DOJ-OGR-00033209.tif

years old. Though the results of the examination were given to the PBPD and the PBPD was given an opportunity to meet with the polygraph examiner in order to satisfy itself as to the bona fides of the exam, representatives of the PBPD inexplicably declined to attend the meeting and no information concerning the fact of the exam or the results appeared in the Police Report; the probable cause affidavit; or the public release. Meetings with the State Attorney’s Office. On multiple occasions, defense counsel met with prosecutors and investigators in the State Attomney’s Office. Though there is vague reference to one or more meetings with defense counsel (see, e.g., pages 64 and 87 of the Police Report), virtually no information provided or evidence from witnesses proffered is included in the Police Report or probable cause affidavit. Instead, there are misleading or false references to such meetings. So, for example, at page 64 of the Police Report, Det. Recarey claims he attempted to reach ASA Dahlia Weiss on December 20, 2005, but she was unavailable that day and for the entire week. In fact, on December 19, 2005, Det. Recarey met with ASA Weiss and Epstein defense attorney Alan Dershowitz ~ a meeting at which Dershowitz provided evidence impeaching SME (see below). This evidence included excerpts from MySpace.com webpage, which is not only unnoted in the Police Report, but credited as having been found by Det. Recarey. (Police Report at page 65.) In another example, the briefest reference is made to a conversation Det. Recarey had on June 1, 2006, with ASA Belohlavek regarding a meeting earlier that day between representatives of the State Attorney’s Office and defense attorney Jack Goldberger (Police Report at page 87). Omitted are the tacts of the meeting (Report at 87): In addition to the presence of other defense counsel, there was in attendance both the polygraph expert who administered the examination and a psychiatrist who had performed a rigorous psycho-sexual evaluation of Epstein and who concluded that Epstein was healthy. Both men were made available for questioning by the State Attorney and the PBPD; unfortunately, the PBPD failed to attend the meeting. Nor is there any mention of the presentation made by defense counsel in which the claims being made with respect ‘A oy then, the sole focus of any potential prosecution) were rebutted. The Video Surveillance Equipment Located in Epstein’s Office and Garage, Both the Police Report (page 43) and the probable cause affidavit (page 18) make particular mention of the PBPD having “discovered” video surveillance equipment, or “covert (hidden) cameras” (as the PBPD refers to them), at Epstein’s Palm Beach residence, specifically in Epstein’s garage and library/office. By its placement in the probable cause affidavit, it is clear that the reader is intended to assume a link between this equipment and “sex objects” and that the cameras were used for an improper purpose. As the probable cause affidavit states: Det. Recarey “located a wood colored armoire beside Epstein’s bed that contained a bottle of ‘joy jelly’, which is used to provide a warm massage. Several massage tables were located throughout the second floor of the residence, including a massage table found in Epstein’s bedroom...” Indeed, much is made of the presence of this equipment, noting 2 Public Records Request No. 19-372 DOJ-OGR-00033209