EFTA00101259: Scarola Memorandum Relaying Witness Account of Additional Victims
Snapshot
Document: EFTA00101259 through EFTA00101260
Direct evidence link: EFTA00101259 at Epstein Data
Date created: The internal memorandum is dated September 5, 2019. The complete email chain spans August 7 through September 15, 2019.
Date sent or filed: Jack Scarola forwarded the memorandum on September 15, 2019 at 21:01:09 UTC.
Date released: January 30, 2026, through Department of Justice Data Set 9
Author or creator: A law firm employee identified as Mary prepared the September 5 memorandum. Attorney Jack Scarola forwarded it to federal recipients.
Sender: Jack Scarola
Recipient: Federal recipients whose addresses are redacted. A related copy addresses one recipient as Ms. Moe.
Custodian or producing source: United States Department of Justice and United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York
Evidence type: Attorney email chain containing an internal memorandum that relays a telephone account from a third party
Length and format: Two page PDF
Case or investigation: The 2019 federal investigation arising from United States v. Epstein, No. 1:19-cr-00490, with an internal reference to litigation involving Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2
People named: Jack Scarola, Jeffrey Epstein, Mary, Robert C. Josefsberg, Bradley J. Edwards, an unidentified source, an unidentified priest, an unidentified survivor, approximately thirty unidentified girls described by the source, and redacted federal prosecutors
Organizations named: Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, St. Edmund’s Church in Warren, Michigan, and the United States Department of Justice
Locations named: Warren, Michigan, California, Florida, New York, and One Saint Andrew’s Plaza in New York City
Content warning: This record contains allegations involving child sexual abuse, human trafficking, forced sexual activity, heroin use, confinement, and threats of violence. No private survivor, child, witness, or redacted person is identified in this article.
Key takeaway: The record preserves an attorney’s transmission of an unverified account from a person who said he encountered Jeffrey Epstein in 1996 at age fifteen and saw approximately thirty girls from the Middle East who had allegedly been promised jobs. The source also described his own alleged exploitation, escape, and subsequent intimidation. Scarola expressly stated that he had not assessed the account and had never spoken directly with the source. A separate portion of the chain concerns prosecutors trying to interview a different survivor whom Scarola described as having been abused in Florida beginning at age fourteen.
What Is This Record?
EFTA00101259 is a two page email chain involving attorney Jack Scarola, lawyers associated with survivor representation, and federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York.
The first page contains an internal memorandum dated September 5, 2019. A law firm employee identified as Mary recorded information received during a telephone call. The source described alleged events in 1996 involving Jeffrey Epstein, an unidentified priest, approximately thirty girls said to be from the Middle East, and the source’s own alleged exploitation.
Scarola forwarded the memorandum on September 15, 2019. He expressly warned the recipients that he had conducted no assessment of the source’s statements and had never communicated directly with him.
That disclaimer is central to interpreting the evidence. Scarola did not present the information as verified. He transmitted a potential investigative lead with the permission of the person whose account had been recorded.
The second page preserves an older email chain concerning a different person. In August 2019, Scarola told federal prosecutors that an unidentified survivor had been repeatedly abused by Epstein in Florida beginning when she was fourteen. He also reported that Epstein sent her lingerie from New York to Florida. Prosecutors attempted to arrange an interview with her and offered to travel to Florida.
A related copy in EFTA00027949 contains Scarola’s express clarification that the September witness account was unrelated to the survivor discussed in the earlier email chain. The two accounts must not be merged.
The record therefore contains two separate evidentiary streams.
The first is an unverified account relayed through a law firm memorandum.
The second documents direct communication between a survivor’s attorney and federal prosecutors attempting to arrange an interview with a different survivor.
Source and Provenance
Primary source: EFTA00101259 through EFTA00101260
Epstein Data record: Searchable EFTA00101259 record
Official or court source: Department of Justice PDF for EFTA00101259
Archived copy: The Epstein Data record provides a searchable public copy associated with the same EFTA identifier.
The document was released through Department of Justice Data Set 9. It preserves email headers, dates, a law firm memorandum, the name of the forwarding attorney, and correspondence attributed to Assistant United States Attorneys in the Southern District of New York.
The first page begins with Scarola explaining that he received the information reproduced below and was transmitting it with the source’s permission. He then imposed two explicit limitations.
Scarola had not assessed the source’s statements.
Scarola had not spoken directly with the source.
A related production, EFTA00027949, confirms that the source’s message was unrelated to the woman federal prosecutors had been trying to interview.
The memorandum itself is one step further removed. Mary recorded what the source said during a telephone call. Scarola then forwarded Mary’s written summary. The public record does not contain a recording, transcript, sworn declaration, interview report, or statement signed by the source.
The second page incorporates correspondence created before Epstein’s death. On August 7, 2019, Scarola contacted prosecutors about a survivor willing to speak with investigators. Prosecutors continued attempting to arrange that interview after Epstein died on August 10.
The Southern District of New York stated after Epstein’s death that its investigation of the charged conspiracy would continue and encouraged survivors and witnesses to contact the FBI.
What the Record Contains
Scarola’s September 15 Forwarding Message
Scarola wrote that he had received the information contained in the memorandum and was passing it to federal recipients with the source’s permission.
He did not endorse the allegations. He specifically stated that he had made no assessment and had no direct contact with the source.
This language shows that Scarola understood the distinction between transmitting a lead and verifying it. The disclaimer substantially limits any claim that the memorandum represents an investigative conclusion by Scarola, his law firm, or federal prosecutors.
Internal Law Firm Memorandum
The embedded memorandum is marked as an internal office memo.
It identifies Mary as the person preparing the memorandum and JS as the intended internal recipient, apparently referring to Jack Scarola. The memo is dated September 5, 2019.
Its subject references “Doe 1, Jane, Doe 2, Jane vs. United States Attorney General, et al.” followed by the number 20180880.
The number does not match the federal docket number for the principal Crime Victims’ Rights Act litigation, which was 9:08-cv-80736. It may be a law firm matter number, but the public record does not explain it. It should not be presented as a verified court docket.
Telephone Call From the Source
The memorandum states that Mary received a telephone call at approximately 2:10 in the afternoon on September 5, 2019.
The caller’s full name is redacted in EFTA00101259. This article does not reproduce a partial identifier from a related copy or attempt to reconstruct his complete identity.
According to the memorandum, the caller described events he placed in 1996, when he was fifteen years old.
Alleged Introduction Through a Priest
The source said a priest associated with St. Edmund’s Church in Warren, Michigan, asked him to meet Jeffrey Epstein and act as a translator.
The priest’s identity is redacted. The memorandum states only that the source believed the priest knew Epstein.
The record contains no correspondence between the priest and Epstein, church records, travel records, photographs, witness statements, or other evidence corroborating that connection.
The priest must therefore remain unidentified. Public efforts to match the redacted description to clergy assigned to the church would risk accusing a private person without sufficient evidence.
Allegation Concerning Approximately Thirty Girls
The source reportedly said Epstein had approximately thirty girls from the Middle East who did not speak English.
The source said that when he arrived, the girls were in a basement. He said they told him they had been promised jobs and characterized them as being held for sexual exploitation.
The memorandum does not identify any of the girls. It does not provide names, countries of origin, immigration records, travel documents, dates of entry, employers, recruiters, addresses, or other details that could be used to verify the account.
The description “from the Middle East” is the source’s broad characterization. The record does not identify a specific country, nationality, ethnicity, religion, or language.
Geographic Ambiguity
The memorandum states that the events occurred in California and Florida.
It does not explain which event occurred in which state. It does not identify a particular property, basement, city, address, airport, hotel, employer, or transportation route.
The ambiguity prevents the record from establishing where the source allegedly met Epstein or where the girls were allegedly located.
Epstein is well documented as having maintained a residence in Palm Beach, Florida. EFTA00101259 does not expressly identify that residence as the location described by the source.
The Source’s Alleged Exploitation
The source said he was forced to engage in sexual activity with adult men. Because he said he was fifteen in 1996, his account describes the alleged sexual exploitation of a male minor.
He also reported using heroin at the time.
Substance use by an exploited child does not erase victimization or establish consent. It may indicate vulnerability, coercion, dependency, or impaired circumstances, but the brief memorandum does not provide enough information to determine how the drug use began or whether another person supplied the drug.
Alleged Escape
The source said that on one occasion he took a wallet from a dresser, left through a window, and escaped.
The memo does not identify the owner of the wallet, the location of the room, the date of the escape, how the source traveled afterward, or whether he reported the event at the time.
The description is a reported statement, not a finding that the escape occurred exactly as described.
Alleged Threat in Michigan
The source said Epstein later sent a bodyguard to his home in Michigan. He reported that the bodyguard threatened to kill him if he disclosed information about the girls.
The bodyguard is not named. The record contains no travel record, surveillance material, police report, telephone record, witness statement, or other corroboration for the alleged threat.
The allegation is significant because it describes possible intimidation of a minor witness. It remains unverified within the available record.
Separate Survivor Referral
The second page returns to correspondence that began on August 7, 2019.
Scarola told federal prosecutors about an unidentified survivor whom he described as having been repeatedly abused by Epstein in Florida beginning when she was fourteen.
He reported that Epstein had sent multiple gifts of lingerie to her in Florida from New York. Scarola provided investigators with a means of contacting her and said she was willing to speak.
The article does not reproduce her name, contact information, or other identifying information.
Federal Prosecutors Seek an Interview
A federal prosecutor replied that investigators had experienced difficulty reaching the survivor and asked whether Scarola could arrange a meeting.
Scarola forwarded the request. On September 13, a prosecutor asked whether he represented her. Scarola answered that he did.
On September 14, the prosecutor asked whether a meeting could be arranged and said investigators could travel to Florida if that was her preference.
A related October 7 email in EFTA00021332 shows that prosecutors remained interested in meeting with her and again asked Scarola to help arrange an interview.
These communications are stronger evidence of prosecutorial outreach than of the underlying abuse allegations. They establish that federal prosecutors were attempting to locate and interview a person Scarola identified as a survivor.
Scarola Separates the Two Accounts
The September memorandum was forwarded as part of the older survivor email chain, creating the appearance that the two subjects might be connected.
Federal recipients noticed the possible difference and asked whether the material concerned a separate subject.
Scarola confirmed in EFTA00027949 that the source’s message was unrelated to the woman they were trying to interview.
This clarification must remain attached to any discussion of EFTA00101259. The male source, the approximately thirty girls he described, and the separate female survivor were not presented as one connected account.
Key Evidence Points
- The September 5 memorandum records a third party account rather than a direct interview conducted by Scarola or federal investigators.
- The source reportedly said he was fifteen during the alleged events in 1996.
- He alleged that an unidentified priest asked him to meet Epstein and provide translation.
- He alleged that approximately thirty girls from the Middle East had been promised jobs and could not speak English.
- He said he saw the girls in a basement.
- He characterized the girls as being subjected to sexual exploitation.
- He also described his own alleged sexual exploitation by adult men.
- He reported heroin use during the same period.
- He described escaping through a window.
- He alleged that an unidentified bodyguard later threatened him at his Michigan home.
- The memo refers broadly to California and Florida without assigning specific events to specific places.
- Scarola expressly stated that he had not assessed the source’s account.
- Scarola also stated that he had never spoken directly with the source.
- A related record confirms that Scarola transmitted the account with the source’s permission.
- The older email chain concerns a different survivor whom Scarola described as having been abused in Florida beginning at age fourteen.
- Scarola reported that Epstein sent lingerie to that survivor from New York to Florida.
- Federal prosecutors repeatedly attempted to arrange an interview with the separate survivor.
- Scarola confirmed that the source’s memorandum and the separate survivor referral were unrelated.
What the Record Does and Does Not Prove
What It Establishes
The record establishes that an internal law firm memorandum was prepared on September 5, 2019.
It establishes that the memorandum recorded a telephone account from a source whose complete identity is not public.
It establishes that Scarola forwarded the memorandum to federal recipients on September 15, 2019.
It establishes that Scarola had permission from the source to transmit the information.
It establishes that Scarola made no assessment of the source’s statements.
It establishes that Scarola had no direct contact with the source.
It establishes that the source made allegations involving Epstein, an unidentified priest, approximately thirty girls, exploitation of the source, and a later threat.
It establishes that Scarola separately referred an unidentified survivor to federal prosecutors in August 2019.
It establishes that prosecutors wanted to interview that survivor and offered to travel to Florida.
It establishes that Scarola considered the witness memorandum unrelated to the separate survivor referral.
What It Does Not Establish
The record does not prove that the source’s 1996 account was accurate.
It does not establish the complete identity of the source.
It does not identify or authenticate the priest.
It does not establish that the priest knew Epstein or arranged a meeting.
It does not prove that approximately thirty girls were present.
It does not identify any girl described in the account.
It does not establish their ages, nationalities, immigration status, languages, or locations.
It does not identify a basement or property.
It does not explain which events allegedly occurred in California and which occurred in Florida.
It does not establish that Epstein owned or controlled the unidentified location.
It does not identify the men the source said exploited him.
It does not identify the alleged bodyguard.
It does not prove that Epstein ordered anyone to threaten the source.
It does not contain a recording, transcript, affidavit, signed declaration, FBI interview report, or sworn testimony from the source.
It does not show whether federal investigators interviewed the source.
It does not show whether investigators located the approximately thirty girls.
It does not establish that the separate female survivor and the September source knew each other.
It does not prove that federal prosecutors verified the separate survivor’s allegations.
It does not establish the final outcome of prosecutors’ efforts to arrange either interview.
Unresolved Questions
- Did federal investigators interview the source?
- Is there an FBI FD 302, recording, transcript, or agent memorandum documenting a direct interview with him?
- What information did the source provide beyond Mary’s short telephone summary?
- What language or languages did the source allegedly translate?
- How did the unidentified priest know the source could translate for the girls?
- What evidence connected the priest to Epstein?
- Where was St. Edmund’s Church information obtained, and did investigators verify the claimed connection?
- Which events allegedly occurred in California?
- Which events allegedly occurred in Florida?
- What property contained the basement described by the source?
- Did the source provide an address, map, photograph, travel route, or physical description of the location?
- Were the approximately thirty girls present at the same time or across multiple occasions?
- What countries did the girls allegedly come from?
- Who promised them jobs?
- What type of work were they promised?
- Who arranged their travel, housing, translation, immigration documents, or transportation?
- Did any of the girls later contact police, attorneys, immigration authorities, service providers, or survivor organizations?
- Did investigators compare the account with immigration, airline, hotel, telephone, financial, or property records from 1996?
- Who were the adult men the source said exploited him?
- Who supplied or controlled the heroin the source reported using?
- Who was the alleged bodyguard sent to Michigan?
- Was a police report made concerning the alleged threat?
- Did anyone else witness the alleged threat?
- Why did the source wait until 2019 to provide the account, and had he reported it earlier to anyone else?
- Did the source possess contemporaneous documents or physical evidence?
- Did prosecutors interview the separate survivor discussed in the older email chain?
- Were shipping, payment, or purchase records located for the lingerie reportedly sent from New York to Florida?
- Why did prosecutors continue trying to arrange the survivor interview after Epstein’s death?
- Were either account or both accounts incorporated into an investigation of potential coconspirators?
- Which investigative records concerning these leads remain unavailable or redacted?
People and Entities Appearing in the Record
Jack Scarola
Jack Scarola is the attorney who forwarded the September memorandum to federal recipients. He also communicated with prosecutors concerning the separate survivor discussed in the older chain.
Scarola did not endorse the source’s allegations. His written disclaimer said he had not assessed them and had no direct contact with the source.
That distinction protects the integrity of the record. Scarola’s role was to transmit information that might have investigative value.
Mary
The internal memorandum identifies its author only as Mary.
She recorded the September 5 telephone call and prepared the summary for JS, apparently Jack Scarola. The record does not provide enough information to establish her complete identity, position, or exact role within the firm.
Unidentified Source
EFTA00101259 redacts the source’s name. This article keeps the source unidentified.
He was the source of the 1996 allegations. Scarola stated that the information was transmitted with his permission.
This article does not expand his identity because he described being sexually exploited as a child and threatened afterward.
Jeffrey Epstein
Epstein is the person accused in both evidentiary streams.
The male source alleged that Epstein was connected to approximately thirty girls and later sent a bodyguard to threaten him.
Scarola separately described a female survivor as having been repeatedly abused by Epstein beginning at age fourteen.
The first account remains unverified in the released record. The second was being presented to prosecutors for investigation.
Unidentified Priest
The source alleged that a priest from St. Edmund’s Church in Warren, Michigan, asked him to meet Epstein and translate.
The priest’s name is redacted. No public finding in this record establishes the allegation.
The redaction must not be reverse engineered through historic clergy listings or speculation.
Approximately Thirty Unidentified Girls
The source described approximately thirty girls whom he believed came from the Middle East and did not speak English.
Their identities, ages, nationalities, languages, and subsequent experiences are unknown. The source said they had been promised jobs.
They must be treated as possible trafficking victims rather than as members of Epstein’s social or professional network.
Separate Unidentified Survivor
The older email chain concerns a different survivor whom Scarola described as having been repeatedly abused in Florida beginning at age fourteen.
Her name and contact information are redacted. She is not the source of the September memorandum and should not be connected to its allegations.
Bradley J. Edwards
Bradley J. Edwards appears as a copied recipient in the August 7 survivor referral. He represented numerous Epstein survivors and participated in the Crime Victims’ Rights Act litigation.
His appearance as a copied attorney does not mean that he authored or verified the September memorandum.
Robert C. Josefsberg
Robert C. Josefsberg appears as a copied attorney in the older email chain. A separate August 6 message from him discussed the scope of Epstein’s federal nonprosecution agreement and information potentially relevant to the 2019 prosecution.
That legal discussion is distinct from the September witness account.
Southern District of New York Prosecutors
The recipients include federal prosecutors whose addresses are redacted. The official July 2019 prosecution announcement identifies Alex Rossmiller, Alison Moe, and Maurene Comey as prosecutors assigned to the case.
A related copy addresses a recipient as Ms. Moe, but the incomplete header should not be used to identify every redacted participant conclusively.
Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley
The internal memorandum and forwarding email originated from Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley. The firm participated in legal representation connected to Epstein survivors and related litigation.
The firm’s inclusion in the record establishes its role in transmitting the lead. It does not mean the firm verified or adopted the allegations.
St. Edmund’s Church
The source identified St. Edmund’s Church in Warren, Michigan, as the institution associated with the unidentified priest.
The church itself is not accused of conduct in the memorandum. The record does not establish institutional knowledge, authorization, or involvement.
Timeline Significance
1996: The male source placed the alleged events in this year and said he was fifteen.
July 6, 2019: Federal authorities arrested Epstein.
July 8, 2019: The Southern District of New York unsealed an indictment charging Epstein with sex trafficking of minors and conspiracy.
August 7, 2019: Scarola notified federal prosecutors about a survivor he described as having been abused in Florida beginning at age fourteen.
August 7, 2019: Prosecutors asked Scarola for help arranging an interview with that survivor.
August 10, 2019: Epstein died in federal custody. The prosecution against him could no longer proceed to trial.
August 10, 2019: The Southern District of New York announced that the investigation of the alleged conspiracy remained ongoing.
September 5, 2019: Mary prepared the internal memorandum recording a telephone account from the male source.
September 13, 2019: A federal prosecutor asked Scarola whether he represented the separate female survivor.
September 13, 2019: Scarola confirmed that he did.
September 14, 2019: A prosecutor asked whether a meeting could be arranged and offered to travel to Florida.
September 15, 2019: Scarola forwarded the memorandum to federal recipients with his disclaimer.
September 15, 2019: Federal recipients asked whether the new information concerned a subject separate from the woman they were trying to interview.
September 15, 2019: Scarola confirmed that the source’s account was unrelated to the separate survivor.
October 7, 2019: A related email shows prosecutors again asking Scarola to arrange a meeting with the separate survivor.
January 30, 2026: The Department of Justice released Data Set 9 containing EFTA00101259 and related correspondence.
The 1996 date is potentially important because it predates the 2002 through 2005 conduct charged in the 2019 indictment. If independently corroborated, the account could indicate earlier alleged conduct and a different recruitment pattern. EFTA00101259 alone is not sufficient to establish that conclusion.
Related Evidence
EFTA00027949 contains a related version of the correspondence. It preserves Scarola’s disclaimer and confirms that the source’s account was unrelated to the separate survivor.
EFTA00021332 documents an October 7, 2019 follow up from prosecutors who remained interested in meeting the separate survivor.
EFTA00027343 preserves the August 7 survivor referral and prosecutors’ request for assistance arranging an interview.
EFTA00095369 contains Scarola’s original August 7 referral. It also preserves Robert Josefsberg’s discussion of the nonprosecution agreement and his statement that two clients had contacted the FBI.
EFTA00099291 contains another produced copy of prosecutors’ attempt to reach the separate survivor.
The EpsteinWiki page for United States v. Epstein provides the docket, charges, court proceedings, and legal limits of the 2019 prosecution.
The official Southern District of New York charging announcement states that the 2019 indictment concerned alleged conduct from 2002 through 2005 in New York and Florida. It also asked anyone with information about Epstein’s conduct to contact the FBI.
The EpsteinWiki Jeffrey Epstein Litigation Index identifies 9:08-cv-80736 as the principal Crime Victims’ Rights Act litigation challenging the federal nonprosecution agreement.
The Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility report provides official background on the nonprosecution agreement, survivor notification failures, and the Crime Victims’ Rights Act litigation.
Reliability and Limitations
EFTA00101259 is a government produced record with identifiable dates, participants, and sequential EFTA numbers. It is strong evidence that Scarola transmitted the memorandum and that prosecutors were attempting to interview a separate survivor.
The substance of the September memorandum carries much greater limitations.
The source did not prepare the memo.
Mary summarized a telephone call from the source.
Scarola received Mary’s summary.
Scarola then forwarded the summary to federal recipients.
The public record contains no direct source interview, signed statement, sworn testimony, recording, or transcript.
Scarola expressly stated that he had not assessed the statements and had no direct contact with the source. This prevents the memorandum from being described accurately as a verified attorney investigation or a finding by Scarola’s law firm.
The account contains few verifiable details. It supplies no exact date beyond the year 1996, no property address, no names for the girls, no language, no country of origin, no transportation record, and no identity for the alleged bodyguard.
The reference to California and Florida is too broad to establish where individual events occurred.
The number of girls is the source’s estimate. It should not be combined with other references to thirty victims in unrelated police, court, flight, or witness records merely because the number is similar.
The second page involves a separate survivor. Scarola’s later clarification proves that the two matters should not be merged.
The EpsteinWiki Evidence Framework classifies this type of material as an investigative lead. The document proves that the information was reported and transmitted. It does not prove that investigators verified the underlying allegations.
Survivor Safety and Privacy Review
This article does not identify the source beyond the partial reference appearing in a related government record.
The source described being sexually exploited when he was fifteen. His privacy interests remain substantial even though portions of the record were publicly released.
The approximately thirty girls are treated as possible trafficking victims. Their unidentified status must not be used as an invitation to speculate about names, nationalities, immigration histories, or later identities.
The separate female survivor is not identified. Her contact information, name, and other redacted details are not reproduced.
The unidentified priest is not named. Attempting to identify the priest from church directories would create a serious risk of accusing the wrong person.
The article does not reproduce unnecessary graphic details. It preserves the evidentiary meaning of the allegations while avoiding sensational treatment.
Drug use is not presented as misconduct by a child. If the source’s account is accurate, his age, isolation, alleged coercion, and substance use would indicate profound vulnerability.
The record should remain centered on possible exploitation, the duty to investigate, and the need to protect survivors rather than on public speculation about redacted identities.
Why This Record Matters
EFTA00101259 matters because it documents how information about possible additional victims reached federal prosecutors during the period surrounding the 2019 prosecution.
The male source’s account, if corroborated, would be significant. It alleges conduct in 1996, approximately six years before the earliest period charged in the 2019 federal indictment. It describes a male minor, girls allegedly brought from outside the United States, promises of employment, language barriers, alleged confinement, exploitation by multiple men, and intimidation after an escape.
Those features could indicate a trafficking structure different from the paid massage and referral system described in the 2019 indictment.
The record does not provide the corroboration required to reach that conclusion. Its value lies in establishing that the lead existed and was transmitted to prosecutors.
The document also matters because it shows responsible evidentiary caution by the forwarding attorney. Scarola did not convert the source’s account into a verified claim. He told federal recipients that he had not assessed the statements and had never spoken directly with the source.
The older email chain provides a different form of evidence. It shows prosecutors actively seeking an interview with a separate survivor. Their repeated requests, including an offer to travel to Florida, demonstrate continuing investigative interest after Epstein’s death.
The record also illustrates a common archival danger. Because two unrelated matters were preserved in one email chain, a reader could mistakenly combine the male source, the thirty girls, and the separate female survivor into one account. Scarola’s clarification prevents that error.
The central accountability question is what happened after federal authorities received the information. The public record does not show whether investigators interviewed the source, attempted to locate the girls, examined the church connection, investigated the alleged bodyguard, or verified the separate survivor’s interstate evidence.
Fact Check
Verification status: Verified as a two page Department of Justice released email record from Data Set 9.
Verified: The internal memorandum is dated September 5, 2019.
Verified: Jack Scarola forwarded the memorandum on September 15, 2019.
Verified: Scarola said he had permission to transmit the information.
Verified: Scarola said he had conducted no assessment of the source’s statements.
Verified: Scarola said he had no direct contact with the source.
Verified: The source claimed that the alleged events occurred in 1996 when he was fifteen.
Verified: The source alleged that a priest from St. Edmund’s Church in Warren, Michigan, asked him to meet Epstein as a translator.
Verified: The source alleged that approximately thirty girls from the Middle East were present and did not speak English.
Verified: The source said the girls told him they had been promised jobs.
Verified: The source described his own alleged sexual exploitation, heroin use, escape, and later intimidation.
Verified: The memo refers to California and Florida without identifying exact locations.
Verified: The second page concerns a separate survivor whom Scarola described as having been abused in Florida beginning at age fourteen.
Verified: Scarola reported that Epstein sent lingerie from New York to the separate survivor in Florida.
Verified: Federal prosecutors attempted repeatedly to arrange an interview with that survivor.
Verified: Scarola clarified that the source’s account was unrelated to the separate survivor.
Verified: Epstein was charged in the Southern District of New York in July 2019 with sex trafficking of minors and conspiracy.
Verified: The 2019 indictment concerned alleged conduct from 2002 through 2005.
Verified: The Southern District of New York said after Epstein’s death that the conspiracy investigation remained ongoing.
Not established: That the male source’s allegations were verified.
Not established: The identity of the redacted priest.
Not established: That the priest knew Epstein.
Not established: The identities, ages, nationalities, or locations of the approximately thirty girls.
Not established: The property or basement described by the source.
Not established: Which events allegedly occurred in California and which occurred in Florida.
Not established: The identity of any adult man accused of exploiting the source.
Not established: The identity of the alleged bodyguard.
Not established: That Epstein ordered a threat against the source.
Not established: That federal investigators interviewed the source.
Not established: That prosecutors completed an interview with the separate survivor.
Not established: That 20180880 is a court docket number.
Privacy protected: No private survivor, child, witness, priest, or redacted person has been identified through inference.
Last checked: September 11, 2026
Related EpsteinWiki Pages
United States v. Epstein, No. 1:19-cr-00490
Criminal Case: United States v. Jeffrey Epstein
Jeffrey Epstein Litigation Index
Epstein Files Guide: Evidence Framework
DOJ Vault Data Sets 9, 10, and 11
Source List
- EFTA00101259: Scarola Memorandum and Email Chain
- Official Department of Justice PDF for EFTA00101259
- EFTA00027949: Related Copy With Scarola’s Clarification
- EFTA00021332: October 2019 Prosecutor Follow Up
- EFTA00027343: August 2019 Survivor Referral and Interview Request
- EFTA00095369: Scarola’s Original Survivor Referral
- EFTA00099291: Additional Copy of the Interview Request
- Southern District of New York Charging Announcement
- Southern District of New York Statement Following Epstein’s Death
- Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility Report
- United States v. Epstein on EpsteinWiki
- Jeffrey Epstein Litigation Index
- EpsteinWiki Evidence Framework
- Department of Justice Epstein Library