Wild
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Edwards
|
Client |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Edwards
|
Representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
organization
FBI
|
Investigative law enforcement victim witness |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Professional investigator victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Professional prosecutor victim witness |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Acquaintance |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Victim of abuse by |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Interviewed |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
FBI
|
Victim investigator communication |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Bradley Edwards
|
Client |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Edwards
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Victim accused context of federal criminal case |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Wild asked a question that was not answered by USAO or FBI agents. | N/A | View |
| 2019-09-30 | Legal filing | Wild appealed the district court's rejection of remedies by filing a Petition for a Writ of Manda... | U.S. Court of Appeals for t... | View |
| 2015-01-01 | N/A | Wild's CVRA-case declaration. | N/A | View |
| 2015-01-01 | N/A | Wild's CVRA case declaration regarding lack of notification about plea. | N/A | View |
| 2008-08-01 | N/A | Wild received access to the NPA pursuant to a protective order. | Court | View |
| 2008-06-01 | N/A | Wild retained Bradley Edwards to inquire about the federal criminal case against Jeffrey Epstein. | N/A | View |
| 2008-01-31 | Interview | Villafaña and the FBI interviewed three victims, including Wild. The emotional toll on the victim... | N/A | View |
| 2008-01-31 | Interview | Villafaña re-interviewed Wild, telling her the case was under investigation but not specifically ... | N/A | View |
| 2008-01-31 | N/A | Villafaña, CEOS Trial Attorney, and FBI interviewed three victims, including Wild. | N/A | View |
| 2008-01-10 | Communication | The FBI sent Wild a victims' rights letter indicating the case was under investigation. | N/A | View |
| 2008-01-10 | Communication | Wild received a letter from the FBI stating the case was under investigation, contradicting the O... | N/A | View |
| 2008-01-01 | Legal action | A judge permitted victim Wild to receive access to the NPA pursuant to a protective order. | N/A | View |
| 2007-10-01 | N/A | FBI told Wild and two other victims that the case had been resolved. | N/A | View |
| 2007-01-01 | Interview | The FBI interviewed Wild but did not tell her a potential outcome was a state plea. | N/A | View |
| 2007-01-01 | Communication | Wild received a letter from Villafaña inaccurately stating she was a federal victim entitled to C... | N/A | View |
| 2007-01-01 | Notification | The FBI told Wild and two other victims that the case had been resolved. | N/A | View |
| 2007-01-01 | Interview | The FBI interviewed victim Wild but did not inform her that a potential outcome of the case was a... | N/A | View |
029.pdf
A Notice of Hearing filed in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County regarding the case State of Florida vs. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 2008-CF9381 AXX). The hearing, scheduled for May 29, 2009, before Judge Jeffrey J. Colbath, concerns a motion by a redacted non-party (represented by Bradley J. Edwards for client 'E.W.') to vacate an order sealing records and to unseal said records. The file path in the footer references 'Wild v. Epstein', suggesting the redacted party may be named Wild.
DOJ-OGR-00023301.tif
This document details investigative activities related to Jeffrey Epstein in late 2007 and 2008, focusing on Villafaña's role in preparing for a potential trial and federal charges, despite an existing Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It highlights efforts to identify new victims, revise prosecution strategies, and secure legal representation for victims, while also noting internal communications about the likelihood of charges and the ongoing nature of the investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00023273.tif
This document details events surrounding Epstein's state plea, focusing on victim notification failures and the actions of various legal and investigative parties. It highlights Villafaña's efforts to identify victims and contact their attorneys, and statements from victims (Wild, Jane Doe #2) expressing their lack of awareness regarding the plea's implications for their cases. The document also notes discrepancies in the State Attorney's Office's communication about the case closure and Epstein's sentence.
DOJ-OGR-00023268.tif
This document details interactions between prosecutor Villafaña, attorney Edwards, and victims' attorneys concerning the investigation and prosecution of Epstein. Villafaña provided Edwards with the impression of an ongoing, expansive federal investigation but did not disclose the existence of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) or other specific case details, citing prosecutorial challenges and grand jury confidentiality. The document also highlights difficulties victims' attorneys faced in obtaining information from Villafaña and notes a government admission that federal charges and the NPA were discussed between Villafaña and Edwards.
DOJ-OGR-00023267.tif
This document discusses the application of CVRA (Crime Victims' Rights Act) rights, referencing a federal prosecution related to a 2005 BP oil refinery explosion where victim notification was initially bypassed. It also details how, in June 2008, victims like Wild and Villafaña sought legal representation from Bradley Edwards to understand the federal criminal case against Jeffrey Epstein, highlighting communications and the role of OPR in investigating such interactions.
DOJ-OGR-00023264.tif
This document details an interview with Villafaña regarding her interactions with victims in a case involving Epstein. It describes her communications about a non-prosecution agreement, the victims' concerns about the legal process and potential exaggeration of claims, and her rationale for not discussing the agreement with some victims. It also includes statements from a CEOS Trial Attorney and an FBI agent about victim notifications and interviews.
DOJ-OGR-00023263.tif
This document details FBI interviews of Jeffrey Epstein's victims in early 2008, focusing on victim Wild's willingness to testify and confusion regarding the case's status. It also describes the emotional distress of other victims and communications between officials like Villafaña, Acosta, and Sloman regarding victim management and the difficulties of prosecution. The text references contemporary news articles about the case and highlights discrepancies in FBI reporting of victim interviews.
DOJ-OGR-00015039.jpg
This legal document, page 3 of a court filing from July 18, 2025, argues for the release of grand jury records related to the Jeffrey Epstein case. It cites multiple legal precedents to establish that while grand jury proceedings are traditionally secret, this secrecy is not absolute and can be overridden in 'special circumstances' of significant public and historical interest. The document asserts that the Epstein matter, involving 'the most infamous pedophile in American history,' qualifies as such a circumstance, making the grand jury records 'critical pieces' of national history that should be made public.
DOJ-OGR-00021483.jpg
This legal document details an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigation into the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case, specifically the failure of government officials Villafaña, Acosta, and Sloman to consult with victims before or after signing a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The OPR found that while the officials' actions were not intended to protect Epstein, their decision to withhold information from victims—stemming from a concern about creating impeachment evidence for a potential trial—was flawed and negatively impacted the victims' sense of fairness. The document highlights the experience of victim Wild, who felt misled, and notes that a more straightforward approach with victims would have been better practice.
DOJ-OGR-00021482.jpg
This document, part of a legal filing, details findings from the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) regarding the government's treatment of Jeffrey Epstein's victims. OPR concludes that while no professional misconduct occurred, the government failed to treat victims with forthrightness and sensitivity, particularly by not providing timely and clear information about the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The report uses the case of a victim named Wild to illustrate a series of confusing and inconsistent communications from government agents, and also notes an instance where prosecutor Sloman refused to provide information to another victim's attorney.
DOJ-OGR-00021477.jpg
This legal document details communications surrounding the federal investigation of Epstein, focusing on the information provided to victims and their attorney, Bradley Edwards. Investigator Villafaña told victims and Edwards that the investigation was active and ongoing, while officials like Sloman and Acosta were concerned that disclosing the terms of a non-prosecution agreement (NPA), including a potential $150,000 payment, would compromise the victims' credibility as witnesses in a potential trial.
DOJ-OGR-00021466.jpg
This document is a page from a Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report reviewing the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. It focuses on the FBI's use of the Victim Notification System (VNS) to send form letters to victims between 2006 and 2008, which stated the case was 'under investigation.' The report concludes that while technically not false, these letters were misleading because they failed to inform victims about the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) reached in 2007, leading victims (such as CVRA petitioner Wild) to believe a federal prosecution was still actively moving forward.
DOJ-OGR-00021465.jpg
This document details the continued federal investigation into Epstein after the signing of his Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It outlines specific actions taken by prosecutor Villafaña, the FBI, and CEOS between late 2007 and mid-2008, such as interviewing new victims and preparing for trial, to demonstrate that the investigation remained active. The document asserts that communications to victims stating the case was 'currently under investigation' were accurate, despite potentially being misleading.
DOJ-OGR-00021459.jpg
This legal document analyzes the ambiguity of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) concerning when victims' rights attach, particularly before formal charges are filed. It notes that at the time of the 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) in the Epstein case, court precedent was sparse and divided, a situation that continued as of the writing of this report. Because the law was not clear, the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) concluded that the prosecutors' failure to consult with victims before signing the NPA did not constitute professional misconduct.
DOJ-OGR-00021447.jpg
This legal document details a court case involving a petitioner, Ms. Wild, and the U.S. government concerning the application of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) in the context of Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement (NPA). The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals initially denied Wild's petition, but was highly critical of the government's lack of transparency and 'active misrepresentation'. The court later vacated its own opinion and granted a rehearing en banc, with a new oral argument scheduled.
DOJ-OGR-00021446.jpg
This legal document details the aftermath of the Jeffrey Epstein case concerning victims' rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). Following Epstein's death, a district court denied the victims' (petitioners') motion for remedies, such as rescinding the non-prosecution agreement, deeming the issue moot. The document also covers an appeal by a victim named Wild and the government's legal arguments that its CVRA obligations were not triggered because charges were never filed in the original district.
DOJ-OGR-00021433.jpg
This document outlines the internal DOJ communications in June 2008 regarding the finalization of Jeffrey Epstein's plea agreement and the handling of victim notifications. It details how prosecutor Villafaña was instructed by superiors Alex Acosta and Jeff Sloman to avoid direct victim notification, instead delegating that task to PBPD Chief Reiter. The text also confirms that the Deputy Attorney General had deemed federal prosecution appropriate just days before the plea deal deadline.
DOJ-OGR-00021425.jpg
This legal document details the events of January 31, 2008, when CEOS Trial Attorney Villafaña and the FBI interviewed victims of Epstein, including one named Wild. The document highlights the emotional distress of the victims, Wild's stated willingness to testify, and conflicting accounts from prosecutors about whether the victims truly wanted to proceed with the case. It also reveals communication failures, as victims received contradictory information from the FBI about whether the case was resolved or still under investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00004605.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a DOJ OPR report analyzing the conduct of federal prosecutors (Villafaña, Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, Lourie) regarding the Jeffrey Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The report concludes that while there was no evidence prosecutors intentionally hid the NPA to protect Epstein, they failed to consult victims, leaving victims like Wild feeling misled and mistreated. The text details how Villafaña wished to consult victims but was constrained by management and concerns over creating impeachment evidence, a decision OPR criticizes as lacking consideration for the victims' rights and the fairness of the process.
DOJ-OGR-00004604.jpg
This document is a page from an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report criticizing the government's handling of victims in the Epstein case. It concludes that prosecutors, including Acosta and Sloman, failed to treat victims with forthrightness and sensitivity, particularly by not consulting them before the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) was signed and by providing confusing information afterwards. The case of one victim, 'Wild,' is used as a specific example of these failures in communication by government representatives like Villafaña and the FBI.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016527.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a law review article (103 Minn. L. Rev.) discussing the oversight of declination decisions in state justice systems compared to the federal system. It highlights the lack of administrative and judicial review for state prosecutors' charging decisions and details the limited exceptions and historical context through extensive footnotes citing case law.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017817.jpg
This document is the final page of a Miami Herald article filed as a court exhibit in April 2019. It features quotes from retired FBI agent Kenneth Lanning regarding child abuse trauma and statements from a victim advocate named Wild criticizing the government's protection of Epstein. It also references Ghislaine Maxwell's role as an associate and her participation in a TED Talk.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023049.jpg
This article from The Virgin Islands Daily News details the 'unusual level of collaboration' between federal prosecutors (including Alexander Acosta and A. Marie Villafana) and Jeffrey Epstein's legal team during the negotiation of his non-prosecution agreement. It highlights the exclusion of victims from the process, the 'VIP treatment' Epstein received in jail (including work release authorized by Sheriff Ric Bradshaw), and subsequent legal battles by victims like 'Jane Doe No. 1' (Wild) and Jena-Lisa Jones to invalidate the agreement. The document also reveals that in 2011, the NY District Attorney's office under Cyrus Vance argued on Epstein's behalf to reduce his sex offender status, a move that shocked the presiding judge.
Case Investigation
Stating that the case was under investigation.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity