2
Q
All right. In fact, this -- this same document
3
with a couple of --
4
A
Right.
5
Q
-- additional bullets that had to do with the date
6
of entry of the plea, sort of ministerial, is what was
7
prepared by
on or about the 31st -- on or
8
before the 31st of July, and this document, as indicated --
9
A
Mm-hmm.
10
0
-- here, along with the attached guidelines
11
calculation is what was provided to the folks who met on the
12
31st --
13
A
Fair.
14
2
-- of July. Okay. So, on that 31st, it was
15
/ Jerry Lefcourt,
Sanchez, and the purpose of
16
the meeting with Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, and
as
17
well as the case agents was to present the plea offer. And
18
did you get briefed on how that plea offer went?
19
A
I don't recall being briefed, but in the regular
20
course, I would have been.
21
Q
All right, and at that meeting, there was an
22
expression of concern by the defense team that Epstein wanted
23
to avoid being incarcerated in the state system because of
24
concerns for his physical safety, and that concern was
25
accommodated to the extent that the U.S. Attorney's Office
EFTA00009035

=== Page 21 ===
Page 220
1
team agreed to explore federal resolution. How does that
2
square with your decision that a state plea is how this case
3
was going to be --
4
A
Right.
5
Q
-- decided?
6
A
So, I think I indicated later that it's a little
7
bit more fluid than a decision here or a decision -- you
8
know, than binary situations. My recollection is we were
9
very focused on, this man should go to jail, and this man
10
should register.
11
The two year plea to the state charges seemed
12
reasonable and seemed a way to go. We can agree or disagree.
13
Reasonable in terms of -- not in terms of, was it the -- the
14
most just outcome, but seemed like a disposition that we
15
would agree to.
16
But ultimately, the focus was on getting him to
17
jail, and if that meant exploring a 371, it's at least worth
18
exploring. And so, I don't think it was inconsistent,
19
because the focus really was on, he needs to go to jail.
20
Q
Okay. In this case, that -- that push back of
21
the -- that resulted --
22
A
Right.
23
Q
-- in the agreement to explore a federal plea --
24
A
Right.
25
Q
-- was because Epstein was afraid to be in prison.
EFTA00009036

=== Page 22 ===
Page 221
1
Why would the U.S. Attorney's Office accommodate that? And
2
here, we're getting to -- we're beginning to talk about a
3
major point of criticism of this whole process and the
4
outcome and that is that it appeared that the U.S. Attorney's
5
Office was bending over backward to accommodate the concerns
6
of Jeffrey Epstein, and in this case, he was uncomfortable
7
going to a federal or state prison, but all child sex
8
predators who go to prison are going to face some --
9
A
Yeah.
10
0
-- challenges, right?
11
A
Right, and I remember along the way a heavy push
12
that he be incarcerated at this home under some kind of home
13
confinement, and my reaction to that was no way.
14
Q
Right.
15
A
And okay, you don't like prison, but that doesn't
16
mean you get to be incarcerated in your house.
17
Q
Mm-hmm.
18
A
Which is interesting, because subsequently --
19
Q
Yeah.
20
A
And so --
21
Q
Because subsequently, what? You might as well
22
finish --
23
A
Well, because --
24
0
-- that.
25
A
-- subsequently, the way that the state executed
EFTA00009037

=== Page 23 ===
Page 222
1
the terms of incarceration were not what I would have
2
expected. And so, again, the focus from my perspective is,
3
he needs to go to jail. If the team agreed to explore it,
4
you know, the 371 was on the table to the extent we had
5
been -- I'm speculating now. This is not to make the record
6
clear.
7
Q
Mm-hmm. Thank you.
8
A
I'm speculating, not recalling. I can speculate a
9
371 with a two year rule 11 had been discussed based on the
10
contemporaneous record, and so, to the extent it had already
11
been discussed, even if it was not the direction we were
12
taking, would it have been unusual for folks in the room to
13
say, well, look, we've discussed that, let's go back. You
14 know, let's see where it goes. I can't fault -- to the
15
extent it had been discussed -- I can't fault anyone for
16
saying, let's go back and look at it. I think that's
17
distinguishable at least from subsequent --
18
0
All right. At that point, the defense was given
19
two weeks to take it or leave it, and if not, you would
20
indict, and there were several occasions --
21
A
Correct.
22
0
-- when that kind of ultimately was made. Did that
23
mean -- I mean, given all of your concerns about barriers to
24
what you would consider a successful federal prosecution, was
25
that a bluff?
EFTA00009038

=== Page 24 ===
Page 223
1
A
No.
2
Q
It was not.
3
A
It was not.
4
0
You were at some level at least prepared to approve
5
the presentation of the -- or, the presentment of --
6
A
We --
7
Q
-- an indictment?
8
A
We should not have gone forward with these
9
negotiations if we weren't ready to --
10
Q
All right.
11
A
-- to approve. Whether in this form or a different
12
form and indictment, and I say that because it was very much
13
a draft indictment that hadn't been reviewed fully by the
14
chain, but it wasn't a bluff.
15
Q
Well, by this time it -- it had been reviewed, and
16
it --
17
A
Had it been reviewed, and revised, and --
18
Q
It had -- there -- there had been some efforts to
19
begin revising, so --
20
A
So --
21
0
Yeah.
22
A
Some --
23
0
It wasn't finalized.
24
A
Yeah. Some efforts to begin --
25
Q
Exactly.
EFTA00009039

=== Page 25 ===
Page 224
1
A
Right.
2
0
Okay. Looking at 11a, this is a letter that
3
drafted to sort of actually respond to a
4
counteroffer by the defense. The counteroffer is represented
5
in Exhibit 10b, which is a letter from
Sanchez
6
which we don't need to go into in detail, because as you've
7
already pointed out, essentially it was a home confinement,
8
and you know, very, very soft --
9
A Yeah.
10
0
-- landing counteroffer. In 11a,
11
tweaks
letter, you're copied on this, and the date is
12
August 2, Thursday, and he notes that he hadn't discussed it
13
in detail with you, but he wanted to -- he hoped that
14
tomorrow, Friday the 3rd --
15
A
Right.
16
Q
-- he'd have a chance to, and what's notable here
17
is that -- is that the -- there's strong language that the
18
"Office believes that the federal interest would not be
19
vindicated in the absence of a two year term of state
20
imprisonment for Mr. Epstein. That offer was not meant as a
21
starting point for negotiation. It is the minimum term of
22
imprisonment that will obviate the need for federal
23 prosecution."
24
A
You're on paragraph two?
25
Q
One.
EFTA00009040

=== Page 26 ===
Page 225
1
A
One, yes.
2
Q
Oh, two.
3
A
Yeah.
4
Q
It's the first --
5
A
Right.
6
0
-- long paragraph. And then he also states that --
7
that you in the last paragraph -- the U.S. Attorney, "U.S.
8
Attorney Acosta has asked me to communicate that the two year
9
term of incarceration is non-negotiable."
10
A
Yes.
11
Q
That's pretty firm. That's a -- that's a line --
12
A
It is.
13
Q
-- in the concrete that is setting, right?
14
A
Right.
15
2
And 11b is the letter as it actually went out the
16
next day.
17
A
And it's got the same language.
18
Q
It's identical. It has the same language. It has
19
one typo corrected. This is
last day in the
20
office.
21
A
Yes.
22
Q
And he's gone after that. Do you think that this
23
was an -- the appropriate timing to extend this offer, or to
24
set this as the minimum offer, or was it something that you
25
would've liked to have seen more fully developed in
EFTA00009041

=== Page 27 ===
Page 226
1
negotiations with defense counsel?
2
A
I'm sorry, I don't understand your question when
3
you say more fully developed.
4
Q
Well, you -- you have two years. Would -- would
5
further consideration have led the U.S. Attorney's Office to
6
decide that, well, maybe the two years is too much of a
7
giveaway; we should stick with a five year federal plea?
8
A
Yeah. I can't -- so, I can't speculate this far
9
after the fact whether waiting an additional time period and
10
further discussion would have changed things. I can tell you
11
how we came up with it, but that -- that's a lot of
12
speculation.
13
Q
Would you say that
was -- as the
14
criminal chief, was essentially the driver of this -- of the
15
resolution --
16
A
Right.
17
Q
-- presented in this letter?
18
A
I can't. Again, you're asking me to speak to
19
something from 12 years ago. I can't speak to it. I was
20
aware of the multiple prongs. I approved it. If we had had,
21
you know, if -- if a -- at some point -- is your question is
22
if at some point there had been a, let's sit down and
23
reconsider meeting, would we have gone in a different
24
direction? Perhaps, but I can't, 12 years after the fact,
25
speculate as to what may have happened if something had
EFTA00009042

=== Page 28 ===
Page 227
1 happened.
2
0
All right.
3
A
That's just a lot of hypotheticals.
4
0
Understood. The question though is whether Matt
5
Menchel, who was the author --
6
A
Right.
7
0
-- of this, who first raised it --
8
A
Right.
9
Q
-- with
Sanchez --
10
A
Yeah.
11
0
-- in an informal discussion, and who presented it
12
to the U.S. Attorney's Office team, was this really his baby?
13
A
I can't --
14
Q
Approved by you.
15
A
I can't -- I don't remember who I talked to about
16
what, and so it wouldn't be fair for me to -- you know, I
17
can't single out any one person as having a greater or lesser
18 role.
19
Q
Well, you were not the architect of this, right?
20
You approved it as you've described it.
21
A
No, I haven't said I wasn't the architect. What I
22
said is I don't recall --
23
Q
Right.
24
A
I recall approving it. You know, I -- I think what
25
I'm trying to convey is these discussions are much more fluid
EFTA00009043

=== Page 29 ===
Page 228
1 than I think any one single architect. You've got multiple
2 lawyers. They interact on a daily basis. They talk back and
3 forth.
4
To -- to sort of put it in an OPR context, there's
5 probably not going to be a single author to the report.
6 You're all going to go back and forth, and there might be
7
someone that has maybe there is a single author. Who
8 knows? But it's -- I think it's difficult to say there's a
9 single person, and ultimately I was U.S. Attorney, and so I
10
approved it and --
11
Q
To your knowledge, did anyone in that chain of --
12
A
Right.
13
0
-- that five person chain or anyone else disagree
14 with this offer?
15
A
To --
16
Q
I'm not talking about --
17
A
To my knowledge -- to my knowledge, I think
18
at sometimes may have felt uncomfortable, but whether there
19
was explicit disagreement or not, I don't recall. In terms
20
of my management chain, I don't recall any disagreement.
21
Q
That you were aware of?
22
A
That I was aware of. I -- I recalled discussions.
23
So, for example,
might say I might proceed with a 371
24 with a two year cap under rule 11, but then we move in this
25 other direction, and I don't recall anyone saying, let's take
EFTA00009044

=== Page 30 ===
Page 229
1
a time out, let's reconsider.
2
Q
All right.
3
A
And let me -- let me just clarify, I think at
4
various points in this case -- and it's hard -- it's hard to
5
sort of single out the timeline. Ms.
was
6
supportive, or maybe I wish we would go in a different
7
direction, and that sort of went in and out a little bit.
8
Q
On her part?
9
A
Yes.
10
Q
Let me ask you this. Having reached the decision
11
that you approved --
12
A
Right.
13
0
-- that this was the offer, and the term sheet, or
14
the terms, having that decision made, would you have expected
15
your line AUSA to frustrate that, or to not abide by that,
16
since it was your decision?
17
A
No, with a caveat that if at any point someone felt
18
truly uncomfortable, I would expect them to come and talk to
19
me about it.
20
Q
And can you recall any instance in which an AUSA --
21
a line AUSA came and talked to you about a disposition that
22
he or she was uncomfortable with?
23
A
Yes. So, I'll give you an example. I don't recall
24
who, before you ask me, but there was this AUSA who was new
25
to the office who impressed the hell out of me. I'm sorry,
EFTA00009045

=== Page 31 ===
Page 230
1
that's not appropriate language -- who impressed me
2
significantly.
3
He had inherited a case, and it was a fraud case,
4
and the -- the bigger players had been charged, and he was
5
basically given a lesser player to -- to basically just
6
finish up on, right?
7
It was a done deal. The person was ready to plead
8
to some minor count, no jail time, and he felt uncomfortable
9
with it, and went to his supervisor, and then ultimately came
10
up to me, and I had a discussion with this person about it,
11
and it ended up with my telling him to go back and call the
12
defense counsel and tell them we were dropping the case.
13
Q
Mm-hmm.
14
A
Which, for a new AUSA in the office is pretty gusty
15
and unusual, but if this person really felt that this lesser
16
player wasn't deserving, then that was the right thing to do.
17
Q
Right.
18
A
And so, I don't -- and the person was not punished
19
for it.
20
Q
Mm-hmm.
21
A
If anything --
22
Q
Mm-hmm.
23
A
-- you know, I recounted that story to others.
24
Q
Okay. A question, shifting gears --
25
A
Yeah.
EFTA00009046

=== Page 32 ===
Page 231
1
Q
-- a little bit, about 18 USC 22.55.
2
A
Yes, okay.
3
Q
Not to be confused with 22 -- 28 USC 22.55, which
4
every prosecutor is familiar with. So, whose idea was that?
5
It's, it's a civil provision, a civil -- it's not
6
restitution, it's damages. It's a damages recovery provision
7
in the criminal code.
8
A
Right.
9
Q
Who came up with that?
10
A
I can't speak to who came up with it.
11
Q
Okay.
12
A
I can speak to -- to the reasoning behind it.
13
Q
Your reasoning, or the proponent's reasoning?
14
A
My recollection of the reasoning as to why we
15
thought it was important.
16
Q
And the importance was to provide a mechanism for
17
recovery of damages?
18
A
To -- yeah.
19
Q
Okay.
20
A
Yeah. I mean, the victims bad situation, and we
21
just -- and here is -- well, go on.
22
Q
All right.
23
A
I might circle back on something.
24
Q
So, is it fair to say that's a fairly -- had you
25
ever heard of it before? Had you come across it before?
EFTA00009047

=== Page 33 ===
Page 232
1
A
I don't know, but I don't think SO.
2
Q
Okay. So, is it fair to say it was novel to the
3 office? To you, and to this team?
4
A
I don't want -- I don't think it's fair to say that
5
it's novel to the office.
6
0 Well, to the -- do you do you recall whether
7 anybody in the team had had experience with 18 USC 22.55 in a
8 criminal --
9
A
I don't have a recollection of any discussion as to
10
whether people had experience with this or not.
11
Q
Did you believe that any legal research was needed,
12 or should be undertaken to ensure that the procedure was in
13 fact legally sound when embedded, as it was in this case, in
14 a criminal plea?
15
A
So, I would have expected to the extent that there
16 were concerns. Again, we had incredibly experienced --
17 between the various individuals on my management team, we
18 probably had 50 years plus of criminal experience. I would
19 have expected to the extent their concerns, for those
20 concerns to be raised.
21
Q
Did you raise any -- any such concerns about it, or
22
did it seem to make sense to you?
23
A
From my perspective, I recall -- I don't know if it
24 was at the time or subsequent to it, reading it, and -- and
25 it seemed - it seemed to -- to make sense.
EFTA00009048

=== Page 34 ===
Page 233
1
0
Okay. After
letter went out on the
2
3rd of August, you almost immediately -- it appears you
3
received a telephone call from Kirkland & Ellis, is that
4 correct?
5
A
That -- I don't recall it independently, but that's
6
what the record shows.
7
Q
All right, and that's reflected in Exhibit 12. Do
8
you remember who called you?
9
A
I do not.
10
0
Do you recall -- it apparently was from the context
11
of this Exhibit 12, it -- and the caption, Epstein.
12
A
Right. Right.
13
0
It appears that the call related to Epstein,
14
correct?
15
A
Correct. Again, I don't remember the phone call,
16
but from the e-mail, I accept that it happened.
17
0
So, what had been your knowledge and relationship
18 of -- with Ken Starr of Kirkland & Ellis --
19
A
Right.
20
Q
-- up to this point?
21
A
So, I had been an associate at Kirkland, I think I
22
indicated, what was it --
23
0
Mm-hmm.
24
A
-- from '94 to '90 -- what was it? Was it '96 or
25 '97?
EFTA00009049

=== Page 35 ===
Page 234
1
0
A couple of years.
2
A
For a couple of years. I worked on at least one
3
case that I recall with him. I was the junior associate on a
4
merits brief that he argued. He, at the time, was also
5
special counsel. And so he wasn't in the office nearly as
6
much because he was double hatting as special counsel --
7
Q
Mm-hmm.
8
A
-- and partner.
9
Q
Mm-hmm. All right, and what about
?
10
A
So,
was a partner at the time. I
11
don't recall working with him on any particular case,
12
although I think I worked with him on at least a matter. He
13
was on my hallway. He had an outside office. I had the
14
typical inside office.
15
2
Had you had any interaction -- any contact with
16
them in the intervening years, socially or professionally?
17
A
Off and on, I was in Washington. They -- you know,
18
Ken Starr was in Washington. I think
had moved to New
19
York but then came back to Washington to be in the
20
administration, and he was in the policy office, and we may
21 have -- not may have. We likely interacted.
22
0
And while you were here at the criminal -- at the
23
civil rights division?
24
A
Correct.
25
Q
All right, and did you -- were you friends? Were
EFTA00009050

=== Page 36 ===
Page 235
1
you professional acquaintances? Were you what? How would
2
you characterize that?
3
A
We were professional acquaintances that had worked
4
together several years ago that continued to interact.
5
Q
Is that true as to the two of them?
6
A
I mean, it's hard to characterize these things. I
7
think -- I think that's fair to say.
8
Q
Did Ken Starr know who you were?
9
A
Yes.
10
Q
And obviously
as well?
11
A
Yes.
12
2
Okay. So, what was your reaction to being
13
contacted by them in -- by their firm, them, presumably one
14
of --
15
A
Right.
16
Q
-- them perhaps?
17
A
So --
18
Q
In --
19
A
So, I don't know who called based on the e-mail. I
20
can infer that it was one of them.
21
Q
Mm-hmm.
22
A
And you know -- and I think my reaction is captured
23
by not my e-mail, but -- but by Jeff's comment, and what -- I
24
don't have a clear recollection, but I'm going to
25
speculate/infer that I heard they were being brought onto the
EFTA00009051

=== Page 37 ===
Page 236
1
case, and I probably walked down to Jeff's office and said,
2
hey, Kirkland's coming onto the case, I bet you they're going
3 to come on to try to take this up to D.C.
4
And then I get a phone call, and -- you know, and
5
then I tell Matt, who tells Jeff, you know, I didn't know,
6 maybe -- Kirkland made a call to -- you're right,
7 unbelievable.
8
And then I say they're likely to go to D.C. We
9
should strategize a bit. My concerns behind that are, will
10
D.C. look at this as sort of legally troubled, going back to
11
the earlier points that I made about the policy issues around
12
the trafficking issues up here in D.C.
13
2
Mm-hmm.
14
A
And I really do think he should go to jail. And
15
so, I want to strategize a bit.
16
Q
So, did you have concern about the fact that you
17
were -- that the defense team was sort of appealing you to
18
the big house?
19
A
I think based on this, I almost predicted this
20
would happen.
21
Q
Yeah.
22
A
And Jeff is saying, you were right, unbelievable,
23
where I in some way, shape, or form predicted that something
24 would someone would be hired, or something would happen to
25 take this all up to D.C.
EFTA00009052

=== Page 38 ===
Page 237
1
0
And had you experienced other cases -- other
2
instances in which defense team went to D.C. while you were
3
at U.S. Attorney's Office -- while you were the U.S.
4
Attorney?
5
A
Yes.
6
0
Was that a concern to you?
7
A
It wasn't a concern. It was a, how do we address
8
this so that we can back our position and our office.
9
Q
Did you have concerns about the disposition that
10
was underway? About -- main justice scrutiny of the NPA
11
scheme?
12
A
So, I had no concerns about main justice scrutiny
13
of the NPA scheme. In fact, I invited Drew to come down --
14
Q
Right.
15
A
-- and he was part of the meeting where we
16
discussed the NPA. And so, I say that because if I had
17
concerns, I wouldn't have invited him. If anything, my
18
concern was, is main justice on board, or are we going to
19
basically be told to drop this case when it goes up to main
20
justice?
21
Q
Mm-hmm. In your e-mail to
, when
22
Sloman's on vacation --
23
A
Yeah.
24
Q
-- you say that -- you make reference to a process
25
foul, that the attorneys in the defense team want to go to
EFTA00009053

=== Page 39 ===
Page 238
1 D.C. on the case on the grounds of a process foul, i.e., that
2
I have not met with them, and you expressed concern that that
3
would delay matters. Is that what led you to agree to meet
4
with the defense team on the 7th of September?
5
A
It is. My concern was it they came up to D.C., and
6
the first talking about was the U.S. Attorney didn't even
7
agree to meet with us, that's not the best -- that's not the
8
best foot to start with when you're having your case
9 reviewed.
10
Q
So, what was your understanding of what the purpose
11
of the meeting on September 7th was supposed to be?
12
A
They wanted to argue -- they, being defense
13
counsel, wanted to argue why we should not pursue this case.
14
Q
And in this case, it was Starr and Lefkowitz from
15
Kirkland & Ellis, and Lilly Ann Sanchez, I believe who met
16
with you.
17
A
Fair. I remember it was Starr and Lefkowitz. I
18
don't know if it was Lilly Ann.
19
Q
All right, and our information is it was you, Drew
20
Oosterbaan, Sloman,
, and John MacMillan. Do you --
21
do you know John MacMillan?
22
A
Vaguely.
23
Q
All right. He was an AUSA as well.
24
A
Right.
25
Q
Correct? In West Palm?
EFTA00009054

=== Page 40 ===
Page 239
1
A
Right, and if I can just add, again, I -- I invited
2
Drew --
3
0
Mm-hmm.
4
A
-- so, Drew became fully aware of that, and my
5
concern in getting Drew into the meeting was to not have them
6
appeal us, and then having Drew say, not a good case.
7
Q All right. So, were you aware that Drew Oosterbaan
8
had, in preparation for this, gone to West Palm and actually
9
gone through the evidence and met with the case agent and the
10
line AUSA
11
A
I was not. Drew is an independent actor and could
12
do what -- yeah, what he thought appropriate.
13
0
Did that -- does that seem like an appropriate
14
thing for him to have done in your eyes?
15
A
Sure.
16
0
Okay. Would you describe the meeting -- oh, and
17
two other people who were there were, again ASAC Val Parlave
18
and Junior Ortiz --
19
A
Right.
20
Q
-- the SSA. So, and the meeting I think was in
21
West Palm Beach.
22
A
Yes.
23
Q
So, what do you recall about the meeting? The
24
dynamics? Who spoke? How did it go down?
25
A
I recall there were a lot of people. I think Mr.
EFTA00009055

=== Page 41 ===
Page 240
1
Starr spoke most of the time. I think -- my recollection, as
2
best as I can -- you know, with the caveat I thought
3
was there and clearly he wasn't. So, presented
4
several arguments. I then either left the room with my team,
5
or I think I most likely asked them to leave the room. I
6
then went around and --
7
Q
Asked who to leave the room?
8
A
Asked the --
9
Q
The defense?
10
A
-- defense. I then went around the table, and I
11
said, does anyone have any concerns, or something to that
12
effect. And then hearing none, I asked them to come back in,
13
and I reaffirmed the position of the office.
14
0
In other words, you sort of decided -- you ruled
15
from the bench, as it were. Fair enough?
16
A
Fair enough.
17
Q
Okay. You didn't take -- take it under advisement.
18
You gave them what your position was right then and there.
19
A
That -- that's my recollection. I don't know if
20
you have information contrary, but at least --
21
Q
Okay.
22
A
-- that's my recollection.
23
Q
Okay. So, is it fair to say it was more of a
24
presentation on the part of Ken Starr and his side rather
25
than a debate or discussion?
EFTA00009056

=== Page 42 ===
Page 241
1
A
I think that that's fair to say. I may have asked
2
a question or two, but my -- my recollection was not a -- was
3
not a negotiation, but a, let's hear you out.
4
Q
And so, we understand it was mainly a federalism
5
presentation, as opposed to evidence, is that accurate?
6
A
I believe that's accurate, yes.
7
Q
And in your letter to Ken Starr dated -- the letter
8
is actually not dated, but we know that it was sent on the
9
4th of December --
10
A Okay.
11
Q
-- of 2007, and it's in this package. You noted
12
that --
13
A
Which exhibit?
14
MR. GONZALEZ: 34.
15
BY
:
16
Q
Thank you. Exhibit 34. You note on page four --
17
I'm sorry, page five, you -- you referred to the federalism
18
arguments, and you say that after considering the arguments
19
and conferring with the FBI and Drew Oosterbaan, you decided
20
to proceed with the indictment, but that you would delay
21
presentation of the indictment to allow the defense to appeal
22
to D.C. Does that mean that you didn't find the federalism
23
arguments sufficiently persuasive to you to change your
24 position?
25
A
Yes, with the position defined as some concern, but
EFTA00009057

=== Page 43 ===
Page 242
1
if we need to -- if we don't come to a resolution based on
2
the sheet, then we indict.
3
Q
And there is a letter of --
4
BY
:
5
Q
I'm sorry, when you say some concern, some concern
6
about the federalism argument?
7
A
Yeah. Going -- going back to what we talked about
8
with respect to the earlier conversation about solicitation
9
versus trafficking, and the federal nexus. But back in July,
10
we had decided that we were going forward, that either there
11
is this pre-indictment resolution, or we go forward with an
12
indictment. The September meeting did not alter or shift our
13
position.
14
BY
:
15
Q
Even though you had some federalism concerns of
16
your own, they didn't rise to a sufficiently high level.
17
A
So, their request -- their request was to drop the
18
matter.
19
Q
Right.
20
A
And -- and --
21
Q
Okay.
22
A
-- going back again, understood. There is -- there
23
is legal risk. There is witness risk. All of these. If we
24
can get pre-indictment resolution, good. If not, the
25
indictment was not a bluff. It was -- it was real.
EFTA00009058

=== Page 44 ===
Page 243
1
Q
So, was -- I mean, Ken Starr is of course well
2 known.
3
A
Right.
4
Q
He was solicitor general, he's -- you know,
5
etcetera. Did you find his arguments well set forth?
6
Impressive?
7
A
So, you're asking for something that's 12 years --
8
if I had to characterize, by the time this meeting took
9
place, there had been a fair amount of thought around these.
10
There had been a fair amount of -- and I at least felt
11
comfortable that while there was some legal risk, he
12
needed -- we needed -- you've got to balance the legal risk
13
and the precedent risk with -- with outcomes, and Mr. Epstein
14
should go to jail, and should register, and I felt
15
comfortable -- I felt comfortable enough to basically
16
reiterate our position that --
17
Q
But my -- but my question with respect to --
18
A
Right.
19
Q
-- was, did you enjoy the give and take with --
20
with a man of Mr. Starr's --
21
A
In all candor, no.
22
Q
-- standing?
23
A
No.
24
Q
No? Not at all.
25
A
Not at all, because --
EFTA00009059

=== Page 45 ===
Page 244
1
Q
All right.
2
A
-- it would have been easier to not have the
3
meeting in the first place.
4
Q
All right. Do you recall an exchange -- was he --
5
was -- were you the person to whom he was directing most of
6
his comments?
7
A
Most -- most likely.
8
Q
And do you recall any exchange with him about the
9
fact that sort of an observation that the two of you, you
10 and he, were the only two people in the room who had been
11
presidentially nominated and senate confirmed to any position
12 so that the two of you had kind of that commonality. Does
13
that ring --
14
A
Do you mean --
15
Q
-- a bell?
16
A
-- was he trying to butter me up?
17
Q
Was he? I mean, was he?
18
A
I don't -- I -- look, this was 12 years ago. I
19
don't recall. You know, I think as we talk about this, it's
20
important to note that the position did not change. Whatever
21
exchange there may have had, our position did not change.
22
Q
Right. After this meeting, within a few days, in
23
furtherance of the resolution that had been offered,
24
and
Lourie met with the state attorney's
25
office to sit down and try to work out how this thing would
EFTA00009060

=== Page 46 ===
Page 245
1
work, and mind you, this was before -- well before the NPA
2 is --
3
A
Right.
4
0
-- actually formulated. Did you learn what
5
happened at that meeting? Do you know how it devolved?
6
A
I may have. I don't -- I don't recall, you know,
7
sitting here today.
8
Q
All right. It's at this meeting that somehow, the
9
three charges that you specified -- your office specified in
10
the term sheet became one. So, suddenly Epstein was to plead
11
only to one charge, and this was agreed to by the U.S.
12
Attorney's Office folks who were there. Do you know how or
13
why that happened?
14
A
I haven't the slightest idea.
15
Q
If you had known -- if they had called you on the
16
phone, sort of the mid-trial --
17
A
Right.
18
Q
-- call to the boss, asking what you wanted them to
19
do, what would you have said?
20
A
So from my perspective, when I said -- you know,
21
when I indicated I approved this term sheet, this is the
22
minimum, I meant what I said. I also recognize that AUSAs in
23
the usual course need some degree of discretion to negotiate.
24
and so, my assumption after that September meeting, I think I
25 indicated that there was a deadline --
EFTA00009061

=== Page 47 ===
Page 246
1
0
Mm-hmm.
2
A
-- that was fairly short, was that
and
3
and some -- working together would go back and work out an
4
agreement based on those terms, and you know, in the give and
5
take, if they think that this is an important concession,
6
that's within their discretion, but I would have been
7
comfortable sticking to that --
8
Q
With --
9
A
-- charge sheet. With -- something that drove me
10
is when I -- when I said something, I -- as a general matter,
11
I didn't bluff. I really meant what I said.
12
0
So, in that terms sheet, I mean, to be fair, what
13
Menchel's letter says is two years --
14
A
Right.
15
Q
-- is the minimum. If the decision to agree to let
16
him plead to one as opposed to all three had no impact on
17
that two years, would -- would you have cared?
18
A
Fair enough, and so going -- going back to where
19
I -- you know, to an earlier discussion -- can I get another
20
Red Bull? Going -- going back to earlier discussion, I think
21
I indicated that the charges -- the state charges I wasn't
22
familiar with. And so if in the give and take, those charges
23
changed, my focus was on two years registration and
24
restitution, as long as those charges were -- captured the
25
conduct in some appropriate way.
EFTA00009062

=== Page 48 ===
Page 247
1
0
So, later -- rather much later, the defense counsel
2
admitted that at this meeting, they thought --
3
A
Yes.
4
Q
-- that under misinformation from the state
5
attorney's office that that charge that they got the U.S.
6
Attorney's Office, or somehow the -- the U.S. Attorney's
7
Office approved, the 793 -- 796.03 charge was not sex
8
offender registerable, and that's a -- that's pretty --
9
that's a pretty major mistake, right?
10
A
It is, and --
11
0
I mean, that's -- that goes to the heart of you --
12
A
And --
13
Q
-- one of your major concerns.
14
A
And they tried -- they tried to get us to change
15
that, and I said no.
16
Q
The defense tried to get you off sex offender
17
registration.
18
A
Pretty vigorously.
19
Q
Right? But at this point, the focus is on the
20
charge, and the defense is -- one might characterize it as
21
trying to pull a fast one by agreeing wholeheartedly to plead
22
to one charge, knowing or at least believing incorrectly that
23
it was not registerable, and the U.S. Attorney's Office not
24
having that belief, but thinking it was registerable.
25
So, there's a disconnect. There is error, and the
EFTA00009063

=== Page 49 ===
Page 248
1
error stems, as they later learned, from the ASA herself.
2
So, we look at that, and wonder whether that shouldn't have
3
raised some concern that this plan to put things back in the
4
hands of the state, which had kind of mishandled the case to
5
being with, as at this point even not a good idea, because
6
they were continually -- continuing to be -- well, I won't
7
characterize it, but less than reliable. Was that a -- is
8
that a fair comment of concern?
9
A
So, one question I would have is, at what point did
10
we become aware that there had been, first, the error was in
11
our favor, not the defense's favor, because
got it
12
right as opposed to the ASA.
13
0
Correct.
14
A
And secondly, at what point did our team become
15
aware of them trying to pull a fast one? Was it before or
16
after the signing of the NPA?
17
Q
It was well after.
18
A
Right.
19
Q
But the -- the point here is that the U.S.
20
Attorney's Office folks were not as familiar with the state
21 procedure -- the state criminal procedure, and the ins and
22
outs of the sentencing and incarceration, as you learned
23 later.
24
So, didn't this put the U.S. Attorney's Office side
25
at a substantial disadvantage in trying to play in the
EFTA00009064

=== Page 50 ===
Page 249
1
sandbox in which both the defense -- local defense counsel
2
and the ASAs were very comfortable?
3
A
Possibly, although I would point out that it was
4
the AUSA who got it right.
5
Q
Eventually.
6
A
Not eventually. The AUSA --
7
Q
Oh.
8
A
-- was correct in her analysis.
9
Q
Right.
10
A
So, in this case, she was more familiar than the
11
state attorney.
12
Q
Not by practice, but by research, or --
13
A
By research, and so --
14
Q
Right.
15
A
-- my point is we had good people that were able
16
to, if they weren't familiar with something, the research
17
clearly worked.
18
Q
But it took, as you saw in the -- in the -- in the
19
process of dealing with the work release and all of that, it
20
took a lot of --
21
A
It --
22
Q
-- work to keep up with those --
23
A
It did.
24
Q
-- errors.
25
A
Which is why I say in hindsight, if, given all the
EFTA00009065

=== Page 51 ===
Page 250
1 effort that took place after this defer to the state was
2 reached, if all that had been known, I really think the
3 analysis would have proceeded differently, because that
4 was -- what was a lot of work. That was probably as much
5 work, if not more than a trial.
6
Q Right. Right. Right. Meanwhile, the -- we'll
7
talk about the actual text of the NPA in a moment, but
8 following that actually, no, before it was being
9 finalized - before it was finalized,
was
10 working to identify a federal charge, as we discussed before.
11
In that process, she came up with a plan that would have
12 resulted cobbling things together in an 18 month sentence
13
instead of --
14
A Mm-hmm.
15
0
-- 24 months. Somehow, that became the new floor.
16 The -- the new standard. Do you know how that came about,
17 and who actually agreed to that?
18
A
I -- I don't. I -- I referenced the one e-mail
19
where I think
says, he argued 12.
20
Q Right.
21
A
I said 24. We agreed to 18. I assume in the give
22
and take, this was an agreement that was reached, and --
23
O
But that was 18, as -- as to the potential federal
24
charges. It somehow became imported --
25
A I --
EFTA00009066

=== Page 52 ===
Page 251
1
Q
-- into the state disposition.
2
A
I can't -- I can't speak to that. This was -- this
3
was something that the "trial team" was negotiating, and from
4
my perspective, this is -- these were the terms that we
5
wanted. These were the terms that I expected if they came
6
back and said, no deal. Disappointed, but go forward, but
7
they tried to get a deal, and -- and --
8
Q
The defense tried?
9
A
No, but our prosecutors.
10
Q
Oh.
11
A
And to some extent, you know, they -- and the give
12
and take of any negotiation, I don't think it's unfair for an
13
AUSA to -- to give up some things.
14
0
But did -- you had -- had stated clearly to not
15
only the defense team through the Menchel letter, but also I
16
believe at the end of the September 7 meeting, that two years
17
was the deal. So, did somebody come to you and say, looks
18
like it's going to be 18 months, and allow you to then
19
approve that?
20
A
I don't recall if someone came to me separately or
21
independently of the final language. I clearly approved it
22
at some point.
23
Q
Mm-hmm.
24
A
And so to the extent it was approved, that's --
25
that's on me, but I would -- I would argue that, you know,
EFTA00009067

=== Page 53 ===
Page 252
1
someone's negotiating, one said says 24, another side says
2
12. They say, let's agree to 18. To some extent as U.S.
3
Attorney, I think I have to back the -- the negotiating
4
discretion of my AUSAs.
5
0
But you -- you explained quite eloquently the
6
reasoning for the two year plea as being what Epstein would
7
have faced if he'd been prosecuted --
8
A
Right.
9
Q
-- you know, absentia, by the state appropriately,
10
and then suddenly, without any apparent relationship to that
11
analysis, the 18 months pops up from an effort to try to get
12
federal charges. And so how do you -- how -- does that not
13
undercut the basis for the two years?
14
A
So, I can provide the reasoning for the two years.
15
I also though think as a -- as a supervisor, as U.S.
16
Attorney, it's important to understand that when individuals
17
go out into the field, negotiations take place. And if every
18
time there is some give, they need to come back to the U.S.
19
Attorney, or there is a fear that the U.S. Attorney will not
20
back us.
21
You know, there is -- there's a certain -- I think
22
there's a management issue there in that if an AUSA speaking
23
on behalf of the U.S. makes an agreement, as long as that
24
agreement is within a certain range, the U.S. Attorney should
25
back that, because they're the ones that are in the -- on the
EFTA00009068

=== Page 54 ===
Page 253
1
line. They're the ones that are managing the case, and it's
2
sort of unfair to consistently second guess those late
3
night -- I don't -- I don't want to characterize it --
4
Q Okay.
5
A
-- as a late night negotiation, but those -- that
6
give and take that happens sometimes in a conference room or
7
on the phone.
8
0
Do you know exactly what give and take occurred in
9
this case regarding the 18 months?
10
A
I do not. I read that one document.
11
Q
Okay.
12
A
But I do not.
13
Q
All right. Any other questions on this one?
14
BY
:
15
Q
Really quick. I agree with what you're saying in
16
principle, but in this case, you had had a -- almost like a
17
mandatory, two years is the minimum that the --
18
A
Right.
19
Q
-- U.S. Attorney will accept. Under those
20
circumstances, where you have come out and said, this is the
21
minimum we'll accept, would you have expected them to have to
22
come back to you to get approval for any kind of reduction in
23
that amount?
24
A
Would I have expected them? I think Ms.
25
was in a tough position, because opposing counsel was coming
EFTA00009069

=== Page 55 ===
Page 254
1
at her. It was a tough negotiation. Would I have wanted two
2
years? Yes. Would I fault her for agreeing to 18 months? I
3
don't think that's fair to her.
4
BY
:
5
Q
You could have said no, right?
6
A
I could have, but it was an -- but she had agreed
7
to it. The process had gone further down, and to some
8
extent, I -- I think there is a need to respect that process.
9
That happens -- I guess I was getting -- you know, this is
10
not the only case where a supervisor sort of says, this is
11
our -- this is our standard, and -- and at some point, things
12
move, and you've got to provide some discretion.
13
Q
All right.
14
BY
:
15
Q
Do you think she misunderstood the priorities?
16
That she thought you wanted to get to a resolution, and so
17
the two years could -- could be undercut, versus taking your
18
words literally and saying this is the line in the sand
19
beyond which you should not go, even if it means kill this --
20
kill the resolution?
21
A
So, if I had to speculate, I don't think it was a
22
misunderstanding of priorities as opposed to opposing counsel
23
was exhausting, and if you go through the full record, it
24
really was an exhausting -- opposing counsel in this case was
25
very good at taking any slight millimeter, and turning it
EFTA00009070

=== Page 56 ===
Page 255
1
into, oh, so you said we could do this, and in that back and
2
forth, sometimes there is a, can't we just agree in the
3
middle?
4
0
And I understand what you're saying, but weren't
5
they exhausting because the U.S. Attorney's Office would not
6
say no to them? And so they always believed from the get-go,
7
because they have a two year minimum that the --
8
A
Right.
9
Q
-- that the office is willing to then say, oh, we
10
can go down from there, and that that set the tone from then
11
on that they could continually chip away at you on virtually
12
every single term that came about? So, yes, they were
13
exhausting, but isn't that because the U.S. Attorney's Office
14
would not tell them no?
15
A
So I would push back, because after the agreement
16
was signed, I would argue they did not chip away. They --
17
they certainly kept appealing collaterally, and we can talk
18
about that, because there were other concerns raised there,
19
but once we had that September meeting, between that
20
September meeting and the signing of the deferment in favor
21
of the state, that was all negotiated by the trial team.
22
That wasn't a, come back to the U.S. Attorney, or come to the
23
first assistant. That really, to my recollection, was, go
24
negotiate with the state -- with the line.
25
Q
Well, but there were a number of things that came
EFTA00009071

=== Page 57 ===
Page 256
1
about later on. I mean, they -- they continually griped
2
about the 22.55, and that got -- you know, that got modified.
3
A
Later on -- and I think later on's are different
4
for some reasons we can talk about now or later, but there
5
was an attempt to work this out later on that was clearly
6
there.
7
:
The --
8
THE WITNESS But I think that's very different
9
than, how was the agreement negotiated? And I think that's a
10
very different -- a different sort of timeline.
11
BY
:
12
0
So in your mind, was she prepared to walk away from
13
the deal if need be?
14
A
After it was signed?
15
0
Before it was signed.
16
A
Before it was signed, it honestly was, get a deal
17
or ultimately if we have to indict, we indict, and that's
18
what I said, and -- and look at it this way. After having
19
said that, if that really was a bluff, what would I look
20
like, right? I would look awful.
21
And so, for that reason, that was not a bluff.
22
That was a thought through, this is what we will do, and if
23
you don't agree to this, then we indict, and we indict. You
24
can't make those kinds of statements and not follow through.
25
The office loses credibility if you do.
EFTA00009072

=== Page 58 ===
Page 257
1
Q
Right, but you can keep giving on certain terms.
2
A
But we -- and my point is we did not give, with the
3
exception of that 24 to 18, we did not give.
4
BY
:
5
Q
Well, you also gave up two charges.
6
A
Again, I'm thinking of a two years, registration,
7
restitution, and so with the exception of that 24 to 18, we
8
did not give.
9
0
I want to go back. This morning, we were talking
10
about our tracks, and we talked about the legal track, and a
11
little bit about the evidence track. There's another aspect
12
of the evidence track that is in play here, because there was
13
a substantial type of evidence, and the question is, to what
14
extent were you aware of this.
15
In October of 2005, the local police executed a
16
search warrant on Epstein's residence, and among things they
17
found there were cables and cords where there had been
18
computers -- computer equipment, video surveillance, cameras,
19
and CPUs, all of that, that computer based stuff. It had
20
been removed, forgetting why necessarily. If you look at
21
Exhibit 29, were you aware of that, by the way? That that
22
had occurred?
23
A
I was aware that the state had gathered evidence,
24
but not much more --
25
Q
Beyond that.
EFTA00009073

=== Page 59 ===
Page 258
1
A
-- beyond that.
2
Q Okay. So, 29 is --
3
A
I'm sorry, I'm on 21.
4
Q
Wait a minute, this is not the one I'm looking for.
5 73? Let's do -- do you know what? Okay. That's not -- this
6
is not the exhibit I'm looking for, and the numbers are a
7
little bit messed up.
8
There is a -- an e-mail, which I may or may not be
9
able to put my hands on -- in which
informs
10 you that she really wants to get her hands on important
11
potential - on computer evidence, that it's important
12 potential evidence, and she had a plan to get it.
13
So, the question is whether you knew at the time
14
that there was -- that the investigators had identified this
15
computer evidence as being out there, and that they believed
16 it contained a potentially very significant evidence against
17 Epstein, computers, surveillance cameras, given his
18
activity --
19
A Right.
20
Q
-- in his home --
21
: He's not on it.
22
BY
:
23
0
All right. She did not inform you. She informed
24
someone else that we -- she informed Sloman and Menchel on
25 July 3rd, and Lourie. My apologies. You're not on this.
EFTA00009074

=== Page 60 ===
Page 259
1
Where she advises them that she wants -- we want to -- "we
2
want to get the computer equipment that was removed from
3
Epstein's home prior to the state search warrant as soon as
4
possible." So, there was the stuff out there, and --
5
A
Right.
6
Q
-- as of July, there was an abiding keen interest
7
in getting it, and the defense team was resisting the
8
prosecutors efforts to get it. Were you aware of that at
9 all?
10
A
So, you -- I think you asked about that in your
11
questions to me.
12
0
Right, I did.
13
A
I have no recollection of -- of this computer
14
evidence that --
15
Q
All right.
16
A
Did the question say that -- without getting into
17
specifics, that there was a grand jury issue around this?
18
0
It does. It --
19
A
I don't have that --
20
Q
It is addressed in the non-prosecution agreement if
21
you look at the final non-pros --
22
A
Yeah. I don't have --
23
Q
It's referred to --
24
A
The question that you asked, what question was
25
that?
EFTA00009075

=== Page 61 ===
Page 260
1
0
The question was whether you were aware that that
2
was something that the prosecutors wanted to get?
3
A
I don't -- I don't have a recollection of some
4
computer evidence.
5
Q
All right, and -- and --
6
A
But I think -- is there?
7
0
Are you --
8
A
What was the question?
9
Q
-- aware that
was instructed by her managers
10
to delay her efforts to get this computer evidence, because
11
the defense were resisting those efforts, and it became an
12
issue of -- an issue that was in play in the negotiations?
13
A
I have -- I have no recollection of that.
14
0 Okay.
15
A
If you can give me one second?
16
Q
Sure.
17
A
Pending federal -- and so, your question said that
18
there was litigation pending in federal court relating to the
19
U.S. Attorney's efforts to obtain --
20
Q
Yeah.
21
A
-- computer evidence?
22
Q
Without going into further detail.
23
A
I -- I have no recollection of any litigation
24
pending in federal court regarding that.
25
0
All right, and were you did anyone suggest to
EFTA00009076

=== Page 62 ===
Page 261
1 you and your team that the -- or, getting to a plea deal was
2
premature, because it -- you needed to get this evidence
3
first, so that you knew whether you had potentially some very
4
important evidence again Epstein?
5
A
I have no recollection, and if anything --
6
Q Okay.
7
A
-- I think there was a desire to move quickly as
8
opposed to slowly.
9
Q
On the plea?
10
A
Yes.
11
Q
And do you -- do you know where that energy came
12
from?
Who was --
13
A
I --
14
Q
--wanting to --
15
A
-- I don't, but --
16
Q
-- move quickly?
17
A
-- as I recall -- so, for example, when we were
18
setting up the meeting in September, there was a -- a request
19
to set it up in August as opposed to September, and we had to
20
push it back to September because of vacations or something.
21
Q
All right. So, in addition to not getting the
22
computer evidence, the government curtailed the investigation
23 to a large extent, despite finding more victims. There were
24 witnesses who were not interviewed, things that were not
25 searched, property that wasn't searched, target letters not
EFTA00009077

=== Page 63 ===
Page 262
1
served. Do you -- so, these all would have been steps taken
2
by the FBI to enhance the federal investigation, right? As
3
opposed to back to the state --
4
A
Right.
5
0
-- case that this was sort of --
6
A
Yeah.
7
Q
-- being returned to.
8
A
Right.
9
Q
Was this --
10
MR. TODD: Are you asking Alex if he's aware of all
11
the things you just said?
12
BY
:
13
Q
Were you aware of all -- of those steps that were
14
being foregone, or foreclosed?
15
A
No. My -- my assumption would have been, we may
16
have to go to trial, and so we should continue to develop the
17
basis for trial. So, if I could, for example, I think I --
18
after Drew came down, I said if we go to trial, can you be on
19
the trial team? I cite that, because I'm thinking, we may
20
have to go to trial.
21
Q
Right.
22
A
Why not get Drew who's from Miami on the trial
23
team?
24
0
So, is it -- is it your understanding that the
25
federal investigation, notwithstanding the drafting of this
EFTA00009078

=== Page 64 ===
Page 263
1
NPA, was still continuing?
2
A
Yes. We -- you know, my understanding is you run
3
these on parallel tracks, and again, I'm -- I'm sitting here
4
inviting the head of CEOS to be part of the trial team, and
5
talking about how to formulate the trial team.
6
2
Okay.
7
A
That -- that implies that I was clearly thinking we
8
might be going to trial.
9
Q
All right. When you first received the draft of
10
the non-pros agreement, and this is 16a, it's a draft by
11
.
Do you know who came up with the -- the --
12
it sounds like you didn't, but who came up with the name or
13
the moniker non-prosecution agreement?
14
A
I do not.
15
2
Do you know what this was modelled on, if anything?
16
Where it --
17
A
I --
18
Q
What the genesis was?
19
A
I do not. I noticed from the contemporaneous e-
20
mails that initially it was done differently, and I think it
21
was
Lourie who said write it as a contract, or I think
22
there is -- there is an e-mail to that effect. Someone may
23
recall it better than I, but --
24
Q
This version of September 10, which is the first
25
business day after that --
EFTA00009079

=== Page 65 ===
Page 264
1
A
Yeah.
2
Q
-- September 7th meeting, from
,
3
goes to her management up through you, and you do a rewrite
4
almost right away, adding original state charges which at
5
that point were all still in play, and you also added -- this
6
is Exhibit 16b -- a statement that it would be Epstein's job
7
to move the state to add additional charges, and that -- that
8
latter piece is on page three, just below paragraph eight.
9
So, you were --
10
A
Can I -- can I back up a second?
11
Q
Sure.
12
A
When you say I did a rewrite, is there some
13
indication of what I did a rewrite of?
14
2
Yes. If you compare the two --
15
A
Right.
16
Q
-- there's -- there are things that are bracketed
17
in yellow in Exhibit 16b, which represent --
18
A
Right.
19
Q
-- the changes from 16a.
20
A
Right.
21
Q
Okay. So, those are the two things that are
22
different, and they're referenced in your -- your message --
23
A
Yeah.
24
0
-- at the beginning. We bracketed them just to
25
make it easier for you to -- to recognize --
EFTA00009080

=== Page 66 ===
Page 265
1
A
Right.
2
0
-- that. So, my point is that right from the
3
beginning, you were participating in the process -- in the
4
drafting process.
5
A
Oh. So -- so, I would -- I would characterize that
6
as not participating in the drafting process, but approving a
7
draft. There is -- there is a --
8
Q
I --
9
A
-- slight - --
10
2
-- I did a small --
11
A
-- difference.
12
Q
-- rewrite.
13
A
Yeah. And so, something comes -- here's how I
14
would distinguish. Someone that's participating in the
15
drafting process is sitting at the table with two or three
16
people, drafting it as they go, versus something goes through
17
the management chain, and someone in the supervisory chain
18
says, can you change A, B, or C?
19
Q
All right.
20
A
I -- I clearly - you know, here and in other
21
places, it looks like I'm inserting the same themes, which is
22
deferring to the state -- let's mention the state charges --
23
2
Mm-hmm.
24
A
-- and we can't force the state to do anything.
25
And so, I -- I'm adding to this. I'm clearly aware of it and
EFTA00009081

=== Page 67 ===
Page 266
1
approving it, but I wouldn't say that I was drafting.
2
0
Fair enough. Did you read it?
3
A
I would assume that I read it, or else I wouldn't
4
have edited it.
5
0
All right. So, we have a draft from
-- a
6
working draft on September 10 with a small rewrite from you.
7
There is in the Exhibit 17 series indication that -- of the
8
kind of activity that
was going through to come up
9
with a federal plea, but eventually she and the defense
10
attorney who is most actively working on this, Jay Lefkowitz,
11
turn back to the NPA, and if you look at 17d, just to make
12
the sort of staffing clear, you know, of course
13
has left,
is going on vacation as of September
14
15, and so
Lourie has helped finalize. So, the
15
finalizing of the NPA, the final version of which is in
16
Exhibit 22, falls to
with
, right?
17
A
Yes.
18
Q
Okay, and
puts you on notice in 18b in that
19
process. This e-mail in 18b is sort of a follow on to 18a.
20
Do you see it comes one minute after your e-mail in 18a?
21
It's a response from her to you, only in which she makes note
22
that the defense, "tried to reopen all the loopholes that I
23 had sewn shut."
24
A
Yes.
25
Q
So, it's fair to say that you're kind of -- you're
EFTA00009082

=== Page 68 ===
Page 267
1
on notice that they're being difficult?
2
A
I -- I -- that's fair.
3
Q
Okay. In the course of that being difficult, 19a
4
is an e-mail to you from
on September 18 in which she
5
represents that -- or, explains that the defense is -- is --
6
that things are kind of falling apart with the negotiations,
7
and she fears the deal is going to fall apart completely.
8
MR. TODD: Should we take a quick break here?
9
You're losing your voice.
10
: I'm fine.
11
MR. TODD: You could probably use a minute.
12
: All right. We'll take a break.
13
THE WITNESS All right.
14
: A four minute break.
15
MR. TODD: Four minutes, that's --
16
: Okay.
17
(Off the record.)
18
BY
:
19
Q
Back on the record. Looking at Exhibit 19c, you
20
say -- you write to
regarding whether you're
21
available to -- at a time when she's going to be hashing out
22
language. You advise her that -- but I -- "I don't think I
23 should be part of negotiations. I'd rather leave that to you
24
if that's okay."
25
A
Yes.
EFTA00009083

=== Page 69 ===
Page 268
1
O
Why did you say that to her?
2
A
Because she was the line lawyer involved, and I
3
thought -- I think it's important for a U.S. Attorney to,
4
absent truly exceptional circumstances, to not get involved
5
in sort of the negotiations. You can meet, like I did in
6
September, reaffirm the position of the office, back your
7
AUSA, but ultimately, I think your trial lawyer needs
8
discretion to do their job.
9
Q
At this point, of course we know
is on
10
vacation.
11
A
Right.
12
Q
And you were aware, were you not, that
Lourie
13
was about to decamp for Washington? In other words, he left
14
at the end of September --
15
A
Yes.
16
Q
-- to become the chief of staff and principle
17
deputy, assistant attorney general --
18
A
Correct.
19
Q
-- for
--
20
A
Yes.
21
0
-- who headed the criminal division. Okay, so it
22
was really just the two of them at this point, and with
23
nobody apparently involved between them and you.
24
A
So, fair, but when you say just the two of them,
25
is an incredibly experienced lawyer. So, to say just
EFTA00009084

=== Page 70 ===
Page 269
1
the two of them is not to take -- not -- should not imply
2
that there was an experience in that --
3
0
I --
4
A
-- table.
5
0
I certainly in no way intended to --
6
A
Right.
7
Q
-- to --
8
A
Fair.
9
Q
-- suggest that.
10
A
Fair enough.
11
0
Looking at 19d, in which
is on page
12
two, looking at the latest draft from
, meaning
13
, and this is in the -- in the -- in the throes of
14
negotiating the NPA.
is essentially telling you
15
he agrees with
observations that the defense are just
16
up to all kinds of nonsense in this deal, and constantly
17
changing their terms, and just not apparently negotiating or
18
dealing with these warring drafts with the drafting process
19
in good faith.
20
Again, that's my characterization, but
21
says to you in this e-mail, "I suggest we simply tell him,
22
that his counteroffer is rejected, and that we
23
intend to move forward with our case." Right? And then your
24
response is interesting. You say to him, why don't we
25 just -- why don't we just call him? Tell him, one, you
EFTA00009085

=== Page 71 ===
Page 270
1
agree, and then change things. Two --
2
A
You being
agrees and changes things?
3
Q
Correct. Tell him you agree, meaning,
agrees?
4
A
No. No.
5
Q
I see.
6
A
Yeah.
7
Q
Tell him --
8
A
Tell him, you,
, agree, and you change things.
9
Q
I see.
10
A
That is not acceptable to us, and is in bad faith.
11
Stop it, or we'll just indict, and then try to work it out.
12
0
So, is the try to work it out -- if the -- if
13
numbers one and two are what you should tell -- what
14
should tell
, is number three something
15
should tell
, or what you're telling
? Try to work it
16
out?
17
A
It's what I'm -- what I'm -- what I'm telling
-
18
Q
Okay. So, just to be clear, you say, tell him,
19
meaning you,
, tell Jay, number one --
20
A
So
--
21
0
-- and number two, but number three is then what
22
you're instructing
to do? I --
23
A
Yes.
24
Q
-- I'm just trying to understand.
25
A
Yes. So --
EFTA00009086

=== Page 72 ===
Page 271
1
Q
Okay.
2
A
So, my understanding of this is, they're being
3
difficult. Hey, this isn't the first time that an attorney
4
agrees to something and then goes back and tries to pull a
5
fast one. So, tell him you're onto this, that they need to
6
stop it, or we'll indict, but then that we'll try to -- you
7
know,
should try to work it out.
8
Q Okay.
9
A
But they need to stop this tactic.
10
Q
Did you really think that was going to be effective
11
with this defense --
12
A
I don't know.
13
0
-- team?
14
A
You know, I think one of the hard things with this
15
is, if it was right on September 6th, it remained right,
16
irrespective of really -- I think I say, sorry, I know it's a
17 pain.
18
Q
You do.
19
A
This negotiation was a pain, but if it was the
20
right position, the fact that you've got annoying counsel on
21
the other side doesn't it make it less of a right position.
22
You tell them stop being annoying, you try to work it out,
23
and if not, then you indict.
24
Q
All right, and is that sort of --
25
A
You had a question?
EFTA00009087

=== Page 73 ===
Page 272
1
: I was going to, but
was going
2 ahead.
3
BY
:
4
Q
Is that -- is that consistent with your sort of way
5
of doing business, being even, and working it out?
6
A
Yeah. This is our position. It's not a bluff.
7
It's what we want. You work it out. People yell and scream
8
on the other side. You work it out. If not, then we indict.
9
Q
What would have been the tipping point for you?
10
What would have caused you to say, okay, I agree with you,
11
.
I agree with you,
.
Let's indict?
12
A
So, it's really difficult to speculate, but I think
13
the tipping point would have been a failure to reach -- it
14
was pretty clear. Jail time, registration, restitution.
15
Okay, we moved from 24 to 18 months. That was a give and
16
take. But ultimately, if they came back and said, we can't
17
agree to these terms, then we indict.
18
Q
All right.
19
BY
:
20
Q
It seemed like your troops were telling you, we've
21
reached the end of our rope. We really want to just go
22
forward and indict.
23
A
Right.
24
Q
And you were coming back with, tell them again that
25
the defense is being difficult, but I want you to work it
EFTA00009088

=== Page 74 ===
Page 273
1
out. Does that tell your troops basically that where your
2
priority is, you want them to get to this resolution, and if
3
they have to give up stuff, it's okay -- it's really okay,
4
but you want this resolution?
5
A
So, it's not if you have to give up stuff. I'm not
6
telling them to give up stuff. I'm not telling them to
7
negotiate things away, but I think -- the dynamic from my
8
perspective is incredibly -- so, there's a tactic that
9
counsel sometimes take where they negotiate, and then they
10
try to come back and renegotiate, and that is, to my
11
thinking, one of the most annoying tactics that you can have,
12 and it -- and it creates a lot of -- of frustration, and what
13
I'm trying to say is, look, they might be frustrating folks,
14 but if this had been worked out -- so -- so, looking at this,
15
we thought we had an agreement, and then they changed things,
16 and I'm saying, look, if you thought you had an agreement,
17
tell them you had an agreement.
18
Don't let them change things. I understand it's
19
frustrating to you, but if it was right two weeks ago, the
20
fact that they are frustrating attorneys doesn't change the
21
underlying legal analysis. The attorney's behavior doesn't
22
inform the rightness or wrongness of a certain disposition,
23
to a point.
24
BY
:
25
Q
What's that point?
EFTA00009089

=== Page 75 ===
Page 274
1
A
So, I think after the -- now I'm calling it an NPA.
2
I was personally very frustrated with the failure to report
3
on October 20, and had I envisioned that entire collateral
4
attack, I think I would have looked at this very differently.
5
Q
In what respect?
6
A
To the extent that this was -- going back to, for
7
example, the public corruption prosecutions that we had, one
8
of the values of it was to have a public figure stand up and
9
say, I did this, and plead.
10
One of the values was the, you know, avoiding a
11 long and messy legal process. And so when you put all of
12 that together, those -- you know, this is why I say it's not
13 quite -- this was the factor that we'd consider, that it's
14 all of this put together, and in something that could have
15 been very positive for the victims and for sending a signal,
16 as it dragged on, became exhausting and negative for the
17 victims.
18
It put us in a position of what do we do with
19
notifications. It put us in the position of a lot of appeals
20 to Washington. It put us in the position of having to deal
21 with complicated legal issues that actually got more messy in
22 terms of how does a federal 22.55 relate to a -- to a state
23 charge, and had all of that been known, I do think this would
24
have proceeded differently.
25
Q
Differently in what way?
EFTA00009090

=== Page 76 ===
Page 275
1
A
So -- so, if I had factored all of that -- like, I
2
can't predict it's --
3
Q
Right.
4
A
-- what I would have done, but I think if I had
5
known all that, this could have proceeded very differently.
6
I was very frustrated with the October to June time period.
7
0
So, if you had been back in that timeframe in early
8
September, looking at this with, I don't know, what, Harry
9
Potter character it is --
10
A
Right.
11
Q
-- but whoever can see into the future, and -- and
12
anticipated or foresaw --
13
A
Right.
14
Q
-- what would have happened, would you have simply
15
said, look, we're not going to go the state route, we'll go
16
the federal route?
17
A
Quite possibly.
18
Q
All right.
19
A
And let me sort of -- we'll probably get into it,
20
but at some point, I do think the post versus the pre-
21
signature time period was different for any number of
22
reasons, and we'll probably want to talk about that.
23
&
All right. We will, but now, I'd like to turn to
24
some of the terms of the --
25
A
Fair.
EFTA00009091

=== Page 77 ===
Page 276
1
0
-- the NPA, because you did make -- let me -- let
2
me make sure that this is correct --
3
: You skipped this one.
4
BY
:
5
Q
Oh yeah, before that -- thank you, my colleague
6
reminds me 19e is an exhibit that has a -- an exchange
7
between you and
Lourie about the -- at a time when the
8
plea agreement -- the federal plea agreement --
9
A
Right.
10
Q
-- was still in play, and the issue is whether you
11
should sign it, and --
12
A
Right.
13
Q
-- you didn't want to, because you never do, but
14
you say at the bottom, we should only go forward if the trial
15
team supports and signs this agreement. What did you mean by
16
that? The -- the first part of it?
17
A
So -- so, what I meant by that was I got something
18
that the -- that is -- the document was unusual. So, my
19
signature appearing on this document is not in and of itself
20 unusual.
21
2
And this would have been the plea agreement -- not
22
the federal plea agreement, not the -- or was this about the
23
NPA?
24
A
This was about the NPA.
25
Q Okay.
EFTA00009092

=== Page 78 ===
Page 277
1
A
Right, and so the NPA had my signature. Now, the
2
NPA's almost too generous.
3
Q
Mm-hmm.
4
A
So, that in and of itself is not indicative of
5
something, but it does raise my concern. Is this something
6
that ultimately the trial team does not feel comfortable
7 with? And if it's something they don't feel comfortable
8 with, then they should speak up and let me know, because we
9
shouldn't go forward with it.
10
O
And did you ever have a conversation or a
11
discussion about that issue, other than mentioning it?
12
A
Not -- not to my recollection. I would --
13
0
Okay.
14
A
-- assume based on this that
would read it and
15
would take me at my word and say, look, if -- I think you're
16
going in the wrong direction, Alex. You know, I think you're
17
going in the wrong direction, or I'm uncomfortable with it.
18
2
Okay. All right.
19
BY
:
20
0
Did you ever have a direct conversation with
21
about wanting her to sign the agreement as opposed
22
to yourself?
23
A
I -- I did not. This was my my communications
24
with
, and -- and I really meant that if at the end of
25
the day, my team isn't comfortable, then you shouldn't go
EFTA00009093

=== Page 79 ===
Page 278
1 forward.
2
0
You never recall hearing from
that she was
3
not comfortable moving forward with the plea agreement?
4
BY
:
5
0
The NPA?
6
A
I did not hear -- I don't recall hearing from
7
that she was not comfortable. I know that at various points
8
she became frustrated. At various points,
became
9
frustrated, but they were negotiating this. If at some point
10 they did not -- they thought this was a mistake, or wrong, or
11
unjust, I would think that they would tell me.
12
Q
What would you have done?
13
A
Sit down and really have a serious conversation
14
about where this is going, and sit down and hear them out,
15
again, even if -- at this late phase.
16
Q Right.
17
A
Would be -- I would I would think that that's
18
what I would have done.
19
Q
All right. Let's turn to the NPA. What is it?
20
Exhibit 22? Did you read it? We know that you made some
21
final tweaks to it. 22.
22
A So --
23
Q
Is the final -- as signed --
24
A
22. And so, I would -- again, I don't have an
25
independent recollection of reading it. I would not have
EFTA00009094

=== Page 80 ===
Page 279
1 made tweaks to it without reading it.
2
0 Okay.
3
A
And so, I think you can infer that I read it.
4
Q
All right, and let me say, you -- you were clerk to
5
an appellate -- a very eminent appellate judge, and you
6
did -- did you do appellate work --
7
A I did.
8
Q
-- yourself? So, you were somebody who's an
9
appellate lawyer, who has that experience at a high level, is
10
often more sensitive to words, and phrasings, and to
11
documents, contents, than might be, again, to be -- to
12
caricaturize a little bit, but a more of a shoot from the hip
13
trial attorney who spends his days, you know, in a -- in a
14
rough and tumble courtroom, and is it fair to say that you
15
were more of the former, and more --
16
A
So, I would push back. I think that's not
17
respecting the talent of the trial lawyer, and particularly
18
on these types of agreements or documents, these are folks
19
that sort of have expertise, because even if this was sui
20
generis, they have seen a lot of this.
21
Q
I am not suggesting that
and
22
Lourie --
23
A
Right.
24
Q
-- were not up to this.
25
A
Right.
EFTA00009095

=== Page 81 ===
Page 280
1
0
Because certainly she also had a lot of appellate
2
experience. I'm simply noting that -- that this seems to be
3
sort of in your wheelhouse.
4
A
What -- look, I apologize. Whether -- I'm not sure
5
what in my wheelhouse means. I -- you know, I appear to have
6
read this. I suggested some edits. As I would have
7
approached this document, my assumption would have been I'm
8
looking at it from my earlier concerns, that -- the policy
9
level concerns.
10
Does it capture that we're deferring to the state?
11
Going back to the put in the petite policy versus not. Does
12
it capture the policy concerns of -- of appropriately
13
understanding that we can't force the state to do something?
14 And does it capture the essential elements of the terms that
15
we had looked for, the --
16
Q
All right.
17
A
-- you know, the imprisonment, registration, and
18
restitution.
19
Q
All right. So, one of the things that is a little
20
striking that's different from the original draft NPA, even
21 as amended by you. So, let's pull out the 16b. Is that --
22
is what I would call the non-admission of guilty, so, in
23 the -- in the first page of 16b, the first paragraph that's
24
the first clause after the one through five statutes listing,
25
in 16b, reads, "It appearing that Epstein has accepted
EFTA00009096

=== Page 82 ===
Page 281
1
responsibility for his behavior by his signature on this
2
agreement."
3
A
I'm sorry, you're on 16b?
4
Q
16b.
5
A
Okay. It appearing, yes.
6
Q
Okay. So, his is -- and this is not -- I mean,
7
this seems to be fairly typical sort of plea agreement
8
language, right?
9
A
Yeah.
10
Q
And if you look at the top of the final NPA, 22,
11
the third, it appearing clause --
12
A
I'm sorry. Where --
13
&
Fine.
14
A
-- where are you?
15
&
16b.
16
A
Right.
17
Q
Has --
18
A
The third, it appearing?
19
&
It appearing he has -- the -- down at the bottom.
20
A
Yeah.
21
Q
It says -- refers to at the --
22
A
It has accepted responsibility.
23
2
-- second up.
24
A
Yes.
25
Q
Exactly. He's accepted responsibility.
EFTA00009097

=== Page 83 ===
Page 282
1
A
Right.
2
Q
And then above in the fourth, it appearing --
3
A
Yeah.
4
0
-- it references the fact that, it appearing,
5
"Epstein has committed offenses against the United States."
6
A
Yes.
7
Q
Okay? So, he -- there's a sense of acceptance of
8
responsibility. In the final NPA, which is 22 in your right
9
hand, the --
10
A
Right.
11
Q
-- third it appearing clause says nothing about
12
Epstein committing offenses. It simply references the U.S.
13
Attorney's Office and the FBI having conducted their own
14
investigation into Epstein's background and any offenses that
15
may have been committed by Epstein, including --
16
A
Right.
17
0
-- the enumerated statutes. And then following the
18
enumerated federal statutes, there's no reference at all to
19
Epstein accepting responsibility. Do you -- do you -- do you
20
view that -- the removal of that acceptance of responsibility
21
to be something that was appropriate?
22
A
So, trying to reconstruct, the focus was on -- and
23
I know I'm repeating myself, but jail time, registration,
24
restitution. Whether he accepted responsibility for a
25
federal or for a state, I think my focus would have been on,
EFTA00009098

=== Page 84 ===
Page 283
1
these were the terms. Does this encompass those terms?
2
Q
So, as that concession is not something material as
3
far as -- I don't want to use the legal term material, but it
4
wasn't important --
5
A
So -- so --
6
Q
-- to your objectives?
7
A
So --
8
Q
Is that right?
9
A
First, I'm not sure -- so, it wasn't a concession
10
from that -- that -- those four bullets, right? It was a
11
concession from an earlier draft.
12
Q
Right.
13
A
And so to say it's not important is, again, there
14
was an early draft. It changed. The focus was in any give
15
and take, drafts change. The focus was, did he go to jail?
16
Did he have to register? Did we have restitution?
17
Q
All right.
18
BY
:
19
Q
Do you remember noticing that change, and thinking
20
it --
21
A
I --
22
Q
-- just doesn't matter?
23
A
I don't. In all -- in all candor, until right now,
24
I was not aware of that -- of that change. I doubt I would
25
have taken two documents and sort of put them side by side,
EFTA00009099

=== Page 85 ===
Page 284
1
as opposed to, does this capture what we're trying to get to.
2
BY
:
3
Q
So, does that --
4
A
I was aware of the 24 to 18.
5
0
Mm-hmm.
6
A
But up until this question, I wasn't aware of that
7
change, to my recollection.
8
Q
So --
9
BY
:
10
0
And you're aware of the 24 to 18 because you
11
noticed it in the NPA, or because somebody told you
12
separately? Or do you know?
13
A
I can't -- I can't say other than I was aware.
14
BY
:
15
0
In the final NPA on page five, there's a series of
16
things that are included at the bottom of that page, in that
17
long paragraph, and the one that I want to focus on is the
18
immunity portion.
19
That was certainly not in the original draft
20
proposed by the U.S. Attorney's Office. In this paragraph,
21
the United States agrees, "That it will not institute any
22
criminal charges against any potential coconspirators of
23
Epstein, including but not limited to
24
Did you notice
25 that provision?
EFTA00009100

=== Page 86 ===
Page 285
1
A I -- I don't recall focusing on the coconspirator
2
provision. To the extent I reviewed this coconspirator
3
provision, I can speculate that my thinking would have been
4
the focus is on Epstein's -- Epstein's going to jail.
5
Whether some of his employees go to jail, or other, lesser
6 involved, is not the focus of this.
7
Q
All right. This particular provision, as you know,
8
has been --
9
A
It has --
10
Q
-- enormously --
11
A
-- generated --
12
Q
-- criticized.
13
A
Enormous, yes.
14
0
For a number of reasons. One of which is that it
15
is blanket transactional immunity. It gives blanket immunity
16
to unnamed, unidentified --
17
A
Yes.
18
Q
-- potential coconspirators. People who, even in
19
the future, if evidence is developed against them, as long as
20
they could be considered coconspirators of Epstein in this
21
conduct, they have a get out of jail free card. Do you have
22
any idea where that came from?
23
A
I don't, and I don't want to characterize it as
24
giving - -- I understand how it could be read that way in the
25
record. I don't want to characterize it, but I don't know
EFTA00009101

=== Page 87 ===
Page 286
1
where this could have come from.
2
I was -- I would have reviewed this for the policy
3
concerns. Did it do the -- the sort of the bullet points,
4
and my assumption, rightly or wrongly, would have been that
5
and
would have looked at this, and that this
6
was -- was appropriate. I understand your point.
7
Q
All right, and I believe the point you were
8
referring to is that when I use the term jail -- get out of
9
jail free card, that you recognize this is limited to your
10
district?
11
A
And that's an important point --
12
Q
Of course.
13
A
-- to recognize.
14
Q
Of course, but nonetheless, this does give blanket
15
immunity to people -- you have no idea who they might be,
16
correct? If you had focused on it, would that have raised
17
some question in your mind?
18
A
If -- if there was a discussion like what we're
19
having here, then it very possibly could have raised. It's
20
difficult to say it would have, but I understand your
21 concern.
22
Q
All right, and the named individuals,
23
are all
24
individuals who were described in the pros memo and so on,
25
and the pros memo does identify that at least one of these
EFTA00009102

=== Page 88 ===
Page 287
1
women herself engaged in sexual activity with minor -- with
2
minor girls.
3
A
Yeah.
4
2
So that she has liability in and of her own --
5
A
So, I don't have an independent recollection of
6
that, but when I reviewed the pros memo, I did notice that.
7
Q
All right. Now, you told us this morning that you
8
have no recollection of that actually having read the pros
9
memo back at that time.
10
A
I think what I said was I don't have a recollection
11
of whether I did or did not read the pros memo. I have
12
since, when you've provided it, read it, and I note that it
13
does reference her.
14
OF
Having read it now, does that change your view of
15
anything that we've talked about so far today?
16
A
So, reading it 12 years later, knowing all of this,
17
possibly, and part of it is I do think we approach these
18
cases differently, and I think these cases would play out
19
very differently in court today. I think it's very difficult
20
to sort of go back and recreate a thought process from 12
21
years ago.
22
Q
And if you were relying back then on the
23
characterization and summary and recounting of this case to
24
you by your people -- your senior people,
--
25
A
Mm-hmm.
EFTA00009103

=== Page 89 ===
Page 288
1
Q
-- and in particular,
:
2
A Right.
3
Q
-- would you -- do you -- do you have a -- did --
4
did anyone in that ground, including
Lourie, in any way
5 to your recollection characterize this case as not serious,
6
or as trivial, or as involving non-important -- unimportant
7
victims? In any way try to diminish either the conduct or
8
the victims?
9
A
Not to my recollection. I -- I do think there was
10
a concern as to how the victims would present in court, given
11
impeachment, and given contradictory statements, but that's
12
different than trivializing the case.
13
Q
All right. Okay. Back to the immunity provision.
14
Were you aware that none of the four named coconspirators had
15 cooperated?
16
A
I was not. To my recollection.
17
2
And do you recall any other case in which blanket
18
immunity in the U.S. Attorney's Office --
19
A
Right.
20
0
-- was -- in which blanket immunity, really
21
without -- virtually without limitation --
22
A
I -- so, I --
23
Q
-- was granted?
24
A
I don't recall discussion around this provision,
25 and a general matter, I did not discuss the -- in typical
EFTA00009104

=== Page 90 ===
Page 289
1
cases that came -- that bubbled up to my level, it was -- the
2
focus was on who the prime, you know, target is, and not on
3
what we would do with the coconspirators. And so, I don't
4
recall, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. That's just
5
not typically something that I got involved with.
6
0
And likewise, non -- immunity being given to non-
7
cooperating coconspirators, or codefendants? Is that
8
something that was done in your office?
9
A
Again, I -- as a typical matter, we -- I did not
10
get involved with these, but let me -- let me also say that
11
this wasn't a federal prosecution in the first place. And
12
so, this whole thing is sui generis to some extent.
13
Q
It is, but the -- but the grant of immunity is
14
real, right?
15
A
I understand where you're coming from.
16
Q
All right. If you had focused on that provision,
17
would you have insisted it come out?
18
A
One question I would have had is, if we're
19
naming -- as I sit here and sort of focus as we are now, but
20
this is with the benefit of hindsight and criticism --
21
0
Mm-hmm.
22
A
-- if there are specific folks, why do we have any
23
potential language? Because that seems quite broad.
24
Q
It's -- it's without limitation as to people as
25
long as they're coconspirators, right?
EFTA00009105

=== Page 91 ===
Page 290
1
A
But -- and so what is -- what is the need for that?
2
Q
Okay.
3
A
And I would --
4
0
I see.
5
A
And so, if we had this kind of discussion, I would
6
be sending
an e-mail saying, what's the need for this?
7
What's up?
8
0
But to be clear, as we sit here today, you have no
9
recollection of having noticed that?
10
A
I -- I don't have a recollection of -- if I read
11
over it, my assumption would have been that
and
12
thought this through and sort of addressed it for a reason.
13
Q
All right, and if --
14
BY
:
15
Q
And did you have any -- anyone ever come to you
16
with the evidentiary issues and say, we need to track this
17
down before we give such a blanket immunity?
18
A
I don't recall any conversation around
19
coconspirators.
20
BY
:
21
2
This is where there is a mention of computer
22
equipment. There is a provision later in that -- in that
23
same paragraph that provides that, "The federal grand jury
24
investigation will be suspended, and all pending federal
25
grand jury subpoenas will be held in abeyance unless and
EFTA00009106

=== Page 92 ===
Page 291
1
until the defendant," --
2
A
Right.
3
Q
-- "violates any term of this agreement. The
4
defendant likewise agrees to withdraw his pending motion to
5
intervene and quash certain grand jury subpoenas. Both
6
parties agree to maintain their evidence, specifically
7
evidence requested by or directly related to the grand jury
8
subpoenas that have been issued, and including certain
9
computer equipment in violate until all of the terms of the
10
agreement have been satisfied." Do you -- do you -- do you
11
view that this agreement to suspect the -- at least certain
12
aspects of the federal investigation to have been an
13
appropriate concession?
14
A
You know, again, my -- my focus was on certain
15
points. I would have assumed reading this that this was
16
thought through.
17
Q
Okay.
18
A
And that -- and that people had.
19
Q
Had -- had --
20
A
Had thought it through, you.
21
Q
All right. Okay. There is what's been criticized
22
as a confidentiality provision.
23
A
Yes.
24
Q
Right? And that's on that same page, page five,
25
paragraph -- numbered paragraph 13, which provides that, "The
EFTA00009107

=== Page 93 ===
Page 292
1
parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part
2
of any public record."
3
And then there is an exception for FOIA or
4
compulsory process from a court, in which the government will
5
provide notice to Epstein. That seems to be limited to the
6
placing of this document on the public record, right? As
7
opposed to sharing it, or disclosing it for whatever purpose
8
to individuals. Did -- is that -- is that a distinction that
9
makes sense?
10
A
That is -- that is a fair distinction upon reading
11
this. I'm not sure that that is a distinction that was -- I
12
mean, I'm basing that on my reading currently, and not as a
13
recollection.
14
0
And in fact the parties, both defense counsel and
15
even the U.S. Attorney's Office took the position that this
16
should never have seen the light of day, even to be disclosed
17
to, you know, victims or other parties and interest, except
18
for filing it, or except for sharing it on a limited basis
19
with law enforcement. I think there were e-mails that talk
20
about if we share it, we'll tell them not to disclose it.
21
A
Mm-hmm.
22
0
Is that sort of overstating what this paragraph
23
requires?
24
A
Possibly. I can -- you know, we can get into that,
25
and we can discuss it. I would need to understand a little
EFTA00009108

=== Page 94 ===
Page 293
1
bit more. I know there was litigation around disclosure on
2
this, and I'd need to understand much more the positions that
3
we took and the why before commenting on them.
4
Q
There's -- in Exhibit 23, there is a discussion of
5
the -- the -- whether the NPA after it has been signed could
6
be revealed -- the existence of it could be revealed to the
7
police chief, or even the FBI, or the girls, and
8
in the middle of page one, or two thirds of the way
9
down on page one of Exhibit 23, proposes that if we tell
10
anybody about the NPA, you just ask that -- that the
11
recipient of that information not disclose it.
12
And you then at the top of the page to Lourie and
13
and
, who is going to take over
14
Lourie's position as the managing AUSA in West Palm Beach,
15
should talk with you about it on Wednesday, about the -- you
16
should talk about who we tell, and how much. Do you remember
17
that conversation, and --
18
A
I -- I don't. I know there were several concerns
19
about leaks and media, and I imagine that we had a
20
conversation quite literally about who to tell, and how much.
21
Q
And did you -- did you feel that this -- at the
22
time, as best as you recall, did you feel that that clause
23
bound you to not tell anyone?
24
A
So, my recollection of the clause, whether it
25
was -- whether it was this clause or whether there was a
EFTA00009109

=== Page 95 ===
Page 294
1
discussion, I was -- I was aware of this provision, and my
2
recollection of this provision is at some point it was raised
3
as something that -- that was the subject of negotiation.
4
Q
Okay.
5
A
That the office policy was that we -- that these
6
types of deferred prosecution agreement is not made part of
7
the public record, and --
8
Q
Mm-hmm.
9
A
-- therefore that this is not a substantial
10
concession --
11
0
Mm-hmm.
12
A
-- because in the typical course of business, this
13
would not be part of the public record.
14
2
And that's because it's a non-prosecution as
15
opposed -- agreement as opposed to a deferred prosecution
16
agreement?
17
A
So, deferred prosecution is not -- to analogize
18
from a non-prosecution to a deferred prosecution, these
19
are -- you know, if the non-prosecution is not typically part
20
of the public record, the deferred prosecution, it makes
21
sense that it follows the same.
22
And so, it seemed that -- it seemed a concession --
23
I understand how it was perceived publicly after the fact.
24
At the time, it seemed that we weren't giving up much,
25
because the typical policy is this is not part of the public
EFTA00009110

=== Page 96 ===
Page 295
1
record, and individuals need to file a FOIA. And so by
2
saying it's not part of the public record, and individuals
3
need to follow FOIA, if that -- if that is viewed as a
4
concession, it really isn't.
5
Q
So, how would -- I mean, did -- is it -- is it
6
understandable that Epstein would not want this document to
7
see the light of day, because it describes the existence and
8
nature and scope of the federal investigation --
9
A
Right.
10
Q
-- and also his concession to liability under
11
22.55?
12
A
It's understandable. It was also my impression at
13
the time that it would see the light of day, because --
14
0
Mm-hmm.
15
A
-- if victims have 22.55, the ability to get 22.55,
16
they obviously have to hear about it from somewhere, and
17
given the press interest, eventually this would be FOIA'd.
18
And so, from my thinking at the time, rightly or wrongly,
19
this is a concession that's basically saying we'll follow
20
office policy, and we're likely going to be FOIA'd on this
21
anyhow, and it can play out in the FOIA. And so, is this
22
really a --
23
2
Yeah.
24
A
-- concession?
25
Q
All right. Another piece of the -- the agreement
EFTA00009111

=== Page 97 ===
Page 296
1 is -- is something that is absent, and that's the sort of
2
typical language that you find in a -- I think in pretty much
3
any federal plea agreement, which is, this agreement
4
only the defendant understands that this agreement only
5
binds the U.S. Attorney's Office for whatever district he or
6 she is in, or --
7
A Right.
8
Q
-- you know, and that -- and that truly what you
9
would call global dispositions are unusual --
10
A
Right.
11
Q
-- for the federal government.
12
A
And I would note, you know, and this is after the
13
fact that it does say this district agrees.
14
0
Okay. Understood, and it's also has you as a
15
party, not the Department of Justice.
16
A
Right.
17
Q
But it does omit that standard language, and do you
18
know whether that was done sort of by mistake, or
19
consciously?
20
A
I -- I have no -- I can't speak to that.
21
Q
All right. another piece is phrasing that you
22
injected at the -- when you addressed the first -- where it
23
was -- it was toward the end. Where --
24
A
Right.
25
Q
-- you talked about injecting the best efforts
EFTA00009112

=== Page 98 ===
Page 297
1
language.
2
A
Yes.
3
Q
Okay. Does it -- what -- what's -- I believe you
4
made clear why you did that. That is, to avoid the
5
appearance of having the federal government be dictating
6
anything, but why rely on best efforts, and to what extent is
7
that even enforceable?
8
A
So, first, let me -- let me say it was not to avoid
9
the appearance. It was to avoid the actual legal discovery
10
dictating, but -- so, Epstein understands that he has no
11
authority to require -- that -- to undertake discussions and
12
to use -- so, as I recall, if he did not plead, then there
13
was no agreement.
14
0
No, no, no. This -- I'm sorry.
15
A
Yes.
16
Q
I don't mean to -- it appears in paragraph --
17
numbered paragraph --
18
A
Right.
19
Q
-- 11, Epstein shall use his best efforts to enter
20
his guilty plea and be sentenced no later than the --
21
A
Right.
22
Q
-- set date, and then in the first paragraph after
23
numbered clause 11, he will use his best efforts to ensure
24
compliance with certain procedures, and best efforts to
25
convince the judge of the Florida court to accept his binding
EFTA00009113

=== Page 99 ===
Page 298
1
recommendation. So, best efforts kind of became a sticking
2
point in enforcement, didn't it? Because what does it mean?
3
What does best efforts mean?
4
A
So, I think it's fair to say that one of the issues
5
that came up after this was entered into was the U.S.
6
Attorney's Office, at least from my perspective, was in a
7
little bit of a bind because we had agreed to this, yet he
8
wasn't turning himself in. And so, how do we deal with that?
9
And so, that's not a phrase that I focused on at the time. I
10
understand your point.
11
2
All right. I'm going to move on from those. Is
12
there anything else on those NPA clauses?
13
A
And finally, let me -- let me just say you didn't
14
ask, we had incredibly experienced attorneys in the office.
15
I assumed, rightly or wrongly, that this language had been
16
thought through and vetted, and you know, sitting here 12
17
years later, I understand the issues that have arisen from
18
it, but at the time, these were not issues that were focused
19
on.
20
Q
to your knowledge, who was involved in the
21
drafting, other than
on your side --
22
A
Right.
23
0
-- and
Lourie, and you, to some extent?
24
A
So, I can't say 12 years after the fact, but again,
25
Lourie, very experienced head of the Palm Beach Office
EFTA00009114

=== Page 100 ===
Page 299
1
has prosecuted any number of cases.
2
0
In -- again, just to keep --
3
A
Right.
4
Q
-- perspective and context, the final week that
5
this was being negotiated,
Lourie was in Washington, and
6
bouncing back and forth on the weekends, because he was in
7
transition to the front office here in the criminal division
8
in this building. That's a factor in terms of being able to
9
give attention to some details. Would you agree with that?
10
It could be a factor?
11
A
So, it could be a factor. On the other hand, I'd
12
say that
wasn't leaving the department. He is
13
professional. He knows his stuff, and you would expect a
14
professional -- if they're reviewing a document, whether
15
they're on vacation, whether they're looking to move from one
16
part of the department to another, that you would expect them
17
to review it, you know, fulfilling their -- their
18
responsibility to sort of focus in and make sure that -- that
19
it's -- that it encompasses what it should. And that's not a
20
criticism of
.
That -- that's saying that, well, that
21
might be a factor. That doesn't lessen from my perspective
22
reliance on his expertise.
23
2
Mm-hmm. Understood. After the NPA was signed --
24
A
Right.
25
Q
-- and
came back --
EFTA00009115


c1: EFTA00009116
c2: DataSet 7
c3: VOL00007
c4: DataSet 7/VOL00007/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00009116.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Page 300
1
A
Yeah.
2
Q
-- right about that same time, he quite quickly
3
identified a potential problem, and that was the commitment
4
for the -- or, the agreement that the U.S. Attorney's Office
5
would identify the representative for the victims. Do you
6
recall him raising that?
7
A
I don't recall him raising that as an issue, but I
8
know it was an issue.
9
Q
All right. It was an issue, and it was one that he
10
raised as soon as he came back. So, there was an effort,
11
which he conducted then in
absence to craft
12
an NPA addendum to address that issue.
13
Do you -- are you -- are you aware that
14
received a copy of the NPA in November when Ken
15
Starr wrote a letter to
asking her to review the
16
22.55 portion of it? Do you -- do you remember that issue?
17
A
I remember that the issue was appealed to CEOS.
18
0
Okay. Well, it was -- it was appealed initially by
19
letter to
, raising an issue that was new to --
20
that had not been raised with you, and that is what led to
21
your letter to Ken Starr on December 4.
22
A
I will accept the timeline.
23
Q
Okay.
24
A
It's difficult without all the documents --
25
Q
Sure.
EFTA00009116

=== Page 2 ===
Page 301
1
A
-- but yes.
2
Q
And at the time that
saw the NPA,
3 he sent a message to
about the -- about his view
4 of the NPA, and you didn't see it, but I just wanted to name
5 some problems that he identified with the disposition, and
6 get your reaction --
7
A
Mm-hmm.
8
Q
-- to it. So, first, he says I'm not thrilled
9 about the agreement, but he acknowledges that's out of his
10 hands. He says in terms of the charging and sentencing
11 provisions, he's getting -- Epstein is getting a much better
12 deal than the average defendant, with the exception of
13 defendants who have done physical harm to their victims or
14 abused very young children, we haven't seen more egregious
15 conduct, because of its serial nature. The area we need to
16 be most careful about relates to the victims.
17
The U.S. should seek to ensure that the plea, which
18 is not giving him serious jail time, provides the best means
19 possible to address the harm he caused to the victims. That
20 generally means restitution and/or therapy. While the
21 agreement provides facility for the victims, the relevant
22 terms still seem pretty advantageous for the defendant, and
23 not all that helpful to the victims.
24
They get an attorney who will be paid by the
25 defendant, which involves at least some conflict of interest,
EFTA00009117

=== Page 3 ===
Page 302
1
or they could hire their own attorneys on a contingency
2
basis, and they get waivers from the defendant when his plea
3
would facilitate their civil cases in any event. Then, they
4
still have to sue him to get anything.
5
Most times with wealthy defendants, we make them
6
agree to a restitution fund, and then still provide that the
7
victims can sue the defendant independently if they choose.
8
We always make them clearly admit their guilt, no nolo pleas.
9
This is incredibly important to the victims. I
10
would have taken the guy to trial unless the victims were
11
clearly against it, and I don't think most of them are here.
12
He then says to
/ who by this time is working
13 for --
14
A
Mm-hmm.
15
Q
--
-
16
A
Right.
17
Q
So, that's the context in which he's addressing it.
18
specifies that,
wouldn't and
19
shouldn't address the agreement." So, that -- so that the
20
issue that was then before
,
put there by Ken
21
Starr, was the -- whether this 22.55 scheme or scenario set
22
out in the NPA was appropriate. It appears that she then
23
sent that back to you to address.
24
A
Right.
25
Q
But as far as
commentary on the NPA,
EFTA00009118

=== Page 4 ===
Page 303
1
if you had been aware of this perspective at the time you
2
were -- that you and your people were fashioning the NPA,
3
would that have been helpful to you in -- in deciding out to
4 proceed?
5
A
So, may I?
6
Q
Yes.
7
A
Okay. I assume you've read the whole thing, but
8
let me just take a --
9
Q
I have.
10
A
And so, a few comments. First, let me say, he was
11
part of the September meeting.
12
Q
Mm-hmm.
13
A
And -- and to my recollection, these
14
perspectives -- so, so, at least the outlines of the
15
agreement were -- were disclosed at that meeting, and I don't
16
recall this type of communication at that time.
17
0
Okay.
18
A
I also recall that there was a lot of back and
19
forth around this restitution fund concept, and our
20
perspective was that the restitution fund puts the victim at
21
a disadvantage --
22
Q
Mm-hmm.
23
A
-- because -- let me -- let me try to recreate. I
24
don't recall the details, but I recall that there was a
25
perspective that the restitution fund --
EFTA00009119

=== Page 5 ===
Page 304
1
0
Mm-hmm.
2
A
-- put the victims as a disadvantage --
3
Q
Mm-hmm.
4
A
-- and there is some reference to --
5
Q
It's the --
6
A
Was it an Alaska case?
7
Q
It's called the
case.
8
MR.
:
9
THE WITNESS I'm sorry?
10
MR.
:
*
11
THE WITNESS
?
12
MS.
:
or
13
THE WITNESS
?
14
BY MS.
:
15
Q
Yeah.
16
A
And so to the extent that there were better ways of
17
crafting this, that certainly would have been -- been highly
18
relevant, because to my recollection, we were not wed to any
19
particular way of crafting it.
20
The -- the intent of the 22.55 was to come as close
21
as possible to putting the victims in the -- in the position
22
they would have been had he been tried and convicted
23
federally. And so, the answer to your question is yes.
24
2
Is yes, that would have --
25
A
Would have been helpful.
EFTA00009120

=== Page 6 ===
Page 305
1
0
Okay. As you set about addressing the 22.55, you
2
consulted with
Do you recall that?
3
A
I -- I recall consultations. I don't recall that
4
it was specifically with
but --
5
Q
Did you know her?
6
A
Yes.
7
Q
Okay, and do you recall the nature of your
8
interaction with her?
9
A
I -- I don't. I know from contemporary review of
10
the record, that there is an e-mail from her.
11
0
It's 41a.
12
A
41a.
13
0
And what I -- what I want to ask is, is simply, 41a
14
is -- is an e-mail in which you ask -- you note to
15
who was
--
16
A
Right.
17
Q
-- one of her deputies, and she oversaw CEOS. She,
18
, mentioned to you that
was looking at
19
this, which is the --
20
A
22.55.
21
Q
-- 22.55, she contacts her counterpart in the civil
22
division,
,
and there's an e-mail from him,
23
which is the second page of this exhibit, which he copies you
24
on. So, my question is, is this the extent of your
25
interaction with
on this issue?
EFTA00009121

=== Page 7 ===
Page 306
1
A
I -- 12 years --
2
Q
Okay.
3
A
-- after the fact, I don't remember.
4
Q
Okay. All right. The -- in Exhibit 35, there is a
5
letter from Jay Lefkowitz in which -- I'm sorry, it's an e-
6
mail from Jay Lefkowitz.
7
A
Exhibit?
8
Q
Exhibit 35 to you, and this is substantially later,
9
but it has a sentence that -- or a phrase that we'd like to
10
ask you about, and -- all right, it's highlighted at the top.
11
It says, back in the beginning of -- back at the beginning of
12
January, when we both agreed that there were significant
13
irregularities with the deferred prosecution agreement, you
14
called a time out. Is that accurate? Did you and he agree
15
that --
16
A
No.
17
Q
-- there were significant irregularities?
18
A
No.
19
Q
Okay.
20
A
And if I could, there are there are several
21
instances where not just, to me, but to other people as well,
22
Jay recharacterizes conversations.
23
Q
Recharacterizes them inaccurately?
24
A
Inaccurately.
25
Q
Or misleadingly?
EFTA00009122

=== Page 8 ===
Page 307
1
A
Or misleadingly.
2
0
All right.
3
A
What I recall agreeing to at some point is there
4
was an appeal to the DAG, or there was an appeal in place,
5
and I basically said -- I think there was a letter that I
6
sent, saying if you want to appeal, go ahead. We're not
7
concerned about this.
8
Q
Mm-hmm.
9
A
But that doesn't mean that I agree that there were
10
irregularities --
11
Q
All right.
12
A
-- or that there was a time out, that's -- I'm part
13
of a department. I'm part of a hierarchy. If someone wants
14
to overrule me, that's okay by me.
15
Q
All right. So, the NPA addendum was worked out,
16
and the defense team continued its sort of multi-pronged
17
assault. In the middle of the negotiations between
18
and Lefkowitz about the NPA addendum, that's when you had the
19
much commented on breakfast --
20
A
Correct.
21
Q
-- on October 12, and you have stated publicly that
22
at -- perfectly accurately that the NPA was signed, and that
23 was a done deal. And so, that -- that this was not tied in
24
any way to any effort to influence the terms of the NPA,
25 fair?
EFTA00009123

=== Page 9 ===
Page 308
1
A
Fair, because the way this was reported was that I
2
negotiated it over breakfast. It was signed, and that's
3 really important.
4
Q
Of course. There were, however, a number of open
5 issues --
6
A Yes.
7
Q
-- right? And in Exhibit 28, Jay Lefkowitz on page
8 two, this is an e-mail to you, acknowledges your -- your
9 breakfast on Friday. This is dated October 18, and -- and
10 following -- following up on -- your conversation with him
11 about the date for Epstein's plea.
12
So, he notes that, "You said you didn't want to
13 dictate a schedule to the state." So, all I want to note is
14 that when you had the breakfast, there was -- there was --
15 there were issues still open that were the subject of
16 discussions between the defense and the U.S. Attorney's
17 Office.
18
And -- and so, I guess my question is, while that
19 was a meeting of convenience in a public place, in a location
20 where you had business later that day, a speech, I believe,
21 optically, do you understand the public concern that this was
22
sort of a one on one negotiation on pending issues?
23
A
So, I -- I understand how there can be concern.
24 This, you know, it is -- it was not unusual -- in this case,
25 I actually very intentionally waited, and tried not to have
EFTA00009124

=== Page 10 ===
Page 309
1
one on one meetings, but there are other instances where I
2
might from time to time have one on one conversations with
3
the opposing counsel.
4
I don't remember the breakfast. I can speculate
5
that one of the issues that was informing this was somewhere
6
around this time, and I can't say with certainty that this
7
was what it was, but somewhere around this time, there arose
8
allegations that
had directed the designation to her
9
boyfriend's partner, or something along those lines.
10
Q
A former -- I believe it was a former law school
11
classmate of her former - -- of her then boyfriend.
12
A
I don't -- yeah, and so I don't remember what the
13
details --
14
0 Okay.
15
A
-- were, but I know that that was a topic that he
16
wanted to raise --
17
Q
Mm-hmm.
18
A
-- with me.
19
Q
Did he at that breakfast?
20
A
I honestly - I don't recall the breakfast.
21
Q
Okay.
22
A
You asked me about one characterization of what I
23
said in the record, you know, of that breakfast. I think I
24
responded --
25
Q
Mm-hmm.
EFTA00009125

=== Page 11 ===
Page 310
1
A
-- through, or my counsel responded, and they're
2
pointing out that I seem fairly perturbed at how he
3
inaccurately characterized something that I said. And so, we
4
don't need to revisit that, but --
5
Q
Uh-uh. All right. If you look at Exhibit 27,
6
another sort of point, just to kind of --
7
A
All right.
8
MR.
: Could we -- before we --
9
MS.
: Yes?
10
MR.
:
-- leave -- are we leaving the
11
breakfast meeting?
12
MS.
: No. This is --
13
THE WITNESS Okay.
14
MS.
: -- this is directly related.
15
MR.
: Okay.
16
BY MS.
:
17
Q
And that is, Exhibit 27 is the second e-mail down,
18
is from
to Jay Lefkowitz. The date is October
19
12, so that's the same day as your breakfast.
20
A
Right.
21
0
And the date of it is not -- I'm sorry, the time is
22
9:48 a.m. Your breakfast was at 7:00. So, this would have
23
been pretty shortly after your breakfast, and
writes
24
to Jay Lefkowitz with a copy to you and
25
stating that he just got off the phone with you, that is,
EFTA00009126

=== Page 12 ===
Page 311
1
just got off the phone with you, and then he furnishes
2
a revised paragraph one, which suggests -- I mean, I infer
3
from that that shortly after the breakfast, you had a phone
4
conversation with
about a revision to this
5
paragraph, and that -- that that was likely something that
6 you talked to him about. Again, I'm not --
7
A
Right.
8
Q
-- suggesting that this --
9
A
Again, I -- I don't -- I don't recall the
10
breakfast, so I can't say one way or the other. I -- I
11
take -- I take your point. I don't recall seeing this.
12
2
All right. Well, it was --
13
A
But --
14
2
-- you were copied on it. Okay. All right.
/
15 you wanted to --
16
BY MR.
:
17
0
I just wanted to point to Exhibit 30.
18
A
Can -- can we back up a second?
19
MS.
: Sure.
20
THE WITNESS
, I'm not sure whether your
21
concerns are -- so, I would -- I would only raise the
22
question where -- or, the point where, based on this, and I
23
don't recall, so I can't speak, but
is saying, Jay
24
suggests revision has been rejected. Here is our latest,
25
-
EFTA00009127

=== Page 13 ===
Page 312
1
And so, to -- there are multiple ways to read this.
2
One is that this was raised. Another is that we're rejecting
3
something that Jay had proposed, and --
4
MS.
: Mm-hmm.
5
THE WITNESS -- because I was meeting with Jay, I
6
asked that
not reject it until after I met with him, and
7
I -- I'm speculating, because I don't recall the topic, but
8
it does appear that it says, Jay suggested revision has been
9
rejected. Here is our latest.
10
MS.
: All right. Thank you.
?
11
BY MR.
:
12
0
Can we just go to Exhibit 30 quickly? There's some
13
highlighted language. This is a letter from Lefkowitz to you
14
on October 23rd, 2007, where he recounts, again, the things
15
that happened, or his version of the October 12th breakfast
16 meeting.
17
A
Yes.
18
Q
Are you at that --
19
A
Yes.
20
Q
-- at that point right there, Exhibit 30?
21
A
Yeah, I'm there.
22
0
Okay. So, in the highlighted language, if you
23
could just take a look at that quickly?
24
A
Yes.
25
Q
So, he is recounting that you had assured him that
EFTA00009128

=== Page 14 ===
Page 313
1
EVENING SESSION
2
6:00 P.M.
3 the office would not intervene with the state's attorney's
4 office, and or contact the civil claimants, or intervene
5 regarding the sentence that Epstein receives pursuant to a
6 plea agreement.
7
A
Yeah.
8
O
So, is he correct in his recounting that?
9
A
Can you can you find that for me?
10
O
Yeah.
11
A
So, again, I don't have an independent
12 recollection. Oh, no, I'm looking --
13
MS.
: Oh, you have it.
14
THE WITNESS -- for something - I don't have an
15 independent recollection of that breakfast, but in the
16 contemporaneous e-mails and the contemporaneous record, there
17 is correspondence between - between
and I, and you all
18 asked for this, and I -- I spoke with my counsel, who then
19 responded, and there's an e-mail exchange where there's an
20 October 20 -- this was an October 23rd e-mail -- October 23rd
21 letter.
22
And then there is a response that's drafted on
23 October 25th. I don't know if we can find that. From
24 to Jay that specifically addresses the point, and then I
25 respond --
runs that by me, and I respond -- I edit the
EFTA00009129

=== Page 15 ===
Page 314
1
letter, and I move it -- I sort of emphasize -- like, I make
2
it firmer, and my edit says our office cannot and will not
3
agree to this, and then my comment to
is, what do you
4
think of this rewrite? Is it too strong?
5
BY MR.
:
6
0
What day was that?
7
A
That was two days after this. I don't know if we
8
can find that in the -- in the chronological record. That
9
was October 25th. Let's just take a minute. Is that what
10
you have?
11
MR.
: Sorry, apparently my ability to separate
12
paper has failed.
13
THE WITNESS Okay. So, this is --
14
MR.
: Oh, I see.
15
THE WITNESS So --
16
MR.
: Sorry, go ahead.
17
THE WITNESS So, October 25th, I'm writing to
,
18
what do you think of this rewrite? Is it too strong? And it
19
says, dear Jay, I'd like to take this opportunity to document
20
our conversation of October 24th which clarified some of the
21
representations in your October 23rd letter.
22
I write in particular because you indicated that
23 your intent in writing the letter was to memorialize our
24
conversations. Our agreement is limited to blank, blank,
25 blank, dot, dot, dot.
EFTA00009130

=== Page 16 ===
Page 315
1
I specifically want to clarify one of the items
2 that I believe was inaccurate in the October 23rd letter.
3 Your office claims that this office would not intervene with
4 the state attorney's office regarding this matter, or contact
5 any of the individuals, potential witnesses, or potential
6 civil claimants, and their respective counsel in this matter,
7 and neither your office nor the FBI would intervene regarding
8 the sentence Mr. Epstein received.
9
I'm quoting Jay's letter. As we discussed and
10 hopefully clarified, and as the U.S. Attorney previously
11 explained in an earlier conference call, such promises equate
12 to the imposition of a gag order. Our office cannot and will
13 not agree to this. It is the intent of this office to treat
14 this matter like any other case.
15
Thus, as is typical, we do not desire or intend to
16 "intervene" the state attorney's office. The non-prosecution
17 agreement provides sufficient mechanisms to achieve the goals
18 of the federal investigation. You should understand,
19 however, that there are some communications that are typical
20 in these matters.
21
And so, I go on, and so my point is this was
22 pretty -- based on -- if you reviewed my -- my e-mails and
23 language, for me to write something up saying, what do you
24 think of this rewrite, is it too strong?
25
Q
Mm-hmm.
EFTA00009131

=== Page 17 ===
Page 316
1
A
And to edit
language to, our office cannot
2
and will not agree to this, is not my agreeing with this
3
characterization, but my polite way of saying, this ain't
4
what I said.
5
Q
Mm-hmm.
6
A
Let me be clear.
7
Q
And then --
8
A
Again, no independent recollection. This is just
9
based on inferring from the contemporaneous e-mails.
10
2
Okay.
11
BY MS.
:
12
0
What I would like to do is ask a couple of
13
questions in a couple of areas about the main justice review.
14
A
Okay.
15
0
Then take a short break, and then
has some
16
questions that are CVRA related, and then we have some
17
summary questions.
18
A
Okay.
19
Q
Is that all right?
20
A
Can I -- before you -- you move on, can I address
21
something that
was getting at, but it's getting late,
22
so I'm going to circle back to -- to --
23
Q
Please.
24
A
-- something that I thought you would bring up.
25
MS.
: Sure.
EFTA00009132

=== Page 18 ===
Page 317
1
THE WITNESS So, I think something to talk about
2
is, pre-agreement and post-agreement, I think are different,
3 and one concern that I had, and I certainly shared with --
4
with Mr.
was once it was signed -- so, we had the
5
initial issues with the case.
6
Once the agreement was signed, we now have an
7
overlying issue of, is there -- is the agreement binding? To
8
what extent it's binding. And so, you -- your question was,
9
why this level of process after the agreement was signed, and
10 I said I think you'll get back to that. And I think to some
11 extent, there are two parts to that.
12
One is, the office shouldn't be afraid of review.
13 We're part of the Department of Justice, and review, whether
14 it by main justice or now you all, is -- is part of the
15 process.
16
And so, to the extent that they want to appeal to
17
main, it would be unseemly to sort of say, don't review us,
18 and I don't think it would help reviewing this, but the
19 second part of it is if we were to walk away from the
20
agreement, that not only are we litigating the underlying
21 criminal case, but we're litigating a civil/criminal issue on
22 top of that, which is, did the agreement bind? And that's
23 something that did inform the exhausting amount of process
24
that they -- that they received, which didn't change any of
25 the outcome.
EFTA00009133

=== Page 19 ===
Page 318
1
BY MS.
:
2
0
Didn't bind what?
3
A
So, if we were to walk away, were -- could we still
4
prosecute?
5
O
I see.
6
A
Right? Because having signed that, we were now
7
parties to an agreement, and that would overlay any sort of
8
prosecution. And so, you had these collateral issues coming.
9
BY MS.
:
10
Q
Just to make sure we're clear, are you saying that
11
there is -- there would have been difficulty in declaring a
12
breach so that you could then indict?
13
A
Correct, and so we'd have to litigate over a
14
breach, because as much as they had collateral challenges,
15
they are very careful in saying, this is not a breach, we
16
would just like review.
17
And so, one of the issues that overlaid the post --
18
the October going forward time period is on top of this, do
19
we now want litigation over a breach? And so, I think that
20
is why the post-agreement time period is different than the
21
pre-agreement --
22
MS.
: Mm-hmm.
23
THE WITNESS -- time period.
24
BY MS.
:
25
Q
But was part of that problem the result of the
EFTA00009134

=== Page 20 ===
Page 319
1
change from, here is the date that you must comply, to, you
2
must use best efforts to comply?
3
A
Possibly. I would -- whether it was that, or
4
others, or other parts of the agreement, we can talk about,
5 but how -- once the agreement was signed, and they do not --
6 and they start pushing the date, there becomes a legal issue
7 over, are they really in breach or not?
8
And I'm not -- I understand your perspective. I'm
9
just saying, you know, earlier I said that there was a
10 difference. You asked about the process, and I said from my
11
perspective, there's a difference between the pre-agreement
12 and the post-agreement time period.
13
And much of that difference is informed by, if we
14 declare a unilateral breach, how does this hold up in court?
15
Because now there's a signed agreement that the United States
16
is a party to.
17
Q
And are you saying that part of the reason, or
18
maybe all of the reason that you continued to give
19 accommodations and process and delay was because of the
20 concern that you couldn't actually win a breach argument?
21
A
I think that was a consideration. Another part of
22 the considerations are if someone -- if a party wants to
23 take -- I mean, main justice gave a lot of process. It
24
wasn't -- it wasn't, you know, it wasn't just to -- to
,
25 but it was up to the -- it was just up to the assistant
EFTA00009135

=== Page 21 ===
Page 320
1 attorney general for criminal division, to be polite, but it
2 was up to the DAG.
3
And so, if main justice is going to give this
4
degree of process, we should -- we should be in the position
5 of saying go forward, as opposed to, I don't think it looks
6 positive for the office to be viewed as fearing department
7 review.
8
Q
But were you giving the impression to the
9
Department of Justice that you were the one who wanted this
10 review so that they felt like, well, it's not just these
11 defense attorneys who we can blow off, it is an United States
12 Attorney who is asking for this review, and so therefore we
13
need to give the courtesy of reviewing this?
14
A
I don't think I asked for it as opposed to saying,
15
if you would -- so, from the very beginning, they said that
16 they're going to take this to the Deputy Attorney General and
17
Attorney General.
18
And I said, if you want to, fine. They just
19
finally did, but that was not -- that was not -- I think they
20
raised that as early as August or September. And so, I'm not
21 surprised that it ended up there. I also thought it was
22
important to not be in the position of fearing review. I
23 think if you look at the contemporaneous record, there's an
24 effort on our part to expedite the review.
25
BY MS.
:
EFTA00009136

=== Page 22 ===
Page 321
1
Q
But there's a difference between, have at it, go,
2
do what you want, up at main, and getting that --
3
A
Right.
4
Q
-- that non-opposition, and actually sending a
5
signal to -- in the -- in the case of the criminal division,
6
the assistant attorney general, in the case of the DAG's
7
office, Mark Filip or his assignee, that you supported their
8
review, that the -- this appeal process. You could have
9
said, look, we're going to go ahead and get on with our
10 business.
11
If they want to -- if -- you could have not so much
12
opposed a review, but not seconded their request for -- the
13
defense request for reviews, or not in fact invited the
14
reviews.
15
A
So, I'd be curious as to the timeline. I would
16
take issue with, I invited the reviews, and I question
17
whether, did they initiate the reviews on their own, and then
18
I said have at it, or did I -- based on -- I mean, you've got
19 more of a record than I do, or did I invite -- I don't -- I
20
would say I did not invite the reviews.
21
Q
Well, let me -- bad terminology, perhaps. Let me
22
ask you this. If -- would've -- did you convey to the
23
criminal division that you wanted them to review this matter,
24
as requested by the defense attorneys?
25
A
So, from my perspective, I'm thinking back 12 --
EFTA00009137

=== Page 23 ===
Page 322
1
0
Mm-hmm.
2
A
-- 12 years now. The very reason that we invited
3
to come down to Miami back in August was a sense that it
4
would end up up here. And so, if it's going to end up up
5
here, let's bring
down.
6
Let's make him part of the initial meeting. You
7
know, if there are concerns, let's raise these. Let's
8
address them. Let's get them out so that we don't end up,
9
after we go forward with all of this, back in front of
10
and
+
And it's much better to involve main justice
11
earlier.
12
And so, I would say I was trying, if anything,
13
to -- to involve main justice so that we didn't end up where
14
we were, and it had been my expectation that that October
15
date would have been met.
16
The collateral reviews afterwards, the collateral
17
appeals, obviously did not go as -- as we planned, and -- and
18
it was my sense, we were going to end up at main justice one
19
way or another.
20
Q
So, my question is in December, after the December
21
meeting --
22
A
Right.
23
Q
-- that you had with defense counsel, and they told
24
you they were going to go to main justice.
25
A
Correct.
EFTA00009138

=== Page 24 ===
Page 323
1
Q
To the criminal division. Did you convey to main
2
justice criminal division that you wanted them to conduct the
3
review that defense counsel were seeking?
4
A
So, I don't recall what I may or may not have
5
conveyed. I think my recollection was, if they want a
6
review, that's their right. We're not -- as a department,
7
we're not in the business of telling individuals that they
8
can't take something to your supervisor, or your superior.
9
Whether -- whether main justice takes this on or not is
10
ultimately at their discretion.
11
Q
Would it surprise you to learn that the criminal
12
division front office understood you to be requesting their
13
review, the review that was sought by defense counsel?
14
A
Would it surprise me? Perhaps. My -- my -- my
15
understanding -- recollection is we shouldn't fear it. If
16
they want it --
17
0
Mm-hmm.
18
A
-- that's their right. I thought by inviting
19
down in the first place that we had at least tried to address
20
that early on, but I also thought that we might end up there
21
in the first place.
22
Q
Were you -- were you aware that a decision was made
23
to grant the decision by your office to grant defense
24
counsel's request -- their insistence that
25
role in the criminal division review be limited to review
EFTA00009139

=== Page 25 ===
Page 324
1
only, and that he not be permitted to -- or that the criminal
2
divisions -- that the -- I'm sorry, I misspoke. That because
3
had already been involved in essentially
4
being a prosecutor on the case --
5
A
Right.
6
Q
-- that the -- the criminal division and CEOs' role
7
vis a vis this review should be review only. That is, they
8
should be taken off the case as a -- as a partner?
9
A
So, I sought e-mails to that affect in the record.
10
I don't have an independent recollection 12 years --
11
Q
You --
12
A
-- 12 --
13
Q
Do you think you were involved in that decision?
14
A
To take them off?
15
2
Yes.
16
A
To my recollection, I wanted them on as a partner,
17
and I think the contemporaneous --
18
Q
Mm-hmm.
19
A
-- e-mails from
is, can you please come on
20
board?
21
0
But that was earlier, before this review process?
22
A
No. No. Even after the --
23
Q
All right.
24
A
-- review process, I think there are
25
contemporaneous e-mails where we're saying it's important
EFTA00009140

=== Page 26 ===
Page 325
1
that you be part. If we go to trial, it's important that you
2
be part of the trial. As I -- as I went through the record,
3
at least I remember --
4
Q
Mm-hmm.
5
A
-- an e-mail, perhaps from
to
that I'm
6
copied on saying, hey, can you reconsider? It's important
7
that you be part of this.
8
Q
Reconsider the review only limitation?
9
A
No, no. Reconsider being a part of the trial --
10
Q
Oh. All right.
11
A
-- team.
12
Q
All right. So, to be clear, do I understand that
13
you -- correct me, that you don't have a recollection one way
14
or the other whether you requested the criminal division to
15
conduct the review, or could it have happened, or --
16
A
So --
17
Q
-- what?
18
A
-- to the extent I -- again, I'm going back --
19
Q
Mm-hmm.
20
A
-- 12 years. To the extent there is a request to,
21
it would be in the context of, this is going to Washington.
22
We're not fearful of this. Have at it.
23
0
And you would have conveyed that to Washington?
24
Not just to the defense attorneys, is that correct?
25
A
I imagine in some way. It's --
EFTA00009141

=== Page 27 ===
Page 326
1
Q
All right.
2
BY MS.
:
3
Q
And just one --
4
A
Yeah.
5
Q
-- just one point. This one -- this one was a
6
little bit of an --
7
A
Yeah.
8
Q
-- odd posture, however, because you had a signed
9
agreement. And so, you know, basically a contract between
10
parties --
11
A
Right.
12
0
-- and particularly on Mr. Epstein's side, a party
13
who was -- who was extremely well represented. So, was there
14
any consideration on your part, instead of saying, hey,
15
everybody's got a right to review, knock yourself out, go up
16
to Washington, as opposed to saying something like, that ship
17
has sailed, guys. You signed this agreement. We're going
18
forward. You don't go forward. You're in breach. End of
19
story?
20
A
So, his counsel are raising serious issues that go
21
to ethics and go to fundamental relationships between
22
sovereigns. Is this 22.55 appropriate as a matter of federal
23
policy? Is what we're doing an overreach, you know, is what
24
we're doing contrary to law? Are we extracting -- I'm
25
characterizing. This may or may not --
EFTA00009142

=== Page 28 ===
Page 327
1
0
Mm-hmm.
2
A
-- be accurate. Are we extracting unduly? Are we
3
using criminal law to extract civil concessions in an
4
ethically suspect way? Those are serious issues. That isn't
5
just, is this a good case?
6
Those are -- those are genuine issues. I happen to
7
think that, as I recall, that we were in the right or we
8
wouldn't have agreed to it, but by the same token, let's
9
assume that main justice ultimately disagreed. Is that from
10
a main justice perspective? And maybe I'm coming at this
11
from a -- you know, being informed by having been at main
12
justice.
13
0
Mm-hmm.
14
A
Where there was talk about, can you believe what
15
this AUSA -- this AUSA may have done or may not have done
16
without consulting, that these are serious issues. They
17
establish precedent.
18
They -- you know, maybe the DAG would have said,
19
this is not the kind of thing we'd support, and this is
20
wrong. And so, at the end of the day, let's move forward,
21
but if -- once these issues are raised, I don't think a U.S.
22
Attorney should say main justice should not review this.
23
I think we're part of one department, and these are
24
valid issues. Main justice doesn't need to take months to
25
review this. Main justice can expedite their review, but
EFTA00009143

=== Page 29 ===
Page 328
1
those are valid issues for the deputy and the AAG to review.
2
Q
But one could look at it and say, well, those are
3
all issues that the defense certainly knew about before they
4
signed that agreement, and having signed the agreement, they
5
are waiving all of that. That's what contracts are for.
6
You've got all these issues, don't sign the contract.
7
A
And if I could, I think there's a December letter.
8
I don't know if it's -- if it's in the exhibits, but there's
9
a December letter that I wrote that, for me, is --
10
0
This is the 19th?
11
A
Maybe it's the 19th. Let me --
12
Q
Or the --
13
MS.
:
The 19th is the -- your sort of
14
ill-fated NPA addendum effort.
15
THE WITNESS No. No, a letter to -- to Ken Starr
16
that I -- that I wrote. But --
17
MR.
:
The 4th letter is to Ken Starr.
18
THE WITNESS I'm sorry?
19
MR.
--
Is it the December 4th letter?
20
THE WITNESS Yeah, it's probably --
21
MR.
:
December 4?
22
THE WITNESS It's the December 4th.
23
MS.
:
Yeah, it didn't have a date.
24
MS.
: All right. That's the one you
25
wrote --
EFTA00009144

=== Page 30 ===
Page 329
1
THE WITNESS So --
2
MS.
:
-- to him --
3
THE WITNESS -- so --
4
MS.
:
-- in response to the --
5
THE WITNESS So --
6
MS.
:
-- 22.55 issue.
7
THE WITNESS I think, you know, I -- you know, I'm
8
starting on page four. I have responded personally in some
9
detail to your concerns because I care deeply about both the
10
law and the integrity of this office. I have responded
11
personally and in detail as well, because your letter
12 troubled me on a number of levels. Upon your understanding
13 of the negotiations are. The 22.55 was first discussed July
14 31st.
15
You know, and one of these four points in -- in the
16
middle of 2007, your defense team decides -- asked to meet
17 with me. On September 7th, I met. After considering of the
18
arguments, and after conferring with FBI and
,
19 our office decided to proceed with the indictment. At that
20 time, I offered to delay -- our prosecutors to delay
21
presentation to allow you to appeal our decision if you
22 choose. You chose not to.
23
Instead, you elected to enter into the NPA. Since
24
the signing of this agreement, the feds in our office have
25
addressed several issues that have arisen, although the
EFTA00009145

=== Page 31 ===
Page 330
1
exchanges at the time were a bit litigious.
2
BY MS.
3
Q
This -- could I -- could I thought point out --
4
A
Yeah.
5
Q
-- that this letter is in response to not the at
6
the request for a review by the criminal division, that comes
7
later. This is in response to Ken Starr's letter to
8
about -- raising 22.55 -- 22.55 issues that had not
9
been raised with you before.
10
A
Right, which is -- which is in essence a review. I
11
mean, he -- they're coming to main justice, and you know,
12
it's against these many previous foregone opportunities to
13
object that I receive with surprise your letter requesting an
14
11th hour after the fact review of our agreement. Although
15
it happens rarely, I don't mind this office's decision being
16
appealed to Washington, and have previously directed our
17
prosecutors to delay.
18
Indeed, I'm confident in our prosecutor's evidence
19
and legal analysis. I nonetheless
20
directed them to consult with subject matter experts in the
21
criminal CEOS division to confer to our interpretation of the
22
law before proceeding with this indictment. So, I guess, you
23
know, we consulted CEOS.
24
I'm thus surprised to read a letter addressed to
25
the department headquarters that raises issues that either
EFTA00009146

=== Page 32 ===
Page 331
1
have not been raised with this office previously, or have
2
been raised and in fact resolved in your client's favor.
3
I'm troubled likewise by the apparent lack of
4
finality in this agreement. The AUSAs have been negotiating
5
with defense counsel and have for sometimes complained to me
6
regarding the tactics used by the defense team. It appears
7
to them that as soon as resolution is reached on one issue,
8
defense counsel finds ways to challenge the resolution
9
collaterally.
10
0
So, this is your protest of, it sounds like Starr's
11
effort to bypass you and go to
with new issues?
12
A
It is, and I'm pushing back in that, was I inviting
13
this, or was I sort of saying -- you know, that said, there
14
must be some closure on this matter.
15
Some in our office are deeply concerned that
16
defense counsel will continue to mount collateral challenges
17
to provisions of this agreement, even after Mr. Epstein has
18
entered his guilty plea and thus rendered the agreement
19
difficult, if not impossible to unwind. In closing, I ask
20
that you consult with co-counsel.
21
If after consultation with your defense team you
22
believe that our agreement is unethical, unlawful, or
23
unconstitutional, I'd ask us that you notify us immediately
24
so we can discuss the matter by phone or in person. I've
25
consulted the chief prosecutor in this case who has advised
EFTA00009147

=== Page 33 ===
Page 332
1
me that she's ready to unwind the agreement and proceed to
2
trial if necessary, or appropriate.
3
Q
So, are you suggesting that this represents your
4
protest of their appeal to
--
5
A
So --
6
0
-- on this point?
7
A
So, protest is a -- is a loaded word. What I'm
8
suggesting is, this is not an invitation to appeal to main
9
justice. This is sort of saying, enough is enough is enough.
10
Q
But Mr. Acosta, in fairness, this, to clarify --
11
A
Right.
12
Q
-- this is in response to a letter directed to
13
dated November 28th --
14
A
Right.
15
2
-- 2007 raising issues that he had not raised with
16
you. The appeal subsequently that I was asking about was --
17
A
Right.
18
Q
-- an appeal for a de novo review -- a de novo
19
review of the whole case.
20
A
Understood, and my -- the reason that I -- that I
21
read this, you know, is this is not -- on the one hand, I'm
22
saying we do not fear review, but I don't -- this is not an
23
invitation to defense counsel to do a de novo -- I am not
24
inviting them. I'm not saying, let's have more review. I'm
25
saying, enough's enough. If they appeal, that's fine, but
EFTA00009148

=== Page 34 ===
Page 333
1
this is not an invitation to appeal.
2
Q
But there was nothing you could do to stop their
3
appeal, right? Except indict?
4
A
And so the department shouldn't stop an appeal to
5
main justice by -- you know, by threatening.
6
Q
Fair enough.
7
A
Because main justice has a right to review.
8
2
I should have said that -- that this -- that this
9
appeal process was stymying progress in resolving the Epstein
10 case.
11
A
It was.
12
Q
And you had no way -- you had no recourse, other
13
than, at least theoretically, you could have just said, you
14
know, we're --
15
A
Right.
16
Q
-- going to tear it up and indict, because you're
17
in breach, in effect.
18
A
Which would have raised civil litigation --
19
Q
Litigation.
20
A
-- overlays, which is the point that I thought
21
merited --
22
Q
All right.
23
A
-- at least flushing out.
24
BY MS.
:
25
Q
So, short of the department itself getting a move
EFTA00009149

=== Page 35 ===
Page 334
1
on, and getting this thing through expeditiously, did you
2
feel like you just had to sit there and wait for everything
3
to get done?
4
A
I'm not sure sit there and wait, but -- but
5
ultimately, the case did not get better with time, and there
6
was frustration on our apart about, you know, the witnesses
7
are not getting better. You know, time --
8
2
They're getting older.
9
A
They're getting -- which goes back to how a juror
10
may see them.
11
MS.
: Right.
12
THE WITNESS And I do recall conversations of their
13
getting older, you know, this case is not getting better. We
14
now have the civil overlay that we need to deal with. And
15
so, yes, that -- there was process, but while there was,
16
should we just call it a day, all of that factored into,
17
well, if the department is reviewing the department is
18
reviewing.
19
BY MS.
:
20
Q
Okay. Are you -- what is your view of whether the
21
criminal division's review encompassed the NPA itself?
22
A
So, the criminal division, by its terms, did not --
23
did not encompass the -- the NPA. I would say that's
24
different than the deputy's review that encompassed the
25
totality of the -- of the circumstances.
EFTA00009150

=== Page 36 ===
Page 335
1
Q
Okay. Did you discuss the -- did you have
2
conversations with the DAG -- with Mark Filip about this
3
case?
4
A
Not to my recollection.
5
Q
Okay, and we've already talked about the submission
6
that
made on behalf of your office?
7
A
Which -- which -- yes, which I thought was a
8
fulsome submission, and included the draft indictment, the
9
NPA. I believe it included the term sheet and other
10
documents.
11
0
Did you or anyone else to your knowledge ask ODAG
12
to review or assess the NPA, or approve it?
13
A
Not to -- before signature, not to my recollection,
14
but it was part of the ultimate review when
submitted
15
the matter to the deputy, he included the --
16
Q
It was --
17
A
-- the agreement.
18
Q
It was included. Their very brief letter, you
19
remember --
20
A
Mm-hmm.
21
Q
-- the letter that
--
22
A
Yes.
23
Q
-- authored, that he authored. Addressed really
24
only the issue of the appropriateness of the case for
25
prosecution in your office. It did not in any way reference
EFTA00009151

=== Page 37 ===
Page 336
1
the disposition, the plea agreement, or the NPA.
2
A
So -- so, it was a brief letter. Based on
3
submission, I would have read that letter as, they had all
4
the material in front of them, and they were saying that
5
there was no misconduct or abuse of discretion.
6
Q
That's correct, but they did not say that they
7
contacted - that they addressed or assessed, reviewed even.
8
They didn't say they reviewed or approved the NPA.
9
A
They -- I again, you know, I -- if the letter is
10
here, I don't know, but --
11
Q
Yeah. I have it right here. It's not marked as an
12
exhibit, but this is
letter to Jay Lefkowitz and
13
Ken Starr dated --
14
A
Right.
15
Q
-- June 23, 2008 It states that this office,
16 meaning the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, has
17
completed a thorough review of the U.S. Attorney's handling
18
of the matter involving your client.
19
A
And --
20
Q
And addresses the -- or, states that they've
21
received and reviewed submissions from both parties, and then
22
states that the deputy attorney general, "Will intervene only
23
in the most unusual of circumstances," in a U.S. Attorney's
24
matter, and, "we do not believe such intervention is
25 warranted here. Even if we were to substitute our judgement
EFTA00009152

=== Page 38 ===
Page 337
1
for that of the U.S. Attorney, we believe that federal
2
prosecution of this case is appropriate. Moreover, having
3
reviewed your allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, and
4
the facts underlying them, we see nothing in the conduct of
5
the U.S. Attorney's Office that gives us any reason to
6
alter," --
7
A
Right.
8
2
-- "our opinion."
9
A
And so, so, if I could point out, this office has
10
completed a thorough review of the U.S. Attorney's handling
11
of the matter. And so, handling is a broad -- is a broad
12
term, and in reference to, we believe that federal
13
prosecution of this case is appropriate, the way I recalled
14
reading that is, the federal prosecution of this case, the
15
argument was that the agreement was inappropriate because
16
this case should not have even been prosecuted, and therefore
17
that the disposition -- the federal prosecution of this case,
18
was appropriate.
19
And so, the handling of the matter, we reviewed the
20
handling of the matter, not -- not the agreement, but the
21
handling of the matter, and that the ultimate disposition,
22
if -- you know, is at least not an abuse of discretion, or is
23
appropriate.
24
Q
That's how you read it?
25
A
That -- that is how I read it.
EFTA00009153

=== Page 39 ===
Page 338
1
Q
And did you ever discuss that -- did you ever
2
discuss with anyone in ODAG what the scope of their review
3
was?
4
A
Not to -- not to my recollection. It was a fulsome
5 submission.
6
Q
Correct, but if -- if -- but the issues presented
7
by the defense were essentially federalism issues, right?
8
A
So, the -- the -- again, this is -- this is based
9
on, you know, as much recollection as contemporaneous record.
10
The issues presented by the defense were, it -- in essence,
11
it was the heart of the non-prosecution agreement, which is,
12
was it -- was it an abuse of discretion to -- to proceed in
13
this case in the way that we did on the grounds that there
14
may not -- there should not have been a federal prosecution
15
in the first place, or that we were using federal criminal
16
law to -- to elicit a civil outcome.
17
And so, I don't think it's fair to sort of
18
narrow -- you can't -- you can't say that our handling was --
19
you know, that their handling was reviewed without reviewing
20
the non-prosecution agreement.
21
Q
Do you have any reason to believe that the -- that
22
either ODAG or the criminal division did -- well, that the
23
ODAG, let's stick with that --
24
A
Right.
25
Q
-- did in fact review the NPA, other than to be
EFTA00009154

=== Page 40 ===
Page 339
1
aware it existed, whatever its status might have been?
2
A
So, again, it was clearly submitted. It was
3
clearly referenced.
4
Q
Mm-hmm.
5
A
And it was clearly part of the complaint. The
6
complaint -- the heart of the complaint about our office was
7
that we were using this agreement to impose civil liability.
8
And so, I think it is fair to infer if the complaint
9
implicates the agreement, that the agreement would have been
10
reviewed.
11
Q
That -- but that's your inference. You don't have
12
any -- you don't -- didn't have any specific communications
13
with ODAG --
14
A
I don't --
15
Q
-- to that effect?
16
A
I don't recall a specific communication.
17
Q
All right. Okay. I would like to take a short
18
break.
We're getting there.
19
A
I hear you.
20
Q
There is --
21
A
I'm good.
22
0
-- one area that my colleague,
will
23
take on --
24
A
Mm-hmm.
25
0
-- which has to do with the CVRA --
EFTA00009155

=== Page 41 ===
Page 340
1
A
Right.
2
Q
-- and then we have some kind of wind up questions.
3
A
Okay.
4
MR.
Can we -- before we take a break,
5
can I just --
6
MS.
Yes.
7
MR.
I'll try to queue up what's going to
8
be coming next --
9
THE WITNESS Mm-hmm.
10
MR.
-- and maybe that'll help us move
11
through it, because --
12
THE WITNESS Right.
13
MR.
:
-- you've been through a very long
14
day.
15
THE WITNESS Yeah.
16
MR.
:
We appreciate your -- the time
17
you've put into this. You've been here for quite a long
18
time.
19
THE WITNESS Well, yeah.
20
BY MR.
:
21
0
The area that I want to discuss after the break has
22
to do with the ultimate notification to the victims about the
23
resolution of the case, the state plea, and the result of the
24
federal investigation, and there's going to be -- we have
25
documents that are in your -- that are already marked there
EFTA00009156

=== Page 42 ===
Page 341
1
that might be helpful if you take a look at a couple of them
2
so we don't have to go through -- maybe during the break so
3
we don't have to go through them one by one, or I can just
4
give you a very quick overview of sort of where we're going.
5
I want to find out basically how you were getting
6
from there -- what would be the -- the state asking for the
7
U.S. Attorney's Office to make the notification to the
8
victims about the upcoming state plea that happens in
9
November of 2007.
10
That would be document 32b, to the defense then
11
finding out that the government want to notify the victims by
12
letter, and then demanding that they see the letter and have
13
some kind of comment on it. That would be document 33, an e-
14
mail from Lefkowitz.
15
Then we have an exchange of letters, but the one
16
I'd like you to look at is document 37, which is a letter
17
coming from
to the defense -- not now, but you know,
18
during the break. So, I want to find out how we get from
19
that document, 36, where
is writing --
20
MS.
: 36.
21
BY MR.
:
22
0
-- as letter saying that -- citing the CVRA
23
regulations saying that the government is obligated to notify
24
the victims about the resolution of the case, and attaching a
25
draft letter to the victims telling them the time and date of
EFTA00009157

=== Page 43 ===
Page 342
1
the state resolution and plea, inviting them to come.
2
To ultimately a letter from you coming on the 19th
3
of December 2007, which is No. 41b agreeing to not notify the
4
victims of the state plea, and agreeing with the defense to
5
have the state be responsible for putting out that
6
notification.
7
And then we end ultimately with a letter or draft
8
letter that we have that goes out to the victims in the case
9
on -- after the plea in July. Well, we have the draft I'm
10
going to show you, which comes in June, showing that the
11
letter was clearly meant to be sent after the plea as per the
12
agreement, and that is document number 51.
13
A
Okay. That's --
14
2
So, it's a lot to --
15
A
That's a --
16
Q
-- unpack there.
17
A
That's a lot to unpack. We should probably take it
18
a step at the time?
19
Q
Yes. I just wanted to --
20
A
All right.
21
Q
-- give you an overview, because I think that some
22
of what you had mentioned earlier -- and I know -- I know
23
it's --
24
A
Yeah.
25
Q
-- been a long time, so --
EFTA00009158

=== Page 44 ===
Page 343
1
A
Yeah.
2
Q
-- I'll try to orient you for the timelines. So,
3
if you'd just have a -- I've highlighted the sections of
4
those letters that we want to talk about, and if you have a
5
chance while we're taking a break to look through them, that
6
may help orient you so that we're not --
7
A
Right.
8
Q
-- spinning our wheels on this. I don't want to
9
waste any of your time.
10
A
Fair.
11
MS.
: All right. Off the record.
12
(Off the record.)
13
MS.
:
All right. Back on the record.
14
MR.
:
Are we back on the record?
15
MS.
: Yes.
16
BY MR.
:
17
Q
Okay, great. So, I know I gave you a lot to unpack
18
over the short break we just had. One -- basically what
19
we're trying to get to find out is how the -- your decision
20
making process regarding the victim notification issue. So,
21
maybe if you could just give us a -- anything with your
22
December 19th decision, could you give us an explanation
23
about how you got there?
24
A
So, I think we should probably take this in stages.
25
Q
Okay.
EFTA00009159

=== Page 45 ===
Page 344
1
A
As a general matter, I recall that there was back
2
and forth regarding -- after the agreement -- regarding how
3
to notify the victims, and there was back and forth between
4
and Jay Lefkowitz and
around all that.
5
Sorry, I'm losing my voice.
6
I recall that there was an issue in particular that
7
was raised that I tried to address in the letter, and I
8
recall at the end of the day, it was my impression that once
9
there was an agreement for him to plead, that there was an
10
attempt by
to provide notice to the victims, but it was
11
a very -- it was I think on a Friday, and he was pleading on
12
a Monday morning or something along those lines.
13
And finally, I recall that the view of the office
14
was that the CVRA did not apply, and so that this was a
15
discretionary balancing that included consideration of what
16
impact notification of the 22.55s would have at trial -- the
17
22.55 provision, if we had to go to trial. So, we can -- we
18
can unpack that, but those are my -- my general
19
recollections.
20
0
Okay.
21
A
And look, let me -- let me add, I -- so, I think
22
it's important -- so, I came in and out of the case at
23
stages, and -- and I was involved in certain aspects more
24
than others, and while we had a long discussion about the
25
terms sheet and matters like that, while I was clearly
EFTA00009160

=== Page 46 ===
Page 345
1
involved in at least one dispute around the 22.55, the nuts
2
and bolts of how victims were notified is not something that
3
I have a recollection about.
4
Q
Okay. Fair.
5
A
But we can unpack it.
6
Q
Okay. Let's start with the Exhibit 33. So, there,
7
we have an -- as you can see, it's an e-mail from Lefkowitz -
8 -
9
A
Mm-hmm.
10
Q
-- to you, and to
objecting to the -- a
11
letter being sent to the victims, unless the defense gets to
12
review it. And later on in some of your other
13
correspondence, you discuss that you -- you extended to the
14
defense the courtesy of allowing them to review these
15
letters. Is this the genesis of that courtesy?
16
A
I can't -- I don't have a recollection as to what
17
the genesis might be. I know that there was back and forth
18
between our office and the defense about the -- that letter.
19
0
Okay, but as you can see on 33 that you're not on
20
the response from
, but
instructs
to
21
send the proposed letter to Lefkowitz, and --
22
A
Yeah.
23
Q
-- I assume that
wouldn't have done that had
24
you objected to it.
25
A
Again, I don't -- I don't recall any specific
EFTA00009161

=== Page 47 ===
Page 346
1
conversation. As a general matter, this is not something I
2
was getting into the weeds on unless I had to. There was a
3
lot of back and forth.
4
2
Mm-hmm.
5
A
is someone that I trusted. He was handling
6
this matter. He's incredibly experienced. I know that there
7
were concerns and issues around the impact that notification
8
would have on the witnesses. I know there were -- there were
9
issues around the language, and I trusted that folks were
10
working those out.
11
0
Mm-hmm. One of the -- the criticisms that's come
12
post, you know, the CVRA --
13
A
Right.
14
Q
-- litigation that's been the government allowing
15
the defense to have review of these letters, or potential
16
victim notification letters coming out of the government, and
17
that that's unusual. Have you ever -- have you had any other
18
cases where you've let the defense review such documents?
19
A
I've had no other cases where I'm even aware of
20
victims being notified, because I assume it all operates
21
without it rising to management level.
22
Q
Mm-hmm.
23
A
And so this is the first and only time that how
24
individuals are notified, to my recollection, was even in the
25
executive suite.
EFTA00009162

=== Page 48 ===
Page 347
1
0
Mm-hmm. Isn't that usually done -- accomplished by
2
almost a computerized task?
3
A
I -- I would assume so, so yes.
4
Q
And it's a -- given that that's the usual way that
5
notifications are made by a victim witness specialist, who is
6 usually that person?
7
A
Yes.
8
Q
Do I have that right? And so, the FBI has their
9
victim witness specialist?
10
A
Yes.
11
Q
And your office, the U.S. Attorney's Office has
12
dedicated people who do that job as well?
13
A
Correct.
14
Q
So, why in this case, not direct, the this --
15
this notification to that person to be done in the usual
16
course, why elevate to something that the defense is going to
17 be able to review?
18
A
So, so, I can't address the second half of that,
19 but the first half of that question, why -- why was it
20 elevated? You know, I think
addressed some of that in
21 her, was it 2017 affidavit, and -- and so, we had an
22 agreement that had been signed, and we also had substantial
23 questions as to whether that agreement - -- whether ultimately
24
Jeffrey Epstein would plead in court or not.
25
And so, one of the questions is, how do you deal
EFTA00009163

=== Page 49 ===
Page 348
1
with notification of a possibility, where that possibility
2
could be used to impeach potential future witnesses who are
3
also the victims, and that is a matter that was being worked
4
out by the AUSAs in the office.
5
Q
And the -- and the impeachment is what?
6
A
And so, the impeachment -- and I -- I would -- I
7
believe
went into it in some detail, is you stand --
8
you, Miss Victim, stand to gain quite a bit of money if
9
there's a conviction, correct?
10
Isn't -- weren't you aware of this agreement, if we
11
have to go to trial? Weren't you aware of this agreement?
12
And this isn't based on my recollection. This is based on
13
the
affidavit, where she says that she had concerns
14
that the impeachment go along -- somewhere along the lines
15 of, were you aware that if Mr. Epstein's convicted, you stand
16
to receive substantial sums? Yes. Were you influenced by
17
this?
18
And there was some -- according to her affidavit,
19
this isn't my independent recollection, this is according to
20 her affidavit, there had already been dispositions of the
21 victims -- of at least some of the victims that raised these
22
issues. And so, I do think it was a valid concern by the
23
AUSAs how these notifications took place.
24
Q
Okay, but isn't that the -- that type of line of
25
cross examination the same for any case where there's a super
EFTA00009164

=== Page 50 ===
Page 349
1
wealthy defendant?
2
A
It may be. The 22.55 may make it a little
3
different because it's automatic, but ultimately, these are
4
the judgements that line attorneys make, and as U.S.
5
Attorney, I think it's appropriate to back up their judgment
6
unless there was some reason for me to believe it was
7
incorrect.
8
Q
Was there any thought ever to just giving the
9
victims notification that there will be a proceeding that
10
will end the federal case, just separating that in a -- maybe
11
a later notification about the 22.55?
12
A
I can't speak to what thought there was or was not.
13
I can say around this time frame, it was far from clear that
14
there would ever be -- that Epstein would ever go into court,
15
and we were thinking we may have to just go to trial, because
16
these collateral attacks keep going.
17
2
Okay. Okay. Let's get back on track to the -- the
18
question that I asked earlier about allowing the defense the
19
courtesy to look at these letters. Is -- can you just remind
20
us again, what was -- what was the reasoning that you're --
21
that they're allowed to look at the --
22
A
So
--
23
Q
-- victim notification letters?
24
A
I can't speak to that. This is something that --
25
that
and
would have handled. I think that, you
EFTA00009165

=== Page 51 ===
Page 350
1
know, I'm responsible for the office. I'm not shirking, I'm
2
just saying that this is -- that this was for the most part
3
within their wheelhouse, and not something that -- that I was
4
involved in. I can -- I can speculate.
5
Q
Sure.
6
A
The agreement was notifying them -- the letter was
7
notifying them of certain rights in the agreement, and
8
therefore, this is a time when we weren't sure what was
9
happening with the agreement. And so, perhaps this was a way
10
to -- to address some of the concerns around the 22.55. I
11
don't know. I'm just speculating.
12
Q
Okay. Let's move onto Exhibit 36. This is a
13
letter that goes out to Lefkowitz under
signature.
14
You are cc'd on the letter.
15
A
All right.
16
Q
And what he is doing is sending a draft victim
17
notification letter, which is attached as the attachment
18
there, dated December 6th, 2007. And I wanted to get your
19
impressions of -- if you go to page three of the letter,
20
please? And that -- the first little paragraph there, when
21
it --
22
A
Mm-hmm.
23
Q
-- refers to the Victims' Rights and Restitution
24
Act, and then ultimate for the CVRA, if you could just read
25
that paragraph to yourself, please?
EFTA00009166

=== Page 52 ===
Page 351
1
A
Are you referring to paragraph 10?
2
Q
I'm sorry, I'm not on the I'm on the letter,
3
not -- I'm sorry, I'm on the --
4
A Oh.
5
Q
-- left the letter to --
6
A
Sorry.
7
Q
-- Lefkowitz, not the draft letter. This one right
8 here.
9
A
The additionally?
10
0
Yes, additionally, pursuant to the Victims' Rights
11
and Restitution Act of 1990, our office is obligated,
12
etcetera.
13
A
Okay.
14
Q
Do you agree with that language? That
15
interpretation of the victims' rights, as far as the
16
notification?
17
A
So, let's -- let's sort of take this -- this one
18
sentence at a time. With respect to notification of other
19
information that we were supposed to disclose, the statute
20
requires that we provide victims with the earliest possible
21
notice of -- I -- I will assume that that is a restatement of
22
the statute.
23
I don't have it in front of me, but let's assume
24
that that's a restatement of the statute. Just as in 18,
25
these sections are not limited to -- the victims, through
EFTA00009167

=== Page 53 ===
Page 352
1
this federal -- should be appropriately informed that a non-
2
pros does not require to forego its legal obligation. On a
3
sentence by sentence basis, I mean, do I agree, sitting here?
4
Sure, but I would want to sort of sit down before I gave a
5
legal opinion and spent more time with it, but --
6
Q
Okay, because coming out of your office, sort of
7
this and that -- well, let's go to the next page, page four.
8
A
Yeah.
9
Q
There is a citation to the right to confer in the
10
first paragraph there, citing the CVRA's reasonable right to
11
confer with the attorneys of the government in this case.
12
A Okay.
13
Q
So, we have -- you know, it looks like to me -- I
14
mean, let's --
15
A
Right.
16
Q
-- well, it -- it appears that there is two
17
references to the CVRA obligations that the government has
18
that ultimately the government argues that it did not have.
19
Can you explain why that is a correct interpretation?
20
A
So, what I can say is I recall -- so, it looks like
21
at least some of the victims were notified. I recall a
22
discussion and a view that the CVRA did not require it -- it
23
was discretionary, because it wasn't -- the case had not
24
indicted, so it did not attach on its terms. That doesn't
25
mean that it's not something you aspire to. That just means
EFTA00009168

=== Page 54 ===
Page 353
1
it wasn't legally binding.
2
Q
So -- and in the same manner though, while the CVRA
3
isn't legally binding, it also doesn't prevent you from
4
notifying the victims, does it?
5
A
It does not, no.
6
Q
And you have the discretion to notify, should you
7
choose to.
8
A
Correct.
9
0
Okay. And so, if you look at the letter that's
10
attached to this, this is a draft that goes out where on page
11
one -- two -- page three of the letter, and the second to
12
last paragraph, the letter is giving notice of Mr. Epstein's
13
change of plea and sentencing that will occur on -- well, at
14
this time, it was December 14th at 2007, and it gives the
15
address, and it says underneath there you are entitled to be
16
present and make a statement under oath.
17
If you choose, you can submit a written statement
18
under oath, etcetera, etcetera. So, this is a letter that's
19
actively inviting victims to come to the state. Would you
20
agree that that's inviting victims to come to the state plea?
21
A
That -- I think that's fair.
22
Q
And with the letter's reasoning that the government
23
is sending -- would like to send this letter because it
24
believes it's obligated to, because it resolves the federal
25
case?
EFTA00009169

=== Page 55 ===
Page 354
1
A
So, I -- I don't want to speak to the reasoning,
2
but it's clearly a draft that the government is saying, it
3
intends to send.
4
Q
Okay. Now, ultimately, just this is not a
5 question, just --
6
A
Got it.
7
Q
-- some information that will help to move us
8 along.
9
A
Right.
10
2
The -- obviously, this letter is never sent. Ms.
11
drafts, we have them, and I'm not going to show
12
them to you, 30 letters, copies of the letter --
13
A
Right.
14
Q
-- to different victims, addresses them, puts them
15
in envelopes, and is then told not to send the letters.
16
A
All right. Well, the plea never -- it's scheduled
17
for December 14th, so yeah.
18
Q
Yes, but one of the issues that's still percolating
19
until the end of December is who is going to make this
20
notification? Because as you can expect, the defense pushes
21
back on this letter.
22
And so now we go to the -- the -- number 39,
23 please? And this is a December 11th, 2007 letter from Ken
24
Starr to you, and if you look on page two, at the front -- at
25
the top of the -- the top of the page there, he is -- this
EFTA00009170

=== Page 56 ===
Page 355
1
letter is complaining about an oral notification that Ms.
2
gave to a -- one of the defense -- one of the
3
victim's attorneys that a letter would be coming.
4
And so, Mr. Starr is writing you to complain about
5
it, and he mentions in -- later in that paragraph that we
6
have thought that the notification process had been in
7
abeyance until completion of our ongoing discussions with
8
respect to that process. So, were you having discussions
9
with Mr. Starr about the process at this time?
10
A
I don't recall discussions. I -- I think there was
11
at least correspondence, or -- I'm sorry, where are you? I
12
was reading the -- reading the letter. This -- I'm sorry,
13
where are you? What paragraph?
14
0
Let's take a look -- and it's been a long day.
15
Let's slow down here. We're on the second page of the Starr
16
letter.
17
A
Yes.
18
Q
And it would be this and that, the -- the language
19
in there -- in the second sentence, which goes towards the
20
bottom.
21
A
This notification, but quite apart from our
22
substantive concerns, which -- we had thought the
23
notification process had been in abeyance until the
24
completion. That appears not to be SO. This is
25
respectfully -- so, where does it imply that I was having --
EFTA00009171

=== Page 57 ===
Page 356
1
I don't recall communications with Mr. Starr, that's why I'm
2 curious where -- at least verbal communications. I'm curious
3 where you're reading that from.
4
Q
I thought he -- he's saying, we had thought that
5
the notification process had been held in abeyance until
6 completion of our ongoing discussions. Are you saying that
7 that's -- he's --
8
A
So, I don't know where that may have come from, and
9
I don't recall. I recall at one point -- I think I sent a
10
letter saying we'll hold off for a week. I don't recall the
11
date of that letter, while you review some matters. Where
12 the abeyance came from, I can't -- I can't speak to.
13
Q Okay. Let's go to Exhibit 41b. This is your
14
December 19th letter, and what I'd like to draw your
15
attention to is page two, the second to last paragraph there.
16
A
Yes.
17
Q
So, could you tell us how your decision making
18
around this paragraph, how you got to this decision?
19
A
So, so, you're asking me to recreate -- I -- at
20 some point, the issue clearly moved from
interacting
21 with defense counsel to -- to my desk, and my recollection 12
22 years after the fact is -- so, you're saying we shouldn't
23 notify them about the state proceeding, and sure, the
24 state -- this was negotiated between Epstein and the state
25 attorney.
EFTA00009172

=== Page 58 ===
Page 357
1
We did not direct the state proceeding. So,
2
whatever state process is appropriate for the state process
3
will be given. But with respect to the federal resolution,
4
we intend to provide victims with notice of the federal
5
resolution as required by law, and your question is if we
6
thought it was discretionary.
7
I recall our believing it was discretionary, but
8
you could also -- it doesn't hurt to in a letter say we're
9
kind of required to do this, and I think it was the right
10
thing to provide them notice of the federal resolution.
11
And once that resolution was reached, and part of
12
the key word is what the resolution is, my understanding is
13
that
made efforts to notify victims of that resolution
14
and let them know that -- that there would be a hearing the
15
following Monday, that they should attend, because these --
16
it would bring an end to the case.
17
0
Well, let's just back up real quick. As far as --
18
so, do you -- as far as the state attorney notifying people
19
of -- victims of the --
20
A
Right.
21
Q
-- state resolution, did you have any concerns with
22
that particular part of it?
23
A
So, difficult to recreate the thought process 12
24
years later, but ultimately you've got federal, and you've
25
got state, and the state attorney will do what the state
EFTA00009173

=== Page 59 ===
Page 358
1
attorney thinks is appropriate. It's not for me to direct
2
the state attorney.
3
I'm inferring, based on this language, it's not for
4
me to direct the state attorney, or for our office to direct
5
the state attorney's office on its obligations with respect
6
to the state outcome.
7
O
Okay. I'm just asking because, you know, the whole
8
case came to your office because of some issues with the
9
state attorney's resolution of the case. So, now it's going
10
back, and they're going to be in charge of the notification.
11
Did that raise any flags with you, or did you have any
12
concern about whether it would be done correctly, or done at
13
all?
14
A
So, again, you've -- I -- this has come up in
15
different contexts, and I think it's -- there was obviously a
16
concern about how it was being charged, but that doesn't mean
17
that they will not fulfill whatever obligations they have.
18
Let's not assume that -- that the state attorney's office is
19
full of bad actors.
20
Q Okay.
21
BY MS.
:
22
Q
But even if not assuming that they're full of bad
23
actors --
24
A
Right.
25
Q
-- it's going to be difficult for them to notify
EFTA00009174

=== Page 60 ===
Page 359
1
the victims, wasn't it, that they didn't even necessarily
2
know the same list as the federal victims, because you had
3
found more victims.
4
A
So, we could certainly have shared that list with
5
them. I mean, there are -- there are ways that this could
6
have happened. I don't know how -- what the communication
7
were, but as a conceptual matter, having the state notify
8
them of the state hearing and having the federal government
9
say, and this is the federal resolution, is consistent with
10
the law.
11
Q
But since the federal resolution is tied to the
12
state plea, is -- why not just combine the two of them in the
13
notification? Here's the federal resolution. We're tying it
14
to the state plea, and here's --
15
A
Right.
16
Q
-- the date of the state plea?
17
A
I can't speak to the why not. I can -- you know, I
18
can speak to my belief that this would be consistent with
19
law. That could also be one approach. I can't speak to why
20
A versus B.
21
Q
Did somebody instruct you that -- or did you have a
22
conversation consulting with somebody about whether this was
23
the better approach?
24
A
I -- I would have said -- you know, based on
25
practice -- not recollection, but based on practice, I would
EFTA00009175

=== Page 61 ===
Page 360
1 have sat down with
,
most likely, since he was handling
2 this matter, and we would have talked about it. I -- I would
3 not have sent this without running it by at least
, if
4 not other individuals in the office. I don't know if based
5 on your record there is there's e-mails with drafts, but
6 you know, every document that I'm aware of was sort of shared
7 within the management team, and this would have been one of
8 those.
9
Q
With respect to that one specific decision about
10 this should be at the discretion of the state's attorney, did
11 you consult with anybody in D.C. about that issue?
12
A
I don't recall consulting with someone in D.C.
13 about this issue. I recall a general perspective that the
14 CVRA as a technical matter did not attach because ultimately
15 this was not -- it hadn't -- this was not an indictment.
16
BY MR.
:
17
Q
Oh, can we -- before we leave this letter --
18
A
If I could, I -- I -- and I understand your
19 questions, but I feel some obligation to raise the tension
20 between, did you consult in D.C. versus should you allow D.C.
21 review.
22
And so, just, you know, we certainly were allowing
23 review, but U.S. Attorney's Offices don't consult on every
24 matter, especially offices that have the kind of
25 experience --
EFTA00009176

=== Page 62 ===
Page 361
1
MS.
Mm-hmm.
2
THE WITNESS -- that Miami does.
3
MR.
Back to me?
4
MS.
:
Mm-hmm.
5
MS.
Mm-hmm.
6
MS.
:
Back to you.
7
BY MR.
**
8
Q
Before we finish with this letter from the 19th,
9
can we look at page three, please? There is -- if you could
10
read the first paragraph on page three to yourself, please?
11
A Okay.
12
0
Could you -- in that section, you mention that
13
prosecutors had asked you to declare a breach, and you
14
resisted. Can you discuss that?
15
A
So -- sure. That's -- that's referencing -- I
16
think increasing frustrations by the -- by the prosecutors,
17
and I think that's reflected in contemporaneous e-mails
18
saying, why don't we just rip this up?
19
And I recall conversations with
,
and that goes
20
a little bit to what we talked about earlier, which is
21
concern that a unilateral breach would overlay not just the
22
initial issues that we had, and not just the fact that the
23
victims are getting older and the case isn't getting better,
24
but then we have, was the unilateral breach a valid breach,
25
or was it not a valid breach?
EFTA00009177

=== Page 63 ===
Page 362
1
And is -- is the delay justified or not justified.
2
And ultimately, that additional -- that additional
3
liability -- not liability, that additional legal uncertainty
4
was -- would have made the case even harder, because they
5
were very careful to always say there is no breach.
6
MS.
:
Mm-hmm.
7
THE WITNESS Let me -- let me address, because I
8
went on to read the next paragraph as well. And so let me
9
circle back to an earlier issue --
10
MR.
:
Great.
11
THE WITNESS -- because I at least want to address
12
it because the next paragraph then says, and it's clear that
13
I'm increasingly frustrated. It's against that -- that my
14
frustration with it appears to be an 11th hour appeal weeks
15
before the now scheduled July 4th plea date. That said, the
16
issues raised are important and must be fully vetted
17
irrespective of timelines concerns. We hope to preserve the
18
July 4th date.
19
I understand defense counsel shares our -- with
20
this in mind, and in the event the defense counsel may wish
21
to seek review of our determination in Washington, I spoke
22
this past Monday with Attorney Gen
confirming if it's
23
possible appearing to ask her to grant the potential request
24
for review, and to in fact review this case in an expedited
25
manner in an attempt to preserve the July 4th date.
EFTA00009178

=== Page 64 ===
Page 363
1
MR.
: January 4th.
2
MS.
: That address -- January.
3
THE WITNESS I'm sorry, the January 4th plea date.
4
Sorry, it's --
5
BY MS.
:
6
Q
And that addresses the question I was asking.
7
A
And that goes to the question you're asking, and
8
again, I'm recreating and I'm speculating. Having that
9
following the -- another 11th hour appeal here, I would say
10
I -- I wouldn't say, let's appeal this again. I think I'm
11
saying pretty clearly, it's against my frustration with what
12
appears to be an 11th hour appeal weeks before the now
13
scheduled July -- January 4th plea date that this is not an
14
invitation to do another appeal, because the appeal is
15
already in Washington.
16
But my -- my saying, if -- if we're going to do
17
this appeal, let's get it over and done with, then I'm sort
18
of speculating based on the language, so that we can get this
19
pled on January 4th, and let's not put it off until after the
20 holidays.
21
Q
But you did say, "To ask her to grant the potential
22
request," --
23
A
Which is --
24
Q
-- "for review."
25
A
Which is why I wanted to on my own raise it,
EFTA00009179

=== Page 65 ===
Page 364
1
because is that saying please appeal me, or is that saying --
2
this is an 11th hour appeal that you have now taken to
3
Washington.
4
It is December 19th. We're about to go into the
5
holidays. There's a January 4th plea date. This should not
6
be another way to put it off. And so, if you're going to do
7
this, I'm going to try to expedite it so we can get this
8
done.
9
Q
And in fact, it took until May --
10
A
Yeah.
11
Q
-- 15.
12
A
And it did, and apologies, I just realized my voice
13
is --
14
0
All right.
15
A
-- rising. So, I don't know if that's my
16
frustration at reading this again, or it's getting late, but
17
it -- but it was a frustrating matter. Apologies.
18
BY MR.
:
19
Q
Let's just move to Exhibit 46. So, this is an e-
20
mail from Ms.
to you and
discussing how she
21
has interviewed some victims that day. There's a mention
22
that one of the victims said that she would rather not get
23
any money and she'd have -- she would rather have Epstein
24
spend a significant time in jail. Did that piece of
25
information go into your character list at all about how the
EFTA00009180

=== Page 66 ===
Page 365
1 case should be resolved?
2
A
So, again, not based on recollection, because this
3 is maybe if not 12, 11 years ago.
4
Q Okay.
5
A
But at this point, there had been an agreement.
6 The agreement was signed. It was being reviewed. Based on
7 this e-mail, we're trying to get and expedite the criminal
8 division, because I -- I see it says please reach to
to
9 make her decision.
10
And I -- I think at this point, as I said, if -- if
11 we knew earlier - -- if we knew that it was going to go this
12 long and take all of this, I think we may have approached the
13 case differently, but we were so far along on this, there was
14 a signed agreement.
15
The United States can't unwind an agreement just
16 because it's frustrated, or just because some victim
17 indicates that they don't like it. That's not -- you know,
18 if the agreement is not legally valid, if there are some
19 other concerns, but I don't think this in and of itself would
20 have been grounds for unwinding an agreement.
21
Q Do you think it's misleading for the government to
22 have been interviewing these witnesses and preparing them for
23 a trial when there's already a signed NPA that resolves the
24 issue?
25
A
So, that was part of the judgement that there's a
EFTA00009181

=== Page 67 ===
Page 366
1
signed agreement, but based on the course of conduct, is that
2
agreement really an agreement that will be honored? And so
3
there was an ongoing investigation as well, because we didn't
4
know if we'd go to trial, and I know that -- not I know.
5
My recollection is that the judgement was until we
6
know that this agreement is really going to be performed
7
fully, that to inform victims of the possibility of civil
8
recovery is problematic, and -- and I can't say that
9
judgement's incorrect. That -- I think that's a valid
10
judgement.
11
10
Fair enough, and then the last question on this e-
12
mail is at the bottom, Ms.
invites you to attend
13
interviews with four of the girls who would be coming in the
14
following day.
15
A
Mm-hmm.
16
Q
Did -- did you attend?
17
A
I -- I did not, and as U.S. Attorney, I don't think
18
I attended -- that's not -- that wasn't typical for our
19
office.
20
Q
Would -- was that ever -- had you ever had that
21
type of request come from a line assistant?
22
A
Not to my recollection, but I also tended not to
23
have communications come from line assistants in the first
24 place.
25
0
Were you at all curious, given the -- you discussed
EFTA00009182

=== Page 68 ===
Page 367
1
the issues with the witnesses in this case --
2
A
Right.
3
Q
-- that, potential impeachment, and that -- you
4
know, that caused you to -- that went into the negotiation
5
phase. Did you have any interest in seeing these people --
6
even interacting with them personally so you could make your
7
own assessment?
8
A
So, any interest is --
9
Q
Would there be value in doing that?
10
A
So, we had very experienced prosecutors. It's not
11
just interacting with the -- the -- the victims were in a
12
really hard position. It's not -- how I would draw a
13
distinction between a victim being interviewed by an agent,
14
and how a victim holds up in court, in a public setting under
15
cross examination, and in that, I don't think anyone in the
16
office was questioning the pain or the suffering of the
17
victims. I think that the issues were how would they hold up
18
in court, which are uniquely trial issues.
19
0
Okay. Then let's move onto -- what -- what -- what
20
was your understanding that -- that the federal government
21
was going to do as far as the notification about the
22
resolution of the case?
23
A
So, my understanding was that once we believed that
24
the case was going to be -- that the -- that the plea was
25
going to go forward, that we would notify the victims of the
EFTA00009183

=== Page 69 ===
Page 368
1
resolution, and of the agreement, and how -- basically, how
2
it played out.
3
Q
Now, are you saying now -- now, you had agreed to
4
not notify -- well, did you -- I mean, you're -- one would
5
read your December 12th -- 19th letter as an agreement that
6
the federal government is not going to notify the victims of
7
the state plea. That's -- and that will end that part of the
8
case. Is that correct?
9
A
So, so, I would parse my letter differently, and
10
this is 12 years after the fact, and so this isn't based on
11
recollection, but on my reading and my understanding of the
12
course of conduct in this case, sitting here now.
13
2
Mm-hmm.
14
A
My understanding was that our office was
15
notified -- was it on a Friday afternoon?
16
Q
Yes.
17
A
That he would be pleading on Monday, and that at
18
that time,
made efforts to notify victims that he would
19
be pleading, and that that would terminate the federal
20
resolution of this matter, and that the victims should attend
21
that hearing, which wasn't the state resolution of the case.
22
It was the federal resolution.
23
Q
And so, you -- you're saying that the state plea
24
was also the federal resolution of the case?
25
A
Based on my understanding of what happened, that's
EFTA00009184

=== Page 70 ===
Page 369
1
how my recollection -- based on having reviewed the record,
2
that's how I believe it proceeded, although I think
3
attempted to do so, couldn't reach some attorneys, and
4
exercised best efforts to let them know, but did not get
5
ahold of all of the victims --
6
Q
Let's --
7
A
-- over the weekend.
8
0
Before we get too deep into that, let's just take a
9
quick look at Exhibit 51. So, this is an e-mail forwarded to
10
you from
from January -- June 25th, 2008. So, that is
11
five days prior to the plea in this case.
12
A
Yes.
13
0
Or, the state court plea, and the attachment there,
14
you'll notice is a letter with a notification of identified
15
victims, and the letter is written, would you disagree --
16
it's written with, on June 30th, Epstein pled guilty. Do you
17
see that?
18
A
Yes.
19
&
So, the inference -- it appears to be that this
20
letter was to be sent after the plea.
21
A
I -- I see that. I also -- based on my review of
22
the record, where I think I'm recalling the
23
affidavit, where she said that she made an attempt to notify
24
the victims as soon as she was made aware that he would be
25
pleading -- that he would be pleading in state court.
EFTA00009185

=== Page 71 ===
Page 370
1
0
Well, the -- what
says in affidavit --
2
A
Correct.
3
Q
-- I believe is that she made notification, and the
4
police department -- Chief
police department made
5
notifications. Is that -- is that correct? Does that ring a
6
bell?
7
A
I --
8
MR. TODD: Do you have a copy of the affidavit, so
9
we can just look at it?
10
MR.
: Do you have
affidavit e-
11
mail?
12
MS.
: It's right here. One copy.
13
THE WITNESS I'll hand it back.
14
MR.
: Almost done.
15
THE WITNESS So, relevant to this paragraph 34, and
16
then another paragraph, these and other attacks and efforts
17
to avoid the NPA's terms led the FBI investigative team, the
18
office, and me to conclude that prosecution at trial remained
19
a possibility, and we should prepare as such.
20
This meant that the victim notification letters had
21
to cease, because one, we no longer knew whether Epstein
22
would perform under the NPA, and hence, we did not know
23
whether providing information about the NPA would be
24
accurate, until we believed that Epstein, through his
25
counsel, would attempt to use victim notification concerning
EFTA00009186

=== Page 72 ===
Page 371
1
the NPA to suggest that victims had been encouraged by the
2
FBI or the office to overstate the victimization for monetary
3
compensation. And then fast forwarding because you can read
4
it on your own.
5
On Friday, June 27th at approximately 4:15, I
6
received a copy of Epstein's proposed state plea agreement,
7
and learned that Epstein's state court change of plea was
8
scheduled for 8:30 a.m. on Monday.
9
The Palm Beach Police Department and I attempted to
10
notify the victims about the hearing in the short time
11
available to us. I specifically called to Attorney Edwards
12
to provide notice to his clients regarding the hearing.
13
I believe it was during this. I never told that
14
the state charges involved other victims, and neither the
15
state court charging instrument nor the factual proffer
16
limited the procurement of prostitution charges to a specific
17 cell.
18
So, that was what I was referring to. Again, I
19 am -- I am basing this based on my review of the affidavit
20 and not on recollection of how this may or may not have
21
proceeded 12 years ago.
22
2
Okay. You know, would it surprise you to learn
23
that Ms.
only communicated with Mr. Edwards that
24
day? That's because she was under the direction from a
25
manger to only contact Edwards regarding this -- the
EFTA00009187

=== Page 73 ===
Page 372
1
potential plea for that Monday?
2
A
The affidavit said she attempted to notify the
3
victims, so I can't speak to that.
4
Q
Okay.
5
A
And I don't have an independent recollection of
6
this going back 12 years.
7
Q
Were you aware that Ms.
was directed to
8
have no communication with the state's attorney's office, and
9
probably during the later period of the case in 2008?
10
A
Not to my recollection.
11
0
Okay, so did you have -- would you not recall
12
hearing anyone directing her to not communicate with the
13
state attorney's office?
14
A
I can't speak 12 years later, what role I may or
15
may not have had. I question how, if we need -- if there is
16
a -- an attempt to schedule a plea in all that, how can there
17
not be communication? But I can't -- I can't say whether I
18
did or did not. When I say I have no recollection, I mean
19
that in the broadest sense of the word.
20
Q
Okay. In your December 19th letter, you -- you did
21
agree that the state attorney's office would notify the
22
state's victims, right?
23
A
Yes.
24
2
And do you have any idea how that was to be
25
accomplished?
EFTA00009188

=== Page 74 ===
Page 373
1
A
I can't speak to that, no.
2
Q
And would you have any knowledge of who the state
3
victims are?
4
A
I would infer that -- that our office would have
5
had sufficient communication with the state attorney's office
6
to communicate who the victims were in this case, because it
7
was an ongoing -- it was an ongoing matter, and -- but I
8
don't know.
9
Q
Do you want to go on?
10
MS.
Okay. Are you -- are you done with
11
your -- that portion at least, for the moment?
12
MR.
:
Yes. Thank you.
13
BY MS.
:
14
2
I'd just want to clarify something you said a
15
moment --
16
A
Sure.
17
Q
-- ago, Mr. Acosta. You said you referred to the
18
agreement, the NPA, as having been -- it was signed and was
19
being reviewed. Were you talking about Washington?
20
A
Right.
21
Q
The criminal division, but we established earlier,
22
did we not, that the NPA was not the subject of the criminal
23
division review. They expressly declined to review it.
24
A
I stand corrected.
25
Q
Okay. I just wanted to be clear on the record.
EFTA00009189

=== Page 75 ===
Page 374
1
Thank you. So, we -- we've had a lot of conversation about
2
facts. We are fortunate in this case to have a plethora of
3
documents upon which we can rely even 12 years or so after
4
the fact, and we've tried to plum your -- the depths of your
5
memory as to the events.
6
Are there any facts -- any conversations, any
7
incidents, anything based on the questions that you've heard
8
here today that you recall, have recalled, that you want to
9
tell us about, want us to know?
10
A
So, give me a minute to just sort of think this
11
through.
12
Q
Of course.
13
A
I think we've covered most of the issues pretty
14
clearly. I guess I would have two general comments. The
15
first is, whether folks agree or disagree with the initial
16
two years, you know, registration and restitution.
17
The office's focus was on having Mr. Epstein go to
18
jail at a time when, from our perspective, these -- these
19
cases were, at least presented with these facts, federally at
20
least unusual, and that most trafficking cases involved
21
different -- a different sort of nexus.
22
It involved bringing individuals into the country,
23
or holding individuals against their will, or doing something
24
like that, and -- and this will go to my second point which
25
is, you know, sitting here, we now see several high profile
EFTA00009190

=== Page 76 ===
Page 375
1
individuals who abused power, and have now been prosecuted --
2
who were known at the time who abused drugs, like Bill Cosby
3 and -- who were -- there were rumors at the time, and you
4
know, and -- and so, looking back, maybe it was the right
5 call.
6
Maybe it wasn't the right call, but there is some
7
degree of -- I'm not sure what the right adjective is.
8
Frustration, that -- and certainly, some of this goes to me,
9
but I think a lot of this goes to
,
and the individuals
10 involved, that the attempt to put someone in jail as opposed
11
to decline the case and say this is just a state case,
12 that -- that the -- that the federal issues are too tricky,
13 that ultimately, this is sort of novel interpretations, that
14 the attempt to come up with an outcome has rebounded in the
15 way that it has, and I'm not -- I'm not saying, look, that
16 that's life, and I understand that.
17
But I do think it's important to look back on this,
18 and try to be in the shoes of the thought process in 2006 and
19
'07 when trafficking prosecutions were fairly new, when, you
20 know, more so than today, some jurors may have looked at this
21 as prostitution, and were -- perhaps more so than today --
22 judge's tolerance for victim shaming may have both caused
23 more hesitation on the part of victims, but also created more
24
issues at trial. And so, I think we've touched on that, but
25 I think as we sort of wrap up --
EFTA00009191

=== Page 77 ===
Page 376
1
0
Mm-hmm.
2
A
-- this portion of it, it's important to just
3
restate that.
4
0
And -- and to -- in addition, are there any facts
5
that you -- conversations, or anything that you --
6
A
Fair, you did ask this.
7
Q
-- that we have -- that we've not really elicited
8
from you that you want us to know? And to be clear, you'll
9
have an opportunity to --
10
A
Right.
11
2
-- supplement this.
12
A
Not that I can think of --
13
Q
All right.
14
A
-- sitting here.
15
Q
All right. How do you respond to public criticism
16
that the defense attorneys -- the Epstein defense team, were
17
gaining extraordinary access to an influence on prosecutors
18
from the line level all the way up through the department?
19
A
So, I would point out early on in the case -- when
20
I said early, you pushed back, but from my perspective, early
21
on in the case. Not when it was first investigated, but when
22
it first bubbled up for decision.
23
Q
And that would be mid-2007?
24
A
Mid-2007. June-ish, May to June 2007, May, June,
25
July. We determined, here are -- here is what we'd need for
EFTA00009192

=== Page 78 ===
Page 377
1
resolution. And I -- I think I addressed some of this in the
2
Daily Beast's letter.
3
Q
Mm-hmm.
4
A
Because we were receiving criticism back then, and
5
I think that letter has been misconstrued to some extent,
6
because it was not, oh, here are influential people, we're
7
backing off.
8
It was, we, early on, set three criteria. Two
9
years, registration, restitution. Despite all these
10
attorneys, despite all these appeals, despite all these
11 efforts, the office did not budge with the caveat of the 24
12 to 18 months, which we've discussed, and from my perspective,
13
despite all of that, I backed the office in sticking by that
14
resolution in the various appeals to Washington.
15
And so ultimately, it was a year-long process, but
16 we ended up a year later exactly where we started with the
17
caveat of the 24 to 18. And so, to the extent that there was
18
influence, there was -- there was no change in position.
19
Q
Well, my question was access. That this team of
20
defense attorneys --
21
A
Right.
22
Q
-- had extraordinary access, that they asked for
23
meetings, they --
24
A
Right.
25
Q
-- pressed for -- with communications, and they had
EFTA00009193

=== Page 79 ===
Page 378
1
that access. Was -- did that seem extraordinary to you?
2
A
So, they asked for a meeting with me before the
3
agreement was signed.
4
Q
Mm-hmm.
5
A
I granted that. That's not the first and only time
6
that I granted a meeting to -- to defense attorneys. I don't
7
think it's atypical, particularly as a case is coming to --
8
to resolution -- for a U.S. Attorney to sit down and meet
9
with opposing counsel, and I can think of several cases where
10
that happened. There was certainly a lot of access in
11
Washington. I would speak to -- you know, I think that's a
12
question to direct to this building.
13
2
Mm-hmm.
14
A
Because the process here was lengthy, and
15
frustrating. But I think we successfully held firm in our
16
positions, despite all the process in this building.
17
Q
And again, my focus is not on your response, but on
18
the access.
19
A
And --
20
Q
Based on the prominence and the -- the prominence
21
of the defense attorneys. If these had been local attorneys,
22
your sort of average criminal defense attorney from, you
23
know, name where they hang out in --
24
A
Right.
25
Q
-- Miami coming to you and pressing for this, you,
EFTA00009194

=== Page 80 ===
Page 379
1
writ large, the department, do you believe they would have
2
had the same or a comparable level of access?
3
A
So --
4
0
I don't know the answer. I'm asking.
5
A
Yeah. So, I guess I'd respond this way. If an
6
attorney after meeting with my management staff asked for a
7
meeting with me, I believe I did and would have granted it,
8
and I can think of several matters on which those types of
9
meetings were granted. And so, that was not unusual.
10
Q
All right.
11
A
With respect to the back and forth after the
12
agreement was signed? This was an unusual agreement, and to
13
some extent, as a result, the back and forth quickly
14
elevated, particularly because matters would elevate in
15
particular when they were being addressed at main justice.
16 That would be one natural way for matters to elevate within
17
the office. And so, the fact that they were being addressed
18
and reviewed, and letters were coming here, would naturally
19
elevate the way the matter was treated in Miami.
20
Q
In particular, Jay Lefkowitz had ready access to --
21
of course, he was involved in the negotiations with
22
directly in creating the NPA, but after that, it appears from
23
the record that he was often contacting you, and running or
24
going above the people who worked for you, and on numerous
25
occasions, you -- again, my characterization -- reprimanded
EFTA00009195

=== Page 81 ===
Page 380
1 him, or instructed him not to do that, and to direct his
2
communications to the line attorney or her supervisors. Is
3 that -- is that --
4
A
I --
5
0
-- a fair characterization?
6
A
Yes, on -- I think on several occasions, I said
7
direct them, and again, that was after the agreement was
8
signed, but yes.
9
Q
But there were many issues still pending, correct?
10
A
Yes.
11
Q
Okay, and that was his ability to reach out to you
12
as a function of your personal association. Is that fair?
13
A
So, I don't think that's a fair characterization.
14
I think it -- you could also say that it was the ability
15 of -- a function of his -- his insistence in not doing what
16 we asked, and the fact that in a typical course, a Miami
17
attorney would not have done this, because they would have to
18
interact with the office on an ongoing basis.
19
Q
Mm-hmm.
20
A
And so, the repeat litigator behaves very
21
differently than the one time razed earth litigator.
22
Q
Mm-hmm. Razed, R-a-z-e-d?
23
A
Correct.
24
O
Is it reasonable to -- for us to understand that
25 you have followed the media coverage of what happened in the
EFTA00009196

=== Page 82 ===
Page 381
1
Epstein case over the years?
2
A
Yes.
3
Q
In your view overall, and in whatever specific
4
respect you wish to address, is -- has it been accurate or
5
not so?
6
A
I think it has been inaccurate in several ways, and
7
we can go through them, but --
8
Q
If you could just tick those off?
9
A
So, I think it's inaccurate in that it has been
10
characterized as our approving a state plea, and --
11
0
Mm-hmm.
12
A
-- the complexity of this case was a state plea,
13
and we were deferring to -- in favor of a state prosecution
14
has been lost, and it's something that I have attempted to
15
correct, but it's very difficult to sort of explain that in
16
the media.
17
You know, this is a bad analogy, and so I haven't
18
used it in the media, but I've thought about it, and so I'll
19
share it. So, after the Jessie Smollett plea in Chicago,
20
there was some discussion of whether the federal government
21
should bring charges, and I remember the media saying that,
22
and I haven't used this analogy, because I don't want to
23
compare, and I think it would be disrespectful to compare the
24
facts of that case to what happened to these victims, and I
25
still -- and I don't want the comparison to be drawn, but
EFTA00009197

=== Page 83 ===
Page 382
1
there is a legal comparison, right?
2
The U.S. Attorney in Chicago could have stepped in
3
and said, whether or not the state takes this plea, we may
4
investigate this federally, and sort of stopped that plea
5
from going forward, or at least put a wrench in those gears,
6
or the U.S. Attorney could have pursued that under petite
7
policy, and did not.
8
And so, our stepping into this sort of reminded me
9
of how many times cases that are viewed as a manifest
10
injustice do occur, and yet the federal government does not
11
step in? And the fact that we stepped in has been construed
12
as, this became a federal prosecution, and sort of going --
13
going to -- is it
, or --
14
Q
.
15
A
.
sort of question earlier, the
16
distinction between -- it was not a manifest injustice versus
17
this was the right outcome, is something that I think has
18
been lost in the coverage of this matter.
19
I think a second issue that has been lost in the
20
coverage of this matter is, there are references to Prince
21
Andrew, and Alex Dershowitz and Governor Richardson and Bill
22
Clinton, and thing happening in London, and the so called
23
Lolita Express where things may have happened on airplanes.
24
And so, this is viewed from the public as this international
25
matter, where the victims were local, the actions, to my
EFTA00009198

=== Page 84 ===
Page 383
1
recollection, was local.
2
And so, the distinction between this Palm Beach
3
incident and what the media likes to cover, which is, you
4
know, was, you know, did Mr. Epstein force a minor to have
5
sexual relations with Prince Andrew, is a very different fact
6
pattern both in terms of the public perception of forcing a
7
minor to have sex with a third party, that they have -- you
8
know, that is outside the solicitation context.
9
It's sort of -- I'm travelling with these women,
10
and forcing them to have sex, versus a more local matter
11
that -- I don't want to say solicitation, because I think
12
we've covered that, but that some may view as that.
13
Q
Mm-hmm.
14
A
And I think those are two major elements --
15
0
Right.
16
A
-- that have been lost in the coverage.
17
Q
The case has been criticized as having involved
18
improper influences, or favors, or payments that affected
19
decisions that were made within your office, and you're aware
20
of all those --
21
A
Yeah.
22
Q
-- allegations as well. In connection with this
23
case. Were you yourself ever offered any -- any payments, or
24
any favors, or any promises or job assistance or anything
25
like that --
EFTA00009199

=== Page 85 ===
Page 384
1
A
No.
2
Q
-- in connection with this case?
3
A
No.
4
0
And to your knowledge, was there any such offer to
5
anyone associated with this case in your office?
6
A
Not to my knowledge.
7
Q
It's been asserted also that the -- the handling of
8
the case in the office was affected by Epstein's wealth and
9
influence in the Palm Beach community. Do you -- what is
10
your -- what's your response to that criticism?
11
A
Again, my response would be, you know, sometime in
12
May or June we came up with these three points, and we stuck
13
to them, and -- and you know, I -- despite all of this, you
14
know, when people make these assertions, somewhere along the
15
way, the fact that we stuck to those points is lost and is
16
not talked about.
17
And so, we did stick to those points. You know,
18
and -- and questioned whether the case would have come to us
19
in the first place but for -- and so, you know, I think that
20
could also go the other way.
21
Q
I don't understand that.
22
A
That it's highly unusual for a case to be brought
23
to the state -- to the U.S. Attorney's Office after the state
24
attorney declined -- not declines, but --
25
Q
Fails to fully prosecute?
EFTA00009200

=== Page 86 ===
Page 385
1
A
Right, and so, so one question that at -- that also
2
doesn't get asked is, you know, to what extent was this case
3
brought to us in the first place because of this, because of
4
his profile?
5
Q
In other words, are you suggesting that his wealth
6
and influence in the community affected the state
7
authorities?
8
A
I'm not suggesting that. What I'm suggesting is
9
the case came in, the case proceeded, and someone can make
10
the argument that the only reason that Chief
brought
11
it to us was because it had such a high profile -- are there
12
other matters that take place in Palm Beach that a state
13
attorney declines in the first place that isn't brought to
14
the state attorney because it doesn't rise to that --
15
Q
You mean to the U.S. Attorney.
16
A
-- to the -- to the U.S. Attorney because it
17
doesn't rise to that profile.
18
Q
All right. All right.
19
BY MS.
:
20
Q
Well, in fairness, he might've done it because of
21
the number of victims too, right?
22
A
He may have. I don't know. What I'm suggesting is
23
we tried to treat it fairly, not looking at, hey, how wealthy
24
is he, but also not saying we need to do this because he is
25
so wealthy.
EFTA00009201

=== Page 87 ===
Page 386
1
BY MS.
:
2
Q
What do you think about the media's treatment of
3
the line assistant,
4
A
I think she -- I wish her name wouldn't be in the
5
media. You know, to some extent, U.S. Attorneys, when they
6
take the job, realize that part of their job is to take the
7
slings and arrows.
8
You know, there are instances when AUSAs were
9
accused of misconduct, and -- and I always sort of felt that
10
that was -- I don't want to say below the belt, but that's
11
not why they take the pay cuts that they take to go into
12
federal service, and you know, I think the media coverage of
13
this case has been unfair, and has lost a lot of the
14
complexities.
15
It's not surprising, because I mean, here, we're
16
talking about -- about a lot of those complexities, and it
17
takes a fairly sophisticated discussion, but I think it's
18
particularly unfair on
.
19
2
In your attorney's written response, he used the
20
term relentless for -- to characterize the team of lawyers --
21
the defense lawyers, and in that Daily Beast article that
22 you --
23
A
Right.
24
&
-- wrote, you referred to the yearlong assault on
25
the prosecution and the prosecutors, you noted that the
EFTA00009202

=== Page 88 ===
Page 387
1
defense was, "More aggressive than any of which I or the
2
prosecutors in my office had previously encountered." You
3
noted that the defense investigated prosecutors and tried to
4
disqualify two, and I believe that those two are
5
and
.
Is that --
6
A
That is correct.
7
Q
All right.
8
A
Yeah.
9
Q
And you also noted, or asserted that there were
10
investigations into the family lives of individual
11
prosecutors, accusations of bias and misconduct against
12
individual prosecutors, and even the threat of a book on
13
prosecutorial zeal. Do you still regard that
14
characterization as accurate?
15
A
I do. You know, whether I would use those same
16
words now, we can spend a lot of time talking about it, and
17
I'd want --
18
Q
All right.
19
A
-- to think about, but I do think that's accurate.
20
I think this really was a razed earth type of matter, and in
21
the office's typical interactions, the prosecutors know they
22
have to come back to the office. And so, they would not --
23
sorry, not the prosecutors. It's getting late, though. The
24
defense counsel.
25
And so, they would not -- it's not just the
EFTA00009203

=== Page 89 ===
Page 388
1
accusations against the attorneys, but the
2
mischaracterization. I -- you know, I could go through the
3
record, and there's several instances where my words, or
4
other AUSAs words are being mischaracterized, or where --
5
going back to one of the
e-mails, people walk out of the
6
meeting believing they have an agreement, and then that's
7
unwound, and -- that that is not -- I don't know if that's
8
typical in Washington, but that's certainly not typical in
9
the Miami office.
10
0
All right, in that Daily Beast article, I think you
11
also used the term peccadillos.
12
A
Yes.
13
Q
What did you mean by that in particular?
14
A
Could I see the -- could I see the --
15
Q
Mm-hmm. I was afraid you'd ask that. I have it
16
right in front of me, and I don't at the moment, but --
17
MS.
:
Are you talking about the to whom it
18
may concern letter?
19
MR.
: Yes.
20
THE WITNESS Yes.
21
BY MS.
:
22
Q
Yes. Thank you, and it's a reference on the second
23
numbered page of this copy, to personal peccadillos, in the
24
middle of the page.
25
A
Also, individual prosecutors and their families
EFTA00009204

=== Page 90 ===
Page 389
1
looking for personal peccadillos that provide a -- so,
2
was, to my recollection, she wasn't investigated.
y
3
4
and I haven't encountered that in other cases.
5
I recall it -- at one point, they also looked in
, and
6
family, and his background, and I thought that was a
7
little out of line.
8
Q
9
10
11
A
12
13
14
OF
15
A
16
17
18
19
20
21
Q
22
23
A
I
24
Q
25
EFTA00009205

=== Page 91 ===
Page 390
1
A
2
3
4
it the point I was trying to convey is, this is
5
not a -- this is not typical behavior by defense counsel.
6
0 Did --
7
A
And despite all this, my point was, despite all
8
this, we did not budge.
9
Q
And again, that's not the focus of --
10
A Right.
11
O
-- of this question.
12
13
14
15
16
A
17
Q
18
19
20
Q
All right. Are there any other examples where
21
defense counsel came to you that have not otherwise been
22
addressed with --
23
A
I'm --
24
Q
-- allegations about someone --
25
A
I'm hesitating --
EFTA000092

=== Page 92 ===
Page 391
1
Q
-- else --
2
A
-- just because I'm trying to think through, and
3
not to my recollection, no.
4
2
Did they ever raise or imply that there were --
5
that there was information regarding you of whatever respect,
6
that was in the nature of a sort of a threat, or a veiled
7 warning?
8
A
So, the book reference was that I might be
9
personally embarrassed by pursuing this matter, because I
10
would be the subject of a chapter in a book on prosecutorial
11
overreach.
12
Q
And who was going to write that book? Do you know?
13
A
Professor Dershowitz.
14
Q
Mm-hmm. Okay. Did you consider him a professional
15
friend at all?
16
A
I had not, to my recollection, met him. I -- I
17
understand in this letter I sort of grouped him in.
18
Q
Mm-hmm.
19
A
But I would -- I'd say for the record that it's
20
hard to know what my intent was in 2011, but that's for
21
simplicity of grouping individuals, because I did go to
22 Harvard.
23
I may have run into him at Harvard, but he was not
24 my professor, and I don't -- I didn't work for him as a
25 teaching assistant. I had some interest in criminal law, so
EFTA00009207

=== Page 93 ===
Page 392
1
I may have chatted with him, but -- but that would have been
2 it.
3
Q
And did you consult with him at all in connection
4
with your efforts -- your interest in potentially teaching or
5
being involved in the sort of the law school world, either
6 at Harvard, or at Florida International, or anywhere else?
7
A
Not to my recollection. At some point when I
8
applied for the deanship -- I wasn't aware of the deanship
9
until -- so, let's -- let's take this -- let's take this in
10 part. I thought about looking at Harvard for a teaching
11
position. To my recollection, I never followed through on
12 that.
13
Q
Mm-hmm.
14
A
I knew Elena Kagan, and may have had a conversation
15
with her that would have been a preliminary, how does this
16 process work? But I don't recall taking it -- if I took it
17
that far, and I'm not saying that I did -- -- this was a long
18
time ago -- I never sort of went through -- the way law
19
schools hire is a very they call it the "meat market."
20
Q
Mm-hmm.
21
A
Take that for what it's worth. It's something that
22
happens at the hotels here, at the -- at the Marriott here
23 in -- on Connecticut, and it's a very formalized process, and
24
I never --
25
Q
Mm-hmm.
EFTA00009208

=== Page 94 ===
Page 393
1
A
-- went through that. I don't recall any
2
conversation with Professor Dershowitz about that. To the
3
extent I was thinking about it, it'd be natural for me to
4
talk to
but I don't recall talking to him. With
5
respect to Professor Dershowitz, with respect to FIU, the
6
dean process is very decentralized.
7
To the extent a faculty member spoke to him, I
8
don't know. To my recollection, and again, this is a long
9
time ago, I did not ask him for a reference or a letter or
10
something to that regard, although I may have. It was a
11
long, long time ago. I was also no longer active in this
12
case at the time.
13
Q
All right, and what about with respect to that same
14
process on your part, Ken Starr, who actually was a dean of a
15
law school at the time? Did -- did he provide you with a
16
reference, or --
17
A
Not --
18
Q
-- advice?
19
A
Not to my recollection.
20
Q
All right.
21
A
As -- as the letter from -- from Ken at the end,
22
there was some -- by the time this was over, there was some
23
degree of tension between us on my resolution of this matter.
24
Q
But it also appeared to be tension that both of you
25
were eager to leave aside.
EFTA00009209

=== Page 95 ===
Page 394
1
A
I'm a big believer, and I had good relationships
2
with the defense bar. I think lawyers can disagree and not
3
be disagreeable, and we would be a better profession if we
4
all learned to do that.
5
Q
So would the world.
6
A
Yes.
7
Q
There is an -- sort of investigative journalist
8
author named
?
9
A
Yes.
10
Q
Do you know that name?
11
A
Yes.
12
Q
Did you ever speak with her?
13
A
So, she was the recipient of the do -- to whom it
14
may concern letter at the Daily Beast.
15
0
Oh, really?
16
A
Yes.
17
Q
All right. All right. Thank you. I didn't -- we
18
didn't know that. Did she comment back to you on it?
19
A
It was a long time ago. I don't -- I don't recall.
20
Q
So, she wrote a book called trafficking. Have you
21
read that --
22
A
She did --
23
Q
-- about this case?
24
A
She did. I haven't read it recently, but I read it
25
a while ago.
EFTA00009210

=== Page 96 ===
Page 395
1
0
And she says in that book that you told her a few
2
years after the NPA was signed that as she writes, "He felt
3
incapable of going up against those eight powerful attorneys.
4
He felt his career was at stake." Did you say that to her?
5
A
Not to my recollection, and what I tried to do was,
6
for the record, provide this letter to her, and the purpose
7
of this letter was to say the exact opposite, which is -- and
8
you know, we have this -- you know, and she and the New York
9
Times, and I think the New York Times called it -- what --
10
what's the word? Like, apologia? Does anyone know what --
11
Q
Apologia.
12
A
Apologia.
13
Q
It's a -- it's an --
14
A
I --
15
0
-- apology. It's a fancy way of saying --
16
A
Yeah.
17
0
-- you're --
18
A
Yeah.
19
Q
-- explaining yourself.
20
A
Yeah. I looked it up, and it's a little more
21
derogatory than explaining yourself, because I felt a need --
22
Q
Mm-hmm.
23
A
-- to look it up, but the New York Times called
24
this letter an apologia.
25
Q
Mm-hmm.
EFTA00009211

=== Page 97 ===
Page 396
1
A
And this was recently, and I say this, because when
2
folks read this letter, they read it as, this is why, you
3
know, we had these -- they -- I think sometimes they
4
selectively read language. The prosecutors and agents in
5
this case -- and what followed was a yearlong assault. I
6
used the word assault as it was more aggressive than anything
7
in which I or the prosecutors in my office had previously
8
encountered.
9
Excuse me. Mr. Epstein hired an army of legal
10
superstars, Harvard Professor Dershowitz, former judge and
11
then Pepperdine lodging Ken Starr, former deputy assistant to
12
the president then Kirkland & Ellis law partner Jay
13
Lefkowitz, and several others, including prosecutors that
14
formerly worked in the U.S. Attorney's Office, the child
15
exploitation section -- I'm not sure who that was -- of the
16
Department of Defense, and they --
17
Q
Department of Defense?
18
A
No, no, in the child exploitation and obscenity
19
section of the Justice Department. Defense attorneys next
20
requested a meeting with me. And they read that as saying
21
these -- there were all these powerful lawyers in the case,
22
but they don't then go on to talk about, despite this army of
23
attorneys, the office held firm to the terms first presented
24
to Mr. Black in the original meeting.
25
Q
So, is it your -- so, what I understand you saying
EFTA00009212

=== Page 98 ===
Page 397
1
is that the panoply, this pantheon of attorneys did not have
2
the influence on you that's alleged?
3
A
And -- and the purpose of this letter was to say,
4
despite all this --
5
Q
Right.
6
A
-- we held firm. So, how can you say that there's
7
influence if we held firm?
8
&
So, the --
9
A
And I would -- I would also -- I'm sorry.
10
Q
No, no.
11
A
I would also note, and I think we talked about
12
this, that those terms were developed before many of these
13
individuals came on board.
14
&
Mm-hmm.
Mm-hmm.
15
A
So, it's not like these terms were developed
16
because, oh, now these individuals are on board.
17
Q
All right. And we haven't, of course, talked about
18
the whole work release issue, but --
19
A
Yeah.
20
Q
-- I think that speaks -- the record --
21
A
Yeah.
22
Q
-- speaks for itself on that.
23
A
Yeah.
24
BY MS.
:
25
O
So, I'm not sure I'm clear. Did you have an
EFTA00009213

=== Page 99 ===
Page 398
1 interview, or give a -- have a conversation with Ms.
2 aside -- or, just sent her this letter?
3
A
I spoke to her briefly saying, I'm not going to
4 speak on the record. I'm not going to address even off the
5 record details of this case, but I will provide a letter to
6 you. I've had a lot of requests over the years to talk about
7 this case.
8
There were enough requests coming that I thought it
9 important to provide a statement to defend the actions of the
10 office. I didn't want it to be to one reporter in
11 particular, because I did not want to play favorites. And
12 so, I provided a to whom it may concern letter that was a
13 public letter, but then I gave it to her.
14
MS.
: All right. Go on?
15
BY MS.
:
16
Q
And just one thing on the work release issue. Did
17 you tell the defense that that the U.S. Attorney's Office
18
would not object if he got work release as long as he was
19
treated like every -- like every other defendant?
20
A
So -- so, I don't recall what I may or may not have
21 said specifically around work release. My recollection of
22
our general position is, you're pleading in state court to
23 incarceration of 18 -- it's now 18 months, it was 24.
24
Whether it was 18 or 24, this would have been -- any
25 conversation I would have had would have been after the
EFTA00009214

=== Page 100 ===
Page 399
1 agreement was signed.
2
It's our expectation that he be treated just like
3 everyone else, if -- if it was typical to provide that kind
4 of work release in these cases, that would have been news to
5 me. I certainly would not have expected that, and I think
6 based on our subsequent communications with the state
7 attorney's office, that was not what our office envisioned.
8
By the same token, I don't think our office envisioned that
9 he be treated worth that the typical offender.
10
Q
Well, did you know that
was in fact trying to
11
make sure that he didn't get work release?
12
A
Yes. And so, I don't see any reason why I would
13
have contradicted that, is -- is my point.
14
0
All right. You've mentioned a number of times that
15
the sexual offender registration was the -- one of the three
16 important prongs for you and the office.
17
A
Yes.
18
&
What was it that you saw the sex offender
19
registration as accomplishing?
20
A
So, to some extent it's putting the community on
21
notice that, irrespective of whether he's in Florida or
22
elsewhere, he's a registered sex offender. To some extent, I
23 don't know if this is -- but I'll say it anyhow. This was a
24 serious crime, and there is a public sanction associated with
25 this, and I thought to the extent that he committed the types
EFTA00009215

=== Page 101 ===
Page 400
1
of acts that typically are associated with registration that
2
that should go forward, but the primary motivation there was,
3 put the public on notice that he is a registered sex
4 offender.
5
Q
And did you see any conflict with that as being a
6
goal with the provision in the NPA that was -- that the NPA
7
was going to be kept confidential, and the communications in
8
which the -- in which the U.S. Attorney's Office was having
9
with the defense about continuing to keep things
10
confidential? Do you see any inconsistency between those
11
two?
12
A
No, in that I -- I genuinely was of the opinion
13
that this NPA would go public, and certainly his public --
14
his state court plea would be public, and his registration
15
would be public. And so, it would -- what he did would be
16 known.
17
Q
And given what you know about these office's back
18
and forth on notifying the victims, do you think, looking at
19
the entire course of conduct of the office, that the victims
20
were treated fairly, and with dignity and respect?
21
A
So, I want to be careful, not because I'm fudging,
22
but because it's a complex question. If, looking back in
23
hindsight, we knew that there would be a -- what was it? Two
24
eight months period, when -- do we have an agreement, do we
25
not have agreement, is this concluded, is this not concluded?
EFTA00009216

=== Page 102 ===
Page 401
1
Is this an ongoing investigation?
2
How do we deal with all these notification issues?
3 If we had foreseen all of that, I think I've said before,
4
that -- that something I certainly think should have been
5
considered, and it's very possible we would have done
6
something very different.
7
But that was not foreseen. And so, it's then a
8
very difficult judgement to be made, because there is an
9
agreement. There is concern as to if we have to go to trial,
10 how do you address this?
11
There is, you know, going to the
12 affidavit, at least one instance -- and I'm merging my
13
recollection here, and -- and my knowledge after the fact,
14
because your question sort of calls for an after the fact
15 assessment.
16
So, you've got the
affidavit, which
17
points out that defense counsel did all they could, but is
18
using this to impeach and weaken witness credibility in a
19 case where there's already questions around witness
20 credibility.
21
And so, it's a very imperfect situation with
22
discretionary judgements to -- to do the best, to sort of
23 balance all these factors. Is that the best outcome?
24
Probably not, but that's where the -- that's where we were,
25
and that's why I think this case would have been very
EFTA00009217

=== Page 103 ===
Page 402
1
differently if -- what was it, October 24 --
2
O
Mm-hmm.
3
A
-- he would have gone in and plead and taken his
4
time and served his time like so many other people have done
5
as opposed to mount all these legal challenges that we then
6
had to work through.
7
O
And I'll preface my question with the -- with the
8
fact that we're still investigating this. We've made no
9
conclusions --
10
A
Mm-hmm.
11
Q
-- with respect to this, but if OPR determines that
12
your office should be criticized for its handling of this --
13
A
Right.
14
Q
-- matter, does that criticism fall on you, or does
15
it fall on your senior managers? Because as a non-
16
prosecutor, you were relying on them to keep you informed,
17
and for their judgement.
18
A
So, I was the U.S. Attorney. I certainly relied on
19
my staff, but ultimately, I was the U.S. Attorney, and I
20
don't think it's justifiable or fair to sort of say this was
21
on them. I was sufficiently aware of matters that -- that --
22
it was my office, and -- and while I'll say that I was -- I
23
might not recall this, or I was relying on A, B, or C for
24
guidance, or to handle this matter, ultimately, I think those
25
judgements always sort of bubble up.
EFTA00009218

=== Page 104 ===
Page 403
1
BY MS.
2
0
In your press conference, you reference -- this is
3
the -- I think July 10, 2019 press conference. You
4
referenced victims, what they went through was --
5
A
Mm-hmm.
6
0
-- horrific, you said, and then you said, I've seen
7
these videos. I've seen the interviews. I have seen the
8
interviews on television of these victims, and their stories.
9
Just to be clear, are you talking about interviews and
10
television coverage and videos recently, or back in 2006
11
and --
12
A
Recently.
13
Q
-- 2007? Okay. I just wanted to be very clear
14
about that. The U.S. Attorney's manual requires us all in
15
the department to conduct the fair, even handed
16
administration of the federal criminal laws. What's your
17
view as to how the handling of this case comported with that
18
principle?
19
A
So, I do think it was fair, and even handed. We --
20
you know, after the fact, may look back and say that two year
21
may not have -- you know, it shouldn't have been a manifest
22
injustice standard. It should have been, you know, a sort of
23
a de novo, let's treat this as a new prosecution.
24
That's a judgement you'll all make, but -- but
25
those judgements were made with an eye toward fairness and
EFTA00009219

=== Page 105 ===
Page 404
1
impartiality, and once those judgements were made, despite
2
all the attorneys involved, and despite all the litigation,
3
and all the -- all the stuff, all the appeals to Washington
4
and the -- you know, we stuck to that position.
5
Q
Mm-hmm.
6
A
And I think that speaks to the way the office
7
approached this matter.
8
Q
All right. We -- I -- we spoke sort of offline
9
earlier about an issue that was raised in that press
10
conference that was not clearly answered on your part in that
11
context, and the question was -- and this is on page 15 of
12
the internet transcript of --
13
A
Right.
14
Q
-- that press conference. You were asked whether
15
you were ever made aware that Mr. Epstein was "an
16
intelligence asset of some sort." And you -- you in your
17
response you said you couldn't answer it -- couldn't address
18
it directly because of guidelines. Can you clarify -- first
19
of all, were you ever made aware of that --
20
A
If he was --
21
Q
-- assertion?
22
A
-- I'm not aware of it.
23
Q
All right. Did defense counsel ever say to you
24
that Epstein had that status?
25
A
Not to my recollection.
EFTA00009220

=== Page 106 ===
Page 405
1
2
All right.
2
A
And -- and to clarify, I also don't know where
3
press reports from multiple sources -- not from multiple
4
sources, but from multiple media outlets that I told someone
5 that he was an intelligence asset.
6
I do not know where that came from. If -- if I can
7
just -- so, there are questions that I may be asked publicly,
8
that I don't think it's right for me to comment as to what
9
classified information I may or may not know, because that's
10 not the kind of stuff you'd go into, but the answer is no,
11
and no.
12
0
All right. Without reservation, without any --
13
A
No, and no.
14
Q
All right. Excellent. Thank you. A couple of
15
final questions. As you can tell --
16
A
Can I -- can I --
17
Q
Yes.
18
A
-- address as second issue that has come up at
19
times?
20
Q
Yes.
21
A
There are also media reports that this was because
22
of cooperation in some financial --
23
Q
Mm-hmm.
24
A
-- financial matters. I don't know where that may
25 have -- I don't know where that may have come from.
EFTA00009221

=== Page 107 ===
Page 406
1
Q
All right. Thank you, and we are familiar with
2
that, what you're referring to.
3
A
Was -- was there cooperation related to financial
4
matters?
5
Q
We didn't ask you about it.
6
A
Okay.
7
Q
As you can tell, OPR obtained many electronic
8
records --
9
A
Yeah.
10
0
-- mainly e-mails, but other electronic holdings
11
from the department. The Department of Justice, however, has
12
not been able to find/recover a portion of your e-mail
13
account as U.S. Attorney that contained e-mails received by
14
you between May 26th, 2007, and March 2008.
15
A
Correct.
16
Q
A period of time rather relevant to this. We have
17
obtained many records of course from senders and from other
18
people copied. So, we have many of the records, but the fact
19
is, that's a --
20
A
Mm-hmm.
21
0
-- gap in the holdings, and this is despite the
22
fact that as you no doubt know, the law requires that U.S.
23
Attorney records be maintained and archived --
24
A
Right.
25
Q
-- indefinitely. Can you give us any insight, any
EFTA00009222

=== Page 108 ===
Page 407
1
idea why that might be the case?
2
A
I can't, and my recollection was after -- after
3
several issues that took place, the department had some sort
4
of records retention software that automatically retained
5
these e-mails. Is that not accurate?
6
Q
There was a -- there was a switchover from --
7
A
Right.
8
Q
-- a period in which that record retention
9
responsibility resided with each U.S. Attorney's Office, and
10
at the switchover, it became centralized.
11
A
Right.
12
Q
And this appears to have sort of gotten lost in
13
the --
14
A
Been caught in the switchover. I -- my
15
recollection is that there was some automatic retention
16
mechanism --
17
Q
Okay.
18
A
-- and I can't address that, although there's
19
certainly a fulsome -- a fulsome record.
20
Q
But just to ask the inevitable question --
21
A
Right.
22
Q
-- did you take any action to discard, destroy, or
23
dispense with any official records --
24
A
Not --
25
Q
-- related to this matter?
EFTA00009223

=== Page 109 ===
Page 408
1
A
Not to my recollection. I think there's a fulsome
2
record, and not to my recollection.
3
Q
All right, and is there any particular gap that
4
you've discerned in the records that we've provided to you?
5
A
Not that I recall. Do you have the e-mails that I
6
sent, out of curiosity?
7
Q
We do.
8
A
Okay. So, you have the sent, but not received.
9
Q
Yes.
10
A
Just checking.
11
Q
And likewise, we retrieved from the federal records
12
center --
13
A
Right.
14
2
-- records that were boxed up and sent there, hard
15
copy documents, after your term ended, and there is nothing
16
that relates to the Epstein case. There were records that
17
were maintained that were kept in the main office --
18
A
Right.
19
2
-- after you left, because it was an ongoing
20
matter, but it -- do you have any idea why there are not any
21
in the records of yours --
22
A
So --
23
0
-- that were sent?
24
A
So, I have a recollection that when I left, there
25
were some binders that I passed along to
, because it was
EFTA00009224

=== Page 110 ===
Page 409
1
an ongoing case, and we sort of had binders out that sort of
2
had correspondence back and forth.
3
2
All right, and you've already made -- we've --
4
we -- I asked you about facts, but you addressed a sort of a
5
broader statement to us for the record about the case. Is
6
there anything else you want to tell us at this point?
7
A
Give me a second to --
8
Q
Sure.
9
A
-- sort of think this through.
10
Q
In fact, if you'd like to take a quick break and
11
talk to your attorney, and that will be the last question.
12
A
Do we need a break?
13
MR.
: No.
14
MS.
: Your attorney says god no.
15
THE WITNESS I will -- I will follow up on this.
16
MS.
: All right.
17
THE WITNESS Nothing that I -- if something comes
18
up, my understanding is that we're receive the transcript,
19
and have enough time given the length of this to review and
20
comment.
21
BY MS.
:
22
Q
Exactly, yes, and for the record --
23
A
Right.
24
Q
-- when the transcript is prepared, which should be
25
within a couple of weeks, we'll ship that off to your
EFTA00009225

=== Page 111 ===
Page 410
1
attorney.
2
A
Mm-hmm.
3
&
We'll ask you to review it, to make not only any
4
corrections, but also clarifications, and to add to it --
5
A
Mm-hmm.
6
Q
-- if you feel having read something that it needs
7
to be clarified or expanded upon, you're invited to do SO.
8
A
And if I could ask one -- one other question. Is
9
there -- and I'm not familiar enough with the way OPR
10
operates, and this may be suigeneris, so you may not be
11
prepared to answer, if there is a report as opposed to a
12
letter, which is what I typically am familiar with, will that
13
report be shared in advance for comment?
14
0
I am going to --
15
A
Or is that to be determined?
16
MS.
:
I am going to defer to Ms.
17
for that.
18
MS.
:
That's a question that doesn't need to
19
be on the record. Do you have anything else that you'd want
20
to put on the record before we close out?
21
THE WITNESS: I do not.
22
MS.
: All right.
23
MS.
:
All right. Thank you. I want to
24
extend our great appreciation for your willingness --
25
THE WITNESS No problem.
EFTA00009226

=== Page 112 ===
Page 411
1
MS.
: -- to come in and help us with this
2 case.
3
THE WITNESS So, so, let me -- now that we're off
4
the record, let me say --
5
MS.
: Are we off the record?
6
THE REPORTER: Not yet.
7
THE WITNESS Not yet? Oh.
8
MS.
: No?
9
THE REPORTER: You didn't say it.
10
MS.
: All right. That's it. We're off
11
the record.
12
(Whereupon, at 8:38 p.m. the interview of R.
13
Alexander Acosta was concluded.)
14
*****
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
EFTA00009227

=== Page 113 ===
Page 412
CERTIFICATE
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
)
IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA )
I, Beth Roots, Notary Public, before whom the foregoing
deposition was taken, do hereby certify that the witness
whose testimony appears in the foregoing pages was duly sworn
by me; that the testimony of said witness was reported by me
by electronic record, and thereafter reduced to typewritten
form; that said deposition is a true record of the testimony
given by said witness; that I am neither counsel for, related
to, nor employed by any of the parties to the action in which
this deposition was taken; and, further, that I am not a
relative or employee of any attorney or counsel employed by
the parties thereto, nor financially or otherwise interested
in the outcome of this action.
Beth Roots
Notary Public in and for the
District of Columbia
My commission expires:
April 30, 2020
EFTA00009228


