Menchel
USAO official involved in discussions about victim consultation
Mentioned in 4 documents. Roles: USAO official involved in discussions about victim consultation, Criminal Chief, USAO official who considered meeting with Epstein's defense counsel, Prosecutor or official providing insight into judicial preferences
Menchel is mentioned in documents or reporting related to the Epstein case. Being mentioned does not imply any wrongdoing, criminal conduct, or inappropriate behavior.
At a Glance
Click values for sourcesSources
6 sources for document mentions
court document or deposition transcript: DOJ-OGR-00023069
“The document discusses internal USAO emails and interviews regarding the handling of Jeffrey Epstein”
Investigative report or deposition summary: DOJ-OGR-00023077
“The document discusses the reasoning behind the decision-making process in the Jeffrey Epstein case,”
Court document or investigative report: DOJ-OGR-00023034
“This chapter discusses the government's interactions with victims during the Epstein investigation, ”
Letter and related narrative: DOJ-OGR-00023096
“The letter from R. Alexander Acosta to Lilly Ann Sanchez conveys the U.S. Attorney's Office's positi”
Timeline: DOJ-OGR-00023050
“The timeline documents the federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein from May 2006 to October 2008,”
Sources
1 source for known connections
Co-Document Mentions
“Named alongside other network members in 13 documents”
Known Connections (4)
Document Mentions (6)
Court document or investigative report: DOJ-OGR-00023034
This chapter discusses the government's interactions with victims during the Epstein investigation, focusing on their interpretation of the CVRA and their notification practices. It highlights the roles of various officials and the concerns raised about consulting victims during plea discussions. The document provides a detailed factual background on these issues.
Timeline: DOJ-OGR-00023050
The timeline documents the federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein from May 2006 to October 2008, highlighting key events such as the drafting of a prosecution memorandum, meetings with Epstein's counsel, and the eventual signing of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The timeline also reveals the involvement of various officials, including Acosta, Sloman, and Lourie. The events documented in the timeline ultimately led to Epstein's state-based plea deal and sentencing.
court document or deposition transcript: DOJ-OGR-00023069
The document discusses internal USAO emails and interviews regarding the handling of Jeffrey Epstein's case, including disagreements about meeting with his defense counsel and prosecution strategy. USAO officials Lourie, Menchel, and Villafaña had differing opinions on whether to meet with Epstein's lawyers. The document provides insight into the USAO's decision-making process in the Epstein case.
Investigative report or deposition summary: DOJ-OGR-00023077
The document discusses the reasoning behind the decision-making process in the Jeffrey Epstein case, including the preference for a state-based resolution due to the novelty of trafficking prosecutions and concerns about federal judges' receptiveness to certain plea agreements. It highlights the complexities and uncertainties faced by prosecutors at the time.
Letter and related narrative: DOJ-OGR-00023096
The letter from R. Alexander Acosta to Lilly Ann Sanchez conveys the U.S. Attorney's Office's position on a plea deal for Jeffrey Epstein, including a firm two-year minimum sentence. Matthew Menchel, who drafted and sent the letter, discusses its context and intentions in a subsequent narrative. The letter and narrative provide insight into the negotiations and the parties' positions.
Internal DOJ communications reveal contested Deferred Prosecution Agreement for Jeffrey Epstein and alleged pressure to secure a state plea with st...
The passage provides concrete names (Matthew Menchel, Marie Villafana, Andrew Lourie, J. Slovan), dates, and specific procedural actions regarding Epstein's DPA, suggesting a possible manipulation of Menchel (Criminal Division Chief) rejected the state‑plea term, insisting on a two‑year state impris The DPA allegedly restricts the state judge from offering probation or alternative sanctions. Andr
Email Mentions (1)
This dossier on Menchel was compiled from court records, flight logs, and public documents. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.