Montgomery County
LocationRelationship Network
EFTA00022654.pdf
This document is a Palm Beach Police Department Case Report and Persons System Report regarding Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, covering investigations from 2001 to 2005. It details intelligence on the recruitment of young female college students from Palm Beach Atlantic College for massages, surveillance of Epstein's residence at 358 El Brillo Way, and numerous trash pulls that yielded sexually suggestive items and correspondence. The report also documents interviews with potential victims and witnesses, noting allegations of inappropriate touching and the presence of underage girls, though some investigations were initially marked as unfounded or for intelligence purposes.
DOJ-OGR-00004886.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on July 2, 2021. The text is an excerpt from a judicial opinion (likely the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling overturning Bill Cosby's conviction), which is being cited as a precedent. It discusses the principles of 'fundamental fairness' and 'detrimental reliance' regarding non-prosecution agreements/decisions by District Attorneys, arguing that the Montgomery County DA must abide by the former DA's promise not to prosecute Cosby. This was likely submitted by Maxwell's defense to argue that the Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement should similarly protect her.
DOJ-OGR-00004839.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a legal filing (Document 310-1) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on July 2, 2021. However, the text itself is an excerpt from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion ([J-100-2020]) regarding *Commonwealth v. Cosby*, discussing the non-prosecution agreement and civil depositions of Bill Cosby. The defense in the Maxwell case likely submitted this to argue legal precedent regarding Non-Prosecution Agreements (NPAs) and Fifth Amendment rights, drawing parallels between the Cosby and Epstein/Maxwell situations.
DOJ-OGR-00004835.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a legal filing in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) that references the Bill Cosby case as legal precedent. It details the testimony of former DA Bruce Castor regarding his 2005 decision not to prosecute Cosby, arguing that this was done to strip Cosby of Fifth Amendment privileges and aid the victim (Constand) in a civil suit. The text highlights a 2015 email from Castor to DA Risa Vetri Ferman asserting that he had bound the Commonwealth against future state prosecution.
DOJ-OGR-00004834.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), likely submitted by the defense. It contains an excerpt from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion regarding Bill Cosby, detailing former DA Bruce Castor's testimony that he intentionally issued a press release in 2005 declining to prosecute Cosby to prevent him from invoking the Fifth Amendment in a civil lawsuit filed by Andrea Constand. The document highlights Castor's strategy to 'set up the dominoes' to force Cosby to testify civilly by removing the threat of criminal prosecution.
DOJ-OGR-00004832.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, dated July 2, 2021, detailing the history of Bill Cosby's case. It reproduces a trial court's summary of testimony from a 2016 habeas corpus hearing, focusing on former District Attorney Bruce L. Castor, Jr.'s 2005 decision-making process. The text recounts Castor's testimony about his investigation into Andrea Constand's allegations, including his rationale for assigning specific detectives and his assessment of the case's weaknesses, such as the delayed reporting and inconsistencies in statements.
DOJ-OGR-00004830.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a legal filing in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), specifically referencing the Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion regarding Bill Cosby ([J-100-2020]). It details former D.A. Bruce Castor's explanation to D.A. Ferman regarding his 2005 decision not to prosecute Cosby; Castor explains this was a strategic move to strip Cosby of his 5th Amendment protections, thereby forcing him to testify in a civil suit filed by Andrea Constand. This document was likely filed by Maxwell's defense to establish legal precedent regarding the binding nature of Non-Prosecution Agreements (NPAs).
DOJ-OGR-00004829.jpg
This document is a page from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) that references the Bill Cosby case as legal precedent regarding non-prosecution agreements. It contains an email from former D.A. Bruce Castor to D.A. Risa Ferman dated September 23, 2015. In the email, Castor explains that in 2005 he intentionally promised not to prosecute Cosby criminally to strip him of Fifth Amendment protections, thereby forcing him to testify in a civil deposition for the benefit of the victim, Andrea Constand.
DOJ-OGR-00004828.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed 07/02/21) discussing the legal history of the Bill Cosby case, likely cited as precedent in the Ghislaine Maxwell/Epstein proceedings regarding non-prosecution agreements. It details Cosby's admission to using Quaaludes for sex, his $3.38 million settlement with Andrea Constand, and the reopening of the criminal investigation by D.A. Risa Vetri Ferman after civil records were unsealed in 2015. It also notes a $20,000 payment to Constand from American Media, Inc.
DOJ-OGR-00004814.jpg
This document is a page from a Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion (Commonwealth v. Cosby) written by Justice Wecht, decided on June 30, 2021. While the text concerns the prosecution of Bill Cosby and District Attorney Bruce Castor's 2005 decision not to prosecute due to lack of evidence, the header indicates this document was filed as an exhibit (Document 310-1) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, which is the federal criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The Cosby case was likely cited in the Maxwell proceedings as a legal precedent regarding the validity of non-prosecution agreements.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity