EFTA00804080

1. 
In the State investigation of Jeffrey Epstein's case, the Palm Beach Police interviewed 
dozens of women who came to JE's Palm Beach home to perform massages on JE in exchange 
for money. With one exception discussed below, the ages of the witnesses interviewed by 
State investigators ranged from 16 or 17 years of age up to 62. Sworn testimony from the 
witnesses interviewed confirmed that a majority of them were 18 years old or over each time 
that they came to JE's home. 
2. 
All of the women confirmed to police that they voluntarily performed massages for JE at 
his home, and that each time they did so, they received money in exchange. The women told 
police that they were brought to JE's home by their friends. Many of the women who initially 
gave massages later brought other friends to perform massages so that they could receive 
additional money from JE and their other friends could receive money as well. Some of them 
testified that a parent or a boyfriend accompanied them to JE's home. A great many of the 
women left messages at JE's home seeking to return. 
3. 
The evidence gathered in the State's case included sworn corroborated testimony from 
multiple witnesses that the 16 or 17 year old women who came to JE's home were specifically 
warned to lie about their ages and tell JE that they were 18 years old or they would not be 
allowed in his home. Consistent sworn testimony given to police by these witnesses was that in 
fact they did lie about their ages and told JE that they were 18 years old. 
4. 
The one 14-year old witness, SG, who gave rise to the investigation, and whose age is 
often cited as the basis for the erroneous assertion that the Palm Beach Police determined that 
JE targeted young children, gave sworn testimony flatly refuting this. As corroborated by the 
Palm Beach Police report, in a sworn interview with Palm Beach Police Detective Michelle 
Pagan and in a sworn deposition before the lead State prosecutor, Lanna Belohlavec, then a 13-
year veteran prosecuting sex crimes for the State Attorney's Office in Palm Beach County, this 
witness testified that: 
• 
the person who brought her to JE's home told her to lie that she was 18 years old or she 
would not be allowed into the house; 
• 
JE specifically asked her age and she did in fact lie to him that she was 18 years old; and 
• 
she had a single encounter with JE and emphatically denied that JE had any sex with her 
of any kind during that single encounter. 
5. 
JE submitted to a lie detector test, the results of which verified that JE had no sexual 
contact of any kind with this witness, never threatened her in any way, was told by her that she 
was 18 and believed her when she told him she was 18. 
6. 
Additional evidence compromising the credibility of this witness included: 
• 
A MySpace page at the time of the State investigation, which contained highly 
provocative photos of the witness and in which the witness represented that she was 
EFTA00804080

18 years old, used drugs, was not a virgin, shoplifted, earned $250,000 or more and had 
been in trouble with the law. 
• 
Prior police reports indicating that the witness had a history of abusing alcohol and 
drugs. 
• 
The persons who first informed police about this witness were her father and 
stepmother, both of whom had criminal records. The father served 21 months in 
federal prison for bank fraud and the stepmother had a State conviction for identity 
fraud. Shortly after going to the police, they held a press conference on the courthouse 
steps announcing their filing of a civil lawsuit against JE seeking substantial monetary 
recovery from JE. The press conference and lawsuit were initiated without the 
witness's knowledge or consent and the lawsuit was subsequently withdrawn. 
• 
The witness and her mother then promptly filed their own civil lawsuit against JE 
seeking their own substantial monetary recovery. 
7. 
Negotiations with State Attorney were conducted at arms length and at times in an 
atmosphere of mutual hostility. At no point was JE granted any sort of a break in the case due to 
his wealth, political affiliations or the prominence of his lawyers. If anything, those factors 
worked against him. State prosecutors devoted enormous resources to prosecuting JE in this 
lengthy 15-month investigation. 
8. 
But there were significant problems with the case. The State's key witnesses had major 
credibility problems, including damaging histories of lies, illegal drug use and crime. After 
personally interviewing many of the witnesses, herself, the prosecutor for the State Attorney's 
Office, who then had served 13 years as an experienced sex crimes prosecutor, stated that she 
found "no real victims" in the case, and that some of the women were "causing trouble in the 
hopes of getting money" from JE. Moreover, this was an unusual case at best. The State had 
never before prosecuted a case involving erotic touching unless the victims were far younger 
than the witnesses alleged they were in this case, or were vulnerable or in a relationship of trust. 
None those things were reported to the police during the State investigation. Prior cases brought 
by the State involved demonstrably far more egregious conduct than that which was alleged to 
State investigators. Any suggestion that JE received preferential treatment or that the State 
prosecutors engaged in any misconduct is completely false. 
9. 
In light of concerns regarding the relative strength of the Epstein case and the 
unprecedented nature of a prosecution based on the facts alleged to State investigators, the State 
Attorney took the evidence he had to the grand jury. Based on that evidence, the grand jury 
returned an indictment against JE for a single count of solicitation of prostitution, an offense for 
which the mandatory punishment was a form of probation and no jail time. 
10. 
There are women, now identified as victims in the Epstein case, who have been 
particularly vocal about the failings of the State's prosecution. However, they did come 
forward to State investigators during the investigation, and in a one case, the witness 
refused to speak even with federal investigators until well after the State investigation had 
been concluded. Others, who did initially speak to investigators gave them a far different 
version of the facts than those they know use to condemn the government 
EFTA00804081

As an example, TM, a witness who now condemns JE as a serial pedophile and sexual 
abuser, refused to give any statement to investigators until she was granted full immunity. 
And after she was given immunity, she swore under oath that she never had any type of 
sexual relations with JE: 
Q: 
Did he at any point kiss you, touch you, show any kind of affection towards 
you? 
TM: 
Never, never ... 
Q: 
So he never pulled you closer to him in any sexual way? 
TM: 
I wish. No, no, never, ever, ever, no, never. Jeffrey is an awesome man. 
TM gave sworn testimony to the FBI that she always carried fake identification on her and 
lied to JE that she was 18. Like others in this case, she also testified that the woman who 
brought her to JE's home told TM "make sure that you're 18 because Jeffrey does not want 
any underage girls." TM also brought her friends to JE's home and told the FBI that: 
None of my girls ever had a problem and they'd call me. They'd beg me, you know, 
for us to go to Jeffrey's house because they love Jeffrey. Jeffrey is a respectful man. 
He really is. I mean, and he all thought we were of age always. This is what's so sad 
about it. 
When asked by federal investigators whether she had anything more to say about JE and 
the case, TM replied: 
I hope Jeffrey, nothing happens to Jeffrey because he's an awesome man and it really 
would be a shame. It's a shame that he has to go through this because he's an awesome 
guy and he didn't do nothing wrong, nothing. 
II. 
The media's assertions regarding JE's favorable sentence and the manner in which he 
served it are completely inaccurate: 
• 
From June through October 2008, JE was held in a solitary confinement cell in a special 
housing unit that is usually reserved for dangerous prisoners, though Epstein posed no 
such danger. He was confined to that unit 23 hours a day and allowed outside one hour 
a day for exercise. 
• 
JE served his sentence in that manner for nearly four months until he was granted work 
release on the same terms and conditions as were available to all similarly situated 
prisoners who served the required period of time before qualifying. 
• 
The date of Mr. Epstein's release from jail into supervised house arrest was determined 
based on Mr. Epstein's good conduct and granted solely on the same terms and 
conditions as were applicable to all prisoners. 
EFTA00804082