🔐 Private Research Portal

Epstein Research Portal

Access the full investigative corpus, ranked smoking guns, OCR-linked imagery, and intel briefs.

Front-of-house site Sign In / Sign Up
Same BENED DNA · Investigative Skin
← Back to Entities

📁 Jane Doe #3 Dossier

15 documents connected to this entity

Page 1 of 1 (15 items)
#1 Strength: 9.0/10
Document preview

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010600

This document reveals direct evidence of Jeffrey Epstein's intimidation tactics against witnesses, which not only demonstrates his willingness to violate judicial orders but also highlights the lengths he would go to silence victims. The detailed account of harassment against Jane Doe underscores a pattern of misconduct that is critical to understanding the broader implications of Epstein's criminal activities.

🔑 Key Evidence:
  • Despite three no contact orders entered against Epstein, he continued to harass his victims.
  • On July 1, 2010, he had a 'private investigator' tail Jane Doe — following her every move, stopping when she stopped, driving when she drove.
  • The 'private investigator' parked approximately 25 feet from Jane Doe's house and flashed his high beam lights intermittently into the home.
👥 Connected Entities:
Jane Doe Edwards (likely an attorney or advocate for the victims) Federal Government (involved in indictments against Epstein)
From: Bates: HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010600
No comments yet.
#2 Strength: 4.0/10
Document preview

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010735

This document is significant as it highlights Alan Dershowitz's legal efforts to counter allegations made against him by Jane Doe #3 in the context of the Epstein case. It reveals the complexities of the legal battles surrounding Epstein's non-prosecution agreement and the attempts by individuals connected to Epstein to protect their reputations amidst serious allegations.

🔑 Key Evidence:
  • Dershowitz’s interest in joining the case is solely to strike false allegations against him.
  • Jane Doe #3’s allegations were not included in her earlier statements to the government or her civil action against Epstein in 2009.
  • The allegations first appeared in Jane Doe #3’s Motion for Joinder in December 2014, raising questions about their credibility.
👥 Connected Entities:
Alan M. Dershowitz Jane Doe #3 United States Government
From: Bates: HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010735
No comments yet.
#3 Strength: 4.0/10
Document preview

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010737

This document highlights the legal defense of Professor Alan Dershowitz against allegations made by Jane Doe #3, which he claims are unfounded and defamatory. While it does not provide direct evidence of criminal activity, it underscores the contentious nature of the allegations surrounding Epstein's network and the attempts by individuals to distance themselves from the scandal.

🔑 Key Evidence:
  • Jane Doe #3’s Response is nothing but a paper-thin pastiche of conspiracy theory and outright misrepresentation that crumbles upon examination.
  • Prof. Dershowitz’s name is circled in the address book by an unknown person for unknown reasons, yet the argument is made that Prof. Dershowitz must have sexually abused a minor.
  • The record shows that while Prof. Dershowitz and Jane Doe #3 are both separately mentioned in the flight logs of Mr. Epstein’s private plane, they are never listed on the same flight.
👥 Connected Entities:
Alan Dershowitz Jane Doe #3 Jeffrey Epstein
From: Bates: HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010737
No comments yet.
#4 Strength: 4.0/10
Document preview

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010740

This document highlights the legal disputes surrounding allegations made against prominent individuals, specifically Professor Alan Dershowitz, in the context of the Epstein case. It reveals attempts to connect various parties to the Epstein scandal, but lacks direct evidence of criminal activity or misconduct, focusing instead on the legal arguments presented in court.

🔑 Key Evidence:
  • Jane Doe #3 claims that she needed to defame Prof. Dershowitz and others in the Joinder Motion because of discovery disputes.
  • Prof. Dershowitz is mentioned in only two of twenty-five requests for production propounded by Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2.
  • Jane Doe #3’s claims against Prince Andrew were included solely for their intended audience: the media.
👥 Connected Entities:
Alan Dershowitz Prince Andrew Jane Doe #1
From: Bates: HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010740
No comments yet.
#5 Strength: 5.0/10
Document preview

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010741

This document highlights the legal arguments surrounding the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) between Jeffrey Epstein and the government, particularly focusing on the allegations made by Jane Doe #3 against Alan Dershowitz. While it does not provide direct evidence of misconduct, it raises questions about the treatment of victims under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act and the motivations behind the NPA.

🔑 Key Evidence:
  • The government confirms that when Jane Doe #3 was contacted by the FBI about this investigation, she clearly 'stated that she did not want to be involved in the federal investigation.'
  • Jane Doe #3 did not make any allegations against Prof. Dershowitz at the time the NPA was entered, nor did she make any allegations against Prof. Dershowitz in her action for civil damages in 2009.
  • The first time these allegations surfaced were in connection with Jane Doe #3’s Motion for Joinder in this action, approximately eight years after the NPA was entered.
👥 Connected Entities:
Jeffrey Epstein Alan Dershowitz Jane Doe #3
From: Bates: HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010741
No comments yet.
#6 Strength: 5.0/10
Document preview

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010742

This document is significant as it highlights the legal defenses employed by Alan Dershowitz in response to allegations made by Jane Doe #3, suggesting a complex interplay of legal maneuvering and potential misinterpretation of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It underscores the contentious nature of the allegations against Dershowitz and raises questions about the integrity of the legal processes surrounding Epstein's case.

🔑 Key Evidence:
  • Prof. Dershowitz was involved in negotiating a plea bargain, which raises questions about his role and knowledge of Epstein's activities.
  • Jane Doe #3's claims are described as 'facially absurd and libelous,' indicating a high level of contention and potential defamation issues.
  • Bradley Edwards, counsel for Jane Doe #3, previously agreed with the interpretation of the NPA that did not implicate Dershowitz, suggesting inconsistencies in the legal arguments presented.
👥 Connected Entities:
Alan Dershowitz Jane Doe #3 Bradley Edwards
From: Bates: HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010742
No comments yet.
#7 Strength: 6.0/10
Document preview

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013380

This document highlights Jeffrey Epstein's strategic use of settlement payments to avoid litigation and potential exposure of misconduct, particularly in relation to Jane Doe's case. It underscores the legal maneuvers employed by Epstein to silence claims against him, which is indicative of a broader pattern of evasion and manipulation within his operations.

🔑 Key Evidence:
  • Epstein chose to make this payment as the result of a federal court ordered mediation process, which he himself sought.
  • Epstein could not have been the victim of any scheme to 'pump' the cases against him, because he paid to settle the cases until well after Edwards had left RRA.
  • Far from raising any such claim, Epstein sinisly chose to settle that case. He is therefore now barred by the doctrine of res judicata from somehow re-litigating what happened in (for example) the Jane Doe case.
👥 Connected Entities:
Jane Doe Scott Rothstein Federal District Court Judge Kenneth A. Marra
From: Bates: HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013380
No comments yet.
#8 Strength: 5.0/10
Document preview

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013397

This document is significant as it highlights the legal battle between Bradley J. Edwards, an attorney representing Epstein's victims, and Jeffrey Epstein himself. It underscores Epstein's attempts to intimidate Edwards and discredit his representation of clients who accused Epstein of sexual abuse, revealing the lengths to which Epstein went to undermine legitimate claims against him.

🔑 Key Evidence:
  • Epstein's voluntary dismissal of all claims against Edwards shows an absence of competent evidence to support his allegations.
  • The document states that Epstein sued Edwards out of malice and with the intent to intimidate Edwards and his clients.
  • Allegations about Edwards’s participation in a 'Ponzi Scheme' against Epstein are described as entirely false and unsupported by any competent evidence.
👥 Connected Entities:
Bradley J. Edwards Jeffrey Epstein L.M.
From: Bates: HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013397
No comments yet.
#9 Strength: 9.0/10
Document preview

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013463

This document is significant as it outlines the legal context surrounding Jane Doe's allegations against Jeffrey Epstein, highlighting the non-prosecution agreement (NPA) that effectively shielded Epstein from serious criminal charges for sex crimes against minors. It reveals the systemic issues of legal protections for Epstein and the challenges faced by victims seeking justice.

🔑 Key Evidence:
  • Epstein has entered into a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) with the federal government for sex crimes against minors.
  • Under the NPA, Epstein has agreed not to contest suit liability if any of his approximately thirty victims agree to limit themselves to damages provided by 18 U.S.C. § 2255.
  • Epstein has invoked his Fifth Amendment right to silence regarding the allegations that he molested Jane Doe as a child.
👥 Connected Entities:
Jane Doe Bradley James Edwards (attorney) Federal Government
From: Bates: HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013463
No comments yet.
#10 Strength: 9.0/10
Document preview

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013464

This document reveals critical admissions and allegations regarding Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of minors, particularly Jane Doe, and highlights the challenges victims face in proving their claims due to the private nature of the abuse. It also suggests potential collusion among Epstein's associates and raises questions about the integrity of the legal proceedings surrounding his actions.

🔑 Key Evidence:
  • ‘15 year old girl, forced her. to have. sex with his friends and flew her.on his: private plane.’
  • ‘Epstein’s abuse of Jane Doe took place in private, with only Epstein and Jane Doe present during the abuse.’
  • ‘Mr. Epstein spoke betserally with him about issues related to the various ios of sex-abuse.’
👥 Connected Entities:
Jane Doe Brad Edwards Scott Rothstein
From: Bates: HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013464
No comments yet.
#11 Strength: 9.0/10
Document preview

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013489

This affidavit reveals critical details about Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement (NPA) with the federal government, which effectively shielded him from criminal charges for sex crimes against minors, including Jane Doe. It highlights the systemic failures in the justice system that allowed Epstein to evade accountability for his actions, while also illustrating the challenges faced by victims seeking justice.

🔑 Key Evidence:
  • Epstein has entered into a 'non-prosecution agreement' (NPA) with the federal government for sex crimes against minors.
  • Under the NPA, Epstein has agreed not to contest civil liability of any of his approximately thirty victims - provided that the victim agrees to limit themselves to the damages provided by 18 U.S.C. § 2255.
  • Epstein has invoked his Fifth Amendment right to silence with respect to the allegations that he molested her as a child.
👥 Connected Entities:
Jane Doe Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos and Lehrman (law firm) Federal Government
From: Bates: HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013489
No comments yet.
#12 Strength: 5.0/10
Document preview

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014103

This document is significant as it highlights the ongoing legal disputes surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's activities and the involvement of prominent individuals, particularly Alan Dershowitz. It raises questions about the presence of Epstein's legal team on his private plane and the implications of their involvement in the alleged trafficking activities, although it does not provide direct evidence of misconduct.

🔑 Key Evidence:
  • The request for documents evidencing the presence of 'your nephew on Jeffrey Epstein’s private plane' suggests potential connections between Epstein and individuals in his social circle.
  • The objection to the request for documents regarding 'members of Mr. Epstein’s legal team' indicates a reluctance to disclose information that could implicate legal representatives in Epstein's alleged criminal activities.
  • The mention of Jane Doe #3's allegations of being kept as a 'sex slave' and her escape from Epstein's control underscores the serious nature of the accusations against Epstein and his associates.
👥 Connected Entities:
Alan Dershowitz Jane Doe #3 Jeffrey Epstein
From: Bates: HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014103
No comments yet.
#13 Strength: 4.0/10
Document preview

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014682

This document highlights procedural aspects of the legal proceedings surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's case, particularly focusing on the motions filed by individuals such as Alan Dershowitz and the implications for victims like Jane Doe #3. While it does not provide direct evidence of criminal activity, it underscores the complexities of victim rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and the ongoing legal battles that involve allegations against prominent figures.

🔑 Key Evidence:
  • Jane Doe #3, in violation of her rights under the CVRA
  • The Government was well aware of Jane Doe #3 when it was negotiating the NPA
  • Mr. Dershowitz moves to intervene 'for the limited purposes of moving to strike the outrageous and impertinent allegations made against him'
👥 Connected Entities:
Jane Doe #3 Alan Dershowitz U.S. Government
From: Bates: HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014682
No comments yet.
#14 Strength: 4.0/10
Document preview

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014852

This document highlights procedural aspects of the legal proceedings surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's case, particularly focusing on the motions filed by individuals such as Mr. Dershowitz and the implications of Jane Doe #3's testimony. While it does not provide direct evidence of criminal activity, it underscores the complexities of victim testimonies and the legal maneuvers employed by parties involved, which are critical to understanding the broader context of the Epstein scandal.

🔑 Key Evidence:
  • The Government was well aware of Jane Doe #3 when it was negotiating the NPA, as it listed her as a victim in the attachment to the NPA.
  • The Court finds it unnecessary to strike the portion of the Rule 21 Motion related to her circumstances.
  • Mr. Dershowitz moves to intervene 'for the limited purposes of moving to strike the outrageous and impertinent allegations made against him.'
👥 Connected Entities:
Alan Dershowitz Jane Doe #3 U.S. Government
From: Bates: HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014852
No comments yet.
#15 Strength: 9.0/10
Document preview

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_026386

This document reveals serious allegations of predatory sexual assault and trafficking involving minors, specifically highlighting the recruitment of young women under false pretenses by Jeffrey Epstein. The mention of high-profile individuals, including Donald Trump, attending parties where these activities occurred raises significant concerns about the extent of Epstein's network and the potential complicity of influential figures.

🔑 Key Evidence:
  • Plaintiff was enticed by promises of money and a modeling career to attend a series of parties, with other similarly situated minor females, held at a New York City residence that was being used by Defendant Jeffrey Epstein.
  • At least four of the parties were attended by Defendant Trump.
  • Identification of Plaintiff would pose a risk of retaliatory physical harm to her and to others.
👥 Connected Entities:
Jeffrey Epstein Donald Trump Jane Doe
From: Bates: HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_026386
No comments yet.