Epstein Data Wiki

John Connolly

Properties2
tagsperson, journalism, vanity-fair, filthy-rich-book, us-attorney-southern-district-florida, palm-beach, non-prosecution-agreement, 2006-2018
aliasesJohn Connolly, John Connelly, John Conolly, John Connally, John Conally

49 min read

Named on the documents asJohn Connolly, and — by Jeffrey Epstein three times, by a federal prosecutor once, and by two of Epstein’s correspondents — as John Connelly, John Conolly, John Connally and John Conally. Two of the documents this page rests on are reachable only through somebody else’s misspelling of his name1
How he described himself, in writing, in this recordI am a writer for Vanity Fair magazine and I am writing a book on Jeffrey Epstein — his own e-mail, 13 August 2015, over the subject line From: John Connolly Contributing editor Vanity Fair magazine2
How the Bureau recorded him4 September 2007. An FBI interview record describes him as an independent journalist who had formerly written a Vanity Fair magazine article about Epstein, after a witness named him as someone who may be able to provide more information regarding Epstein3
How a court filing described himformer New York Police Department detective John Connolly and writer James Patterson — a request for production served in Giuffre v. Maxwell, 23 March 2016. The detective and the author are one man in one clause4
⭐ What he did that is on no other page17–31 March 2011. He left a voicemail with an Assistant U.S. Attorney; the prosecutor transcribed it and sent it to the United States Attorney under the subject line Contact from Vanity Fair re Epstein related to Conflict of Interest; the office circulated his written questions the same afternoon they arrived, answered the first one internally with the word YES, circulated a draft answer at 2:45 p.m. on 28 March and closed the question at 3:33, the argument itself running seventeen minutes from the first objection, about deleting a sentence naming Alex Acosta’s recusal; deleted it, cleared the rest through DOJ Public Affairs, and sent him an answer thirteen days after he asked56789
⭐ What Epstein proposed to do about him4 January 2016. Epstein asked Tommy Mottola to approach him and offer to buy the rights to the book about Epstein for my birthday. Mottola answered seven hours later: Got to think about it this guys dangerous you could turn it on us10
⭐ Where he stood in the litigation2017. Bradley Edwards listed him as a trial witness in Epstein v. Rothstein, Edwards and L.M., and Epstein’s omnibus motion in limine asked the court to preclude him by name1112
The claim he put on the record, and what happened to it23 July 2009. Page Six reported, naming him, that Epstein gave Jack Goldberger a new car. The same sheet’s first page is a federal prosecutor’s note that the Bear Stearns prosecutors in New York had never heard of Epstein. Twenty months later he put the same subject to the office in writing and was told it could not comment1369
What the record does not containAny Vanity Fair article by him about Epstein; any account of a meeting between him and Epstein; any response by him to the lawyers’ letters; and any finding by anyone about his conduct14
Covered elsewhere on this wikiFilthy Rich: the 2016 book and the 2020 Netflix series · Landon Thomas Jr. · Graydon Carter · Matthew Hiltzik · Isabel Maxwell · Steve Bannon

John Connolly was a former New York City Police Department detective who became an investigative reporter and a contributing editor of Vanity Fair, and who co-wrote, with James Patterson and Tim Malloy, the 2016 book Filthy Rich about Jeffrey Epstein. He is in this release in an unusual position: not as a name in somebody’s address book, but as an actor, a man who telephoned a police detective, left a voicemail with a federal prosecutor, sent written questions to a United States Attorney’s Office and got a written answer, wrote to a lawyer acting against Epstein, was named to the FBI by a witness, was listed as a trial witness by the lawyer suing Epstein, and was the reason Epstein’s lawyers spent five months writing to a publisher.

The pages this wiki already has about the book he wrote begin in November 2015. The record about him begins nine years earlier, and the most substantial thing he does in it happens in March 2011, when there was no book.

⚠ This page is about documents, not about a reputation. Several of the people quoted below were adverse to him and had reasons to characterise him. Where an assertion about him comes from an interested party, this page says so in the sentence rather than in a footnote, and never adopts it. ⛔ Some of the sheets cited here also carry material about survivors and about private third parties. Nothing of that kind is reproduced, described, counted or located here, and each footnote states positively what was taken from its sheet.

March 2011: he asked the United States Attorney’s Office, and it answered

17 March, the voicemail

On the morning of Thursday, 17 March 2011 he telephoned an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of Florida and left a message. By 12:42 that afternoon the prosecutor had typed it out and sent it up the office under a subject line of the prosecutor’s own composing:

Contact from Vanity Fair re Epstein related to Conflict of Interest5

The covering note is two sentences, “I received the following voicemail from Vanity Fair magazine this morning. As per usual, I will leave it to you to respond.”, followed by a warning that the text is a transcription “so if it reads strangely, that is why”. The transcription, printed on the sheet in blue, is his:

This is John Connelly from Vanity Fair Magazine. I think I tried to talk to you a couple years ago about a guy named Jeffrey Epstein. Anyway, ummm I need to speak to you or maybe somebody if you are uncomfortable speaking to me totally on background your public information office because something has come to me which is a bit troubling about the U.S. Attorney’s decision to not prosecute Jerry Jeffrey Epstein as long as he took that plea where he was allowed out of his cell 16 hours a day 6 days a week not a bad deal umm but is has to do with the relationship of your former AG and Mr. ummm Epstein’s lawyer. It seems as though there was certainly a possible conflict and I need somebody to talk to about that whether it is you or anybody else I don’t care. John Connelly. Vanity Fair Magazine.5

⛔ The conflict is his assertion on a voicemail and is not a finding of anything. What this document establishes is that he made it, that a federal prosecutor transcribed it verbatim rather than summarising it, and that the transcription went to the top of the office: the sheet names Wifredo A. Ferrer, then the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, among its recipients.5 ⚠ The spelling is the prosecutor’s, not his, and it matters: this sheet cannot be found by searching his name.1

⚠ He also says he had approached the same office before. “I think I tried to talk to you a couple years ago” places an earlier approach around 2009. No document read for this page records it.14

18 March, the questions, and the answer nobody sent

The next day at 1:51 p.m. he sent his questions, under a subject line he wrote himself:

From: John Connolly Vanity Fair magazine Please confirm receipt.6

They open politely and then do not stop. “It was a pleasure speaking with you this morning. As per your request here are questions I would like to have answered for a piece I am researching on Jeffrey Epstein.” He offers to come: “As life would have it I am going to be on a busman’s holiday this coming week on Singer Island, FL. I would like to meet you and whomever else you think I should speak with. If not, I understand perfectly.” He states, correctly, the institutional point his whole inquiry turns on:

I also know that an AUSA does not have the authority to grant a potential defendant a non -prosecution agreement without the permission of higher ups in the Justice Department.6

Eighteen minutes after the questions arrived, the office was circulating them for comment. At 1:09 p.m. (the clocks on the two headers do not agree and the page does not reconcile them), one message went to five colleagues:

Hi all. Here are the is from Vanity Fair. I would appreciate your input.6

⚠ The damaged word is the sheet’s own and is not mended here.6

And somebody answered. Typed in capitals under his first question, on the same sheet:

Was your office aware of the extraordinary sweet deal that Mr. Epstein was granted by that state prosecutor? YES. BUT FOR OUR INSISTENCE, THE SAO WAS ACTUALLY GOING TO DO PRETRIAL DIVERSION WITH EPSTEIN ON A MISDEMEANOR CHARGE OF SOLICITATION OF ADULT PROSTITUTION.6

That answer was never sent to him. ⚠ It is an internal comment on a draft, written in a message asking colleagues for input, and this page does not present it as a statement the office made to anybody outside itself. What it establishes is that the office’s own first written answer to the first question he asked was YES.6

28 March, the argument

Ten days later, at 2:45 p.m. on Monday 28 March, a draft went round under the subject line John Connolly Vanity Fair magazine -- Proposed responses:

Hi guys –

Below please find my proposed answers [in red ink] to John Conolly of Vanity Fair.

Let’s discuss ASAP so I can send him a response.

After we agree on a proposed response, I need to run this by DOJ-Public Affairs before sending out.7

The argument that followed lasted seventeen minutes and is printed in full on one sheet. At 3:16 p.m.:

I think we should delete the line “Mr. Acosta recused from the matter in November 2008. That recusal was reviewed and approved by the Department of Justice, as is the standard procedure in all recusal matters.” We simply shouldn’t comment on 2008 Alex’s recusal. I am comfortable with the rest with one caveat. If (and only if) the Roth letter has in fact been publicly filed, we could send that as well. Make sense?8

At 3:31 p.m., a second view:

Would the recusal request also be governed by the Privacy Act? While I do not like commenting on the 2008 recusal in a vacuum because of the erroneous inferences to which it could lead, it also seems to me that we might want to say something about why we’re not responding to the recusal question. It also seems to me that an individual’s recusal and the basis thereof might potentially fall under the Privacy Act.8

At 3:33 p.m., the question put flat, and then closed:

is an individual’s recusal and the basis thereof Privacy Act protected?

I am ok leaving that out.8

⚠ No name is taken from any of these messages and none is attributed to any named person. The signature blocks print the title Assistant U.S. Attorney and the office tag (USAFLS), and this page attributes the exchange to the office and to nobody in it.8

31 March, what was sent

Thirteen days after he asked, the office answered. The covering note, in blue:

Hi John.

Hope all is well with you.

Below, please find [in red ink] the USAO responses to your questions.

Hope this helps. Take care,9

The answers are printed in red on the sheet, exactly as the note says.9 To the block of questions about the terms of imprisonment, which had asked whether the office knew about the work release, about the charity, about an alleged confidential-informer role, and about a car, the answer is:

The USAO reached a NPA with Mr. Epstein in good faith. The Agreement speaks for itself about the expectations of the USAO regarding the length and conditions of punishment. Ultimately, the sentence was imposed by the State Court Judge who presided over the matter.

At this time, we cannot comment further on your questions regarding any possible cooperation by Mr. Epstein, or what the USAO might have known or not known at the time of the negotiations.9

To the block about Alex Acosta:

DOJ policy and the Privacy Act prohibit comment on the existence or non-existence of OPR investigations. However, please note that, at the request of the defense, the office of the deputy attorney general reviewed the U.S. Attorney’s handling of this matter, including allegations of misconduct, and determined there was no basis to intervene in the matter. We will not be making additional comments. Thanks for checking with us.9

The sentence the office argued about on 28 March is not in it. The line beginning “Mr. Acosta recused from the matter in November 2008” was proposed, objected to, and deleted, and the answer that reached him does not contain it.89

The last sheet of the document is one line of his:

Thanks so much for your help, John Connolly9

⛔ An office answering a reporter’s cleared questions is ordinary press practice and this page does not present it as a disclosure. What the release preserves, and what is not ordinary, is the paper behind it: the first internal answer, the draft in red, the routing through the Department’s Public Affairs office, the seventeen-minute argument, and a named deletion that can be checked against the text that went out.

2006 to 2009: before the book, before the questions

18 December 2006. A New York Post media column headed MAXIM-UM NUISANCE FOR VF, about Maxim poaching Vanity Fair writers, ends:

We also hear VF bloodhound John Connolly, who’s hard at work on a story about massage-loving billionaire Jeffrey Epstein for Carter, penned an oral history about debauched Hollywood producer Don Simpson for Maxim’s February issue.15

⚠ Read the whole sentence: the main verb is “penned”, and the Epstein clause is subordinate. The item is about Maxim, not about Epstein, and its assertion that he was working on an Epstein story for Graydon Carter is a gossip column’s, unsourced. It is the earliest dated document in this file and it is the weakest kind of evidence in it.15

4 September 2007. Agents interviewed Stuart Pivar at his home in New York. Their record of the interview ends its substantive portion with him:

Pivar indicated that journalist John Connolly may be able to provide more information regarding Epstein. Connolly is an independent journalist who had formerly written a Vanity Fair magazine article about Epstein.3

⚠ Pivar was then suing Epstein for libel and seeking fifteen million dollars, which the same sheet records; he was not a disinterested witness.3 ⚠ The interview record calls the article one he had “formerly written”. No such article was located for this page, and this page does not adjudicate whether one existed.14 See Stuart Pivar.

11 December 2007. Three months later, in a sixteen-page letter to R. Alexander Acosta complaining of the prosecutors’ conduct, Epstein’s counsel at Kirkland & Ellis wrote one sentence about him. The tier here is the whole point and the page states it three deep: Epstein’s lawyers wrote, in a letter accusing the prosecutors, that they had previously been told by a third party

that the FBI was receiving “information” specifically from Connolly, a Vanity Fair reporter, and not vice versa.16

⛔ That is an unproved assertion about a named journalist, reported by an adverse party as something a third person told them, in advocacy correspondence. It is not a finding, it was never tested, and no document read for this page corroborates it. The page records that Epstein’s lawyers wrote it, and nothing more. ⛔ The third party is not named here. See Jay Lefkowitz and the 2008 non-prosecution agreement.

2 January 2008. A one-line correction inside the Justice Department, under the subject One correction on NY Times info:

The case was referred to FBI by the (City of) Palm Beach Police Department, not PBSO.

And the Vanity Fair guy’s name is John Connolly.17

By the first week of 2008 the Department had his name right and was passing it around.17

Between 2009 and 2010, the lead detective. Under examination by Martin Weinberg, Detective Joseph Recarey of the Palm Beach Police Department was asked whether he had ever spoken to a reporter of that name:

Q. Media. The media: Have you, yourself, ever talked to a media representative/reporter named Connolly who was doing an article for Vanity Fair?

A. He did telephone me several times and left me voice mails. I believe I called him once and referred him to our media person, which was Janet Consuelo. I said, you know, if you have — want anything media related, that’s the person you need to speak to. I don’t speak to media. But other than that…18

⚠⚠ The answer is quoted to its end deliberately. He telephoned the lead detective repeatedly; the detective testified that he returned one call and referred him to the department’s press officer. The sheet gives no date for those calls, and this page assigns none. ⚠ Any date drawn from the surrounding text of that sheet is an artefact: it is a four-up condensed transcript and consecutive lines in its text layer come from different transcript pages.18

23 July 2009. Page Six reported that Epstein had been released early because he was cooperating with federal prosecutors against two Bear Stearns managers. One paragraph is his:

Investigative reporter John Connolly told Page Six that Epstein was so happy with Goldberger, who negotiated his plea deal, he gave the lawyer a brand-new black BMW.13

The article reached the prosecutors the same day, and the sheet that carries it is their record of what they did about it. Above the clipping, an Assistant U.S. Attorney wrote at 15:31 UTC:

I just got off the phone with the prosecutors from the Bear Stearns case in New York. They had seen the NY Post article that claimed that Epstein got such a low sentence because he was cooperating with the feds on the Bear Stearns prosecution. They had never heard of him.13

Their own written inquiry is printed below his on the same sheet, timed Thursday, July 23, 2009 11:07 AM. It is what prompted the call he reports, and it carries their statement in their own words rather than in his:

We’re the prosecutors in US v Cioffi & Tannin (the Bear Stearns case) which is going to trial on October 13. We saw the below article from the New York Post and wanted to ask you about this defendant, Epstein, who we had never heard of until this morning. We’ve since learned that he is pretty unsavory.

Please give us a call when you have a moment. Thanks.13

⚠ The two stamps are on different clocks (the inquiry carries a bare AM and the reply a UTC offset), and this page converts neither and computes no interval between them. ⚠ The Assistant U.S. Attorney reports a telephone call, not this message; the two are separate acts and the page does not merge them.

⚠⚠ That answer goes to the article’s lead, not to his sentence about the car. The prosecutors were asked about cooperation and said they had not heard of Epstein; nothing on the sheet addresses Goldberger or a car.13 But the two questions travel together afterwards. Twenty months later his written questions to the same office asked “Was Mr. Epstein doing work as a Confidential Informer for the federal government as he has in the past?” and “Was your office aware that in return for Mr. Goldberger’s help, Mr. Epstein purchased for him a top of the line black BMW?”, and the answer he received declined to comment on “any possible cooperation by Mr. Epstein”.69

➡ The sequence raises a question this page does not answer: in July 2009 the office had already established privately that the prosecutors of the Bear Stearns case had never heard of Epstein, and in March 2011 it told the reporter asking about cooperation that it could not comment. No document read for this page explains the difference, and nothing here asserts that one exists.

2015: his own e-mail, and Epstein’s name for him

10 July 2015. Michael Wolff wrote to Epstein about a rumour that James Patterson was writing about him, and asked:

Could it be that the writer is that guy from Vanity Fair who has long and unsuccessfully been shopping a book about you? I have no first hand confirmation of any of this.19

Epstein answered in three words, with no capitals and no punctuation:

john connally not patterson19

⚠ The characterisation in the question is Wolff’s, not a finding, and Wolff said in the same breath that he had no confirmation of it.19 ⚠ The name in the answer is Epstein’s own misspelling, and it is why this exchange cannot be found by searching for him.1 What the document establishes is narrow and dated: by July 2015, eight months before the strategy memo topics/filthy-rich-book is built on, Epstein had written Connolly’s name down as the writer.

13 August 2015, 4:45 p.m. He wrote to an attorney then acting for Jean-Luc Brunel in a case against Epstein. It is the only sheet found for this page that is from him, and it is four sentences long:

Thanks for taking the time to speak with me this afternoon. I am a writer for Vanity Fair magazine and I am writing a book on Jeffrey Epstein.

Please keep me posted on the status of your case against Mr. Epstein for your client MR. Jean Luc Brunel. All the best, John Connolly2

A copy of it was in Epstein’s own files, forwarded inside a message of 14 November 2015.2 ⚠ A confidentiality notice is printed on the sheet below his message, beginning “The information contained in this communication is confidential” and ending “It is the property of JEE”. It is not his. It is Epstein’s own export boilerplate and it names Epstein’s address; it is appended below every message in this series.2 ⛔ The addressee is not named on this page, and nothing else from that sheet is reproduced.

17 November 2015. A correspondent of Epstein’s reported an approach and refused it:

FYI, got an email from “John Connelly” asking to speak. I’m not responding.20

⚠ The quotation marks around the name are the writer’s own. ⛔ This page takes from that log that one message and nothing else, and does not name its author.20

24 November 2015, 3:00 a.m. Epstein wrote to Kathryn Ruemmler. The sentence about him, with the transmission damage marked as this wiki marks it:

john conally writin[g] for little brown, a real publisher if true. what [t]o do?21

⚠ Again Epstein’s misspelling, and again the reason the sheet is otherwise unfindable.1 ⛔ Nothing else in that message is reproduced here.

4 January 2016: Epstein proposed buying the book about himself

At 4:11 p.m. on Monday 4 January 2016 Epstein wrote to Tommy Mottola, the record executive, in one sentence, damage and all:

john connally was trying to sell a book on me, no one wants it, should you approach him ad tell him you wantedt o buy the rights for my birthday/?10

Mottola answered seven hours and twenty-three minutes later:

Got to think about it this guys dangerous you could turn it on us10

⚠ The words Bad Guy are printed on their own line beneath that sentence, above a device signature, and this page does not interpret them.10 ⚠ Both stamps are on UTC, and the interval is computed from them. ⛔ No document read for this page shows that any approach was made, that Mottola did anything, or that Connolly was ever told.14

2016: the letters to the publisher

He is the author whose approaches set off the five-month campaign by Epstein’s lawyers against the book, and a copy of its final letter was sent to him by overnight mail. That correspondence (the December 2015 letter, the April 2016 letters, the publisher’s counsel’s refusals, the July 2016 Steptoe letter and the unsigned August draft) is written up in full, and framed, at Filthy Rich: the 2016 book and the 2020 Netflix series, and this page deliberately does not restate it. The two facts that belong under his name are that the first letter names him as its cause, “I have been informed by John Connolly, as well as several others who Mr. Connolly has contacted, that a book is being authored by Mr. Connolly about my client”, and that the last one’s copy block reads John Connolly (by overnight mail).2223

⚠ A courtesy copy sent by overnight mail is not service of process, and nothing in this release shows that he was ever served with anything.14

28 April 2016 adds one fact that is about him rather than about the book. Martin Weinberg wrote to Epstein:

Maybe coincidentally, probably not, got call from Little Brown atty saying that neither the publisher nor Patterson had yet received the letter I told Connolly was coming. With your OK, I will email it to him (NY atty named Eric Reemer).24

Epstein replied three minutes later: yes.24 ➡ Epstein’s criminal defence counsel had told Connolly himself that a lawyer’s letter was on its way, which is why the publisher’s non-receipt of it was, to Weinberg, probably not a coincidence. ⚠ The publisher’s counsel’s surname is spelled Reemer on the sheet and is not mended here; the letters at Filthy Rich spell it Rayman. See Martin Weinberg.

⛔ Two further things in the 2015–2016 correspondence are about him and are not on this page. The adverse characterisations of him in Epstein’s counsel’s letters are quoted and framed on the book page, and repeating them under his own name would turn an interested party’s advocacy into a description of the man. And the claim, made twice by one adviser, that he rather than Patterson wrote the book is an unresolved assertion about two living-or-unestablished authors that no document in this release resolves. ⛔ This page does not carry it in either direction.

⛔ The reporter-tipping-off-a-subject episode of November 2015 to June 2016 is the spine of Landon Thomas Jr. and belongs there, because it is a story about a reporter telephoning a subject, not a story about the man he telephoned about. It is not retold here.

2017: a witness Epstein moved to exclude

In Jeffrey Epstein v. Scott Rothstein, Bradley J. Edwards and L.M., No. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Bradley Edwards listed him as a trial witness. The entry gives a care-of address at the New York publisher Simon & Schuster (not Little, Brown, which published Filthy Rich), and then the same formula the list uses for the police detective, the police chief and two lawyers:

2-3 Expected to testify about the malicious prosecution elements of absence of probable cause and malice. Will testify to the truth of the claims prosecuted by Edwards against Epstein, the likelihood that the discovery conducted by Edwards would have resulted in relevant information to proving aspects of11

⚠ The sentence runs past the foot of the sheet and the description is boilerplate: it is word-for-word the description given for other witnesses on the same page. Nothing in it is particular to him.11 ⚠ The Simon & Schuster address is recorded, not explained. No document read for this page accounts for it.14

Epstein’s Omnibus Motion in Limine asked the court to preclude him by name. The motion’s ground, in its own words:

Accordingly, because not one of these witnesses has facts or information germane to this litigation between Epstein and Edwards12

⚠ The sentence continues past the foot of that sheet; the continuation was read and does not change its sense.12 ⛔ This page takes from that sheet his name and that clause and nothing whatever else, and says nothing about anything else printed on it.12

⚠ No document read for this page shows how the motion was decided, or that he ever testified.14 See Epstein v. Rothstein and Edwards.

21 April 2018: the last dated sighting

On a Saturday afternoon in April 2018, while arranging to meet Epstein for coffee in Manhattan, Michael Wolff sent him five words:

I just bumped into John Connolly.25

That is the last dated document read for this page in which he appears as a present-tense actor.25

Identification, and why his name is not the way to find him

The exact phrase John Connolly reaches 147 documents across 195 pages in the full-text index of the release, and that is not the file. Six of the 147 are three other men entirely, removed by identifier: a medical-directory company’s chief executive, a Deloitte executive on a World Economic Forum roster, and, the confusion that would matter most, a former FBI agent in Boston of the same name, described in a first-person narrative by somebody else.1

Four misspellings of his name are productive, and two of the documents this page rests on are reachable only through them. John Connelly reaches 16 documents, John Connally 9, John Conolly 5 and John Conally 2.1 The 2011 voicemail transcription is spelled Connelly by the prosecutor who typed it; Epstein spelled him connally in July 2015, conally in January 2016 and conally to Kathryn Ruemmler in November 2015. A search on his name finds none of them.1

⛔ The bare surname is useless and nothing on this page is attributed from it. Connolly alone reaches 410 documents, of which 263 carry no John Connolly at all: a Washington law firm whose name is Connolly, a member of Congress, an economist, a United States Attorney for Delaware, a Belfast solicitors’ letterhead, and a lawyer named Daniel Connolly corresponding in the Maxwell matter. A surname sweep would put all of them on this page.1

⚠ One further form is his own habit rather than an artefact. He wrote From: John Connolly … into his own subject lines: From: John Connolly Vanity Fair magazine Please confirm receipt. reaches 5 documents and John Connolly Contributing editor reaches 11.1 ⚠ A count of the phrase From: John Connolly is therefore not a count of e-mails he sent: the colon is a token separator, and some of what it finds is a subject line and some is ordinary prose.1

What this page does not establish

  • That he ever published a Vanity Fair article about Jeffrey Epstein. A 2006 gossip column says he was working on one and a 2007 FBI interview record says he had written one. No such article was located in this release, and this page neither asserts nor denies that one exists.15314
  • That the FBI received information from him. Epstein’s counsel wrote in December 2007 that they had been told so by a third party. That is triple hearsay from an adverse party in advocacy correspondence, it was never tested, and no document read here corroborates it.16
  • Anything about a conflict of interest in the handling of Epstein’s case. He asserted one on a voicemail. The document establishes the assertion and the transcription, not the conflict.5
  • That he met Jeffrey Epstein, or that any approach to him was ever made on Epstein’s behalf. Epstein proposed one to Tommy Mottola in January 2016 and Mottola said he would think about it. No document read here shows what followed.1014
  • That he testified, was deposed, was served, or was the subject of any finding by any court or agency. He was listed as a witness and Epstein moved to exclude him. No ruling, transcript, subpoena or finding concerning him was located.111214
  • Who wrote which parts of Filthy Rich. One of Epstein’s advisers asserted twice that Patterson did not write it. No document in this release resolves that, and this page does not repeat the assertion as a claim about either man.14
  • Anything about his life outside these documents. ⛔ This page is built entirely from the released record and imports nothing from anywhere else.

Footnotes

  1. Counts are of distinct documents in the full-text index of the release, each form run as an exact FTS5 phrase against the page text and counted as count(distinct efta_number). Measured 2026-09-30 against the corpus the site serves (2,925,195 pages / 1,425,623 documents), and independently against a local copy, with identical results on every figure quoted: John Connolly 147 documents / 195 pages; Connolly bare 410 / 503; John Connelly 16 / 18; John Connally 9 / 9; John Conolly 5 / 10; John Conally 2 / 2; detective John Connolly 12; From: John Connolly Vanity Fair magazine 5; John Connolly Contributing editor 11. Controls, run on the same route in the same session: John Zzonnolly 0, Zzonnolly bare 0, detective Zzohn Connolly 0 — so a zero here is a measurement and not a failed query. The raw counts for the misspelled forms include other bearers and are not claims about him: John Connally also reaches the Texas politician, and John Connelly also reaches a legal-education roster. This page does not report a union figure, because the 263-document surname residual has not been swept and no edit-distance enumeration has been run; assume the file is larger than the phrase John Connolly reaches. The other bearers removed by identifier are at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02403262 (Castle Connolly), https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02686105 (Deloitte) and https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01090973 p.218 (the Boston FBI agent); that document is 406 pages and only that page is the other man. The Maxwell-matter correspondent is at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02419982 . None of those six documents is cited anywhere else on this page. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9 ↩10

  2. John Connolly to an attorney acting for Jean-Luc Brunel, Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 4:45:46 PM, subject From: John Connolly Contributing editor Vanity Fair magazine, forwarded inside a message of Sat, 14 Nov 2015 23:24:51 +0000 from Michael Wolff to Jeffrey Epstein. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00637445 p. 1 (1-indexed; the database numbers it page 0). VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi. From this sheet this page takes his four-sentence message, its date, its subject line, and the fact that a copy was in Epstein’s files by 14 November 2015. Nothing else on the sheet is reproduced, and the addressee is not named, because his address line is a personal mail handle built from his own surname. ⚠ The confidentiality notice printed below his message is Epstein’s export boilerplate, not his: it names Epstein’s own address and is appended below every message in this series, including sheets on which he does not appear. Ten further copies of the same forwarded message exist in the release, among them https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00840695, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01206012 and https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02347410; none was opened and none is relied on. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  3. FBI interview record of Stuart Pivar, dated 09/04/2007, one sheet. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00269750 p. 1. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi. The two sentences quoted are the whole of what this page takes from the sheet. The same sheet records that Pivar was then suing Epstein and Seed Media Group for libel and seeking fifteen million dollars in damages, which is why this page states his interest; his characterisations of Epstein are not reproduced here. ⛔ Two values on the sheet are withheld by the producer and nothing is said about them. Further copies of the same record are at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00269751, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00269749, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01689427 and https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01727588; none was opened and none is relied on. See Stuart Pivar. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  4. Request for Production No. 31 and the response to it, Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 1:15-cv-07433-LAP (S.D.N.Y.), Document 71-3, filed 03/23/16, Exhibit 3, ECF page 35 of 40. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02780927 p. 35 (1-indexed). TEXT LAYER ONLY, NOT OPENED — this page cites it for the six-word phrase that identifies him and takes nothing else from it, and the same request is already quoted, framed and footnoted at Filthy Rich. ⚠ The request’s own wording before the words quoted is the requesting party’s characterisation of a survivor’s allegations, addressed to her in the second person; it is elided there and is not reproduced here. The response was an objection on privilege grounds. Ten further copies of the same paragraph are in the release; none was opened. ↩

  5. Message within the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida, subject Contact from Vanity Fair re Epstein related to Conflict of Interest, Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:42:04 +0000, importance Normal, one sheet. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00208292 p. 1. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi. From this sheet this page takes the subject line, the date, the two-sentence covering note, the transcription-warning sentence, the body of the transcription, and the name Ferrer, Wifredo A. (USAFLS). The transcription is printed in blue on the sheet, distinguishing it from the covering note — a fact the text layer cannot carry. The signature block prints the title Assistant U.S. Attorney and this page attributes the message to no named person. ⚠ The transcription’s own errors are reproduced rather than mended, including Jerry Jeffrey Epstein and but is has to do with; an earlier desk reading of this sheet mended the second and the mend is not carried here. ⚠ This sheet is reachable only through the spelling Connelly and does not answer a search on his name. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  6. His written questions of Friday, March 18, 2011 1:51 PM, subject From: John Connolly Vanity Fair magazine Please confirm receipt., and their circulation inside the office at Friday, March 18, 2011 1:09 PM under Fw: the same subject, with an internal answer typed in capitals beneath the first question. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00206173 p. 217 (1-indexed; database page 216; the sheet’s own Bates stamp is EFTA00206389). VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi. ⚠ EFTA00206173 is a 340-page compilation of the office’s press traffic and is cited here by page, never by document; it is already cited by other pages on this wiki for unrelated blocks. From this sheet this page takes the two subject lines, the two stamps, his opening paragraph, his sentence about an AUSA’s authority, the circulation line, and the capitalised internal answer to his first question. Nothing else is reproduced. ⚠ Here are the is from Vanity Fair is what the sheet prints; the damaged word is the sheet’s own and is not supplied here. ⚠ The two stamps on this sheet disagree by forty-two minutes and this page does not reconcile them. ⚠ The capitalised text is an internal comment written in a message soliciting input, not a statement made to anyone outside the office, and this page says so in the body. Further pages of the same run carrying the same questions are at p. 211 and p. 212; neither was opened and neither is relied on for any quotation. The full question set is also printed on EFTA00214025 pp. 1–2 below. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9

  7. Message within the same office, Monday, March 28, 2011 2:45 PM, subject John Connolly Vanity Fair magazine -- Proposed responses. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00206173 p. 308 (1-indexed; database page 307; Bates EFTA00206480). VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi. The four lines quoted are the whole body of the message. The office spells him Conolly here; the spelling is the sheet’s and is not mended. The signature blocks print (USAFLS) and this page attributes the message to no named person. ⚠ The same sheet carries, above this message, an unrelated press item of 25 March 2011 by a different journalist, forwarded into the same chain; nothing from it is used here, and its presence is why this page does not describe the interval between 18 and 28 March as continuous work on his questions. ↩ ↩2

  8. Three messages within the same office, all Monday, March 28, 2011, timed 03:16 PM, 3:31 PM and 3:33 PM, all under the subject John Connolly Vanity Fair magazine -- Proposed responses. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00206173 p. 317 (1-indexed; database page 316; Bates EFTA00206489). VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi. From this sheet this page takes the three timestamps, the subject line, and the three passages quoted. Nothing else is reproduced and no sender, recipient or name is taken from it. ⚠⚠ The second passage from the 3:33 p.m. message is quoted from its verb onward; the words before it are not reproduced. ⚠ The text layer of this sheet introduces a character that is not on the sheet at the image, and nothing here is taken from it. ⚠ The Roth letter referred to at 3:16 p.m. is not identified on this sheet and is not explained here. The sentence proposed for deletion can be checked against the answer actually sent, at EFTA00214025 p. 2 below, where it does not appear. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  9. The office’s answer to him, Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 3:46 PM, subject Vanity Fair magazine, forwarded on internally the same day at 19:47:26 +0000 under FW: Vanity Fair magazine with the line FYI – USAO response to Vanity Fair questions.; three sheets, carrying the covering note, his full question set and the office’s answers. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00214025 pp. 1-3 (1-indexed; the three sheets’ own Bates stamps run EFTA00214025–EFTA00214027). VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi, all three sheets. The covering note and the forwarding line are printed in blue; the office’s two answer blocks are printed in red, exactly as the covering note’s bracketed words say they will be — a fact the text layer cannot carry and the reason this page states it. His own errors are reproduced rather than mended, including has a remarkably record as a prosecutor, more that a year, non -prosecution, Mr. Eptein and Bear Stears. From these sheets this page takes the two stamps, the two subject lines, the covering note, the forwarding line, his opening paragraph, his sentence about an AUSA’s authority, two of his questions, both of the office’s answer blocks, and his closing line on the third sheet. ⛔ Values on the first sheet are withheld by the producer and nothing is said about them; this page attributes the answer to the office and to no named person. The third sheet carries one line of text and nothing else. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9

  10. Jeffrey Epstein to Tommy Mottola, Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2016 21:11:02 +0000, and Mottola’s reply, Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2016 04:34:45 +0000. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00837210 p. 1 and https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00637708 p. 1. BOTH VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi. Epstein’s message is quoted in full and its damage is reproduced rather than mended, including ad tell him, wantedt o and the stroke before the question mark. ⚠ The stroke is printed on both sheets. The text layer of one of them renders it as an apostrophe; that is an extraction artefact and the two copies agree at the image. Mottola’s first sentence is quoted in full. The words Bad Guy are printed on the line below it, above the line Sent from my iPad; they are reported and not interpreted, because the sheet does not settle whether they end the sentence or sign the message. ⚠ Both stamps are on UTC and the interval of seven hours and twenty-three minutes is computed from them; neither correspondent’s local time is established by these sheets. Two further copies are at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02477018 and https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01744176; neither was opened and neither is relied on. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  11. Plaintiff’s or defendants’ witness list in Jeffrey Epstein v. Scott Rothstein, Bradley J. Edwards and L.M., Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, under the column heading DESCRIPTION OF WITNESSES. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00798039 p. 6 (1-indexed; database page 5; Bates EFTA00798044). VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi. ⚠ An earlier desk reading pinned this to page 7; his name is not on that sheet. From this sheet this page takes his name, the publisher named in his care-of line, and the description, which runs past the foot of the sheet and is quoted as far as it is printed there. ⛔ The street line in the care-of address is not reproduced, and no other entry on the sheet is named, numbered or described. The description quoted is word-for-word the description given for other witnesses on the same sheet. Two further copies of the same list are at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02760284 and https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02767004; neither was opened and neither is relied on. See Epstein v. Rothstein and Edwards and Bradley Edwards. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  12. Jeffrey Epstein’s Omnibus Motion in Limine in the same action, Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG, the sheet bearing the internal folio 22. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00585420 p. 22 (1-indexed; database page 21; Bates EFTA00585441). VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi. ⛔⛔ From this sheet this page takes two things and only two: that his name is printed on it, and the clause quoted. It takes no position, no number, no neighbouring name and no structural description, and it says nothing whatever about anything else printed on the sheet. The clause runs past the foot of the sheet; its continuation was read on the following sheet’s text layer and does not change its sense, and it is not quoted here. ⛔ No contact detail from the footer is reproduced. Two further copies are at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00802160 p. 22 and https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02777173 p. 22; neither was opened, neither is relied on, and no copy’s treatment of anything is described. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  13. Two pages of one document: an Assistant U.S. Attorney’s message of Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:31:20 +0000, subject FW: Jeffrey Epstein, quoting an inbound message from prosecutors who identify themselves as the prosecutors in US v Cioffi & Tannin (the Bear Stearns case); and, on the second page, the New York Post Page Six item it concerns. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00067605 pp. 1-2 (1-indexed; the second sheet’s Bates stamp is EFTA00067606). BOTH PAGES VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi — page 2 by the writing pass, page 1 by the gate, 2026-09-30. ⚠ The page-1 text layer corrupts Stearns to Steams in both places it appears; the sheet prints Bear Stearns correctly, and this page follows the sheet. A draft quoted the extraction’s spelling inside the quotation, which would have asserted that a federal prosecutor misspelled the name of the case he was calling about. From page 1 this page takes the Assistant U.S. Attorney’s paragraph, the inbound prosecutors’ message entire, and the two stamps; nothing else on that sheet is reproduced. From page 2 this page takes one paragraph, which is the whole of what the item attributes to him; I read past it, and the next paragraph quotes an unnamed friend of Epstein. ⛔ The item’s closing paragraph concerns a person whose name is withheld by the producer and describes conduct against minors. Nothing from it is reproduced, summarised, counted or characterised here. ⛔ No contact detail from page 1 is reproduced. ⚠ What the prosecutors are recorded as saying goes to the article’s claim about cooperation, not to the sentence attributed to him, and the body says so. The name of the Assistant U.S. Attorney is not printed on the sheet and none is supplied. Seven further copies of the item are in the release, among them https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00212002 and https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00214058; none was opened and none is relied on. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  14. Statements of absence on this page are bounded to the documents read and returned for it and to the full-text index of this release, measured 2026-09-30. They are not assertions that no such document exists anywhere. Specifically: no Vanity Fair article by him about Jeffrey Epstein was located; no document read here records a meeting between him and Epstein, any approach made to him on Epstein’s behalf, any response by him to any of the lawyers’ letters, any deposition or testimony by him, any service of process on him, any ruling on the motion that named him, or any finding about him by any court or agency; and no document read here accounts for the publisher named in his care-of address on the 2017 witness list. ⚠ The search forms used to reach this file are listed in the identification footnote above and are not exhaustive: the 263-document surname residual has not been swept, no edit-distance enumeration was run, and four spellings of his name are known to be productive, so assume a fifth. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9 ↩10 ↩11

  15. New York Post, MAXIM-UM NUISANCE FOR VF, December 18, 2006, printed from the paper’s print-friendly URL on 12/19/2006 and filed in the release. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01682184 p. 38 (1-indexed; database page 37; Bates EFTA01682221). VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi. The sentence is quoted to its full stop; its main verb is penned, and an excerpt stopping at for Carter would be a truncation. ⚠ At the image the punctuation after John Connolly and after for Carter is a comma. The text layer of this sheet renders both as full stops, which is what makes the truncation look like a complete sentence; the commas are the sheet’s. The names in the item are set in bold by the newspaper’s house style and no emphasis is added here. I read to the foot of the sheet: the item ends where the quotation ends, and what follows is the paper’s trademark notice. The characterisation of Epstein in the quoted sentence is the newspaper’s. Two further copies of the item are at EFTA01682184 pp. 99 and 101 and one is filed as a litigation exhibit at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02811446; none was opened and none is relied on. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  16. Kirkland & Ellis LLP to R. Alexander Acosta, December 11, 2007, the letter’s own page 16, transmitted by fax at 12/11/2007 11:42. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00176111 p. 19 (1-indexed; database page 18; Bates EFTA00176129). VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi. ⚠⚠ The clause is quoted from that the FBI was receiving onward; the words before it are not reproduced. The third party Epstein’s counsel say told them this is not named here and was not sought. ⛔ Nothing else on this sheet is reproduced, summarised or characterised; it is an advocacy letter that also discusses named prosecutors and an allegation concerning a child, and none of that is carried here. ⚠ The text layer of this sheet is badly damaged and renders the quoted words as inthrmation and u Vanity Fair reporter; the reading above is the image’s. This letter is already cited by other pages for other passages; the sentence about him is cited by none of them. Four further copies are at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00208923, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00214291, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01248625 and https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02757332; none was opened and none is relied on. ↩ ↩2

  17. Message within the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida, subject One correction on NY Times info, Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 21:01:22 +0000, importance Normal, one sheet. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00214642 p. 1. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi. The two sentences quoted are the whole body of the message. ⛔ Values on the sheet are withheld by the producer and nothing is said about them; this page attributes the message to no named person. ↩ ↩2

  18. Deposition of Detective Joseph Recarey of the Palm Beach Police Department, examination by Mr. Weinberg, transcript page 452 lines 8–16, on a four-up condensed sheet printing transcript pages 452 to 455; reported by PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00298214 p. 34 (1-indexed; database page 33; Bates EFTA00298247). VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi. The question and the answer are consecutive lines of one column and the answer is quoted to its last printed word. ⚠⚠ This sheet must not be quoted from its text layer: consecutive lines there come from different transcript pages, because the extraction reads the four printed columns as one run. The words in the fall of 2005 appear on this sheet, in a different column, inside an unrelated question about which agencies were involved in the investigation; they are not part of this exchange and no date is taken from them. ⛔ This page cites this Q&A sheet only. It does not cite the caption pages of this series, which carry plaintiff identifiers, and it takes no name from this sheet other than the witness’s, the examiner’s and the press officer’s as the witness gives it. ⛔ A value on this sheet is withheld by the producer and nothing is said about it. The deposition’s own identification is at Joseph Recarey, which this page follows rather than inferring a date or a volume from this sheet. ↩ ↩2

  19. Michael Wolff to Jeffrey Epstein, On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:31 AM, subject I heard this..., and Epstein’s reply, Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 16:08:47 +0000. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00851767 p. 1. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi. Epstein’s reply is quoted in full: it is one line of three words with no capitals and no terminal punctuation, and the two spaces in it are the sheet’s. From Wolff’s message this page takes only the two sentences quoted. ⛔ The rest of that message asserts things about a third author’s working methods; it is an interested party’s assertion about a person who is not the subject of this page, no document in this release resolves it, and none of it is reproduced here. ⚠ The two stamps are on different clocks — one a header in UTC, one a quoted line in local time — and this page converts neither and computes no interval between them. A four-hour figure was carried here until 2026-10-04 on the basis that it was “stated on that basis”; disclosing a cross-clock subtraction does not make it a measurement, and the same sheet-pair at 23 July 2009 is declined on this page for exactly that reason. See Michael Wolff. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  20. One message in an iMessage log, 2015/11/17, 08:49:50 pm, timezone UTC+0000 as stated on the sheet. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01619383 p. 1 (1-indexed). VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi. ⛔ This page takes from this document that one message and nothing else. Its author is not named here: he is a private individual, the log’s later pages concern his household, and nothing on this page requires his name. The quotation marks around the name in the message are the writer’s own. The log’s other party is not identified on the sheet and none is supplied. ↩ ↩2

  21. Jeffrey Epstein to Kathy Ruemmler, Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 3:00 AM, subject Re:; the sheet carries two production stamps, EFTA_R1_01593970 and its identifier. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02478910 p. 1. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi. ⛔ This page takes from that message the one clause quoted and nothing else; the message also concerns a different journalist and other matters, none of which is reproduced. The = characters printed on the sheet are quoted-printable transmission damage, and the lost characters are supplied in square brackets in the manner Filthy Rich sets out for this export; nothing is repaired silently. ⛔ Values on the sheet are withheld by the producer and nothing is said about them. See Kathryn Ruemmler. ↩

  22. Martin G. Weinberg to Little, Brown & Co., December 3, 2015, marked Via Hand Delivery, one page, signed. ⚠ The heading of the letter is described here rather than quoted: its third word renders in the extraction as Reeardine, and this sheet was not opened at the image, so neither Regarding nor Reeardine is presented as the letter’s own word. The heading’s Jeffery for Jeffrey is the extraction’s too and is equally unverified at the image. A draft of this page quoted the heading as Proposed Book Regarding Jeffery Epstein, which silently mended one of those two words and kept the other. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00599492 p. 1. TEXT LAYER ONLY, NOT OPENED. This page takes from it the one sentence quoted, which names him as the letter’s cause; the letter is quoted more fully, opened and framed at Filthy Rich, and this page does not restate it. ⛔ No contact detail from the letterhead is reproduced. Three further copies are at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00599493, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01111240 and https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01186358; none was opened. ↩

  23. Charles Michael of Steptoe & Johnson LLP to Eric Rayman, July 25, 2016, page 2 of the letter, over a manuscript signature. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00599650 p. 2 (1-indexed; database page 1; Bates EFTA00599651). VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi. From this sheet this page takes the date, the addressee, the signatory and the copy block, which reads James Patterson (by overnight mail) and John Connolly (by overnight mail). ⛔ The letter’s characterisations of him are quoted and framed at Filthy Rich and are deliberately not repeated here. ⛔ A value in the copy block is withheld by the producer and nothing is said about it. The unsigned August 2016 draft carrying an equivalent copy block is at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00583735; it was not opened and it is not relied on. ↩

  24. Martin Weinberg to Jeffrey Epstein, On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 2:00 PM, and Epstein’s reply, Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 18:03:40 +0000, subject Re: ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00828487 p. 1. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi. Weinberg’s message is quoted from its first word to its last before his sign-off, and Epstein’s reply is one word. ⚠ An earlier desk reading dated this exchange to December 2015; the sheet’s own two stamps are both 28 April 2016 and the date above is the sheet’s. The spelling Eric Reemer is the sheet’s and is not mended. ⛔ A street line and two telephone lines are printed or barred in the signature block and nothing from it is reproduced. Four further copies are at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00828488, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00828490, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00828492 and https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00828498; none was opened and none is relied on. See Martin Weinberg. ↩ ↩2

  25. Michael Wolff to Jeffrey Epstein, Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2018 20:35:37 +0000, subject Re: this weekend?, the outermost message of a thread in which the two arranged to meet that afternoon. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00826976 p. 1. TEXT LAYER ONLY, NOT OPENED. The five words quoted are the whole body of the outermost message. ⛔ The thread below it arranges a meeting and names a street location; none of it is reproduced. ⚠ This document is typed email.footer_only in the corpus and is a sixteen-message thread, which is recorded here as a single measured instance and not as a judgement on the field. See Michael Wolff. ↩ ↩2

Backlinks