Anonymous ID: cb521c Dec. 19, 2023, 6:38 a.m. No.20099106   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>9111 >>9134 >>9262 >>9448 >>9481 >>9492 >>9602

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12881277/Pedophile-Jeffrey-Epstein-associates-named-unsealed-court-document.html

 

EXCLUSIVE Over 170 of Jeffrey Epstein's high-profile associates will be NAMED in court documents set to be unsealed in the first days of 2024

A judge has ruled to unseal documents that would name 177 Does who are Epstein's friends, recruiters and victims within the coming weeks

The material is related to a defamation case brought by Prince Andrew's accuser Virginia Roberts in New York against Epstein's madam Ghislaine Maxwell

The hundreds of files will shed new light on the late financier's sex trafficking operation and his network of influence

By DANIEL BATES FOR DAILYMAIL.COM

 

PUBLISHED: 08:57 EST, 19 December 2023

 

Dozens of Jeffrey Epstein's high profile associates are in for a New Year's surprise as they will be named in court documents set to be released in the first days of 2024.

 

The pedophile's powerful friends are set to be exposed as part of a vast unsealing that a judge ordered on Monday will take place in 14 days.

 

That will take the release day to January 1 – but as that is a holiday it is likely the files will be made public the following day.

 

Judge Loretta Preska wrote 'unsealed in full' next to the names of 177 Does who are Epstein's friends, recruiters, victims and others whose names will be revealed when the material is released within the coming weeks.

 

The material is related to a defamation case brought by Prince Andrew's accuser Virginia Roberts in New York against Epstein's madam Ghislaine Maxwell.

 

The hundreds of files will shed new light on the late financier's sex trafficking operation and his network of influence

The hundreds of files will shed new light on the late financier's sex trafficking operation and his network of influence

 

Roberts sued Maxwell for defamation in 2016 and while the case was settled, media outlets filed in order to have the documents made public.

 

Some of the Does are identified in the ruling through links to interviews they have given to the media, which the judge cited as a reason why they should not stay private.

 

They include the housekeepers on Epstein's private island in the Caribbean where some of the worst abuse that he perpetrated was carried out.

 

In her ruling Judge Preska gave 14 days for any Does who objected to their documents being made public to object, after which they would be unsealed.

 

There will be documents about one of Prince Andrew's accusers, who claims he fondled her breasts at Epstein's New York mansion.

 

There will also be material about Haley Robson, who was named as a recruiter in police files of Epstein's original investigation in 2006 in Palm Beach – though she has more recently claimed she was a victim too.

 

The filing suggests some documents will relate to Jean-Luc Brunel, a French model scout who was close to Epstein and allegedly abused many young women. Brunel hanged himself in a Paris prison cell in 2022 while awaiting trial on a slew of sex charges.

 

The documents in the case have been released on a rolling basis since 2019 when the first batch were made public days before Epstein also hanged himself in prison while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.

 

Among the revelations in previous batches of documents were emails between Andrew and Epstein in 2015 when Roberts made allegations about him.

 

The batch of 177 Does is the final group and includes many who were notified by the court but did not object to documents with their name on them being made public.

 

The material is likely to include depositions, emails, legal documents and other material not previously made public.

 

Does three and four appear to be Miles and Cathy Alexander, a South African couple who managed Little St James, Epstein's private island in the Caribbean, for years.

 

Judge Preska cited a 2011 interview the couple gave to the Daily Mail as one of the reasons why their names should be made public

 

In the interview the couple claimed that it was not their place to 'judge' other people, even though they suspected some of the girls on the island were young.