Transcript excerpt from House Oversight hearing referencing Epstein and parental police report
Summary
The passage contains a fragmented dialogue with no concrete names, dates, or transactions. It merely alludes to a police report about Jeffrey Epstein and mentions parental testimony, but provides no a Witness is questioned about a police report filed by their parents concerning Jeffrey Epstein. The dialogue suggests possible coaching of testimony, which could imply procedural improprieties. Refere
This document is from the House Oversight Committee Releases.
View Source CollectionPersons Referenced (3)
“...A. Yes. MR. LEOPOLD: Just so the record is clear, the father -- because the mother was up north. MR. TEIN: Don't testify, Counsel. MR. LEOPOLD: So the record is clear, the father -- the mother was -- MR....”
Mr. Leopold“...regarding Mr. Epstein, right? they? A. Yes. Q. Now your parents are also lying, aren't A. Yes. MR. LEOPOLD: Just so the record is clear, the father -- because the mother was up north. MR. TEIN: Don't test...”
Jeffrey Epstein“...don’t Know. That's your answer? A Yes. Q Now your parents filed the police report regarding Mr. Epstein, right? they? A. Yes. Q. Now your parents are also lying, aren't A. Yes. MR. LEOPOLD: Just so th...”
Tags
Search 264K+ documents with AI-powered analysis
Extracted Text (OCR)
EFTA DisclosureRelated Documents (6)
Witness refuses to confirm Leopold's $50M lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein citing privilege
The passage hints at a possible $50 million lawsuit filed by a Mr. Leopold on behalf of an unnamed party against Jeffrey Epstein, but provides no names, dates, court docket numbers, or corroborating d Mr. Leopold allegedly filed a federal lawsuit seeking $50 million from Jeffrey Epstein. The witness claims no knowledge of the lawsuit, invoking attorney‑client privilege. The questioning appears to
Transcript excerpt references a woman who walked a witness upstairs in Epstein's house
The passage hints at a possible connection between a witness and Jeffrey Epstein's residence, suggesting a line of inquiry about conversations that could reveal further contacts or misconduct. However Witness was questioned about a conversation with a woman who escorted them upstairs in Epstein's hou The line of questioning implies potential undisclosed interactions linked to Epstein. Objections w
Transcript excerpt questioning witness about alleged Epstein involvement and police statements
The passage provides a vague courtroom exchange about Jeffrey Epstein and a witness's statements, but lacks concrete names of powerful actors, specific dates, transactions, or actionable leads. It off Witness was asked if Epstein ever visited his father's house – answer: no. Witness denied that Epstein's associates tampered with his father's tires. Witness claimed to have told police they did not
Transcript excerpt shows alleged false statements to police about Jeffrey Epstein
The passage contains a vague interrogation about alleged false statements to police concerning Jeffrey Epstein. It lacks concrete names beyond Epstein, no dates, transactions, or actionable details, a Witness is questioned about lying to police regarding Epstein allegedly trying to murder his father. No documentary evidence or specific statements are presented. The dialogue references a prior tape
Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM
Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Flietit0A ()MO D.C. ELECT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 08-80804-Civ-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: JANE DOE, a/k/a JANE DOE #1, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, HALEY ROBSON, and SARAH KELLEN, Defendants. NOTICE OF REMOVAL July 18, 2008 STEVEN M. LARIMORF CLERK D.S. DIST. CT. S.O. OF FLA. • MIAMI In accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1446, and 1332(a)(1), the defendants, Jeffrey Epstein, hereby remove this action' from Palm Beach County Circuit Court to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and respectfully state as follows: Introduction Six months ago, this plaintiff filed virtually the identical lawsuit in this Court. See Jane Doe #1 v. Epstein, Case No. 08-cv-80069-KAM (S.D. Fla. filed Doe v. Epstein et at, Case No. 50 2008 CA 006596 XXXX MB (Fla. 15th Cir. Ct. filed Mar. 6, 2008). Lewis "Fein 1059 044.444vEleuf Skim 340, E0coRuT Go
House Oversight hearing excerpt reveals possible undisclosed cell phone evidence and questions about financial ties to Jeffrey Epstein
The passage hints that a cell phone, potentially containing incriminating data, was handed to Michelle Pagan and not returned, and raises the question of how much money a witness hopes to receive from Witness gave a cell phone to Michelle Pagan several years ago and has not recovered it. The cell phone could contain communications relevant to ongoing investigations. The line of questioning probes
Forum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.