🔐 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 No. 3 Dossier

12 documents connected to this entity

Page 1 of 1 (12 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: 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.
#3 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.
#4 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.
#5 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.
#6 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.
#7 Strength: 6.0/10
Document preview

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014086

This document highlights Alan Dershowitz's public denials of allegations made against him by Jane Doe No. 3, while simultaneously revealing his failure to provide any documentary evidence to support his claims. It underscores the ongoing legal battles surrounding Epstein's associates and the broader implications of defamation and credibility in the context of the Epstein scandal.

🔑 Key Evidence:
  • Dershowitz claimed he could prove through documentary evidence that he was never at the times and places alleged by Jane Doe No. 3, yet he has not produced any documents to the Court.
  • The document references a pending motion to compel Dershowitz to comply with discovery requests in a parallel defamation action, indicating his non-compliance.
  • The assertion that the Court should infer Dershowitz has no evidence to produce because Jane Doe No. 3's allegations are true suggests a significant credibility issue.
👥 Connected Entities:
Alan Dershowitz Jane Doe No. 3 David Boies
From: Bates: HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014086
No comments yet.
#8 Strength: 5.0/10
Document preview

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014087

This document highlights the legal disputes surrounding allegations against Alan Dershowitz, a prominent figure connected to Jeffrey Epstein. It reveals the complexities of the legal strategies employed by both Dershowitz and Jane Doe No. 3, shedding light on the challenges victims face in pursuing justice against powerful individuals.

🔑 Key Evidence:
  • Dershowitz twists the facts and jumps to conclusions in service of his crusade against Jane Doe No. 3.
  • Dershowitz argues that he has been prejudiced because if the allegations had been filed earlier, he would have been in a far better position to secure travel and other records needed to disprove these charges.
  • Jane Doe No. 3 lacked legal counsel regarding the CVRA claim until her recent return from Australia to the United States.
👥 Connected Entities:
Alan Dershowitz Jane Doe No. 3 Attorney Edwards
From: Bates: HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014087
No comments yet.
#9 Strength: 4.0/10
Document preview

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014094

This document highlights the legal battle between Alan Dershowitz and the plaintiffs, Edwards and Cassell, regarding allegations of sexual abuse by Dershowitz. It reveals the contentious nature of the accusations and the defense's claims of innocence, but does not provide direct evidence of criminal activity or misconduct by Dershowitz himself.

🔑 Key Evidence:
  • Dershowitz claimed he had 'all kinds of records' proving that Jane Doe No. 3 was a liar.
  • Dershowitz stated that 'even the most minimal of investigation would have proven conclusively that I could not have had sex with their client.'
  • The plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging a 'massive public assault on their character' by Dershowitz.
👥 Connected Entities:
Alan Dershowitz Bradley Edwards Cassell
From: Bates: HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014094
No comments yet.
#10 Strength: 9.0/10
Document preview

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015600

This document reveals the aggressive tactics employed by the defendant to intimidate a victim, Jane Doe No. 3, through public attacks and threats of legal action. It highlights a pattern of misconduct that aligns with Epstein's broader strategy of silencing victims and manipulating legal processes to evade accountability.

🔑 Key Evidence:
  • Defendant has subjected Jane Doe No. 3 to horrific public attacks including publicly calling her a 'prostitute' and a 'bad mother' to her three minor children.
  • Defendant stated, 'The end result of this case should be she [Jane Doe No. 3] should go to jail,' indicating a desire to retaliate against the victim for her testimony.
  • Defendant’s own words demonstrate that he is abusing the subpoena power of this Court to try to get discovery that is irrelevant to this case, in the hopes of being able to intimidate Jane Doe No. 3.
👥 Connected Entities:
Jane Doe No. 3 New York Daily News CNN International
From: Bates: HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015600
No comments yet.
#11 Strength: 6.0/10
Document preview

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015601

This document highlights the defamation case against Jeffrey Epstein, specifically focusing on the intimidation tactics employed against legal representatives of trafficking victims. It underscores the broader issues of harassment and the abuse of legal processes that are emblematic of Epstein's attempts to silence those who challenge him.

🔑 Key Evidence:
  • Defendant went on a national media defamation campaign calling, among other things, former federal judge Paul Cassell and attorney Brad Edwards, 'unethical lawyers' who should be 'disbarred'.
  • Defendant is abusing the subpoena power in this case by seeking documents from a non-party that are irrelevant to the defamation issue before this Court.
  • Jane Doe No. 3 has good cause to be fearful of the Defendant in this matter based on Defendant’s repetitive threats.
👥 Connected Entities:
Paul Cassell Brad Edwards Jane Doe No. 3
From: Bates: HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015601
No comments yet.
#12 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.