DOJ-OGR-00009605.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 43 of51 one example, the defendant claims that Carolyn’s trial testimony that the defendant called her to set up massage appointments “could have been disproven with contemporaneous phone records.” (Def. Mot. at 28) (emphasis added). The defendant’s claim is entirely speculative; she makes no claim about what Carolyn’s phone records, or those of her mother or then-boyfriend, would have shown, and she ignores that the records may well have helped the Government, not her, if they were available. As another example, the defendant argues that had the flight manifests been available for the time period charged in the Indictment,'° she “could have used them to challenge whether Jane was on those flights as well as the accuracy of Jane’s recollection of events.” (/d. at 26). The defendant does not establish how the flight manifests would have helped her. She claims that she needed the flight manifests because the flight logs are incomplete. (/d.). In so arguing, the defendant assumes that the flight manifests were complete!! and contained information that would ‘0 The defendant baldly argues that the flight manifests “did not go back to the time period charged in the Indictment” “[b]ecause of the passage of time.” (Def. Mot. at 26). However, at trial, Visoski testified that between approximately 1994 and 2004, he would drop off the passenger manifests he personally completed at Epstein’s main office in New York. (Tr. 172). Similarly, Rodgers testified that he turned over the passenger manifests that he completed to one of Epstein’s attorneys. (Tr. 1819). The defendant has not established that such manifests were not available due to any intentionally manufactured delay. See United States v. Dornau, 356 F. Supp. 1091, 1094 (S.D.N.Y. 1973) (“The fact that evidence may be lost or destroyed during the pre-indictment stage is inherent in any delay, no matter what the duration. Furthermore, there has been no allegation in this case that the destruction of the records was deliberate on the part of either the government or trustee.”). '! The defendant complains that the flight logs kept by Rodgers “were incomplete and often identified passengers simply by their first names or generic identifiers like ‘1 female’ or ‘1 male’” in her efforts to argue that the unavailability of the passenger manifests was material. (/d.). The defendant ignores Visoski’s testimony that when completing the manifest, he “tried to be as accurate as [he] could,” but that if he “didn’t know a passenger name, [he] wanted to put whether 42 DOJ-OGR-00009605