EFTA00013793

ALLEN GUTHRIE MCHUGH & THOMAS, PLLC
Mr. John Roth
June 19, 2008
Page 9
A: Correct.
Q: You didn't want Mr. Epstein to know that you were not 18 yet, right?
A: Correct.
Tr. (deposition) at 36.
In fact, Ms. told Mr. Epstein that she was 18 years old, and confirmed this fact with
Palm Beach Police. M. at 36. Beyond that, Ms. "swore on her mother's grave" that she
and Mr. Epstein did not engage in sex of any kind. Tr. (deposition) at 24. She further
repeatedly explained that prior to the time she went to Mr. Epstein's house (she went there only
once), nobody ever tried to coerce her to en a e m sexual activity with Mr. Epstein. Not over the
telephone, not over the Internet, not at all. Tr. (deposition) at 31-32. These are not facts
upon which a federal case can stand.
Ms. age was also unknown to Mr. E stein when she went to his home.
who was introduced to Mr. Epstein by Ms. , testified in her federal sworn interview
that Ms. told her to lie to Epstein. agc Tr. at 8 ("she just said make sure you're 18
because Jeffrey doesn't want an underage girls') (emphasis added). Ms. testimon
strongly suggests that Ms. lied to Mr. Epstein about her own age as well. Ms.
also self represented that she worked at a local erotic massage parlor that presumably required a
minimum age.
The conduct of is likewise illustrative of "mutually corroborating" testimony
which ports the fact that this is not an appropriate federal case. In the same way that Ms.
was referred to Mr. Elan and brought to his home without havin been introduced or
acquainted in any manner, Ms. was referred by someone else, , who also told
her to lie to Mr. Epstein about her age, which she did. Tr. at pp. 8-9).
t
CEOS seeks to buttress the USAO prosecution by asserting "it is possible to satisfy that
element [proof of specific intent as to the age of the alleged victims] with proof that the defendant
was deliberately ignorant of facts which would suggest that the person was a minor." (CEOS letter
at p. 2). Such assertion is counter to the law and to the facts. Reliance on a deliberate ignorance
standard as to any of the three statutes in issue requires the factual predicate of an intent n_qt to learn
of an incriminating fact. This is the antithesis of the factual context of this case where there is
repeated proof that the minors believed that they had to lie because Mr. Epstein had an actual
practice of attempting to verify age, and would not let them in his house if they were under the age of
18. ss& United States v. Kennard, 472 F.3d 851, 857-858 (I 1th Cir. 2006), quoting, United States v.
Puche 350 F.3d 1137, 1149 (111° Cir. 2003) (An instruction on deliberate ignorance is appropriate
only if it is shown [among other things] ... that the defendant purposely contrived to avoid learning
EFTA00013793