Epstein Data Wiki

Barry Krischer

Properties2
tagsperson, prosecutor, palm-beach, state-attorney, grand-jury, 2006-2007
aliasesBarry Krischer, Barry E. Krischer, Barry Krisher, Krischer, Barry

13 min read

Named on the documents asBarry Krischer and Barry E. Krischer, the latter in 116 documents; and Barry Krisher, misspelled, not by a scanner but by the police typist, and that spelling reaches 97 documents the correct one never does1
Size of the file386 documents on the correct spelling; 675 attributable once the typist’s misspelling is included12
⚠ The charging decision is his function, and that alone is not this pageHe was the elected State Attorney for Palm Beach County. Taking a case to a grand jury is what a State Attorney does. This page is about five things the documents record him doing beyond it
The act this page is built onHis own e-mail of 21 September 2007, computing the sentence the defendant would actually serve, and closing: “Glad we could get this worked out for reasons I won’t put in writing.”3
What he had been asked, in writing, sixteen months earlierThe Chief of Police wrote that he “continue[d] to find your office’s treatment of these cases highly unusual” and asked him to “consider if good and sufficient reason exists to require your disqualification.” He did not disqualify himself4
Who the record says made the grand jury decisionA Palm Beach police narrative records his own assistant state attorney saying “State Attorney Barry Krisher made the determination to go the Grand Jury to hear the case.”5
Covered elsewhere on this wikiMichael Reiter, who wrote to him · A. Marie Villafaña · Jack Goldberger · Palm Beach PD investigation

Barry E. Krischer was the elected State Attorney for Palm Beach County, Florida, and the prosecutor whose office took the Jeffrey Epstein case to a state grand jury in 2006. That grand jury returned a single count of solicitation of prostitution.

⚠ THE CHARGING DECISION IS NOT WHAT THIS PAGE IS ABOUT. For an elected prosecutor, deciding what to charge is the office, and disagreeing with it is not a finding. What the documents record are five things he did beyond deciding, and the page is scoped on those.

The e-mail of 21 September 2007

At eighteen minutes past one on a Friday afternoon he wrote to the federal prosecutor handling the parallel investigation, eight minutes after she had asked him a question. The subject line is “RE: Meeting with Epstein’s attorneys.” The message is a calculation of how long the defendant would actually be in custody:

I just spoke to Jack and related our conversation. You can expect a call from him shortly. I understand the deft. gets 3 days a month gain time plus 3 additional days a month if he works. So I think that would work out to 15 months actual time served. He would then be on the bracelet, house arrest, for one year. Jack indicated that he double checked with the stockade and the registration offense won’t act as a bar to Epstein doing his time at the stockade, so they intend to register concurrent with the plea of guilty. Glad we could get this worked out for reasons I won’t put in writing. After this is resolved I would love to buy you a cup at Starbucks and have a conversation.3

Four things in that message are worth separating, because they are different kinds of fact.

First, it is his own writing, sent from his own account. The sheet carries the header From: "Barry Krischer".3

⚠ An earlier version of this page rendered that header as B Krischer, and carried the form four times including as an alias. No such form exists: the extraction deleted four letters from his forename and the desk published the result under an image-verified marker.

Second, the content is the practical arithmetic of a sentence: gain time, days worked, the resulting figure of fifteen months, the year of house arrest afterwards, and the question of whether sex-offender registration would keep him out of the county stockade rather than a state prison. A prosecutor working out what a defendant will actually serve is ordinary. This page does not present the calculation as improper.

Third, the sentence that has been quoted in a federal court opinion is his own and is quoted here exactly: “Glad we could get this worked out for reasons I won’t put in writing.” ⚠ This page does not tell the reader what those reasons were, because the document does not, and neither does any other document read for this page. The line is significant because a prosecutor wrote it, in writing, about a plea he was finalising, and that is all this page asserts about it.

Fourth, the message he was replying to matters as much. The federal prosecutor had written eight minutes earlier: “We called Jay and told him that we (you and our office) had decided what would work best and that you would contact Jack to finalize the state agreement. I am trying to finish the federal agreement.”3

⚠ And a third message on the same sheet went undiscussed by an earlier version of this page. At three minutes past noon that day he had written about an agreed term of eighteen months and a registration stipulation, and said: “I have reached out to Mr. Acosta.” The second page of the same two-page document carries her message of the previous day setting a deadline. Neither is quoted further here, but neither should have been left unmentioned.3

⚠ “We (you and our office) had decided what would work best” is the federal prosecutor’s characterisation of a joint decision, not his. It is quoted because his reply is an answer to it.

⚠⚠ AND THE REST OF HER MESSAGE CHANGES WHAT HIS REPLY IS. In the same e-mail the federal prosecutor asks him for the gain-time figure for a stated reason, and the passage is given here whole because an earlier version of this page cut it at both ends: “In addition to the sentence imposed, I want to put in a provision that he will actually be in jail at least a certain number of days to make sure he doesn’t try to ‘convince’ someone with the Florida prison authorities to let him out early. So, do you know how much ‘gain time’ would Epstein earn? And do you call it ‘gain time’ or ‘good time’ or something else?” ⚠ The opening clause is the one that shows the floor was to sit ON TOP of the sentence, and the closing question is the one that shows she was asking rather than directing. His calculation is the answer to that question, and what she was seeking was a FLOOR on the time served.6

⚠ The recipient’s name is redacted on the sheet read here, though the quoted reply beneath it is addressed to him by his forename. His assistant state attorney is named on the copy line. The correspondent is identified from a court exhibit that reproduces the same thread with its headers intact: she is the federal line prosecutor.63

What the Chief of Police asked him to do

On 1 May 2006 the Chief of Police of Palm Beach wrote to him over his own signature. The letter says the chief “continue[d] to find your office’s treatment of these cases highly unusual”, records telephone calls that were not returned, and asks him to

consider if good and sufficient reason exists to require your disqualification from the prosecution of these cases4

⚠ He did not disqualify himself, and the case proceeded in his office. That is a fact about what happened and not a finding about why. No document read for this page records any reply from him to that letter.

⚠ The letter refers back to something earlier, and an earlier version of this page treated its absence as a gap in the release. That over-read it. The letter calls the earlier thing “my prior observation to you” and never a document, and says he was “forced to communicate in this manner…” because his telephone calls, and the lead detective’s, had gone unanswered. So the prior observation was most likely spoken, and nothing is missing from the release.4

The grand jury

A Palm Beach police narrative report attributes the decision to him, in the words of his own assistant state attorney:

Belohlavic stated State Attorney Barry Krisher made the determination to go the Grand Jury to hear the case.5

⚠ That is a police officer’s record of what a prosecutor told him. It is hearsay within a primary document, and this page carries it as that. ⚠ Both surnames in that sentence are misspelled in the original typescript: the report prints Krisher and Belohlavic, and the desk has verified at the image that those are the typist’s spellings and not a scanning error.51

Identification: a misspelling that belongs to the record

The correct spelling reaches 386 documents. The true attributable reach is 675.

formdocumentsoutside the correct spelling
"Barry Krischer"386base
Krischer (bare surname)579
"Krisher"14797
2006CF009454 (the case number)33

⚠ THE MISSPELLING IS AUTHENTIC TO THE RECORD, AND THIS IS THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT IT USUALLY MEANS. Elsewhere on this wiki a variant spelling has turned out to be a different person entirely. Here the desk rendered the police typescript at 400 dpi and found Barry Krisher printed on the page. The misspelling is the original typist’s, it is part of the document, and it hides 97 documents including the grand jury attribution above.1

⚠ An earlier version of this page said only one document had to be excluded. At least three do, among them a wire-service reporter’s byline in a 2019 press digest that is plainly not him and was not excluded. The corrected reach is about 673. ⚠ And the page misattributed the increase: the misspelling accounts for +97 of the gain from 386, while the larger part, about +193, comes simply from dropping the forename and searching the surname.1

⚠ AND THERE IS NO OTHER KRISCHER. bruce krischer returns five documents and is a blog getting his forename wrong; two further variants are extraction noise on Barry. A sample of the residual set was sixteen for sixteen him.2

The circuit court case number reaches three documents that no form of his name touches. ⚠ It is recorded because it is a genuine institutional key, and noted as small: unlike other subjects on this wiki, his operational record lives in e-mail and police reports that name him personally, so the case number does not displace the name sweep.2

Footnotes

  1. Counts on the authoritative pages_fts route, scoped text_content, exact phrases, count(distinct efta_number), sets compared by set difference. His middle initial E. is confirmed at the image. ⚠ The tokeniser splits on . and ,, so "Krischer, Barry" and "Krischer Barry" are one query. ⚠ "Krisher" was verified as HIS spelling at the image, and the decisive control is on the same sheet: six lines above, the same typist spells the assistant state attorney’s surname CORRECTLY. A scanner cannot render one string two ways on one page. Corroborated externally by a United States Attorney’s letter that prints Barry Krisher on the same line as a correctly spelled surname and a correctly accented one. ⚠ At least three documents using that spelling for other people must be excluded, not one, and 84 of the 97 have not been read at an image: UNTESTED, not cleared. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  2. Same route. Correct spelling 386; bare surname 579; attributable reach 675 after the one exclusion. ⚠ 557 of those were not read and are UNTESTED, not cleared; about 118 were read and 3 pages were verified at the image. Sender-header test: "From: Barry Krischer" returns 19 of which 14 are genuinely his headers; "From: Krischer" returns 4 and "Krischer wrote" 25, of which NONE is a header — the latter are third-person narrations of the single e-mail quoted above, and following them is how the primary was found. ⚠ A failing sender test led to the best document on this page. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  3. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00215163 p. 1, his e-mail of Friday 21 September 2007, timestamped 17:17:50 UTC, under the subject “RE: Meeting with Epstein’s attorneys”, quoting the federal prosecutor’s message of earlier that day. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi. The header prints From: "Barry Krischer"; the recipient is redacted; his assistant state attorney is named on the copy line. ⚠ The text layer breaks his forename across a line AND DELETES FOUR LETTERS OF IT, and an earlier version of this page published the result as the header’s own wording. ⚠⚠ It also said a near-duplicate copy “carries no sender header at all”. That is refuted at the image: the labels print and the values sit under solid bars. The extraction closed the redaction gap and the desk read the empty result as an absence — promoting a redacted field to a missing one, which is the inverse of the rule this desk applies everywhere else. The quoted sentence about reasons not put in writing is quoted in a published federal court opinion; the desk cites the primary document rather than the opinion. ⚠ No document read for this page states what those reasons were. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  4. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00013768 p. 1, the Chief of Police’s letter of 1 May 2006, addressed to Mr. Barry E. Krischer, State Attorney. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi, manuscript signature over printed name and rank; the bracketed tense change in the quotation is correctly marked. ⚠ The quoted request continues “from the prosecution of these cases”, and an earlier version of this page ended it with a full stop the document does not have. ⚠ The letter is also a transmittal enclosing case materials at the assistant state attorney’s request, which the page had not said. ⚠ No reply from him appears in any document read for this page — a negative the desk records as UNTESTED rather than established, having had two such negatives refuted tonight. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  5. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01333248 p. 27, narrative 46 of a Palm Beach Police Department incident report, reported by Detective Joseph Recarey and entered by a named clerk on 12 July 2006. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi, and on the native raster at 8x so the finding does not rest on an upscale. ⚠ The quotation continues “to hear the case”, and an earlier version of this page ended it with a full stop the document does not have. ⚠ The sheet bears a protective-order legend; no register bars citing it, and the desk records the legend rather than omitting it. ⚠ The sheet’s own page stamp differs from the addressable identifier; the citation is to the addressable one. ⚠ This is an officer’s record of what an assistant state attorney told him — hearsay inside a primary document — and is carried as that. Other paragraphs of the same report concern complainants and are not cited or described. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  6. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02756198 p. 2, Exhibit 22 in Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 v. United States, filed 10 February 2016, reproducing the same thread with its headers unredacted, which is what identifies the correspondents. Read from the text layer; not verified at the image. ⚠ The desk did NOT infer the recipient from the redacted copy; it is named on this exhibit. An earlier reading of the thread came close to asserting the identity without this document, and did not. ↩ ↩2

Backlinks