This document, likely a legal memorandum submitted to the House Oversight Committee, details 'The Post's' investigation into the Manhattan District Attorney's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. It discusses allegations that ADA Gaffney and DA Cyrus Vance were unduly lenient or negligent regarding Epstein's sex offender registration and describes reporter Sue Edelman's failed December 2018 attempt to obtain sealed appellate briefs regarding the matter.
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Subject of investigation |
Described as a 'pedophile billionaire' and 'serial sexual abuser of children'; discussion concerns his sex offender r...
|
| Cyrus Vance / Cyrus Vance, Jr. | Manhattan District Attorney |
Claimed he was not aware of the Epstein hearing until years later; accused by sources of having ties to Democrats and...
|
| ADA Gaffney | Assistant District Attorney |
Accused of mishandling the Epstein hearing; the DA's office claimed Gaffney simply 'made a mistake'.
|
| Justice Pickholz | Judge |
Denied ADA Gaffney's efforts to register Epstein as a level one offender.
|
| Sue Edelman | Reporter (The Post) |
Contacted the DA's office on Dec 4, 2018, to request appellate briefs.
|
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Post |
Newspaper conducting an investigation into the Manhattan DA's office (likely New York Post).
|
|
| Manhattan District Attorney’s Office |
Investigated for potential leniency toward Epstein.
|
|
| First Department |
Appellate court where briefs were filed.
|
|
| Sun Sentinel |
Referenced in the URL at the top of the document.
|
|
| Democratic Party |
Referenced as 'Democrats' whom Epstein had close ties to.
|
|
| House Oversight Committee |
Indicated by the Bates stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT'.
|
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction of the District Attorney and location of the 'Manhattan mogul'.
|
"Manhattan DA sided with pedophile billionaire after botching investigation."Source
"ADA Gaffney simply 'made a mistake.'"Source
"Cyrus Vance 'was not aware' of the hearing until years later and had nothing to do with it."Source
"[s]ome law enforcement sources don’t believe Vance had no clue that his office had a sex-offender case involving a Manhattan mogul with close ties to Democrats."Source
"Unsealing of the First Department appeal briefs in this case is crucial so that the public and the press may more fully understand why Epstein was initially offered level one offender status despite the overwhelming evidence that he was a serial sexual abuser of children."Source
Complete text extracted from the document (2,174 characters)
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document