Question from a (relative) noob in matters of Epstein: in document review, what names do we count as “alleged co-conspirators”? Obviously Maxwell qualifies, do we have a list or a working definition?
2 Likes
I am also new and had the same question. I am also looking for operational def for what meets the level of “significant”, as it’s not always obvious esp if names/content/attachments are redacted.
2 Likes
There’s a few different ideas of who qualifies to be a co-conspirator.
For me its people actively helping and/or facilitating Epstein in his crimes.
To me a victim can turn into a co-conspirator when they go out of their way to help him commit crimes when there was the option not to.
“The most natural reading of the co-conspirator provision is that it covers those who
conspired with Epstein in the offenses covered by the NPA (=Non-Prosecution Agreement) for their involvement in those offenses. Thus, it would cover any involvement of Maxwell in offenses committed by Epstein
from 2001 to 2007, other offenses that were the subject of the FBI and U.S. Attorney’s Office
investigation, and any offenses that arose from the related grand jury investigation.”
Maxwell, Groff, Kellen, Brunel, Ross, Dubin, and plenty more when we can unravel the threads.
1 Like
Hi @ViktorKovacs and @R_N - welcome to EpsteinExposed!
I wanted to add to what @andreasanderson provided. There’s a review guide available here, but best thing to keep in mind is:
Do I need to tag every document?
No. Tags are optional and additive – only apply them when they clearly fit. It’s better to skip a tag than to apply one incorrectly. Ratings are required, but you can submit a review with zero tags.
Keep the questions coming! We’ll all try to help where we can.
2 Likes
Honestly, I still don’t understand if we’re to mark everything sent by Epstein and friends as significant because of “important names”, or in what cases we should mark it as routine. It’s hard to tell when most of it is out of context. A simple “call me” can either be super significant or not relevant at all, depending on the situation…
I’m not marking everything as significant. I’m really trying to think critically on whether the content is valuable.
i.e. new names appear that aren’t already known (regardless of context), someone in the news claiming their relationship wasn’t real/not close/weren’t friends, but email communications contradict that or support an opposing position. Stuff like that.
Dinner parties may be significant if the date they align to match the date of a victim testimony and the names that were named for instance.
Meetings with various people that align with financial transactions may tell another story.
If you’re unsure, or it’s a well-known connection and the info contained within doesn’t add any value, just mark it routine.
1 Like