DOJ-OGR-00033209.tif

years old. Though the results of the examination were given to the PBPD and
the PBPD was given an opportunity to meet with the polygraph examiner in
order to satisfy itself as to the bona fides of the exam, representatives of the
PBPD inexplicably declined to attend the meeting and no information
concerning the fact of the exam or the results appeared in the Police Report;
the probable cause affidavit; or the public release.
2.
Meetings with the State Attorney's Office. On multiple occasions, defense
counsel met with prosecutors and investigators in the State Attorney's Office.
Though there is vague reference to one or more meetings with defense counsel
(see, e.g., pages 64 and 87 of the Police Report), virtually no information
provided or evidence from witnesses proffered is included in the Police
Report or probable cause affidavit. Instead, there are misleading or false
references to such meetings. So for example, at page 64 of the Police Report,
Det. Recarey claims he attempted to reach ASA Dahlia Weiss on December
20, 2005, but she was unavailable that day and for the entire week. In fact, on
December 19, 2005, Det. Recarey met with ASA Weiss and Epstein defense
attorney Alan Dershowitz - a meeting at which Dershowitz provided evidence
impeaching [REDACTED] (see below). This evidence included excerpts
from [REDACTED] MySpace.com webpage, which is not only unnoted in the Police
Report, but credited as having been found by Det. Recarey. (Police Report at
page 65.) In another example, the briefest reference is made to a conversation
Det. Recarey had on June 1, 2006, with ASA Belohlavek regarding a meeting
earlier that day between representatives of the State Attorney's Office and
defense attorney Jack Goldberger (Police Report at page 87). Omitted are the
facts of the meeting (Report at 87): In addition to the presence of other
defense counsel, there was in attendance both the polygraph expert who
administered the examination and a psychiatrist who had performed a rigorous
psycho-sexual evaluation of Epstein and who concluded that Epstein was
healthy. Both men were made available for questioning by the State Attorney
and the PBPD; unfortunately, the PBPD failed to attend the meeting. Nor is
there any mention of the presentation made by defense counsel in which the
claims being made with respect to [REDACTED] (by then, the sole focus of
any potential prosecution) were rebutted.
3.
The Video Surveillance Equipment Located in Epstein's Office and
Garage. Both the Police Report (page 43) and the probable cause affidavit
(page 18) make particular mention of the PBPD having "discovered" video
surveillance equipment, or "covert (hidden) cameras" (as the PBPD refers to
them), at Epstein's Palm Beach residence, specifically in Epstein's garage and
library/office. By its placement in the probable cause affidavit, it is clear that
the reader is intended to assume a link between this equipment and "sex
objects" and that the cameras were used for an improper purpose. As the
probable cause affidavit states: Det. Recarey "located a wood colored armoire
beside Epstein's bed that contained a bottle of 'joy jelly', which is used to
provide a warm massage. Several massage tables were located throughout the
second floor of the residence, including a massage table found in Epstein's
bedroom..." Indeed, much is made of the presence of this equipment, noting
2
Public Records Request No. 19-372
DOJ-OGR-00033209