MARTIN G. WEINBERG, P.C. ATTORNEY AT LAW 20 PARR PLAZA.SUI7E MOB BOSTON. MASSACHUSETTS 02116 April 23, 2015 Via Email and U.S. Mail John Zucker Assistant Legal Counsel Office of Legal Counsel 77 W 66TH St, Room 1628 New York, NY 10023 Re: Good Morning America and Night Line interview with Jane Doe 3 Dear Mr. Zucker: I represent Jeffrey Epstein. I have been informed by Producer James Hill that an interview, conducted by a Good Morning America co-host, of a woman known in court papers as Jane Doe 3 (Mr. Hill informed me that she was waiving whatever rights to anonymity she might assert but I will, because of certain legal obligations, refer to her as Jane Doe 3) includes a series of accusations regarding alleged conduct of my client that Jane Doe 3 states occurred starting in the summer of 1999 i.e. 16 years ago and ending 3 years later i.e. 13 years ago. I urge ABC first to consider whether these accusations are even potentially newsworthy matters rather than simply the reformatted echoes of previous allegations, first made to the UK tabloids by Jane Doe 3 in 2011, allegations that were and remain largely uncorroborated, aleegations that are often disputed by trustworthy evidence. A review of the filings in a pending Crime Victims Rights Act case (Jane Doe v. United States, 08-CV-80736-ICAM) would show that the presiding Judge, upon reviewing a subset of the allegations you are considering airing, found them to be "redundant, immaterial im ertinent or scandalous matter." A filed affidavit in that case from FBI Special Agent fleets that when Jane Doe 3 was first interviewed she refused to cooperate wit tie investigation of Mr. Epstein declaring she wanted nothing to do with the matter. Now, it appears, ABC intends to provide her with a national platform to make allegations she declined to make when they could reasonably have been tested by federal law enforcement. More specifically, ABC has the means to test certain of her allegations a