EFTA00013662

me on several occasions that you will always look at all of the relevant and material facts that I call the following to your
attention. New information that has come to light strongly suggests that the facts of this case cannot possibly implicate a
federal prosecutorial priority. Due to established state procedures and following the initiation of multiple civil lawsuits, Mr.
Epstein's counsel was able to take limited discovery of certain women in this matter. The sworn statements provided by
these women all confirm that federal prosecution is not appropriate in this case.
The consistent representations of witnesses such a
and the civil complainants and their attorneys, confirm the following key points: First, there was no telephonic
communication that met the requirements of § 2422(b). For example, as many other witnesses have stated, Ms.
testified in no unclear terms that there was never any discussion over the phone about her coming over to Mr. Epstein's
home to engage in sexual activity: "The only thing that ever occurred on any of these phone calls [wi
another assistant] was, 'Are you willing to come over,' or, 'Would you like to come over and give a massage.'" Tr. A
at 15. Second, the underage women who visited Mr. Epstein have testified that they lied about their age in order to gain
admittance into his home and women who brought their underage friends to Mr.lpai counseled them to lie about their
ages as well. Ms. stated the following: "I would tell my girlfriends just like approached me. Make sure you
tell him you're 18. Well, these girls that I brought, I know that they were 18 or 19 or 20. And the girls that I didn't know and
I don't know if they were lying or not, I would say make sure that you tell him you're 18." Tr. at 22. Third, there was
no routine or habit suggesting an intent to transform a massage into an illegal sexual act. For instance, Ms. stated
that Mr. Epstein "never touched [her] physically" and that all she did was "massage( ] his back, his chest and his thighs and
that was it." Tr. at 12-13. Finally, as you are well aware, there was no force, coercion, fraud, violence, drugs, or
even alcohol present in connection with Mr. Epstein's encounters with these women.
The civil suits confirm that the plaintiffs did not discuss engaging in sexually-related activities with anyone prior to arriving
at Mr. Epstein's residence. This reinforces the fact that no telephonic or Internet persuasion, inducement, enticement or
coercion of any kind occurred. Furthermore, Mr. Herman, the attorney for most of the civil complainants, was quoted in the
Palm Beach Post as saying that "it doesn't matter" that his clients lied about their ages and told Mr. Epstein that they were
18 or 19. In short, the new evidence establishing that the women deliberately lied about their age because they knew Mr.
Epstein did not want anyone under 18 in his house directly undercuts the claim that Mr. Epstein willfully blinded himself as
to their ages. Willful blindness is not a substitute for evidence of knowledge nor is it a negligence standard. It requires
proof beyond reasonable doubt of deliberate intent and specific action to hide one's knowledge. There is absolutely no
such evidence of that here, so it is not even a jury issue. Furthermore, willful ignorance cannot constitute the required
mens rea for a crime of conspiracy or aiding and abetting.
Through the recent witness statements, we have also discovered another serious issue that implicates the integrity of the
federal investigation. We have learned that FBI Special Agent attempted to convince these adult women, now
in their twenties, that they were in fact "victims" even though the women themselves strongly disagreed with this
characterization. This conduct, once again, goes to the heart of the integrity of the investigation. In a sworn statement,
Ms. was highly critical of the overreaching by federal law enforcement officers in this case. She testified—in no
uncertain terms—that she does not, and never did, feel like a "victim," despite the fact that the FBI repeatedly tried to
convince her otherwise.
I am mindful of the fact that we have a state court date of July 8 on which either to enter a plea or to commence trial. As I
review the trial options with Mr. Epstein, I certainly want to make sure I do everything within my power to obviate a need for
trial through a reasonable alternative resolution. Although it is dear that CEOS is not directing a prosecution here, and has
stated only that you have the authority to commence such a prosecution, I am well aware that the decision whether to
proceed, subject to any further process in Washington, is now within your discretion. I think the new facts should greatly
influence your decision and accordingly, I hope you will agree to meet with me, both to discuss the new evidence and to
discuss a resolution to this matter once and for all. I am available to meet with you at your earliest convenience subject to
our mutual availability.
Respectfully,
Jay
The information contained in this communication is
confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may
constitute inside information, and is intended only for
the use of the addressee. It is the property of
Kirkland & Ellis LLP or Kirkland & Ellis International LLP.
EFTA00013662