Epstein Data Wiki

Epstein's medical network

Properties1
tagstopic, medicine, physicians, referrals, payments, subpoenas, epstein-files-transparency-act

38 min read

What this page isThe part of the medical record that belongs to no single practitioner: the household’s own enumeration of its doctors, the routing of patients, the arrangements that leave no name on a record, the money, and who went looking for the medical files
Practitioners with their own pages hereBruce Moskowitz, Bernard Kruger, Steven Victor, Stephen Alexander, Melanie Walker, Boris Nikolic, Eva Andersson-Dubin
The household’s own listA list of the doctors Epstein used, circulated to his household by Karyna Shuliak on 12 June 2017, with a numbered escalation sequence and a named first choice1
The routing functionEpstein’s office, not a practice. Lesley Groff booked and chased; Shuliak circulated the list; Epstein directed third parties to named doctors123
A physician’s stated reason”That way I do not have to report the cases to health department including contacts” — Moskowitz, 11 January 20184
What a bank told prosecutorsFour rows of Deutsche Bank’s “Exhibit Q: Potentially Notable Payments”, 12 September 2019, name a medical or emergency-medical payee5678
Medical records were soughtBy federal prosecutors in 2006 and 2007, by the FBI’s Miami case file, and by victims’ civil counsel in 2009 from four named health-care professionals and at least one pharmacy; Epstein’s own pleading says two910111213

Six physicians and a clinical psychologist have pages on this wiki because the released files record each of them acting. This page is about what those seven files have in common, and about the parts of the medical record that belong to none of them: the list Epstein’s household kept of whom to call, the office that made the appointments, the arrangements under which a patient’s name did not reach a record, the shapes the money took, and the question of who ever asked to see the files.

It is not a directory. The released material names many more practitioners than this wiki has pages for, most of them appearing once, in a diary line or a laboratory copy-line, doing nothing that a document records. A name in a schedule is not a finding. Every claim below names a person, an act and the sheet that carries it.

Nothing on this page is a finding of wrongdoing. The patients in this material, other than Epstein himself, are not named here, and no diagnosis, medicine or result belonging to any identified third party is reproduced. One prescription medicine named in a doctor’s refusal is quoted below; the two people it concerns are unnamed here and are not identifiable from this page.

The list the household kept

The network had a shape because Epstein’s household wrote one down.

At 9:27 in the evening of 12 June 2017 Karyna Shuliak sent a list of the doctors Epstein used to a group she addressed as “Hello ladies,”. An attachment travelled with it. The covering message sets out a numbered escalation sequence of three steps. Lesley Groff answered the next morning at 11:27 AM: “thanks so much Karyna!”1

The first step is 911. The second is the East 77th Street membership emergency room founded by Bernard Kruger, Priority Private Care. The third is Epstein’s own physicians, ranked: a first choice, then a second. The sheet does not name either in full. The first choice’s surname is eaten by encoding damage to its opening letter and the second is a bare forename; this page reads them as Bruce Moskowitz and Eva Andersson-Dubin, and that identification is the page’s, not the document’s.14415 The ranking is the household’s own and not this page’s.

A daily schedule sheet prepared for Epstein and headed “Friday 27th December” carries, under a pharmacy address, a block headed “Medical Emergency Contacts” listing five names in order: Dick Merkin, with the note “His assistant is Anne:”; Ovitz; Eva Dubin; Kruger; and Moskowitz, with the note “Melanie is his assistant:”. The contact values are not reproduced here.3

On the page’s reading, Moskowitz and Andersson-Dubin stand on both lists; Kruger stands on one as a person and on the other as his company; Merkin and Ovitz stand on one only. Neither list is a roster of who treated anyone. They are documents about reachability: who the household was told to telephone, in what order, when something went wrong.

The list itself is not among the documents read for this page. The 12 June message names an attachment on the face of the sheet and the attachment is not reproduced with it. Searches of the full-text index for the thread’s subject line and for the attachment’s name returned covering messages of that thread and nothing that is the list.1

The office was the referral desk

In an ordinary practice a patient reaches a specialist through a physician. In this record the recurring first step is Epstein or a member of his staff.

Epstein’s staff made the appointments. Groff wrote to Kruger’s address that “Jeffrey needs to send over 2 assistants who require some immediate attention to Dr. Kruger now…OK to send them to his office now at 170 East 78th Street!?”; she wrote to Steven Victor asking that two prescriptions be refilled and was told they could not be; she asked Eva Andersson-Dubin to telephone a doctor on Epstein’s behalf to bring forward appointments for two members of his staff; and she priced a Priority Private Care membership for Epstein “and the girls” with Kruger directly.141615

Epstein routed third parties to named doctors. He told Sultan Bin Sulayem, who had written about a schoolmate’s care, “i suggest you send to moscowitz in palm foranswer”; he asked Moskowitz to call a doctor for Hamad bin Jassim, and Moskowitz answered “Will take good care of him”; he sent Jean Luc Brunel Victor’s office address in a message of one line; he offered Kruger a new patient by text in April 2018 and Kruger replied “Sure, anytime”.41614

One physician’s referral function is documented across eight years, and she was not treating him. Eva Andersson-Dubin answered Epstein’s requests for names twice in the material read for this page, eight years apart, and a third document records a recommendation of hers reaching the office by another route:

  • On 23 June 2011, at 12:41:51 -0400, Epstein asked her whom a third party should call. At 5:30:28 PM she replied with six named practitioners, each with a barred contact value and a line of commentary: “Dr. David Levine – ▮ - Unfortunately he does not take insurance.”; “Dr. Macabee ▮ Podiatrist, takes most insurance. He is OK.”; “Dr. Louis Galli – ▮ - He takes care of all the rockets. He doesn’t take insurance if I remember correctly.”; “Dr. Rock Positano – ▮ - Podiatrist to the stars. He is probably a rip off, but this is who a lot of people use. Good friend of Kruger, I think.”; “Dr. Bryan Markinson – ▮ - Mt. Sinai doctor. He takes all insurances.”; “Dr. Weinefld – ▮ Mt. Sinai doctor. Takes most insurances, but not Oxford.” She closed: “She should try to make an appointment on her own, but if she has a difficult time let me know and I will intervene.”17
  • On 3 December 2013 a Google Calendar reminder reached Lesley Groff whose event title reads “9:30am Dr. Sean Mc Cance appt (Dr. Eva Dubin recommended Dr. McCance)”, with a Park Avenue address and Groff as organiser. The calendar’s own name is covered and the sheet does not say whose appointment it was.18
  • On 8 April 2019 at 9:04 PM Groff wrote “Hello Eva. Jeffrey is asking if you could please give us a recommendation”; at 9:54 PM Dubin answered with two names, “Dan Adler / Michael Krumholz”, and said she would ask her assistant to send contacts; at 9:08 AM the next morning Allison Yorke sent the two street addresses; Groff replied “super! thanks”.2

The 2011 reply is the clearest single document of the network’s internal structure, because it is a physician ranking other physicians for a third party, with an offer to intervene if the appointment proves hard to get — and because the line about Rock Positano names Kruger. It is the only sheet read for this page on which one member of the network describes another.

And the lists ran outward. Asked for a gynaecologist in Manchester, Moskowitz answered “Emailed info no app I have a secure list”; asked for one in Warsaw, he supplied a name and a telephone number; asked for an oncologist in Minsk in July 2014, he supplied three names and wrote “She can call tomchin Angela chief of Vitebsk cancer center and use my name.” On 11 July 2014 he asked the thread: “Any way to commercialize my worldwide list and emergency center locator”.4

What does not get written down

The single most-quoted line in this material is Moskowitz’s. On 11 January 2018, after Epstein wrote at 10:38:24 pm “I think to be safe my two friends should get shot by you tomorrow or send them somewhere close”, Moskowitz answered at 11:03:50 pm “Yes JFK ER North” and at 11:25:33 pm:

That way I do not have to report the cases to health department including contacts

Both messages stand under his printed speaker label on a sheet whose attribution was read at the image, and the sentence states a consequence of sending the two people to an emergency room rather than treating them himself. It does not say that no report was made by anyone. The two people are not named on the sheet, nothing read establishes who they were, and no record of any report or of any treatment was located.4

That sentence is unique in the released material as far as it can be tested. The phrase "do not have to report" returns one document in the full-text index and it is that sheet. "not have to report" returns four documents; the other three, all read, are two copies of one filing about sex-offender registration and one tax-reporting explainer. "health department" returns 169 documents, of which fourteen were read: they are New York property-tax notices, a public-health circular, a travel-health leaflet, an FBI administrative-subpoena return, news summaries, and a physician’s own signature block. "mandated reporter" returns nothing. "mandatory reporting" returns thirteen, of which six were read, and those six are the FBI’s own Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide or reports drafted under it. No second physician was found discussing a reporting obligation in any document those searches returned and this page read.19

What the network does show, more than once, is an arrangement under which a patient’s name does not reach a record. Three are documented, by three different people, between August 2011 and August 2017:

  • 20 to 21 June 2016. Kruger’s practice priced a Priority Private Care membership covering Epstein and five others. Epstein’s accountant Richard Kahn wrote to him the following evening that he had “spoke with” someone and “was able to fill out paperwork =ith assistants 1-5 without using names which i think gives you more =lexibility please advise if this is ok thank you”. In September 2019 Deutsche Bank told federal prosecutors that the memo on the only wire Epstein sent Kruger read “Priority Private Care for Mr. Epstein and 5 assistants.”14 The phrase "without using names" returns seven documents in the index, all seven read; that one is the only medical instance.19
  • 6 August 2017. Asked to call a prescription in to a Palm Beach pharmacy in another person’s name, Moskowitz answered “I can call under your name FL law has to be active patient anyone can pick it up”.4
  • 30 August 2011, running the other way. Asked by Groff to refill two prescriptions without the patients attending, Victor refused: “Impossible since accutane is computer controlled n they MUST come in next wk.” The words are his and the sheet prints them as quoted.16

The three sit together because the variable in each is the same — whether a name, a visit or a report enters a system that keeps records — and because two of the three answers came from practitioners and one from Epstein’s accountant. They are not one arrangement, no document joins them, and this page does not assert that they were coordinated.

The money took three different shapes

No single payment route served the network. The three that are documented run in three different directions, and the constant in all of them is Epstein’s office rather than any practice.

A foundation. At 6:11 AM on 2 January 2016 Epstein wrote to Richard Kahn: “rich send 50k to moscowitz FOUNDATION.” Kahn replied the same day: “Ok. Also you wanted a reminder for jack goldberger 25,000 in January.” Deutsche Bank’s chart of the Gratitude America money market account records a $50,000 payment to the Bruce and Marsha Moskowitz Foundation five days later, and two further payments of $50,000 in July 2016 and December 2017.4 The instruction and the reply are one sheet: a medical payment and a payment to Jack Goldberger, one of his lawyers, sat in the same queue, handled by the same accountant, and the medical one was addressed to a charitable foundation rather than to a person.

A flat annual fee. Kruger’s invoice of 5 December 2014 bills “Renewal for yearly concierge medical services for the amount of $25,000”. Deutsche Bank’s Exhibit Q records five payments to “Bernard M. Kruger, MD”, each of exactly $25,000, four of them cheques.14

Money running the other way. Victor owed Epstein. Kahn chased his repayments by e-mail in January 2011 (“I just checked with Chase and funds have not yet hit our account”), a $2,500 wire advice of July 2011 survives, a J.P. Morgan statement of Epstein’s own account records a $5,000 credit from Victor’s professional corporation, and item (m) of the list of loans forgiven by paragraph 23 of the Amendment and Restatement of the Jeffrey E. Epstein 2014 Trust reads STEVEN VICTOR. In the same decade Victor asked Epstein for $150,000 and, in 2017, for $250,000 to $500,000; Epstein answered “cannot. but of course i wish you luck.”16

And a bank thought the pattern worth telling prosecutors about. The document headed “DEUTSCHE BANK PRESENTATION TO THE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK”, dated 12 September 2019, contains an “Exhibit Q: Potentially Notable Payments” running to five sheets. All five were read at the image for this page. Four of its rows name a medical or emergency-medical payee:

Payee, as the exhibit names itThe bank’s own descriptionPaymentsTotal
Apgar Ambulances”In late December 2015/early January 2016, Epstein purchased a ‘2009 Dodge 3500 XLT Wheeled Coach Ambulance’ from a Montana-based ambulance dealer.”2$43,6345
Bernard M. Kruger, MD”Kruger is a New York-based internist and oncologist. Each of the five payments listed was for exactly $25,000.”5$125,0006
CPR123, Inc.”CPR123, Inc. is a Manhattan-based CPR training service. These payments are being flagged as notable given Epstein’s prior purchase of an ambulance.”3$1,3177
Women’s Health of ManhattanThe row records a single payment, made on 14 March 2019.1$3758

Exhibit Q’s other rows name schools, an interior-design firm, a cemetery, investigators and individuals.20

The four rows are the bank’s judgement of what a prosecutor should look at, made a month after Epstein’s death, and they cover the ordinary end of the practice as well as the unusual one. What happened to them is the subject of the last section.

November 2018: five practitioners, one gift

A two-sheet compilation in the release is headed “2018 Watch Responses”. It collects replies to an offer of an Apple Watch made on Epstein’s behalf and gathers them for onward transmission. An instruction two-thirds of the way down the second sheet divides the document, and only the last of the lines quoted below stands beneath it; the heading’s own words place the rest as already “sent above on Nov. 23rd”. The instruction reads “SEND THE BELOW RESPONSES TO JE (sent above on Nov. 23rd)”. Six of the quoted lines below are from five practitioners in this material, one of whom answered twice, and the answers are their own words:

Bernand Kruger: Wow, that’s great. I’ll go look and send in choices. Hugh Thanks, Bernard

Dr. Fisch: Hi Leslie What a great gift idea.

Dr. Bruce Moskowitz: Thank you but I have the new one.

Eva: Oh my…Let me go to the apple store and check it out

Dr. Kruger: Thank you and Jeff. I’m so excited can’t wait, thanks.

Dr. Merrell: Lesley, This is so generous of Jeffrey. I do not have one so this will be a real treat!

The sheet prints “Bernand” and “Hugh Thanks” and “Leslie”; none is repaired here. Kruger’s name appears in both forms on the one document.21

The interest of the compilation is not the gift. It is that a single distribution in one month reached five of his practitioners at once, that his office collected their replies and gathered them for him to read, and that one of the five declined.

Who went looking for the medical files

A published analysis by this project reports that one of the seven investigative tracks it defines over the grand jury subpoenas in the Justice Department production, the Medical and Forensic track, received zero subpoenas. That is a real and checkable figure about one dataset. An unpublished internal draft of this project restates it as the much wider claim that no medical records were subpoenaed, that no physician was called before the grand jury and that no hospital records were sought. The wider claim is wrong, and the documents that refute it are in the release.22

What the figure is. The published analysis indexes 257 grand jury subpoenas found in the Justice Department production, decomposes their riders into 2,018 demand clauses and sorts them into data classes, one of which is medical. On that index, the Medical and Forensic track received no subpoenas. That is a statement about the 257 subpoenas the production contains and about a classification built over them; it is not a statement about what any investigation ever asked for.22

The test. The disconfirming document was described before the searches were run: a subpoena, official request or evidence-log entry, issued by a prosecutor, a grand jury or an agent, directed at a physician, a hospital, a laboratory, a pharmacy or a health authority, or demanding medical records. The forms run against the full-text index were "medical records" AND subpoena, "grand jury" AND "medical records", "Medical Records Custodian", "SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM" AND medical, subpoena AND physician, subpoena AND pharmacy, subpoena AND "Mount Sinai", and the surname of each practitioner with a page here conjoined with subpoena. The returns read for this page are set out below. The searches found the request; they did not find any return, and nothing here establishes what, if anything, was produced.19

Federal prosecutors asked, in 2006, and again in 2007. A Kirkland & Ellis document headed “SUMMARY OF MISCONDUCT ISSUES IN THE MATTER OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN”, prepared for the Department, records at paragraph 5:

On November 16, 2006, despite that the fact that the investigation exclusively concerned illegal sexual conduct during massage sessions, AUSA ▮ issued irrelevant official document requests seeking Mr. Epstein’s 2004 and 2005 personal income-tax returns, and later subpoenaed his medical records.

The doubled “that” is on the face of the sheet.9 A Kirkland & Ellis letter of 11 December 2007, at its page 15, goes further. After describing a subpoena served on an agent of Epstein’s counsel, the letter reads: “Despite these efforts, ▮ followed up with a subpoena for Mr. Epstein’s confidential medical records served directly on his chiropractor (with no notice to Mr. Epstein).”23 Neither sheet names the chiropractor, and this page does not supply one.

Epstein moved to quash, and told the court what the demands had covered. A motion to intervene in and quash two grand jury subpoenas duces tecum, filed under seal in the Southern District of Florida by Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, reads at its own page 7:

These subpoenas were not issued in a vacuum. They are simply the most recent of a series of highly intrusive and unusual attempts to acquire highly personal and/or privileged information concerning Mr. Epstein that can have no relevance whatever to the investigation, including Mr. Epstein’s personal tax returns, medical records including treatment notes of Mr. Epstein’s treatment by a chiropractor, and now, invasion of the defense camp by seeking records of the investigative work performed by ▮ on behalf of Mr. Epstein’s counsel in the very same investigation.

10

The FBI’s grand jury envelope holds them. A typed index sheet headed “GJ 1A Envelope”, bearing Case ID 31E-MM-108062-GJ, lists twenty-six numbered items, and the index continues onto the following sheet with two more. Item 2 is “OBJECTION LETTER TO THE SUBPOENA”; item 8 is “FLIGHT DATA RECORDS AND HELLCOPTER FLIGH RECORDS 01-23”; item 9 begins “MEDICAL RECORDS”; item 10 is “GRAND JURY TRANSCRIPTS”. The two printed errors in item 8 are the sheet’s own.11 A pin check reports this sheet as wrong and it is not: the identifier prints on this sheet and on the one after it, and the OCR of this sheet is damaged at exactly that point, so an exact-substring test fails here and succeeds on the clean neighbour.11 A separate FBI electronic communication of 12 July 2013, submitting administrative-subpoena returns to the Miami case file opened on 25 July 2006, lists among the returns one from the Palm Beach County Health Department.24

Victims’ civil counsel asked in 2009, of four health-care professionals and at least one pharmacy. In L.M. v. Jeffrey Epstein in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, a Subpoena Duces Tecum Without Deposition was directed to the “Medical Records Custodian, Dr. Stephen Alexander”, commanding production of his “complete file on: Jeffrey Epstein”.12 A second, served the same season by Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler with Bradley J. Edwards on the signature block, was directed to the “Medical Records Custodian, GREENS PHARMACY, 151 North Country Road, Palm Beach, FL 33480” and demanded “A complete computer printout of any and all prescriptions for medication, name and type of prescription, and all other documentation or information on or regarding” Epstein.13 Sub-paragraph (5) of the pleading described below complains, in Epstein’s own suit, of “Conducting irrelevant and meritless discovery by issuing a subpoena to obtain records from an alleged sex therapist, Dr. Leonard Baird in Massachusetts, when issues relating to Epstein’s mental and emotional states were not at issue and when Dr. Baird had never even treated the Plaintiff;”, the whole item with its semicolon, because the second half is the grievance and an earlier version of this page quoted only the first.25 Sub-paragraph (8) of the same list, on the sheet immediately after, complains of “Directing and filing of Notices to obtain all records of Epstein’s prescriptions and all other health related documents at two local pharmacies, when no issues of Epstein’s health had been raised in the Epstein Actions;”26

A pharmacy of that name at Palm Beach is the pharmacy Epstein named to Moskowitz eight years later, when he asked him to call a prescription in “to greens pharmacy in the name of” another person. The 2017 message gives no address and nothing read for this page settles whether the two are the same business.413

Epstein then sued over it, and the count was later struck. In Epstein v. Rothstein, Edwards in the same circuit, the Second Amended Complaint sets out, as sub-paragraph (6) of its particulars against Edwards:

Directing and filing of Notices for the following health care professionals to produce medical records of Epstein, when Epstein’s mental and emotional state was not an issue in the case:

(a) Charles J. Galecki, M.D.;

(b) Bruce W. Markowitz, M.D.; and

(c) Steven R. Alexander, Ph.D.;

25

A further copy of the same pleading in the release carries that page in tracked changes. Read at the image at 400 dpi: the whole of sub-paragraph (6) down to the colon renders in red with a strike rule through it; item (c) renders the same way; the two M.D. entries at (a) and (b) render in unmarked black; and the clause above them, which had complained that Dr. Baird’s records were sought “when issues relating to Epstein’s mental and emotional states were not at issue and when Dr. Baird had never even treated the Plaintiff”, is struck and replaced by an underlined insertion describing “people whose names may have sounded like someone that Epstein knew but in fact had no relation to whatsoever”. Change bars run in the left margin. The sheet prints “Epsteins” without an apostrophe and “surveillanve” in one of the insertions; neither is repaired.27 A third copy, headed “Corrected Second Amended Complaint”, carries sub-paragraph (6) unmarked. Nothing read for this page establishes which version was filed last, and this page does not assert an order.27

What this leaves standing. Medical records of Jeffrey Epstein were demanded by federal prosecutors in 2006 and 2007, were the subject of a motion to quash, sit as an item in the FBI’s own grand jury envelope for the Florida investigation, and were demanded from four named health-care professionals and at least one pharmacy, by notice or subpoena, in civil proceedings in 2009. The claim that nobody sought them is false. What survives of the original observation is narrower and still interesting: among the 257 grand jury subpoenas the Justice Department production contains, none is classed to the medical track — and a bank volunteered four medical and emergency-medical payees to the U.S. Attorney in September 2019, a month after Epstein’s death, into an investigation that was by then collecting bank records.226

What the record read for this page does not establish

It does not establish how many practitioners treated Epstein or anyone else, and this page publishes no such count. It does not establish that any person treated at Epstein’s direction was a minor, was trafficked or was a victim of any offence. One document read for this page does touch that question: a bank’s own background note quotes a then-recent civil complaint in which a plaintiff alleged she was “provided with gifts such as … medical care for the purpose of causing her to feel indebted to Jeffrey Epstein.” That is an allegation in a pleading, quoted by a third party, and this page neither adopts it nor treats it as establishing anything; it is recorded because a disclaimer that the page had read nothing bearing on the question would not be true.6 It does not establish what any practitioner knew about Epstein’s conviction or conduct. It does not establish that any case discussed in the January 2018 exchange was, or was not, reported to a health authority, and no treatment record for the two people is among the documents read. It does not establish that the three name-avoiding arrangements set out above were connected to one another. It does not establish what was produced in answer to any subpoena described here, or whether any of them was enforced, withdrawn or quashed.

No statement by any practitioner about the material on this page was located in the release. The release predates the publication of these files, so a response to them could not be in it. Where an outside statement exists it is set out on that practitioner’s own page.41416

Notes

Footnotes

  1. E-mail, Lesley Groff to Karyna Shuliak, a reply of 13 June 2017 timed late morning, body “thanks so much Karyna!”, quoting Shuliak’s message of the previous evening. Neither the produced header field nor the quoted header carries a time zone, and no interval is computed across them. Read at the image at 300 dpi by this pass. The sheet carries quoted-printable soft-break damage. Searches run 14 September 2026 against the FTS5 index over text_content, counting distinct documents: every form tried returned a covering message of this thread, save one unrelated custody log, and none returned the attachment. The claim is scoped to those forms and to the documents read. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02303156 p.1 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  2. E-mail, Lesley Groff to Eva Andersson, “Sent: Tue 4/9/2019 1:09:20 PM”, subject “Re: Jeffrey Epstein”, body “super! thanks”. Read at the image at 400 dpi by this pass. The sheet nests, innermost first: Groff at “Apr 8, 2019, at 9:04 PM”; Eva Dubin at “Monday, April 8, 2019 9:54 PM”, naming “Dan Adler” and “Michael Krumholz” and adding “I will ask Allison to send contacts for both in am”; Allison Yorke at “Apr 9, 2019, at 9:08 AM”, giving a street address for each; and Groff’s two words at the top. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02282226 p.1 ↩ ↩2

  3. Daily schedule sheet headed “Friday 27th December”, second page, carrying a pharmacy block and a block headed “Medical Emergency Contacts”. Read at the image at 300 dpi by this pass. Five names print as headings, in the order given in the body, with two assistants named by forename. The sheet gives no year. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00529007 p.2 ↩ ↩2

  4. Every Moskowitz claim on this page is carried, with its identifier, its printed clock times and its image reading, by Bruce Moskowitz, which derives them from the sheets. This page re-derives none of them. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9

  5. Deutsche Bank presentation to the Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, 12 September 2019, “EXHIBIT Q: POTENTIALLY NOTABLE PAYMENTS”, first sheet, printed page 41, Bates EFTA01681904. Read at the image at 400 dpi by this pass. The Apgar Ambulances row gives 2 payments, $43,634, beneficiary bank “First Interstate Bank of Bozeman”, Epstein account “LSJE, LLC” with the account value covered. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01681865 p.40 of the PDF ↩ ↩2

  6. Same presentation, Exhibit Q second sheet, printed page 42, Bates EFTA01681905. Read at the image at 400 dpi by this pass. The row headed “Bernard M. Kruger, MD” is split into three sub-rows, printed as 3 payments / $75,000, 1 / $25,000 and 1 / $25,000; 3 + 1 + 1 = 5 and 75,000 + 25,000 + 25,000 = 125,000, and the sum is this page’s arithmetic and not a figure the sheet prints. the full text of the row, including the allegation the bank quotes from a then-recent civil complaint, is set out at Bernard Kruger, which reads it from this sheet. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01681865 p.41 of the PDF ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  7. Same presentation, Exhibit Q third sheet, printed page 43, Bates EFTA01681906. Read at the image at 400 dpi by this pass. The CPR123, Inc. row is split into two sub-rows, 2 payments of $667 against the Jeffrey Epstein account and 1 payment of $650 against the NES, LLC account; the account values are covered. 667 + 650 = 1,317. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01681865 p.42 of the PDF ↩ ↩2

  8. Same presentation, Exhibit Q fifth and last sheet, printed page 45, Bates EFTA01681908. Read at the image at 400 dpi by this pass. The row headed “Women’s Health of Manhattan” gives 1 payment, $375, beneficiary bank “TBD”, Epstein account “Jeffrey Epstein” with the account value covered, and a background cell opening “The payment took place on March 14, 2019.” The exhibit ends on this sheet; the following sheet carries Exhibit R. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01681865 p.44 of the PDF ↩ ↩2

  9. Kirkland & Ellis LLP, “SUMMARY OF MISCONDUCT ISSUES IN THE MATTER OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN”, printed page bearing Bates EFTA00208773, paragraph 5. Read at the image at 300 dpi by this pass. The sheet carries a manuscript “11 PAGES” at its foot. The ▮ stands where the sheet covers the prosecutor’s name; “See” before “Tab 16” is set in italics on the sheet; the doubled “that” in “despite that the fact that” is the sheet’s own. The quotation is contiguous and ends where the sentence ends. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00208767 p.7 ↩ ↩2

  10. Motion of Jeffrey Epstein to intervene in and quash two grand jury subpoenas duces tecum, United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, whose title sheet prints “MOTION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN TO INTERVENE AND TO QUASH GRAND JURY SUBPOENAS AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW”. The paragraph quoted above stands on the document’s printed page 7, Bates EFTA01713173, read at the image at 300 dpi by this pass; the paragraph is contiguous on that sheet, the ▮ inside it stands where the sheet covers a name, and the firm footer read there gives Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf at a Miami address. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01713166 p.8 . The caption, the title of the motion and the legends “GRAND JURY MATTER” and “FILED UNDER SEAL” stand on the document’s second sheet at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01713166 p.2 , which was read in the corpus text layer and not at the image; ↩ ↩2

  11. Typed index sheet headed in manuscript “GJ 1A Envelope”, printed “Case ID: 31E-MM-108062-GJ”, twenty-six numbered items in a dashed-rule table, Bates EFTA01702679. Read at the image at 300 dpi by this pass. Item 9 begins “MEDICAL RECORDS”. The left-hand column reads “MM” against every row and four rows carry manuscript figures. The sheet that follows carries the same Case ID line and two further numbered items, 27 and 28, so the index runs to twenty-eight and a citation checker reading the Case ID alone will find it on both sheets; that continuation sheet was read in the corpus text layer and not at the image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01702617 p.63 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  12. The subpoena directed to the “Medical Records Custodian, Dr. Stephen Alexander”, the notice of intent that preceded it, and the Crime Victims’ Rights Act filing in which Epstein claimed the file as work product are set out, with their identifiers and image readings, at Stephen Alexander. ↩ ↩2

  13. ⚠ The full docket number is deliberately not printed in this footnote. The caption and the docket number together form a string selective enough to reach filings in the plaintiff’s civil suit that this page has not read or vetted, and the Bates number and viewer link below locate the document without it. “SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM WITHOUT DEPOSITION (Documents may be mailed in lieu of appearance)”, L.M. v. Jeffrey Epstein, Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, Civil Division, Bates EFTA00728338. Read at the image at 400 dpi by this pass. It is directed to the “Medical Records Custodian / GREENS PHARMACY / 151 North Country Road / Palm Beach, FL 33480”, commands appearance at the offices of Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler “on or before the September 28, 2009, at 10:00 a.m.”, and demands the printout quoted, followed by Epstein’s name. The covering Notice of Production from Non-Party on the document’s first sheet names “MRC — Greens Pharmacy”, is certified served in August 2009, and carries the Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler block with Bradley J. Edwards on it; that sheet was read in the corpus text layer and not at the image. The plaintiff is captioned by initials on the face of the filing and is not further identified here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00728336 p.3 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  14. Every Kruger claim on this page, including the invoice, the five payments of $25,000, the June 2016 membership correspondence, Richard Kahn’s message of 21 June 2016 and the 2018 chat transcript, is carried with its identifier and image reading by Bernard Kruger. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  15. The 2011 Maxwell-trial testimony, the estate instruments and the August 2016 request that she telephone a doctor on Epstein’s behalf are carried, with their identifiers, by Eva Andersson-Dubin. ↩ ↩2

  16. Every Victor claim on this page, including the 2009 and 2010 exchanges about billing, the August 2011 prescription thread, the wires and the 2014 Trust, is carried with its identifier and image reading by Steven Victor. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  17. E-mail, Eva Dubin to Epstein’s personal account, “Sent: Thur 6/23/2011 5:30:28 PM”, subject “RE:”, quoting Epstein’s message of “Thu, 23 Jun 2011 12:41:51 -0400”. Read at the image at 400 dpi by this pass. Six practitioners are named. The sheet prints “rockets” and “Dr. Weinefld”; neither is repaired. Contact values beside the practitioners’ names are covered by the producing party on this sheet, and none is reproduced. ⚠ This footnote deliberately does not describe where the marks stand relative to the quoted text. The quoted passage exists in more identifiers than this page cites, and a positional account of the bars would be a map rather than a scope statement; the desk has recorded that as a standing ruling and has made no comparison between copies. The subject of Epstein’s message is empty and the name in its body is covered. The produced Sent: field carries no time zone and the quoted header carries -0400; the two are not shown to be on one clock and no interval is computed across them. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02023023 p.1 ↩

  18. Google Calendar reminder to Lesley Groff, “Sent: Tue 12/3/2013 2:19:52 PM”. Read at the image at 400 dpi by this pass. The event block prints “9:30am Dr. Sean Mc Cance appt (Dr. Eva Dubin recommended Dr. McCance)” above a Park Avenue address, “Tue Dec 3, 2013 9:30am – 10:30am Eastern Time”, and “Lesley Groff - organizer”. The calendar name and the receiving account are covered. The sheet renders the surname two ways on the one line and both are reproduced. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02120475 p.1 ↩

  19. Searches run 14 September 2026 against the released full-text index at pages_fts, scoped to text_content, counting count(distinct efta_number), with no limit on any query. Reporting vocabulary: "do not have to report" 1 document; "not have to report" 4; "dont have to report" 0; "health department" 169; "Department of Health" 487; "mandated reporter" 0; "mandatory reporting" 13; reportable 1,665. The four returns of "not have to report" and the first fourteen of "health department" in index order were read at their matched passages, as were six of the thirteen "mandatory reporting" returns; the characterisations in the body are of those reads and not of the whole population, and reportable and "Department of Health" were counted and not read. Name-avoidance: "without using names" 7 documents, all seven read at the matched passage — one is the June 2016 medical instance quoted, three are copies of one 2019 chat message about press coverage, and three are copies of one government filing in the Maxwell prosecution. Subpoena forms: "medical records" AND subpoena 90; "grand jury" AND "medical records" 38; "Medical Records Custodian" 3; "SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM" AND medical 16; subpoena AND medical 283; subpoena AND physician 24; subpoena AND pharmacy 3; subpoena AND "Greens Pharmacy" 1; subpoena AND "Mount Sinai" 0; subpoena AND Moskowitz 7; subpoena AND Kruger 0; subpoena AND "Steven Victor" 0; subpoena AND "Dr. Stephen Alexander" 1; "Charles J. Galecki" 31; Markowitz AND Galecki 34; "Leonard Baird" 30. Twelve documents from "grand jury" AND "medical records", five from "Medical Records Custodian" and six from Markowitz AND Galecki were read at their matched passages; the remainder were counted and not read. A count of a result set is not knowledge of its contents, and no characterisation above extends beyond the documents named as read. The index covers every production in the release and not only the EFTA series. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  20. Same presentation, Exhibit Q fourth sheet, printed page 44, Bates EFTA01681907. Read at the image at 400 dpi by this pass. Its three rows are an individual, a private investigator and a resorts company. The individual row is headed “John Christensen” — twelve payments totalling $55,489 across three sub-rows — and the bank’s background cell states that it could not confirm the payee’s identity; that a South Florida doctor of that name was charged in 2013 with first-degree murder over the deaths of two patients from painkillers and pleaded guilty in January 2017 to two counts of manslaughter; and then gives a reason the payee might not be him. This page does not count that row among the four medical payees, because the bank itself does not assert the payee is the physician — but the row is named here rather than left as “an individual”, so that the count of four can be audited. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01681865 p.43 of the PDF ↩

  21. Two-sheet compilation headed “2018 Watch Responses”, replies gathered for onward transmission under the heading “SEND THE BELOW RESPONSES TO JE (sent above on Nov. 23rd)” on the second sheet. Both sheets read at the image at 400 dpi by this pass. The six quoted lines stand under the printed labels “Bernand Kruger”, “Dr. Fisch”, “Dr. Bruce Moskowitz” and “Eva” on the first sheet and “Dr. Kruger” and “Dr. Merrell” on the second. The sheet prints “Bernand”, “Hugh Thanks” and “Leslie”, and a run of picture characters follows Eva’s line. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00285604 pp.1-2 ↩

  22. Lines of Investigation, dossier 10, “Scope Evolution”, section 6, published by this project: “Seven investigative tracks were defined in the prosecutorial query graph. One — Medical & Forensic — received zero subpoenas.” Its index is described at dossier 00, the index page, as 257 grand jury subpoenas, 2,018 decomposed demand clauses and 779 investigative gaps drawn from the Justice Department production, with each clause classified into one of eleven data classes of which medical is one. That is the narrower statement, and it is a measurement of that index. The wider statements — that “No medical records were subpoenaed”, that “no physician was called before the grand jury” and that “no hospital records were sought” — are from an unpublished internal draft of this project on the same subject, which is a lead list and is cited on this page for nothing else: no document, figure or quotation above is taken from it, and every claim above was derived from the sheets named in these notes. The quoted sentence was fetched from the published dossier and checked against it word for word on 14 September 2026. https://epstein-data.com/reports/pqg_lines_of_investigation/10_SCOPE_EVOLUTION.html and https://epstein-data.com/reports/pqg_lines_of_investigation/00_INDEX.html ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  23. Kirkland & Ellis LLP letter, “December 11, 2007”, its own page 15, faxed at 11:42 on 12/11/2007 by the header stamp, Bates EFTA00214307. Read at the image at 300 dpi by this pass. ⚠ The quotation is cut at its left end and the cut is now marked. The sentence on the sheet opens “Despite these efforts,” before the covered subject; an earlier version of this footnote stated that the quoted words began after the bar, which is false at the image. The dropped clause makes the act a defiance of an escalation the defence says it had already made, and its omission ran in the direction favourable to the prosecutor rather than against. From the covered subject onward the quotation is contiguous to its full stop. The section heading above the paragraph opens with a covered name. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00214291 p.17 ↩

  24. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Electronic Communication, form FD-1057 (Rev. 5-8-10), “EC for submission of Administrative Subpoena returns to case file”, Date 07/12/2013, From MIAMI MM-PB3, Case ID 31E-MM-108062-254, “Full Investigation Initiated: 07/25/2006”, Bates EFTA01688384. Read at the image at 400 dpi by this pass. The enclosure list and the details list each name five returns, the first of which is from the Palm Beach County Health Department. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01688359 p.26 ↩

  25. “SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT”, Epstein v Rothstein, Edwards, Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG, Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, printed page 12, footed “FOWLER WHITE BURNETT P.A.”, Bates EFTA00584223. Read at the image at 400 dpi by this pass. Sub-paragraph (6) and its three lettered entries are quoted above complete. Sub-paragraph (5) on the same sheet is given here whole, because its grievance is the part that matters and a clause of it is quoted in the body: “Conducting irrelevant and meritless discovery by issuing a subpoena to obtain records from an alleged sex therapist, Dr. Leonard Baird in Massachusetts, when issues relating to Epstein’s mental and emotional states were not at issue and when Dr. Baird had never even treated the Plaintiff;” — the semicolon is the source’s, because sub-paragraph (5) is one item of a numbered list and runs on into (6), so a truncation check will flag this quotation as ending mid-sentence when it is in fact the complete item. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00584212 p.12 ↩ ↩2

  26. Same pleading, sub-paragraph (8) of the same list of particulars, on the sheet immediately following the one cited at 25. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00584212 p.13, confirmed identically in a third copy of the pleading at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00607583 p.13. ⚠ The second pharmacy is not identified on this page: the pleading says “two local pharmacies” and names neither, and only one pharmacy subpoena has been located in the release. Sub-paragraph (7) of the same list concerns bank records and is out of scope here. ↩

  27. A further copy of the same pleading carrying tracked changes on the corresponding sheet, headed “Epstein v Rothstein, Edwards / Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG / Second Amended Complaint”, printed page 13, footed “FOWLER WHITE BURNETT P.A.”, Bates EFTA01126068. Read at the image at 400 dpi by this pass: struck text renders in red with a horizontal strike rule, insertions render in red and underlined, and change bars run in the left margin beside the two altered regions. The description in the body of which spans are struck and which are unmarked was taken from that render. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01126056 p.13 . A third copy, headed “CORRECTED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT” and carrying the same sub-paragraph without marking, is at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00607583 pp.12-13 ; it was read in the corpus text layer and not at the image, and nothing is quoted from it here. ↩ ↩2

Backlinks