krischer draft not to be delivered until after your meeting with Lanna and Dhalia priveleged

I was very sorry not to have you present at the
meeting I had with Dahlia , Lanna and detective
Joseph Recarey. I was told you had a last minute
emergency, and hope the outcome of your meeting was
more satisfactory than mine..Had you been there , I
beleive you would now concur in my strong belief that
charges, against Jeffrey Epstein should not be
brought. ...I thought it appropriate to give you at
least my version of what transpired at the meeting
so as to make our scheduled meeting on thursday the
23, more productive. In a kafkaesque scenario, I find
myself trying at the prosecutions request,to give
evidence in an attempt to rebut charges, and
allegations of specific "incidents" of wrongdoing,
while at the same time being told they will not
details these charges. I have taken you at your
word, that your office would not pursue charges if
there was no sexual intercourse or oral sex. I can
only surmise then, that initially Dahlia and Lanna had
what they believed were credible witnesses alleging
more than touching. . I now, am convinced that they
also now realize that their witnesses have been less
than truthful with both Recarey and them. .. It is
astonishing to me that even at this late date we have
been unable to obtain, from them the details of the
charges ,the names , places, time and events under
investigation, but are told "ALan , if you give us
contradictory evidence ,we will consider it."...I can
only conclude that since they are only really truly
convinced of a touching case they are hesitant to
admit the details of the allegations. Lanna confirmed
that she ,you and dahlia, had in fact considered a
fair resolution, but that you had decided that due to
Detecive recarey's , discontent,(which I experienced
first hand at the meeting , when in an exasperated
tone he said to me "but I've worked on this case for
so long") to now send the case to a grand
jury.However, As I had, responded to you on the
phone,and now reiterate I trust your experience,your
balanced, mature view, of the overall circumstances ,
far more than I could the liklihood of a Grand jury
arriving at a fair conclusion. As , the men and women
would simply see , a young woman , who suggests
wrongdoing, look at the statute, and have little
choice but to indict. The girl obviously not subject
to even the slightest cross examination, and her
checkered history , lack of credibility, and in some
cases, arrest, drug use, and in the specific case of
Alexandra Hall ,(what we now understand to be your
main witness), . confessed incidents of theft.would
not even be brought to the attention of the grand
jurors, as your investigator didn't himself know of
these very relevant facts.If I may remind you, this
girl was arrested for marijuana posession in september
, did community service, in october, and immediatly
upon completion of her service fell back into her
well established habit of breaking the law.Seperate
from her admitted drug use and web pages that we have
previouly forwarded to you, we have in our possesion
her e- mail where she refers to her " illegitimate
occupation". I've attached the report
contemporaneously prepared by her employers loss
prevention officer , that we have now also turned
over to Lanna , clearly illustrating that this girl
has a history of lies thefts and when confronted ,
simply attempts to concoct story after story.. You
should be acutely aware that I provided this to
your office after, much trepidation, as this report
, is clearly one of our most sensitive documents ,
certainly that we would have been used to totally
destroy the remnants of Ms. Halls' credibility in
the unlikely event of a trial. This was provided in
addition to the charge slip that confirms that when Ms
Hall bought the strap on dildo,( the subject of a
previous conversation)
from her favorite sex shop. she had obviousy been
above the age of eighteen.... I don't want to appear
flippant where such an important matter is at stake,
but If I were detective Recarey,and I assume that he
prides himself on his abilty to judge character, and
now realizes that he had been taken in by what is
now the obvious lies of miss Hall, and understood
yiddish, when I saw the copy of the incontrovertible
proof to which we had referred, I would "plotz". ...I
guess it's lucky he doesn't understand... I then
spent some time at the meeting, reiterating my view,
that I know that you share, that especially in
instances of age related offenses, that both the
responsibility and the precedent of your office is to
excercise discretion with both breadth and justice.. I
referred to the Supreme court of Wisconsin case where
judge abrahamson made the relevant observation, In
strict liability offenses, perhaps ...insert----...
We then continued the discussion of precedent and it's
importance .Afterward , I thought it unncessary to
easily distingush Mr Epstein's case, from that of
the Harley case that you agreed, was not the case to
which you had initally referred, I was surprised to
hear Lanna still attempt to make a connection
between Harleys forty plus year criminal history
that began with strong arm rape, shooting into an
occupied building, stolen merchandise etc. with Mr
Epsteins history of philanthropy on a grand scale.
Medicine , Israel. science, education, the arts, as
well as his active participation in meanigful world
organizations , including the Trilateral COmmision ,
and the Council on Foreign Relations.. If there was
ever a poster boy for the exercise of prosecutorial
discretion. he is it. Contrast this with the history
of Alexandra hall who had on many occasions told
others that she was determined to be really, really,
rich and would do absolutly anything , to accomplish
that goal... Her offering anal sex, or stealing the
magazine detailing Mr Epstein's accomplishmnets, were
simply steps she saw as part of her plan..She was
repeatedly turned down when she wanted to ride on his
plane,( our guess, and only a guess, why Recarey as
late as last week . approached Mr Epstein's pilot and
told him quite unncessarily that he had been
investigatin MR Epstein since 2004 and had informed
him for the first time that there was an investigation
regarding fourteen year old girls).. I believe it
would have saved a great deal of time and trouble for
both my client and your office had the detective
instead taken even the basic step of checking to see
if Alexandra had a juvenile record... we did , she did
, and we informed Recarey for the first time at the
meeting....... As you have already acknowledged, we
have been as cooperative as possible, but I must admit
until today it's been quite a one way street, as the
prosecutors, still refuse to even tell us the names of
their suppossed witnesses... If they were in fact in
Mr Epstein's house, he obviously must know them,, so
why not tell him who they are.. At our first meeting
you had specifically told me that you would never
bring a touching, case,,, but when I ask if "there is
more than that alleged, I'm met with "Im sorry there
is an on-going investigation, and if you like to
refute the still secret facts please do so as soon
as possible.. This is obviously not fair.. Lanna
responded to this concern with the statment , that
this is always how it is with Grand Juries.. However,
as you will certainly agree, as we can't find any
precedent in your office, this is a case where a man
even if all your alleged facts are to be believed, is
in no position other than the recent massage parlor
visitor, who in one instance said he had visited the
establishment over two hundred times.and was never
prosecuted.( the closest precedent we found). We have
also been unable to find the case, to which you
referred that you said began as an elderly abuse
case.. In fact guy Fronsteins' office has had someone
at the courthouse researching for two weeks, as well
as my researchers for considerably longer, and neither
of us, have found a similar case.. In this case there
is no allegation regarding a person in position of
authority,familial relationship or supervisory role,
no coercion, no drugs , alcohol , or agression of any
kind. In fact it is readily acknowledged that the
girls were knowingly and voluntarily coming to Palm
Beach to give a topless massage. It would be a
setting a new precedent without comparision to charge
a person in this circumstance.. Dahlia said at the
meeting that the aggravating circumstance in this case
was " volume"..." I responded that in fact if
touching was not of interest to the office,(I recall
the story of the fifteen year old stripper, that you
said would never initiate a prosecution) then in fact
"volume" was the best proof that my client shoulod not
be chargedt. ... As I'm sure you were told .only a
total of 2 or 3 girls(we assume Halls' friends, whose
backrounds we can only assume were not investigated
any more thoroughly than Hall's herself) that may have
accidently slipped through Mr Epstein's precautions,
have alleged anything more serious... Contrast this
with the pattern of Mr Harley , who would never pass
up the opportunity to video tape his victims without
their knowldge, then attempt to sell the tapes, and
had a clear understanding with the girls that they
were being paid for sex, and his only possible
defense was I'm sorry but that man , naked on one of
the many hours of video tape ,in my bed who shares my
body , is not really me... ... In fairness the last
half hour of the meeting seemed to be more
constructive . It began by moving toward a mutual
resolution .. Lanna had initially said that she and
Dahlia had considered a plea to three misdemeanor
charges of "contributing to the deliquency of a
minor", , I was quickly adamant that we could not
agree to that charge, as not only would it be grossly
unfair to my client but a public sex related charge
would not only damamge my client , but would harm
innocent third parties, who would no longer be able to
accept his well established charity... She then
suggested something she referred to as pre trial
intervention... I was unfamiliar with the concept..
but she thought this idea might lead to a possible
solution.. I suggested that the charge would have to
be be a non sex related charge as I think we
agreed that a sex charge didn't add anything to the
pound of flesh that your office appears to be focused
on receiving.(i.e. simple battery) I said that I
thought that an this unfair , (and still believe that
the only resolution consistant with our firm
agreement that if there was nothing but "touching",
charges should not now be brought) "but expeditious
resolution might however be in my client's best
interest , especially in light of the threat of the
aformentioned , one sided grand jury proceding .We
are certain that your own prosecutors have doubts
both of the credibilty and ultimate reluctance of your
witnesses testimony. As a well established principle
you'll agree that a grand jury 's role is not to
decide credibility . Even with the facts being at
worst case no different than a massage parlors'
visitor , and your previous commitment regarding a
touching case If you have now decided that the
decision " not to charge" is off the table I
suggested in the meeting that in the interest in
putting this behind us we might be able to agree to a
deferred prosecution, .. Dahlia initally said she
thought this was tantamount to "getting nothing" ,
but I immediatly and strongly disagreed, as did Guy.
As Mr. Epstein would I believe agree to reasonable
restrictions on his future behavior , without
unnecessarily negatively
effecting his charity. The contract, for this or a pre
trial diversion agreement , could be ,I believe ,
negotiated in good faith with your office to meet all
our various needs ,justice , and also be done in a
non-public way, giving everyone what appears to be a
win- win situation.
I hope this letter is helpful , and thank you
in advance for both your patience and consideration,,
I trust I will see you on thursday.
was very sorry not to have you present at the meeting
I had with Dahlia , Lanna and detective Joseph
Recarey. I was told you had a last minute emergency,
and hope the outcome of your meeting was more
satisfactory than mine..Had you been there , I beleive
you would now concur in my strong belief that charges,
against Jeffrey Epstein should not be brought. ...I
thought it appropriate to give you at least my version
of what transpired at the meeting so as to make our
scheduled meeting on thursday the 23, more
productive. In a kafkaesque scenario, I find myself
trying at the prosecutions request,to give evidence
in an attempt to rebut charges, and allegations of
specific "incidents" of wrongdoing, while at the same
time being told they will not details these charges.
I have taken you at your word, that your office would
not pursue charges if there was no sexual intercourse
or oral sex. I can only surmise then, that initially
Dahlia and Lanna had what they believed were credible
witnesses alleging more than touching. . I now, am
convinced that they also now realize that their
witnesses have been less than truthful with both
Recarey and them. .. It is astonishing to me that
even at this late date we have been unable to
obtain, from them the details of the charges ,the
names , places, time and events under investigation,
but are told "ALan , if you give us contradictory
evidence ,we will consider it."...I can only conclude
that since they are only really truly convinced of a
touching case they are hesitant to admit the details
of the allegations. Lanna confirmed that she ,you and
dahlia, had in fact considered a fair resolution, but
that you had decided that due to Detecive recarey's ,
discontent,(which I experienced first hand at the
meeting , when in an exasperated tone he said to me
"but I've worked on this case for so long") to now
send the case to a grand jury.However, As I had,
responded to you on the phone,and now reiterate I
trust your experience,your balanced, mature view, of
the overall circumstances , far more than I could the
liklihood of a Grand jury arriving at a fair
conclusion. As , the men and women would simply see ,
a young woman , who suggests wrongdoing, look at the
statute, and have little choice but to indict. The
girl obviously not subject to even the slightest
cross examination, and her checkered history , lack
of credibility, and in some cases, arrest, drug use,
and in the specific case of Alexandra Hall ,(what we
now understand to be your main witness), . confessed
incidents of theft.would not even be brought to the
attention of the grand jurors, as your investigator
didn't himself know of these very relevant facts.If I
may remind you, this girl was arrested for marijuana
posession in september , did community service, in
october, and immediatly upon completion of her
service fell back into her well established habit of
breaking the law.Seperate from her admitted drug use
and web pages that we have previouly forwarded to you,
we have in our possesion her e- mail where she refers
to her " illegitimate occupation". I've attached the
report contemporaneously prepared by her employers
loss prevention officer , that we have now also
turned over to Lanna , clearly illustrating that this
girl has a history of lies thefts and when confronted
, simply attempts to concoct story after story.. You
should be acutely aware that I provided this to
your office after, much trepidation, as this report
, is clearly one of our most sensitive documents ,
certainly that we would have been used to totally
destroy the remnants of Ms. Halls' credibility in
the unlikely event of a trial. This was provided in
addition to the charge slip that confirms that when Ms
Hall bought the strap on dildo,( the subject of a
previous conversation)
from her favorite sex shop. she had obviousy been
above the age of eighteen.... I don't want to appear
flippant where such an important matter is at stake,
but If I were detective Recarey,and I assume that he
prides himself on his abilty to judge character, and
now realizes that he had been taken in by what is
now the obvious lies of miss Hall, and understood
yiddish, when I saw the copy of the incontrovertible
proof to which we had referred, I would "plotz". ...I
guess it's lucky he doesn't understand... I then
spent some time at the meeting, reiterating my view,
that I know that you share, that especially in
instances of age related offenses, that both the
responsibility and the precedent of your office is to
excercise discretion with both breadth and justice.. I
referred to the Supreme court of Wisconsin case where
judge abrahamson made the relevant observation, In
strict liability offenses, perhaps ...insert----...
We then continued the discussion of precedent and it's
importance .Afterward , I thought it unncessary to
easily distingush Mr Epstein's case, from that of
the Harley case that you agreed, was not the case to
which you had initally referred, I was surprised to
hear Lanna still attempt to make a connection
between Harleys forty plus year criminal history
that began with strong arm rape, shooting into an
occupied building, stolen merchandise etc. with Mr
Epsteins history of philanthropy on a grand scale.
Medicine , Israel. science, education, the arts, as
well as his active participation in meanigful world
organizations , including the Trilateral COmmision ,
and the Council on Foreign Relations.. If there was
ever a poster boy for the exercise of prosecutorial
discretion. he is it. Contrast this with the history
of Alexandra hall who had on many occasions told
others that she was determined to be really, really,
rich and would do absolutly anything , to accomplish
that goal... Her offering anal sex, or stealing the
magazine detailing Mr Epstein's accomplishmnets, were
simply steps she saw as part of her plan..She was
repeatedly turned down when she wanted to ride on his
plane,( our guess, and only a guess, why Recarey as
late as last week . approached Mr Epstein's pilot and
told him quite unncessarily that he had been
investigatin MR Epstein since 2004 and had informed
him for the first time that there was an investigation
regarding fourteen year old girls).. I believe it
would have saved a great deal of time and trouble for
both my client and your office had the detective
instead taken even the basic step of checking to see
if Alexandra had a juvenile record... we did , she did
, and we informed Recarey for the first time at the
meeting....... As you have already acknowledged, we
have been as cooperative as possible, but I must admit
until today it's been quite a one way street, as the
prosecutors, still refuse to even tell us the names of
their suppossed witnesses... If they were in fact in
Mr Epstein's house, he obviously must know them,, so
why not tell him who they are.. At our first meeting
you had specifically told me that you would never
bring a touching, case,,, but when I ask if "there is
more than that alleged, I'm met with "Im sorry there
is an on-going investigation, and if you like to
refute the still secret facts please do so as soon
as possible.. This is obviously not fair.. Lanna
responded to this concern with the statment , that
this is always how it is with Grand Juries.. However,
as you will certainly agree, as we can't find any
precedent in your office, this is a case where a man
even if all your alleged facts are to be believed, is
in no position other than the recent massage parlor
visitor, who in one instance said he had visited the
establishment over two hundred times.and was never
prosecuted.( the closest precedent we found). We have
also been unable to find the case, to which you
referred that you said began as an elderly abuse
case.. In fact guy Fronsteins' office has had someone
at the courthouse researching for two weeks, as well
as my researchers for considerably longer, and neither
of us, have found a similar case.. In this case there
is no allegation regarding a person in position of
authority,familial relationship or supervisory role,
no coercion, no drugs , alcohol , or agression of any
kind. In fact it is readily acknowledged that the
girls were knowingly and voluntarily coming to Palm
Beach to give a topless massage. It would be a
setting a new precedent without comparision to charge
a person in this circumstance.. Dahlia said at the
meeting that the aggravating circumstance in this case
was " volume"..." I responded that in fact if
touching was not of interest to the office,(I recall
the story of the fifteen year old stripper, that you
said would never initiate a prosecution) then in fact
"volume" was the best proof that my client shoulod not
be chargedt. ... As I'm sure you were told .only a
total of 2 or 3 girls(we assume Halls' friends, whose
backrounds we can only assume were not investigated
any more thoroughly than Hall's herself) that may have
accidently slipped through Mr Epstein's precautions,
have alleged anything more serious... Contrast this
with the pattern of Mr Harley , who would never pass
up the opportunity to video tape his victims without
their knowldge, then attempt to sell the tapes, and
had a clear understanding with the girls that they
were being paid for sex, and his only possible
defense was I'm sorry but that man , naked on one of
the many hours of video tape ,in my bed who shares my
body , is not really me... ... In fairness the last
half hour of the meeting seemed to be more
constructive . It began by moving toward a mutual
resolution .. Lanna had initially said that she and
Dahlia had considered a plea to three misdemeanor
charges of "contributing to the deliquency of a
minor", , I was quickly adamant that we could not
agree to that charge, as not only would it be grossly
unfair to my client but a public sex related charge
would not only damamge my client , but would harm
innocent third parties, who would no longer be able to
accept his well established charity... She then
suggested something she referred to as pre trial
intervention... I was unfamiliar with the concept..
but she thought this idea might lead to a possible
solution.. I suggested that the charge would have to
be be a non sex related charge as I think we
agreed that a sex charge didn't add anything to the
pound of flesh that your office appears to be focused
on receiving.(i.e. simple battery) I said that I
thought that an this unfair , (and still believe that
the only resolution consistant with our firm
agreement that if there was nothing but "touching",
charges should not now be brought) "but expeditious
resolution might however be in my client's best
interest , especially in light of the threat of the
aformentioned , one sided grand jury proceding .We
are certain that your own prosecutors have doubts
both of the credibilty and ultimate reluctance of your
witnesses testimony. As a well established principle
you'll agree that a grand jury 's role is not to
decide credibility . Even with the facts being at
worst case no different than a massage parlors'
visitor , and your previous commitment regarding a
touching case If you have now decided that the
decision " not to charge" is off the table I
suggested in the meeting that in the interest in
putting this behind us we might be able to agree to a
deferred prosecution, .. Dahlia initally said she
thought this was tantamount to "getting nothing" ,
but I immediatly and strongly disagreed, as did Guy.
As Mr. Epstein would I believe agree to reasonable
restrictions on his future behavior , without
unnecessarily negatively
effecting his charity. The contract, for this or a pre
trial diversion agreement , could be ,I believe ,
negotiated in good faith with your office to meet all
our various needs ,justice , and also be done in a
non-public way, giving everyone what appears to be a
win- win situation.
I hope this letter is helpful , and thank you
in advance for both your patience and consideration,,
I trust I will see you on thursday.

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com