DOJ-OGR-00003248.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 72 of 348 Early in the federal investigation, Villafafia recognized the potential significance of obtaining the missing computer equipment. Villafafia told OPR that she and the FBI agents went through every photograph found in Epstein’s house, but found none that could be characterized as child pornography. Nevertheless, Villafafia told OPR that investigators had learned that Epstein used hidden cameras in his New York residence to record his sexual encounters, and she believed he could have engaged in similar conduct in his Palm Beach home. In addition, the computer equipment potentially contained surveillance video that might have corroborated victim statements about visiting Epstein’s home. More generally, in Villafafia’s experience, individuals involved in child exploitation often possessed child pornography.” Villafafia’s co-counsel, who had substantial experience prosecuting child pornography cases, similarly told OPR, “Epstein was a billionaire. We knew his house was wired with video, it would be unusual [for] someone with his capabilities not to be video recording” his encounters. As the investigation continued, Villafafia took various steps to acquire the computer equipment removed from Epstein’s Palm Beach residence. As noted previously in this Report, in her initial request to Epstein’s counsel for documents, she asked defense counsel to provide “[t]he computers, hard drives, CPUs, and any other computer media (including CD-ROMs, DVDs, floppy disks, flash drives, etc.) removed from” the residence. Although Lourie subsequently narrowed the government’s request for documents, the request for computer equipment remained. The defense, however, failed to comply with the request. Villafafia learned that the computer equipment was in the possession of a particular individual. After consulting the Department’s Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section and Office of Enforcement Operations about the appropriate legal steps to obtain the computer equipment, Villafafia described her plan in an email to Menchel. She asked Menchel for any comments or concerns, but OPR did not find an email response from him, and Menchel told OPR that he did not recall Villafafia’s efforts to obtain the computer equipment. In May 2007, following the plan she had outlined to Menchel, Villafafia initiated action requiring production of the computer equipment by a particular date. In her email to Villafafia on June 29, 2007, Sanchez requested a two-week extension, indicating that she hoped a “state-based resolution” to the case would soon be reached.”* Villafafia advised her supervisors of the request, and responded to Sanchez that she “would like to get the computer equipment as soon as possible.” Nonetheless, Villafafia eventually agreed to an extension. Meanwhile, Epstein attorney Roy Black wrote separately to Villafafia, demanding to know whether Villafafia had complied with applicable Department policies before seeking the computer 2 In addition, Villafafia became aware that in August 2007, FBI agents interviewed a minor victim who stated that she had been photographed in the nude by Epstein’s assistant, who told the victim that Epstein took pictures of the girls. B This email led Villafafia to ask her supervisors if any of them had discussed with the defense a possible resolution of the case, which resulted in Villafafia’s exchange of emails with Menchel about their respective views of the case. See Section IV.A.2 in this Part. 46 DOJ-OGR- 00003248