krischer final
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.
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.