December 10, 2025 • 14 mins
In a sworn affidavit filed in 2017, Marie Villafaña, a Department of Justice official, laid out the government’s formal defense of how federal prosecutors handled the Crime Victims’ Rights Act during the Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement. Her core argument was that the CVRA’s notice and participation requirements did not apply because Epstein had not been federally charged at the time the deal was negotiated, framing the agreement as a pre-charge exercise of prosecutorial discretion rather than a criminal proceeding triggering victims’ rights. Villafaña asserted that prosecutors were operating within long-standing DOJ interpretations of the law, emphasizing that the CVRA was never intended to require victim notification during confidential plea negotiations or before formal charges were filed. She presented the government’s position as legally cautious rather than deceptive, insisting that secrecy was necessary to preserve the integrity of negotiations and avoid jeopardizing a potential federal case.
Villafaña also used the affidavit to push back against allegations that prosecutors intentionally misled Epstein’s victims or acted in bad faith, repeatedly stressing that DOJ personnel believed they were complying with the law as it was understood at the time. She argued that internal DOJ guidance supported limiting disclosure to victims before charges, and that there was no clear judicial precedent then requiring broader notification under the CVRA in pre-indictment settings. Framed this way, the affidavit portrayed the Epstein deal not as a calculated effort to sidestep victims’ rights, but as a legally defensible—if controversial—exercise of prosecutorial judgment. That position would later come under severe criticism from courts and victims’ advocates, but in 2017 Villafaña’s filing stood as the DOJ’s most explicit attempt to justify its handling of the Epstein case under the CVRA.
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.403.19.pdf
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Villafaña also used the affidavit to push back against allegations that prosecutors intentionally misled Epstein’s victims or acted in bad faith, repeatedly stressing that DOJ personnel believed they were complying with the law as it was understood at the time. She argued that internal DOJ guidance supported limiting disclosure to victims before charges, and that there was no clear judicial precedent then requiring broader notification under the CVRA in pre-indictment settings. Framed this way, the affidavit portrayed the Epstein deal not as a calculated effort to sidestep victims’ rights, but as a legally defensible—if controversial—exercise of prosecutorial judgment. That position would later come under severe criticism from courts and victims’ advocates, but in 2017 Villafaña’s filing stood as the DOJ’s most explicit attempt to justify its handling of the Epstein case under the CVRA.
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.403.19.pdf
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, were picking up where he
left off with the Marieville Fauna. Affid David about the CVRA.
In June two thousand and nine, while Jane DO one
and Jane do two and many other victims were pursuing
their civil suits against Epstein, and while the instant case
was pending, the court asked me to address an issue
(00:22):
related to the NPA and the civil suits. With Counsel
for Petitioners present, I informed the court that the non
prosecution agreement sought to do one thing, which was to
place the victims in the same position they would have
been if mister Epstein had been convicted of the federal
offenses for which he was investigated, and that if he
had been federally prosecuted and convicted, the victims would have
(00:45):
been entitled to restitution regardless of how long ago the
crimes were committed, regardless of how old they were at
the time and how old they were today or at
the time of the conviction, and that also would have
made them eligible for damages under US Code eighteen, section
twenty two to fifty five, and so our ideal was.
Our hope was that we could set up a system
(01:07):
that would allow these victims to get restitution without having
to go through what civil litigation will expose them to.
You have a number of girls who are very hesitant
about even speaking to authorities about this because of the
trauma that they have suffered and about the embarrassment that
they were afraid would be brought upon themselves and upon
their families. So we do, through the non prosecution agreement,
(01:29):
try to protect their rights while also protecting their privacy.
None of the victim's attorneys who were present, including petitioner's counsel,
disputed my statement, and that statement remains true today. The
investigative team, the FBI's victim witness coordinator, and I all
proceeded with a victim first approach, and we all used
(01:50):
our best efforts to protect the victims and accord them
their rights. Petitioners allege that I did not give their
now professed desires to have Epstein prosecuted sufficient weight, but
they never communicated those desires to me or the FBI agents,
and my role was to evaluate the entire situation, consider
the input received from all the victims, and allow the
(02:11):
office to exercise its prosecutorial discretion. Accordingly, Petitioner's motion also
suggests that some of the terms of the NPA or
my actions were improper. First, plea negotiations, like settlement negotiations,
whether between the parties in the instant case or between
Jane DO one and Jane DO two and Epstein, are
normally kept confidential. Rule eleven C, one of the Federal
(02:35):
Rules of Criminal Procedure, prohibits judicial involvement and plea negotiations,
and the Eleventh Circuit has ruled that there is a
bright line rule that court should not offer any comments
on plea negotiations. Likewise, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure sixty
requires confidentiality for persons subject to a grand jury investigation.
My recommendations to opposing counsel to limit any plea agreement
(02:59):
to its essential term, rather than disclosing the reasons behind
those terms, and to exclude the names of persons who
would not be parties to the agreement was in keeping
with those general policies. Finally, when at an impasse in negotiations,
a change of venue can be beneficial, such as when
settlement conferences are held in a judge's chambers or a
(03:19):
mediator's office rather than in the office of one of
the parties. My suggestion to meet Epstein's council off campus
was in no way improper. It was simply an effort
to facilitate a resolution through a meeting at a neutral location,
but that meeting never even occurred. On the other hand,
during the course of the investigation, I routinely traveled to
(03:40):
meet with victims at their homes, their jobs, and at
coffee shops. With regard to paragraph twenty nine of DE
three sixty one, copies of emails sent to and from
my personal email address were produced in discovery pursuing to
my agreement with mister Edwards Council for petitioners personal email
addresses were redacted. Some of those emails were included in
(04:02):
the exhibits attached to Petitioner's motion. In the end, the
Office and I agreed that no federal misdemeanor charges adequately
addressed the facts of the case, and the Office decided
that instead it would forego federal prosecution if Epstein pled
guilty to applicable state offenses that would require sex offender
registration and an eighteen month jail term, and if Epstein
(04:24):
also agreed to allow the identified victims to obtain an
uncontested recovery of damages in lieu of the restitution that
would have been available under federal law. Also with regard
to the confidentiality of the non prosecution agreement, the statements
contained in paragraph thirty one of D three to sixty
one or accurate. As courts have acknowledged, MPAs are not
(04:44):
made of a public court file, but are maintained by
a prosecutor's office. The Privacy Act, Federal Krimp sixte, and
other statutes and rules keep private files related to subjects
of investigations. There are some laws, including Freedom of Information Act,
that limit confidentiality of those files, but generally speaking, there
is no public right of access to the office's files. Thus,
(05:07):
the assurance that I would not distribute, essentially leak the
NPA was simply an assurance that I intended to abide
by office and department policy. In the law. The NPA
made clear that the office would not disclose or would
disclose the NPA in response to appropriate Foyer requests and
compulsory process, but would provide Epstein with notice before making
(05:29):
such disclosure. In part, this notice would ensure that no
unlawful disclosure would be made mistakenly and subject the office
to civil liability. Nothing in the NPA prohibited disclosing its
terms to the victims. The confidentiality provision covered only the
document itself. Petitioner's motion contains a number of other criticisms
(05:50):
of the terms of the NPA, But despite my letters
to them, giving them my telephone number and encouraging them
to contact me, neither Jane do one nor Jane do
two ever contacted me or Special Agent Kirkandall prior to
the signing of the NPA to ask about the investigation
or to encourage prosecution. Jane do two specifically told me
(06:11):
that she did not want Epstein prosecuted. Other victims have
told me there are fears of having their involvement with
Epstein revealed and the negative impact it would have on
their relationship with family members, boyfriends, and others. Once the
NPA was signed on September twenty fourth, two thousand and seven,
I asked the agents to meet with the victims to
provide them with information regarding the terms of the agreement
(06:33):
and the conclusion of the federal investigation. I also anticipated
that they would be able to inform the victims of
the date of the State Court change of plea, but
that date had not yet been set by authorities at
the time the first victims were notified. Special Agent Kirkandall
and Richards met with three victims, including Jane do One,
soon after the NPA was signed. It had been anticipated
(06:56):
that they would meet with all the victims. However, almost
immediately after the NPA was signed, Epstein, through his counsel,
began to delay and inhibit the performance of his obligations
under the NPA. First, he challenged the method for selecting
the attorney representative provided by the NPA for victims who
wished to use that attorney's services in seeking damages from Epstein.
(07:18):
Among other efforts, Epstein also sought to challenge the list
of victims identified during the course of the investigation, and
as mentioned above, specifically attacked the inclusion of Jane do
two as a victim because of her exculpatory statements. While
petitioners here suggest that I was too lenient in my
handling of the negotiation with Epstein's council, after the NPA
(07:39):
was signed, Epstein's council raised challenges that I had been
too aggressive. These and other attacks and efforts to avoid
the NPA's terms led the FBI team, the Office, and
me to conclude that prosecution and trial remained the possibility
and we should prepare as such. This meant that the
victim notifications had to cease because we no longer knew
(08:01):
whether Epstein would perform under the NPA, and hence we
did not know whether providing information about the NPA would
be accurate. And two, we believe that Epstein, through his
council would attempt to use victim notification concerning the NPA
to suggest that the victims had been encouraged by the
FBI or the Office to overstate their victimization or a
(08:21):
monetary compensation. The FBI and the Office decided, therefore to
do no further notifications regarding the NPA. At the time,
our concerns were prescient, as shown by the deposition quoted
in paragraphs twenty one above. This deposition occurred in February
of two thousand and eight, during the period that Epstein
was complaining to various levels of the Justice Department about
(08:44):
the investigation and the NPA. Accordingly, the investigation continued while
Epstein raised numerous erroneous allegations against me, the investigative team,
other office personnel, and the victims seeking release from the
Office and the Department, and a justice of the obligations
he had undertaken in the NPA. While those appeals proceeded
(09:06):
to the US Attorney the Child of Exploitation, an Obscenity
Section in Washington, DC, the Assistant Attorney General, and the
Deputy Attorney General, the investigative team and I continued interviewing
and identifying victims, issuing subpoenas, and collecting evidence. The investigation
continued up until the day that Epstein entered his state
(09:27):
court guilty plea. One of the people who was reinterviewed
after the NPA was signed was Jane do One, who
was reinterviewed on January thirty first, two thousand and eight.
I was present for that interview since I was aware
that Epstein might proceed to trial. As with other victims
who I interviewed, I asked Jane do One whether she
would be willing to testify if there was a trial.
(09:49):
At the time, Jane do One stated that she hoped
Epstein would be prosecuted and that she was willing to testify.
The FBI letters on January tenth, two thousand and eight.
Informing Jane do one and Jane do two that the
case was still under investigation and that it could be
a lengthy process were accurate. Jane do one interview was
part of that continued investigation, so no one was deceived.
(10:12):
The process was not lengthier only because Epstein ultimately entered
his state court guilty plea as contemplated by the NPA.
In mid June of two thousand and eight, Attorney Edwards
contacted You're affient to inform me that he represented Jane
do one and another identified victim, not Jane Doe two.
Attorney Edwards asked to meet to provide me with information
(10:34):
regarding Epstein. On June nineteenth, two thousand and eight, Attorney
Edwards sent me an email stating that he had information
concerns that I would like to share and that he
wanted to meet with me to discuss his plans. As
noted in that email, he had one client at the
time who had been referred in this suit as Jane
do one, and he did not state that Jane do
(10:54):
one wished to meet with me. I invited Attorney Edwards
to send to me any information he wanted me to consider.
At the time of my conversation with Attorney Edwards, I
was still preparing to present charges against Epstein if Epstein
succeeded in having the NPA set aside, or if he
failed to perform the terms of the NPA. I did
not disclose the existence of the NPA to Edwards because
(11:16):
I did not know whether the NPA remained viable at
the time, or whether Epstein would enter the State court
guilty please that would trigger the NPA. I was aware
that a final decision on Epstein's challenges to the NPA
and the federal investigation was expected shortly, so I impressed
upon Attorney Edwards that time was of the essence. Attorney
(11:36):
Edwards sent nothing at the time, nor did he ever
inform me that Jane Do one or Jane Do two
wanted to confer with me before any resolution was reached.
If anything had been provided by Edwards Jane Do one
or Jane Do two, I would have reviewed it and
shared it with my superiors. I also advised Attorney Edwards
that he should consider contacting the State Attorney's office. I
(11:59):
was informed, however, that no contact with that office was
made at that time. Attorney Edwards also alluded to Jane
Doe two, so I advised him that, to my knowledge,
Jang Do two was still represented by Attorney James Eisenberg.
He did not dispute or correct that, to my understanding.
On Friday, June twenty seventh, at approximately four to fifteen pm,
(12:21):
I received a copy of Epstein's pro post state plea
agreement and learned that Epstein State Court change of plea
was scheduled for eight thirty am Monday, June thirtieth, two
thousand and eight. The Palm Beach Police Department and I
attempted to notify the victims about the hearing in the
short time available to us. I specifically called Attorney Edwards
to provide notice to his clients regarding the hearing. I
(12:44):
believe that it was during this conversation that Attorney Edwards
notified me that he represented Jane Doe two. I urged
the Attorney Edwards to have his clients to attend the hearing so
they could address the court if they wished, and I
stressed the importance of the hearing. I never told Attorney
Edward words that the state charges involved other victims, and
neither the State Court charging instrument nor the factual proffer
(13:06):
limited the procurement of prostitution charge to a specific victim.
In fact, as mentioned in Supra, I had encouraged Attorney
Edwards to contact the State Attorney's office to discuss his
client and the Epstein investigation with the state prosecutor. Attorney
Edwards informed me that he could not attend the hearing,
but that someone would be present at the hearing. The
(13:28):
case agents and I attended the hearing as members of
the general public and did not publicly announce our presidence
since we were the only observers there. Neither Attorney Edwards
nor any of his clients were present, and no one
identified themselves to me, the FBI agents or the state
court as being present on behalf of the petitioners. On
July three, two thousand and eight, Attorney Edwards contacted me
(13:51):
to discuss how the Epstein matter had been resolved and
to raise concerns regarding that resolution. I shared the concerns
that Attorney Edwards raised my superiors at the US Attorney's Office.
I declare penalty of perjury pursuing to US Code twenty eight,
Section seventeen forty six, that the foregoing is true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, Executed
(14:15):
this second day of June twenty seventeen, and signed by
Marie Villafauna. All of the information that goes with this
episode can be found in the description box.
What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, were picking up where he
left off with the Marieville Fauna. Affid David about the CVRA.
In June two thousand and nine, while Jane DO one
and Jane do two and many other victims were pursuing
their civil suits against Epstein, and while the instant case
was pending, the court asked me to address an issue
(00:22):
related to the NPA and the civil suits. With Counsel
for Petitioners present, I informed the court that the non
prosecution agreement sought to do one thing, which was to
place the victims in the same position they would have
been if mister Epstein had been convicted of the federal
offenses for which he was investigated, and that if he
had been federally prosecuted and convicted, the victims would have
(00:45):
been entitled to restitution regardless of how long ago the
crimes were committed, regardless of how old they were at
the time and how old they were today or at
the time of the conviction, and that also would have
made them eligible for damages under US Code eighteen, section
twenty two to fifty five, and so our ideal was.
Our hope was that we could set up a system
(01:07):
that would allow these victims to get restitution without having
to go through what civil litigation will expose them to.
You have a number of girls who are very hesitant
about even speaking to authorities about this because of the
trauma that they have suffered and about the embarrassment that
they were afraid would be brought upon themselves and upon
their families. So we do, through the non prosecution agreement,
(01:29):
try to protect their rights while also protecting their privacy.
None of the victim's attorneys who were present, including petitioner's counsel,
disputed my statement, and that statement remains true today. The
investigative team, the FBI's victim witness coordinator, and I all
proceeded with a victim first approach, and we all used
(01:50):
our best efforts to protect the victims and accord them
their rights. Petitioners allege that I did not give their
now professed desires to have Epstein prosecuted sufficient weight, but
they never communicated those desires to me or the FBI agents,
and my role was to evaluate the entire situation, consider
the input received from all the victims, and allow the
(02:11):
office to exercise its prosecutorial discretion. Accordingly, Petitioner's motion also
suggests that some of the terms of the NPA or
my actions were improper. First, plea negotiations, like settlement negotiations,
whether between the parties in the instant case or between
Jane DO one and Jane DO two and Epstein, are
normally kept confidential. Rule eleven C, one of the Federal
(02:35):
Rules of Criminal Procedure, prohibits judicial involvement and plea negotiations,
and the Eleventh Circuit has ruled that there is a
bright line rule that court should not offer any comments
on plea negotiations. Likewise, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure sixty
requires confidentiality for persons subject to a grand jury investigation.
My recommendations to opposing counsel to limit any plea agreement
(02:59):
to its essential term, rather than disclosing the reasons behind
those terms, and to exclude the names of persons who
would not be parties to the agreement was in keeping
with those general policies. Finally, when at an impasse in negotiations,
a change of venue can be beneficial, such as when
settlement conferences are held in a judge's chambers or a
(03:19):
mediator's office rather than in the office of one of
the parties. My suggestion to meet Epstein's council off campus
was in no way improper. It was simply an effort
to facilitate a resolution through a meeting at a neutral location,
but that meeting never even occurred. On the other hand,
during the course of the investigation, I routinely traveled to
(03:40):
meet with victims at their homes, their jobs, and at
coffee shops. With regard to paragraph twenty nine of DE
three sixty one, copies of emails sent to and from
my personal email address were produced in discovery pursuing to
my agreement with mister Edwards Council for petitioners personal email
addresses were redacted. Some of those emails were included in
(04:02):
the exhibits attached to Petitioner's motion. In the end, the
Office and I agreed that no federal misdemeanor charges adequately
addressed the facts of the case, and the Office decided
that instead it would forego federal prosecution if Epstein pled
guilty to applicable state offenses that would require sex offender
registration and an eighteen month jail term, and if Epstein
(04:24):
also agreed to allow the identified victims to obtain an
uncontested recovery of damages in lieu of the restitution that
would have been available under federal law. Also with regard
to the confidentiality of the non prosecution agreement, the statements
contained in paragraph thirty one of D three to sixty
one or accurate. As courts have acknowledged, MPAs are not
(04:44):
made of a public court file, but are maintained by
a prosecutor's office. The Privacy Act, Federal Krimp sixte, and
other statutes and rules keep private files related to subjects
of investigations. There are some laws, including Freedom of Information Act,
that limit confidentiality of those files, but generally speaking, there
is no public right of access to the office's files. Thus,
(05:07):
the assurance that I would not distribute, essentially leak the
NPA was simply an assurance that I intended to abide
by office and department policy. In the law. The NPA
made clear that the office would not disclose or would
disclose the NPA in response to appropriate Foyer requests and
compulsory process, but would provide Epstein with notice before making
(05:29):
such disclosure. In part, this notice would ensure that no
unlawful disclosure would be made mistakenly and subject the office
to civil liability. Nothing in the NPA prohibited disclosing its
terms to the victims. The confidentiality provision covered only the
document itself. Petitioner's motion contains a number of other criticisms
(05:50):
of the terms of the NPA, But despite my letters
to them, giving them my telephone number and encouraging them
to contact me, neither Jane do one nor Jane do
two ever contacted me or Special Agent Kirkandall prior to
the signing of the NPA to ask about the investigation
or to encourage prosecution. Jane do two specifically told me
(06:11):
that she did not want Epstein prosecuted. Other victims have
told me there are fears of having their involvement with
Epstein revealed and the negative impact it would have on
their relationship with family members, boyfriends, and others. Once the
NPA was signed on September twenty fourth, two thousand and seven,
I asked the agents to meet with the victims to
provide them with information regarding the terms of the agreement
(06:33):
and the conclusion of the federal investigation. I also anticipated
that they would be able to inform the victims of
the date of the State Court change of plea, but
that date had not yet been set by authorities at
the time the first victims were notified. Special Agent Kirkandall
and Richards met with three victims, including Jane do One,
soon after the NPA was signed. It had been anticipated
(06:56):
that they would meet with all the victims. However, almost
immediately after the NPA was signed, Epstein, through his counsel,
began to delay and inhibit the performance of his obligations
under the NPA. First, he challenged the method for selecting
the attorney representative provided by the NPA for victims who
wished to use that attorney's services in seeking damages from Epstein.
(07:18):
Among other efforts, Epstein also sought to challenge the list
of victims identified during the course of the investigation, and
as mentioned above, specifically attacked the inclusion of Jane do
two as a victim because of her exculpatory statements. While
petitioners here suggest that I was too lenient in my
handling of the negotiation with Epstein's council, after the NPA
(07:39):
was signed, Epstein's council raised challenges that I had been
too aggressive. These and other attacks and efforts to avoid
the NPA's terms led the FBI team, the Office, and
me to conclude that prosecution and trial remained the possibility
and we should prepare as such. This meant that the
victim notifications had to cease because we no longer knew
(08:01):
whether Epstein would perform under the NPA, and hence we
did not know whether providing information about the NPA would
be accurate. And two, we believe that Epstein, through his
council would attempt to use victim notification concerning the NPA
to suggest that the victims had been encouraged by the
FBI or the Office to overstate their victimization or a
(08:21):
monetary compensation. The FBI and the Office decided, therefore to
do no further notifications regarding the NPA. At the time,
our concerns were prescient, as shown by the deposition quoted
in paragraphs twenty one above. This deposition occurred in February
of two thousand and eight, during the period that Epstein
was complaining to various levels of the Justice Department about
(08:44):
the investigation and the NPA. Accordingly, the investigation continued while
Epstein raised numerous erroneous allegations against me, the investigative team,
other office personnel, and the victims seeking release from the
Office and the Department, and a justice of the obligations
he had undertaken in the NPA. While those appeals proceeded
(09:06):
to the US Attorney the Child of Exploitation, an Obscenity
Section in Washington, DC, the Assistant Attorney General, and the
Deputy Attorney General, the investigative team and I continued interviewing
and identifying victims, issuing subpoenas, and collecting evidence. The investigation
continued up until the day that Epstein entered his state
(09:27):
court guilty plea. One of the people who was reinterviewed
after the NPA was signed was Jane do One, who
was reinterviewed on January thirty first, two thousand and eight.
I was present for that interview since I was aware
that Epstein might proceed to trial. As with other victims
who I interviewed, I asked Jane do One whether she
would be willing to testify if there was a trial.
(09:49):
At the time, Jane do One stated that she hoped
Epstein would be prosecuted and that she was willing to testify.
The FBI letters on January tenth, two thousand and eight.
Informing Jane do one and Jane do two that the
case was still under investigation and that it could be
a lengthy process were accurate. Jane do one interview was
part of that continued investigation, so no one was deceived.
(10:12):
The process was not lengthier only because Epstein ultimately entered
his state court guilty plea as contemplated by the NPA.
In mid June of two thousand and eight, Attorney Edwards
contacted You're affient to inform me that he represented Jane
do one and another identified victim, not Jane Doe two.
Attorney Edwards asked to meet to provide me with information
(10:34):
regarding Epstein. On June nineteenth, two thousand and eight, Attorney
Edwards sent me an email stating that he had information
concerns that I would like to share and that he
wanted to meet with me to discuss his plans. As
noted in that email, he had one client at the
time who had been referred in this suit as Jane
do one, and he did not state that Jane do
(10:54):
one wished to meet with me. I invited Attorney Edwards
to send to me any information he wanted me to consider.
At the time of my conversation with Attorney Edwards, I
was still preparing to present charges against Epstein if Epstein
succeeded in having the NPA set aside, or if he
failed to perform the terms of the NPA. I did
not disclose the existence of the NPA to Edwards because
(11:16):
I did not know whether the NPA remained viable at
the time, or whether Epstein would enter the State court
guilty please that would trigger the NPA. I was aware
that a final decision on Epstein's challenges to the NPA
and the federal investigation was expected shortly, so I impressed
upon Attorney Edwards that time was of the essence. Attorney
(11:36):
Edwards sent nothing at the time, nor did he ever
inform me that Jane Do one or Jane Do two
wanted to confer with me before any resolution was reached.
If anything had been provided by Edwards Jane Do one
or Jane Do two, I would have reviewed it and
shared it with my superiors. I also advised Attorney Edwards
that he should consider contacting the State Attorney's office. I
(11:59):
was informed, however, that no contact with that office was
made at that time. Attorney Edwards also alluded to Jane
Doe two, so I advised him that, to my knowledge,
Jang Do two was still represented by Attorney James Eisenberg.
He did not dispute or correct that, to my understanding.
On Friday, June twenty seventh, at approximately four to fifteen pm,
(12:21):
I received a copy of Epstein's pro post state plea
agreement and learned that Epstein State Court change of plea
was scheduled for eight thirty am Monday, June thirtieth, two
thousand and eight. The Palm Beach Police Department and I
attempted to notify the victims about the hearing in the
short time available to us. I specifically called Attorney Edwards
to provide notice to his clients regarding the hearing. I
(12:44):
believe that it was during this conversation that Attorney Edwards
notified me that he represented Jane Doe two. I urged
the Attorney Edwards to have his clients to attend the hearing so
they could address the court if they wished, and I
stressed the importance of the hearing. I never told Attorney
Edward words that the state charges involved other victims, and
neither the State Court charging instrument nor the factual proffer
(13:06):
limited the procurement of prostitution charge to a specific victim.
In fact, as mentioned in Supra, I had encouraged Attorney
Edwards to contact the State Attorney's office to discuss his
client and the Epstein investigation with the state prosecutor. Attorney
Edwards informed me that he could not attend the hearing,
but that someone would be present at the hearing. The
(13:28):
case agents and I attended the hearing as members of
the general public and did not publicly announce our presidence
since we were the only observers there. Neither Attorney Edwards
nor any of his clients were present, and no one
identified themselves to me, the FBI agents or the state
court as being present on behalf of the petitioners. On
July three, two thousand and eight, Attorney Edwards contacted me
(13:51):
to discuss how the Epstein matter had been resolved and
to raise concerns regarding that resolution. I shared the concerns
that Attorney Edwards raised my superiors at the US Attorney's Office.
I declare penalty of perjury pursuing to US Code twenty eight,
Section seventeen forty six, that the foregoing is true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, Executed
(14:15):
this second day of June twenty seventeen, and signed by
Marie Villafauna. All of the information that goes with this
episode can be found in the description box.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.