HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010514.jpg
2.22 MB
Extraction Summary
6
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Deposition transcript / book excerpt (filthy rich)
File Size:
2.22 MB
Summary
This document is an excerpt from the book 'Filthy Rich' containing the deposition testimony of Michael Reiter regarding the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. Reiter testifies that he believed State Attorney Barry Krischer lacked objectivity in handling the case and describes how both he and his detective were ignored by the State Attorney's office (specifically Krischer and Lanna Belohlavek) when attempting to communicate. Reiter details writing a letter (Exhibit 3, referenced May 1, 2006) urging Krischer to step aside and have the governor appoint a different prosecutor due to the serious nature of the crimes and the high profile of the suspect.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Michael Reiter | Witness / Chief of Police (implied) |
Testifying about his interactions with the State Attorney's office regarding the Epstein investigation.
|
| Barry Krischer | State Attorney |
Accused by the witness of lacking objectivity in the Epstein case; refused to return phone calls.
|
| Lanna Belohlavek | State Attorney's Office Contact |
Contact person for the detective; she reportedly would not return calls.
|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Suspect |
The subject of the investigation mentioned in the case caption.
|
| The Detective | Investigator |
Worked with Reiter; attempted to contact Lanna Belohlavek unsuccessfully.
|
| Governor | Government Official |
The authority who could appoint a different prosecutor if the current one recused himself.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| State Attorney's Office |
The office handling the prosecution, criticized for unusual handling of the case.
|
|
| House Oversight Committee |
Implied by the footer 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010514'.
|
Timeline (2 events)
May 1, 2006
Michael Reiter marks a letter to Barry Krischer as Exhibit 3 during testimony.
Deposition/Court Setting
Unknown
Initial in-person meeting between Michael Reiter and Barry Krischer regarding the Epstein case.
Unknown (likely Florida)
Relationships (2)
Reiter knew Krischer as a victim advocate but felt he lacked objectivity in the Epstein case; Krischer refused Reiter's calls.
Belohlavek was the detective's contact in the State Attorney's office but refused to return calls.
Key Quotes (4)
"I felt that the handling—and just continued to feel that the way the state attorney’s office handled this case was extremely unusual."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010514.jpg
Quote #1
"I felt that his objectivity was lacking"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010514.jpg
Quote #2
"I wrote the letter in hope that he would think about his situation and realize that his objectivity was insufficient to prosecute the case and ask the governor to appoint someone else."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010514.jpg
Quote #3
"I realized that it was a serious case, [that] there were multiple victims, [and] that the suspect was very well known"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010514.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,109 characters)
CHAPTER 45
Michael Reiter in B.B. vs.
[ag]ainst Jeffrey Epstein:
[ag]ainst Jeffrey Epstein:
a letter to state attorney Barry
[yo]u what we'll mark as exhibit 3. Let
[re]ad through this letter again to help
[yo]u what we'll mark as exhibit 3. Let
[re]ad through this letter again to help
2006, I'm assuming based on what
[yo]u had had some conversations with
by phone—correct?—prior to this
[yo]u had had some conversations with
by phone—correct?—prior to this
[pe]rson and by phone.
[In] May—May 1, 2006—you felt the
is that correct?
[In] May—May 1, 2006—you felt the
is that correct?
172
FILTHY RICH
Q: Can you tell us why?
A: Well, I felt the handling—and just continued to feel that the way the state attorney's office handled this case was extremely unusual. I knew that Mr. Krischer was making decisions about this case. I felt that his objectivity was lacking, and I felt that the appropriate way, after reading the statute that governed the assignment of cases to other circuits—I felt that his action met the standard. I used some of the words from the statute in here. And I attempted to call him, and he wouldn't return my phone calls.
The detective attempted to contact—his contact in the state attorney's office, Lanna Belohlavek, however you pronounce that...and she wouldn't return his calls. So I wrote the letter in hope that he would think about his situation and realize that his objectivity was insufficient to prosecute the case and ask the governor to appoint someone else. And I felt like that was necessary for a fair prosecution of our case that had been submitted to him.
Q: Could you tell us, explain to us, why you felt that his objectivity may be lacking in regards to this prosecution...? In other words, what evidence did you see here, uncover, that you felt made it potentially nonobjective?
A: Well...when I first told him about the case, and I realized that it was a serious case, [that] there were multiple victims, [and] that the suspect was very well known, I told him about it. And we were—it was in person. I talked to him after a meeting that he and I were both involved in. And I had known him to be a victim advocate and to protect the rights of children. Well, I know that he even wrote a portion of the statute that addresses those issues. And when I told him
A: Well, I felt the handling—and just continued to feel that the way the state attorney's office handled this case was extremely unusual. I knew that Mr. Krischer was making decisions about this case. I felt that his objectivity was lacking, and I felt that the appropriate way, after reading the statute that governed the assignment of cases to other circuits—I felt that his action met the standard. I used some of the words from the statute in here. And I attempted to call him, and he wouldn't return my phone calls.
The detective attempted to contact—his contact in the state attorney's office, Lanna Belohlavek, however you pronounce that...and she wouldn't return his calls. So I wrote the letter in hope that he would think about his situation and realize that his objectivity was insufficient to prosecute the case and ask the governor to appoint someone else. And I felt like that was necessary for a fair prosecution of our case that had been submitted to him.
Q: Could you tell us, explain to us, why you felt that his objectivity may be lacking in regards to this prosecution...? In other words, what evidence did you see here, uncover, that you felt made it potentially nonobjective?
A: Well...when I first told him about the case, and I realized that it was a serious case, [that] there were multiple victims, [and] that the suspect was very well known, I told him about it. And we were—it was in person. I talked to him after a meeting that he and I were both involved in. And I had known him to be a victim advocate and to protect the rights of children. Well, I know that he even wrote a portion of the statute that addresses those issues. And when I told him
173
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010514
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document