Epstein Data Wiki

Palm Beach Police Department investigation (2005–2006)

Properties2
tagscase, 2005, 2006, palm-beach, florida, law-enforcement, state-attorney
aliasesPalm Beach Police investigation, PBPD investigation of Jeffrey Epstein

29 min read

Investigating agencyPalm Beach Police Department, Town of Palm Beach, Florida1
Case number1-05-0003682
OpenedMarch 20053
Lead detectiveDet. Joseph Recarey (d. May 25, 2018)45
Chief of PoliceMichael S. Reiter, chief 2001 to February 20091
Prosecuting officeOffice of the State Attorney, 15th Judicial Circuit; State Attorney Barry Krischer; Crimes Against Children Unit chief Lanna Belohlavek1
Search warrantExecuted October 20, 2005 at Epstein’s Palm Beach residence, 358 El Brillo Way67
Probable cause affidavitsSworn May 1, 2006; sought unlawful sexual activity with a minor and lewd and lascivious molestation87
State charge returnedOne count of felony solicitation of prostitution, Fla. Stat. § 796.07, Palm Beach County grand jury, July 19, 20069
Referred toFBI, West Palm Beach, 20061011

The Palm Beach Police Department investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, case 1-05-000368, ran from March 2005 to spring 2006 in the Town of Palm Beach, Florida.312 It was led by Detective Joseph Recarey under Chief Michael S. Reiter, and it produced a search of Epstein’s Palm Beach residence, sworn statements from five complainants and seventeen witnesses, and probable cause affidavits sworn on May 1, 2006 seeking two felony charges against Epstein.813 The Palm Beach County State Attorney’s Office, which alone could bring charges, put the matter to a state grand jury instead; on July 19, 2006 the grand jury returned a single count of felony solicitation of prostitution.9 Reiter, who had already written to State Attorney Barry Krischer to say he found his office’s “treatment of these cases highly unusual” and to ask him to consider disqualifying himself, referred the matter to the FBI.1411 The federal investigation that followed ended in the 2008 non-prosecution agreement and Epstein’s June 2008 state guilty plea.1015 The Department of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility set out the state phase of the case in its November 2020 report, which is the principal source for this page.16

How the investigation began

In March 2005 a complaint was made to the Palm Beach Police Department that a man had paid a girl to give him a massage at his Palm Beach home. The department identified Epstein as the recipient and opened an investigation into him and two of his personal assistants, who were also implicated by the complainant.3 Throughout its report OPR uses “girls” to mean females under 18, the age of majority under Florida law.10

Two earlier contacts are recorded. In March 2004 a Palm Beach officer documented a telephone complaint that Epstein had been receiving massages from a girl at his residence; the report described the information as “unverified” and it was not pursued. On November 28, 2004 the police recorded information that young women had been seen coming and going from Epstein’s residence, but because the department had no evidence that they were minors, and did not ordinarily investigate prostitution in private residences, it opened no investigation.17

What the department did

The investigation expanded beyond the original complaint to allegations that during 2004 and 2005 Epstein, through his female assistants and through some of the complainants, had recruited local girls to give him massages at his home, and that in some cases those massages led to sexual activity.36 The allegations were for the most part consistent in describing a general pattern in which assistants scheduled up to three massage appointments a day, often telephoning to make an appointment while Epstein was travelling to Palm Beach from another of his residences; a girl who arrived was taken upstairs by an assistant, who set up a table and oils and then left. The usual payment was $200, and a girl who brought another girl was paid again for doing so; several of the complainants acknowledged to police that they had recruited others.6 The evidence on what Epstein knew of the girls’ ages was mixed: some recruits were told to say they were over 18, some told him their real ages, police corroborated one account of flowers sent to a girl at her high school, and an employee told the department that some of the females who came to the residence appeared to be underage.6 Epstein’s attorney Jack Goldberger said Epstein had been given a polygraph examination and had passed “on knowledge of age.”1311

The Palm Beach Post reported that police had spent months sifting through Epstein’s rubbish and watching his waterfront home and Palm Beach International Airport to keep track of his private jet.13 Among the former employees the detectives sought to interview was the house manager Alfredo Rodriguez.18

The search warrant, October 20, 2005

In October 2005 the department, with the assistance of the State Attorney’s Office, obtained a search warrant for the residence. When police arrived on October 20 they found computer monitors and keyboards and disconnected surveillance cameras, but the computer equipment itself, including video recordings and other electronic storage media, was gone.67 What was recovered included notepads on which Epstein’s assistants had recorded messages from many girls over a two-year span returning calls to confirm appointments; numerous photographs of “naked young females of indeterminate age”; massage tables and oils; one complainant’s high school transcript; and items police believed to be sex toys. Police photographs of the interior corroborated what complainants had told them about the layout of the house.7 The detective who led the investigation later told federal prosecutors that, given the missing computer equipment and surveillance videotapes, he believed Epstein might have been “tipped off” about the warrant in advance.19

The surveillance equipment, and the complaint about it

The department’s papers record covert cameras at the residence in two distinct connections. The probable cause affidavit sworn on May 1, 2006 gives the detective’s own narrative of the execution of the warrant: on the first floor he found “two covert cameras hidden within clocks”, one in the garage and the other in the library area on a shelf behind Epstein’s desk, and a computer believed to contain the images from them, whose hard drive on review showed images of witnesses who had already been interviewed, all of which appeared to come from the camera positioned behind the desk.20

The October 2005 search warrant affidavit carries something earlier and different in kind. Setting out grounds for the warrant, the affiant recalls a call made two years before it: “Your affiant recalled working a previous case within Epstein’s residence on October 5, 2003, when Epstein reported a theft from within his house. A former, disgruntled houseman was suspected in stealing monies from the house. At that time, I observed several covert cameras which, would capture and record images of anyone within the residence. Epstein had purchased covert cameras which were built in wall clocks and table clocks. These images were then downloaded onto a proprietary spy ware software for later viewing.”21 That paragraph is the affiant’s recollection of what he saw in October 2003, on a burglary call Epstein himself had made, offered in 2005 as a reason to issue the warrant. It is not a record of what the October 20, 2005 search recovered, and the account of the search set out above is the record of that.

Epstein’s side objected to the equipment being mentioned at all. A complaint drafted in January 2007 to the department’s Professional Standards Unit and to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, asking for an investigation of the lead detective’s conduct and for disciplinary action against him, gives the point its own numbered head under the heading “I. Inaccuracies and Material Omissions” and the sub-head “The Video Surveillance Equipment”. Both the police report and the probable cause affidavits, it says, “make particular mention of the ‘discovery’ of video surveillance equipment (or ‘covert (hidden) cameras’ as they are called) in Epstein’s garage and library/office. Inclusion of this information insinuates a link between the equipment and the events at issue”. Those are the contentions of a complaint drafted for the defence, not findings, and the copy in the release is unsigned.22

The State Attorney’s Office and the charging decision

Under Florida law a State Attorney may charge a felony either by filing an information or by seeking a grand jury indictment; only capital cases require a grand jury.23 The charging decision therefore belonged to Krischer’s office, not to the police.

Krischer told OPR that the case was unusual in that the police brought it to him without having made an arrest, and that it was assigned to the Crimes Against Children Unit. Reiter testified in a 2009 civil deposition that when the department first brought the case in 2005 Krischer was supportive and told him, “Let’s go for it,” because Epstein was “somebody we have to stop.” Krischer told OPR that both the detectives and the prosecutors came to recognise that “there were witness problems.”7

Assistant State Attorney Lanna Belohlavek, who headed the unit, told OPR that she and a colleague “were at a disagreement” with the police “over what the state … could ethically charge.” She did not believe the evidence would satisfy the elements of the two felonies the police wanted filed (unlawful sexual activity with a minor under Fla. Stat. § 794.05(1) and lewd and lascivious molestation of a minor under § 800.04(5)) and the police “were not happy with that.” OPR also records that complainants had given contradictory statements to police and that the original complainant, whose account could have supported a charge carrying sex offender registration, recanted her allegation of sexual contact. Belohlavek offered Epstein a resolution carrying five years’ probation, which he rejected; in April 2006 the office offered him a plea to aggravated assault with intent to commit a felony, adjudication withheld, with five years’ probation and no unsupervised contact with minors.724 She told OPR that her office took the allegations seriously (“it was an organized scheme to involve young girls by offering them money”) but that although Epstein’s “behavior was reprehensible, … I’m limited by … the state statutes as to what I can charge.”23

Records released by the State Attorney’s Office show that from early 2006 Epstein’s lawyers pressed the office to let him plead no contest rather than guilty, and gave it a large volume of material aimed at undermining the complainants’ credibility, including criminal records, social media postings about their own drug use and sexual activity, and statements said to undercut the allegations.7 Krischer told OPR that Epstein’s local counsel brought Alan Dershowitz to see him and the assistant state attorney, and that Dershowitz was “overly aggressive” and threatened, “We’re going to destroy your witnesses; don’t go to court because we’re going to destroy those girls.” OPR records no response from Dershowitz to that account; the Palm Beach Post, which reported on July 26, 2006 that he was one of five attorneys Epstein had retained, said he could not be reached for comment.2313 According to Krischer, Dershowitz so “tainted the waters” that Epstein also retained Jack Goldberger, with whom Krischer had “a working relationship”; because the husband of the assistant state attorney then handling the case was Goldberger’s law partner, Belohlavek recused her to remove “even the appearance of any kind of conflict” and took the case over herself.23 The detective later described the removal of that prosecutor to federal investigators as something the defence had, in the department’s view, orchestrated.19

On July 29, 2006 the Palm Beach Post reported, from Recarey’s police report, that the case had originally been due to go before the grand jury in February 2006 but was postponed after Dershowitz produced material from MySpace pages, and that the April offer had been accepted by another Epstein attorney, Guy Fronstin, in connection with only one of the five complainants. Fronstin declined to comment on the case and was later replaced by Goldberger, who denied that any of Epstein’s attorneys had agreed to a plea: “We absolutely did not agree to a plea in this case.” The paper reported that neither Belohlavek nor a spokesman for the state attorney could be reached for comment on that point.11

Krischer told OPR that under the state law then in force his office prosecuted minors as young as 14 for prostitution, that the possibility the complainants themselves could be charged caused “great consternation within the office,” and that this led to the decision to put the case to a grand jury rather than direct-file: “the only way to achieve, to my mind, real justice was to present the case to the grand jury and not to direct-file.”23 He otherwise declined to explain his office’s prosecutive decisions to OPR, because an investigation by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement into his office’s handling of the case was pending when OPR interviewed him; on allegations of favouritism towards Epstein’s counsel he told OPR, “I just don’t play that way.”2526

The probable cause affidavits and Reiter’s letter of May 1, 2006

The department’s probable cause affidavit for Epstein, sworn on May 1, 2006 under police case 05-368(1), names him as defendant and gives the charges sought as unlawful sexual activity with a minor, four counts, and lewd and lascivious molestation. It states that from March 15, 2005 through February 2006 the department conducted a sexual battery investigation, and that sworn taped statements were taken from five victims and seventeen witnesses.8 A probable cause affidavit is a sworn statement by an officer in support of a charge, not a charge.

Reiter sent the affidavits to Krischer the same day, with a case filing package covering Epstein and two other people, under a covering letter marked “Personal and Confidential.” The letter says the submission answered a request from Belohlavek and served as the department’s presentation for prosecution, and then:

… I must renew my prior observation to you that I continue to find your office’s treatment of these cases highly unusual. It is regrettable that I am forced to communicate in this manner but my most recent telephone calls to you and those of the lead detective to your assigned attorneys have been unanswered and messages remain unreturned.

After giving this much thought and consideration, I must urge you to examine the unusual course that your office’s handling of this matter has taken and consider if good and sufficient reason exists to require your disqualification from the prosecution of these cases.14

OPR records that Reiter’s concern had built through 2006: he perceived that Krischer’s attitude had changed, that Krischer told him he did not believe the complainants were credible, and he was disturbed by a suggestion that the department issue a notice for Epstein to appear on misdemeanour charges. In his 2009 deposition Reiter said, “I knew that it didn’t really matter what the facts were in this case, it was pretty clear to me that Mr. Krischer did not want to prosecute this case.”27 The Palm Beach Post quoted the letter on July 26, 2006 and linked to it from the story.13

The grand jury and the single state charge

On July 19, 2006 Belohlavek presented the case to a Palm Beach County grand jury. Krischer told OPR that “the whole thing” was put before it. The office’s spokesman, Mike Edmondson, said at the time that the grand jury had been given a list of charges from highest to lowest, without a prosecutor’s recommendation, and had deliberated with the prosecutor out of the room.911

The grand jury returned an indictment charging one count of solicitation of prostitution under Fla. Stat. § 796.07, a felony under state law because it alleged three or more instances. It read, in pertinent part, that “between the 1st day of August [2004] and October 31, 2005, [Epstein] did solicit, induce, entice, or procure another to commit prostitution lewdness, or assignation, … on three or more occasions.” OPR notes that the indictment did not identify the person or persons solicited and made no mention of Epstein having solicited minors, and that the fifteen-month span and absence of detail made it impossible to tell from the charging document which complainant the charge rested on; Belohlavek explained that the charge did not list specific complainants so that she could go to trial with whichever were available and willing to testify.928 Epstein self-surrendered on July 23, 2006, was not detained, and the charges were made public.9

Asked about the choice of a grand jury, Edmondson told the Palm Beach Post that his office presents cases other than murders to a grand jury when there are questions about witnesses’ credibility and their ability to testify, and that police look at evidence from a “one-sided perspective” while “a prosecutor has to look at it in a much broader fashion.” Goldberger said Epstein had committed no crimes, that the reports and statements in question “refer to false accusations that were not charged because the Palm Beach County state attorney questioned the credibility of the witnesses,” and that a county grand jury “found the allegations wholly unsubstantiated and not credible,” which, he said, was why his client had not been charged with sexual activity with minors.13

The same reporting recorded that three months before the investigation began Epstein had donated $90,000 to the police department for the purchase of a firearms simulator; the town’s finance director, Jane Struder, said the purchase was never made and the money was returned to Epstein that week.13

Referral to the FBI

OPR’s account of the referral runs from early 2006, when a West Palm Beach FBI special agent who worked with Assistant U.S. Attorney A. Marie Villafaña on child exploitation cases mentioned in “casual conversations” that the Palm Beach department was investigating a wealthy Palm Beach man who recruited minors, and that it had approached the FBI because the State Attorney’s Office was considering either not charging the case or allowing a misdemeanour plea. The department wanted to see how the state charged Epstein before presenting the case formally.2719 In May 2006 the lead detective met Villafaña and the case agent and summarised what the state investigation had found; he told them that pressure “had been brought to bear on … Krischer by Epstein’s attorneys,” that private investigators had been hired to trail Reiter and himself, and that he could not confirm his suspicion that girls had been transported across state lines.19 Villafaña opened a U.S. Attorney’s Office file on May 23, 2006 with her immediate supervisor’s approval, naming the investigation “Operation Leap Year” because the state investigation had identified approximately 29 girls as victims; she briefed U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta and Criminal Division chief Jeffrey Sloman in Miami on July 14, 2006.2930 The FBI in West Palm Beach formally opened its case on July 24, 2006, the day after the state charges became public.31

The Palm Beach Post reported on July 29, 2006 that Reiter had referred the matter to the FBI after the indictment was unsealed, and quoted an FBI spokeswoman in Miami, Judy Orihuela: “We’ve received the referral, and we’re reviewing it.” The paper reported that Reiter had declined to comment on the case, and quoted Epstein’s New York counsel Gerald Lefcourt, in the New York Post, saying his client was indicted only “because of the craziness of the police chief.”11 A defence filing in the later Maxwell prosecution quotes a letter Reiter wrote to one of the complainants: “I do not feel that justice has been sufficiently served by the indictment that has been issued. Therefore please know that his (sic) matter has been referred to the Federal Bureau of Investigation to determine if violations of federal law have occurred.”12 OPR records that after the referral a Town of Palm Beach official criticised Reiter for it, telling him the complainants were not believable and “Palm Beach solves its own problems.”32 A complainant’s civil pleading reproduces a passage of Reiter’s deposition in which he names that official: Jerry Goldsmith. In the quoted answers Reiter says Goldsmith “actually came to see me a couple of times about this” and told him he “shouldn’t have referred it to the FBI and Palm Beach solves its own problems.” The description of Goldsmith as an elected Town official and chairman of the police retirement board is the pleading’s own allegation, in the paragraph that introduces the excerpt, and is not part of the answers quoted. This page does not hold the deposition and has not compared the excerpt with the transcript.33

Relations between the two offices did not improve. By late August 2006 Villafaña was reporting to her supervisors that the State Attorney’s Office would not provide state grand jury transcripts voluntarily and that she would be meeting Reiter “to convince him to relinquish the evidence to the FBI”; when Acosta asked whether it was appropriate to give Krischer “a heads up,” Sloman replied, “No for fear that it will be leaked straight to Epstein.”31

Reports of witness intimidation

The department’s files record complaints of pressure on complainants and their families. An incident report entered in April 2006, in which Recarey recorded personally serving state grand jury subpoenas, states that he was told private investigators were still photographing a family.2 In the 2019 federal bail proceedings in New York the government put two Palm Beach police reports before the court: one in which a complainant said she had been contacted through “a source that has maintained contact with Epstein” who “assured [the victim] that she would receive monetary compensation for her assistance in not cooperating with law enforcement,” and had been told, “Those who help him will be compensated and those who hurt him will be dealt with”; and an undated report in which the parent of one complainant said Epstein’s private investigator had driven the parent’s car off the road, and the parent of another said they had been “followed aggressively” by the same investigator.3435 The government argued that these reports showed a willingness “to use intimidation and aggressive tactics in connection with a criminal investigation.”34 At the time, the Palm Beach Post reported from Recarey’s report that parents who complained of being followed had given police the licence tag numbers of two of the men, and that the vehicles were registered to private investigators in West Palm Beach and Jupiter. Asked about it, Goldberger said, “I have no knowledge of it.”11

The department’s files afterwards

The Palm Beach files did not stay with the department. The FBI began taking copies of the state investigation’s evidence in July 2006, and in 2020 the Southern District of New York told the court in the Maxwell prosecution that between roughly 2005 and 2010 the Palm Beach Police Department, the Palm Beach State Attorney’s Office, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida and the FBI’s Palm Beach Resident Agency had conducted the Florida investigation, and that the Palm Beach police files had been incorporated into the FBI Florida office’s case file and were therefore part of that prosecution team’s materials.313637

In October 2021 counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell moved to exclude the items seized in the October 2005 search from her trial, arguing that the property receipt and search warrant return was cursory, that no inventory of the seized storage devices had been made, and that with Recarey dead there was no custodian who could say what had been seized, kept, returned or transferred to the FBI. The same filing asserts that Maxwell was never a target of the Palm Beach investigation and that her name appears in no charging document or probable cause statement from it.12 Those are the contentions of a defence motion, not findings.

The following career summary is a criminal defendant’s court filing, not a record of his service: it comes from Ghislaine Maxwell’s motion to dismiss for pre-indictment delay, whose own footnote sources it to a Palm Beach Post obituary, and whose purpose was to argue that a dead detective could not be cross-examined. On that filing’s account, Detective Recarey joined the Palm Beach Police Department in 1991 and was promoted to detective in 1994; he worked in the department’s Organized Crime Vice and Narcotics Unit, the Justice Department and Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office Internet Crimes Against Children Unit, and the State Attorney’s Public Integrity Unit, and received more than 150 commendations, including the inaugural “Officer of the Year” award from the Palm Beach Police Foundation in 2012. He worked only on the Epstein case for a year, reviewed earlier officers’ reports, conducted interviews, reviewed surveillance footage of the residence, took part in the search, and testified before the state grand jury. He died on May 25, 2018.45

What followed

The federal investigation the referral began ended in a non-prosecution agreement signed on September 24, 2007, under which the U.S. Attorney’s Office agreed to forgo prosecution of Epstein, four named co-conspirators and “any potential co-conspirators” in exchange for a state plea; complainants were not told of the agreement before it was signed. Epstein pleaded guilty on June 30, 2008 to the state solicitation indictment and to a further state charge of procurement of minors to engage in prostitution, and was sentenced to consecutive terms of 12 and 6 months followed by 12 months of community control.15 A petition under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act was filed in federal court on July 7, 2008.15 See the 2008 non-prosecution agreement and the CVRA litigation.

Key documents

DocumentWhat it is
DOJ-OGR-00003177DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility report, November 2020, 348 pages, filed as an exhibit in United States v. Maxwell; principal source for the state phase. Also produced as DOJ-OGR-00004298 and, with page images, as EFTA02830776
EFTA00013768Chief Reiter’s letter to State Attorney Krischer, May 1, 2006
EFTA01308488Palm Beach Police Department probable cause affidavit, case 05-368(1), sworn May 1, 2006
DOJ-OGR-00000355Palm Beach Police Department incident report, case 1-05-000368, printed July 19, 2006; grand jury subpoena service
DOJ-OGR-00000329Government letter to Judge Berman, July 12, 2019, opposing Epstein’s release
DOJ-OGR-00000472Judge Berman’s order of July 18, 2019 granting remand
DOJ-OGR-00005726Maxwell’s motion in limine to exclude items seized in the October 20, 2005 search, October 29, 2021
DOJ-OGR-00002504Maxwell’s motion to dismiss for pre-indictment delay, February 4, 2021; Recarey biography
DOJ-OGR-00001787, DOJ-OGR-00001812Government letters in United States v. Maxwell, October 7 and 30, 2020, on the Florida investigative files
EFTA00067339, EFTA00067336Palm Beach Post articles of July 26 and July 29, 2006, held in the release as printouts

Footnotes

  1. OPR Report, narrative p. 4. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00003177 p.30 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  2. Palm Beach Police Department, Incident Report, case 1-05-000368, printout p. 82 (PDF p. 1), narrative reported by Det. Recarey April 14, 2006, filed as an exhibit in United States v. Epstein, No. 1:19-cr-00490-RMB. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00000355 ↩ ↩2

  3. OPR Report, narrative p. 11. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00003177 p.37 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  4. Memorandum of Law in Support of Ms. Maxwell’s Motion to Dismiss Counts One Through Six of the Superseding Indictment for Pre-Indictment Delay, United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, Doc. 138, Feb. 4, 2021, printed pp. 10-11 (ECF pp. 15-16). Re-pinned 2026-09-19 to the renderable EFTA twin, EFTA02830359 p.15, read at the image at 350 dpi: the copy previously cited here, DOJ-OGR-00002504, returns HTTP 403 on the site’s /pdf/ path. CORRECTED 2026-09-25: this footnote previously added that it “cannot be shown to a reader at all”. That was false and is withdrawn. Measured this date, that 403 is byte-identical — 111 bytes, application/xml — for an identifier that exists nowhere, so it reports nothing about any sheet; the site serves the run itself at https://epstein-data.com/non-efta-docs/dojogr-pdfs/DOJ-OGR-00002504.pdf: HTTP 200, application/pdf, 17,074,551 bytes, 26 sheets, with no credential and no header of any kind. This pass opened its sheet 15, which carries the stamp Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 138 Filed 02/04/21 Page 15 of 26 over printed page 10 at the head of section D. The re-pin recorded above stands and is unaffected. Same instrument, same pagination. See Joseph Recarey for why this passage is attributed rather than adopted. ↩ ↩2

  5. OPR Report, narrative p. 17 n.18. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00003177 p.43 ↩ ↩2

  6. OPR Report, narrative p. 13. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00003177 p.39 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  7. OPR Report, narrative p. 14. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00003177 p.40 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7

  8. Probable Cause Affidavit, Palm Beach Police Department, police case 05-368(1), sworn May 1, 2006, p. 1, cited for the charge block and the numbers of statements taken. EFTA01308488 p.1. ENCLOSURE TRAP, recorded 2026-09-19: this run is 23 pages and its p.23 is an unrelated Western Union subpoena response, not part of the affidavit. Cite the page, never the run. Both figures on this sheet were re-read at the image at 350 dpi and both are CORRECT — and the check was worth making, because the searchable text renders “(4) counts” as “(I)” and would have produced “one count”. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  9. OPR Report, narrative p. 20. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00003177 p.46 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  10. OPR Report, Executive Summary p. i and n.1. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00003177 p.3 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  11. Larry Keller, “Billionaire’s lawyer tried to discredit teen girls, police say,” Palm Beach Post, July 29, 2006; printout in the release, pp. 1–3. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00067336 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7

  12. Ghislaine Maxwell’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Items Purportedly Seized During Search of 358 El Brillo Way on October 20, 2005, United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Doc. 391, Oct. 29, 2021, printed pp. 1–4 (ECF pp. 4–7). https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00005726 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  13. Larry Keller, “After long probe, Palm Beach billionaire faces solicitation charge,” Palm Beach Post, July 26, 2006; printout in the release, pp. 1–2 and 4. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00067339 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7

  14. Michael S. Reiter, Chief of Police, Town of Palm Beach Police Department, to Barry E. Krischer, State Attorney, May 1, 2006; one page. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00013768 ↩ ↩2

  15. OPR Report, Executive Summary pp. i–ii. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00003177 p.3 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  16. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility, Investigation into the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida’s Resolution of Its 2006–2008 Federal Criminal Investigation of Jeffrey Epstein and Its Interactions with Victims during the Investigation, November 2020, filed as Government Exhibit 3, Document 204-3 in United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (S.D.N.Y.), April 16, 2021. Citations below are to the report’s own executive-summary and narrative page numbers, which run 26 pages behind the filing’s ECF stamp. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00003177 ↩

  17. OPR Report, narrative p. 11 n.6. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00003177 p.37 ↩

  18. Probable Cause Affidavit, p. 21, recording the detective’s January 4, 2006 interview of “another former houseman, Mr Alfredo Rodriguez,” who described his responsibilities as house manager. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01308488 ↩

  19. OPR Report, narrative p. 17. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00003177 p.43 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  20. Probable Cause Affidavit, Palm Beach Police Department, police case 05-368(1), sworn May 1, 2006, the detective’s narrative of the execution of the October 20, 2005 warrant. EFTA01308488 p.18, read at the image at 350 dpi; the affidavit’s own folio 18 is written at the foot of the sheet and the jurat is dated May 1, 2006. ↩

  21. Search warrant affidavit, Palm Beach Police Department, October 2005, in the town’s 2017 public-records production of the case folder. EFTA02856805 p.11, read at the image at 350 dpi; the affidavit’s own folio 10 is printed at the foot. Read at the image because the extraction is unreliable on this sheet: it renders the jurat’s day as “le”, which the image gives as the 18th day of October, 2005. ↩

  22. Letter to the Professional Standards Unit of the Palm Beach Police Department and to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, January 2007, requesting an investigation of the lead detective’s conduct in the Epstein matter and disciplinary action against him; the passage quoted is under section I, sub-head 1, on the letter’s second sheet. EFTA02856805 p.21, with the letter’s opening at p.20 and its close at p.27, all read at the image at 350 dpi. The copy in the release is a draft that was never executed: its first sheet carries a bracketed drafting marker dated January 11, 2007 above a date line reading “January __, 2007” with the day never filled in and a salutation reading “Dear [ ]:”, and its final sheet ends “Very truly yours,” with nothing beneath. The figures the letter gives when it cites the police report and the affidavits are its own internal references to those documents and are not pages of this production. ↩

  23. OPR Report, narrative p. 15. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00003177 p.41 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  24. OPR Report, narrative p. 14 n.9. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00003177 p.40 ↩

  25. OPR Report, narrative p. 15 n.11. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00003177 p.41 ↩

  26. OPR Report, narrative p. 16 n.17. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00003177 p.42 ↩

  27. OPR Report, narrative p. 16. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00003177 p.42 ↩ ↩2

  28. OPR Report, narrative p. 20 nn.25–26, citing the indictment in State v. Epstein, 2006CF9454AXX (July 19, 2006). https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00003177 p.46 ↩

  29. OPR Report, narrative p. 18. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00003177 p.44 ↩

  30. OPR Report, narrative p. 19. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00003177 p.45 ↩

  31. OPR Report, narrative p. 21. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00003177 p.47 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  32. OPR Report, narrative p. 17 n.19. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00003177 p.43 ↩

  33. Second Amended Complaint in a private civil action against Epstein in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, brought by a plaintiff the pleading identifies only by a pseudonym; fifteen sheets — EFTA01076368 p. 7, footed “Page 7 of 15”. Paragraph 23 of the pleading makes the allegation and introduces the excerpt with a colon; the excerpt is attributed on the sheet as “(Depo of Chief Reiter at 72-73)”. The pleading is a party’s unsworn filing and not a transcript, and this page does not hold the deposition. Read in the released text of the sheet for this correction. This is Reiter’s evidence about what was said to him and is not a finding about the person he names. The report cited immediately above records the remark without naming its author; the name comes from this testimony. ↩

  34. Letter from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York to Hon. Richard M. Berman, July 12, 2019, United States v. Epstein, No. 1:19-cr-00490-RMB, Doc. 11, p. 11. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00000329 ↩ ↩2

  35. Order of Hon. Richard M. Berman, July 18, 2019, United States v. Epstein, No. 1:19-cr-00490-RMB, Doc. 32, p. 16. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00000472 ↩

  36. Letter from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York to Hon. Alison J. Nathan, October 7, 2020, United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, Doc. 63, p. 4. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00001787 ↩

  37. Letter from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York to Hon. Alison J. Nathan, October 30, 2020, United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, Doc. 67, p. 3. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00001812 ↩

Backlinks