Jane Doe Number Two
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Abuser victim |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Mr. Epstein
|
Perpetrator victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Perpetrator victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Abuser victim |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Discovery of Agreement | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Prosecutors reached an agreement with Epstein barring federal prosecution of sex offenses. | Federal Jurisdiction | View |
| N/A | N/A | Discovery of Plea Agreement | USA | View |
| 2001-01-01 | N/A | Jeffrey Epstein sexually abused more than thirty minor girls in his mansion. | Epstein's Mansion | View |
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017629.jpg
This document is a page from a legal journal article (likely by David Schoen, produced to House Oversight) analyzing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and the Victim Rights and Restitution Act (VRRA). It specifically critiques the Department of Justice's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case, noting that on June 7, 2007—months before the non-prosecution agreement—Assistant U.S. Attorney A. Marie Villafana sent a letter to Jane Doe #1 confirming the investigation and asserting she had specific rights, including the right to confer with prosecutors. The text argues this proves the DOJ initially believed CVRA rights applied pre-charging, only to reverse its position later during litigation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017626.jpg
This document is a page from a legal analysis (likely a law journal article or brief) submitted to the House Oversight Committee, indicated by the Bates stamp. It discusses the legal definition of a 'target' of investigation by the DOJ and argues for a parallel definition for 'victims' under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). Section B specifically applies this legal test to the Jeffrey Epstein case, stating as fact that he sexually abused over thirty minor girls between 2001 and 2007.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017611.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a legal journal article discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), specifically arguing that victim rights should apply before formal charges are filed. It uses the Jeffrey Epstein case as a primary example of failure in the system, noting that federal prosecutors negotiated a secret non-prosecution agreement with Epstein that barred federal charges for sex offenses against dozens of victims without informing them. The text highlights the outrage of victims 'Jane Doe Number One' and 'Jane Doe Number Two' upon discovering their rights to object had been bargained away secretly.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017610.jpg
This document details the contentious plea negotiations involving Jeffrey Epstein, where the U.S. Attorney's Office agreed to a non-prosecution agreement without informing the victims, leading to a lawsuit under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). The text highlights the government's argument that CVRA rights do not attach without formal federal charges and frames the central legal issue regarding when these rights apply. It includes numerous footnotes citing media reports and legal filings related to the case.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014076.jpg
This document is a page from a legal journal (2014) analyzing Crime Victims' Rights (CVRA) and is part of a House Oversight Committee production. It specifically critiques the Department of Justice's handling of the Epstein case, noting that while the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office initially notified victims (Jane Doe #1 and #2) of their rights in June 2007, the Department later 'reversed course' regarding the applicability of the CVRA during litigation. The text highlights a specific letter from Assistant U.S. Attorney A. Marie Villafaña to a victim sent months before the nonprosecution agreement was signed.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014072.jpg
This document is a page from a 2014 legal academic article discussing the application of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) to the Jeffrey Epstein case. It details the timeline of abuse from 2001-2007 involving over 30 minors and analyzes when victim rights would attach during the investigation phases by the Palm Beach Police and the FBI in 2006. The text argues that state investigations do not trigger federal CVRA protections and notes the transition from state to federal interest when the Palm Beach Police requested FBI assistance.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014050.jpg
This document is page 71 of a 2014 legal analysis (likely a law review article) discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). It uses the Epstein case as a primary example of why victims need rights before formal charges are filed, specifically citing how Jane Doe Number One and Two were not informed that prosecutors had secretly bargained away sex offense charges. The text argues that the CVRA's plain language supports extending rights to victims throughout the criminal justice process, even before charges are filed.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014049.jpg
This document is a page from a legal article (Cassell et al., Vol 104) submitted as evidence to the House Oversight Committee. It argues for the application of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) prior to formal charges being filed. The text specifically cites the Epstein case as a negative example, noting that prosecutors made a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein regarding sex offenses against dozens of victims (including Jane Does 1 and 2) without victim participation, effectively shutting them out of the justice process.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity