EFTA00029275.pdf
58.9 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Email thread
File Size:
58.9 KB
Summary
This document is an email thread from February 10, 2020, between Assistant U.S. Attorneys regarding the Epstein/Maxwell investigation. The discussion focuses on managing concerns from witnesses' counsel regarding confidentiality following public comments made about Prince Andrew on January 27. The emails mention that two potential witnesses who worked for Maxwell/Epstein have expressed willingness to be interviewed, while another witness has already met with prosecutors multiple times. There is also a reference to reviewing depositions related to Ghislaine Maxwell.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Prince Andrew | Subject of comments |
Public comments made on Jan 27 about him caused concern among witnesses.
|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Employer |
Mentioned as 'Maxwell/Epstein'; potential witnesses worked for her; depositions being reviewed.
|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Employer |
Mentioned as 'Maxwell/Epstein'; potential witnesses worked for him.
|
| Assistant U.S. Attorney | Sender |
Unidentified sender from Southern District of New York.
|
| Witnesses (Redacted) | Potential Witnesses |
Several individuals represented by counsel; expressed concern over confidentiality; some worked for Maxwell/Epstein.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| USANYS |
U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY)
|
|
| Southern District of New York |
Jurisdiction of the Assistant U.S. Attorney
|
Timeline (2 events)
2020-01-27
2020-02-10
Internal discussion regarding witness confidentiality and interview arrangements
SDNY Office (implied)
USANYS Attorneys
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Office location of the prosecutor
|
Relationships (2)
Referenced together as 'Maxwell/Epstein' regarding former employees.
USANYS discussing public comments made about Prince Andrew on Jan 27.
Key Quotes (3)
"Following [REDACTED] comments about Prince Andrew on January 27, the team heard from counsel for several witnesses who had seen [REDACTED] remarks and had concerns."Source
EFTA00029275.pdf
Quote #1
"[REDACTED] and [REDACTED] – both of whom are believed to have worked in some capacity for Maxwell/Epstein during relevant time periods – have never been interviewed before but have expressed a willingness to come in"Source
EFTA00029275.pdf
Quote #2
"Separately, just a reminder to please send us [REDACTED] email on the Maxwell depositions?"Source
EFTA00029275.pdf
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,263 characters)
From: [REDACTED] (USANYS) <[REDACTED]>
To: [REDACTED] <[REDACTED]>
Cc: [REDACTED] <[REDACTED]>, [REDACTED] (USANYS) <[REDACTED]>
Subject: RE: RE: attorneys asking about confidentiality
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 23:06:33 +0000
To: [REDACTED] <[REDACTED]>
Cc: [REDACTED] <[REDACTED]>, [REDACTED] (USANYS) <[REDACTED]>
Subject: RE: RE: attorneys asking about confidentiality
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 23:06:33 +0000
Sorry, I just realized I mixed up [REDACTED] and [REDACTED]. All three witnesses have not met with us but [REDACTED] has indicated she won't come in, right?
From: [REDACTED] (USANYS)
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 5:50 PM
To: [REDACTED] <[REDACTED]>
Cc: [REDACTED] <[REDACTED]>; [REDACTED] <[REDACTED]>; [REDACTED] (USANYS) <[REDACTED]>
Subject: RE: RE: attorneys asking about confidentiality
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 5:50 PM
To: [REDACTED] <[REDACTED]>
Cc: [REDACTED] <[REDACTED]>; [REDACTED] <[REDACTED]>; [REDACTED] (USANYS) <[REDACTED]>
Subject: RE: RE: attorneys asking about confidentiality
Is the following fair/accurate? If there are specific concerns they raised, feel free to add/edit as appropriate. Thanks
Following [REDACTED] comments about Prince Andrew on January 27, the team heard from counsel for several witnesses who had seen [REDACTED] remarks and had concerns. Specifically, the team heard from counsel for [REDACTED], [REDACTED], and [REDACTED] each of whom referenced [REDACTED] comments about Prince Andrew and sough to confirm that their own communications with the team about their clients would remain confidential. [REDACTED], as you know, has already met with us several times. [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] – both of whom are believed to have worked in some capacity for Maxwell/Epstein during relevant time periods – have never been interviewed before but have expressed a willingness to come in, and we have been working with their counsel now to arrange for interviews.
From: [REDACTED] <[REDACTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 5:34 PM
To: [REDACTED] (USANYS) <[REDACTED]>
Cc: [REDACTED] <[REDACTED]>; [REDACTED] <[REDACTED]>
Subject: RE: attorneys asking about confidentiality
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 5:34 PM
To: [REDACTED] (USANYS) <[REDACTED]>
Cc: [REDACTED] <[REDACTED]>; [REDACTED] <[REDACTED]>
Subject: RE: attorneys asking about confidentiality
[REDACTED],
Following up on our discussion earlier, the attorneys who have asked about confidentiality since the public comments about Prince Andrew include counsel for [REDACTED], counsel for [REDACTED], and counsel for [REDACTED].
Separately, just a reminder to please send us [REDACTED] email on the Maxwell depositions? We're going through them separately as well, but would be helpful to know what jumped out to him in his read.
thanks,
[REDACTED].
[REDACTED].
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Southern District of New York
Southern District of New York
EFTA00029275
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document