Case File
efta-efta01871808DOJ Data Set 10CorrespondenceEFTA Document EFTA01871808
Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 10
Reference
efta-efta01871808
Pages
0
Persons
0
Integrity
No Hash Available
Loading PDF viewer...
Extracted Text (OCR)
EFTA DisclosureText extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
To:
'eevacation
mail.com '[email protected]]
From:
Sent:
ur
Subject:
MORE, can we talk later?
Here is some more (cut and pasted) and a description from their perspective. Let me know what you think? I
think this is causing as much heartache to them as it is to you.
Below is the reason for our concern:
Rod,
Further to our telephone conversation yesterday. I would confirm that in the absence of a satisfactory response
from the Daily Telegraph, who have clearty been buoyed up to some extent by your client's comments, I am
likely to be put in a position, notwithstanding my client's reservations, where I will have to undermine the
credibility of those comments by pointing out that your client and her daughters were among the first to enjoy my
client's hospitality upon his release from prison and continued to do so until very recently.
As I have emphasised to you, my client has absolutely no desire to cause any unnecessary embarrassment to
either your client or her former husband, but her unwarranted (or misquoted) comments have placed him in an
extremely difficult position, and have to be corrected.
I would therefore invite your client to reconsider her current stance and look forward to hearing from you asap.
Kind regard,
Paul
Paul Tweed
Senior Partner
The tenor of this email is somewhat alarming and could be construed as attempted
blackmail.
Unfortunately S cannot "reconsider her current stance" as she never spoke to the
Telegraph newspaper and so cannot be held responsible for their views and nor
could she make them change their view. This has to be a matter for JE's lawyers to
sort out with them directly.
Now on to what S was able to get changed of the original headline that caused S so
much concern as she knew the state of JE's case and managed to get them to change
their headline on the day in question:
the 'before' and 'after headlines from the Evening Standard following the Duchess's interview.
The original headline was: Fergie: I'm so sorry I let child abuser pay my debt
EFTA_R1_00278044
EFTA01871808
This was then changed to: Duchess of York apologises for 'gigantic error of judgement' over debt
The later headline is still posted on the Evening Standard's website.
This much she could and has changed to reflect the circumstances of JE NOT being
anything like what is suggested in the UK media. I also understand that the Evening
Standard, whose Editor conducted the interview, was well aware of the exact nature
of JE's case and the correct language to use but chose not to do so. S warned him
of the sensitivity in her interview.
We are both devastated that JE is being treated in this manner and we would very
much like to help him but are somewhat constrained by me and my position and the
fact that the media, in the UK, are taking a totally unreasonable attitude towards JE.
However neither S nor I can be held responsible for their interpretation of the case.
I hope this helps JE understand, one, the difficulty we face in trying to help him and,
two, the very alarming tone to his lawyers email to S's lawyer. We both hope that
the lawyer can be brought into line or to heel.
It would be so much easier if we were able to discuss face to face but that can't be
achieved and so I hope you can continue to be a conduit to find a suitable resolution
to this.
EFTA_R1_00278045
EFTA01871809
Forum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.
Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.