EFTA01308488: Palm Beach Probable Cause Affidavit and Western Union Acknowledgment

Snapshot

---

Key Takeaways

• The affidavit summarizes a Palm Beach police investigation described as running from March 15, 2005, through February 2006. Its opening reports sworn taped statements from five victims and seventeen witnesses.
• The investigative narrative combines witness interviews with controlled calls and discarded telephone messages. Later sections describe a residential search and telephone and aircraft-record comparisons.
• Four proposed counts of unlawful sexual activity with a minor are specified in the conclusion. The source must not be misread as a single count because of faulty text extraction.
• The final PDF page acknowledges receipt of a Western Union subpoena. It is a separate document and supplies no transfer amount, sender, recipient or transaction result.
• The redacted affidavit records police allegations, witness accounts and the affiant’s assessment. It does not include a verdict, plea, sentencing order or final disposition of the proposed charges.

---

What the document is

EFTA01308488 opens with the heading Probable Cause Affidavit, the Palm Beach Police Department name, case number 05-368 (1), and Jeffrey Epstein as the defendant. The jurat, the sworn-statement block at the foot of the affidavit pages, is dated May 1, 2006. The affiant’s identifying field and substantial parts of the signature blocks are redacted in this copy. Those redactions do not justify supplying a name from another document.

The first page reports that the police investigation involved alleged unlawful sexual activity at Epstein’s residence at 358 El Brillo Way in Palm Beach. The narrative then recounts individual interviews, police observations and records checks. The opening count of five victims and seventeen witnesses is the affidavit’s own description of the investigation; it is not a complete roster of everyone discussed across the file.

The numbered affidavit ends on page 22. A separate one-page Western Union communication follows it. The EFTA page stamps run consecutively across both documents, but consecutive production numbers do not make the letter part of the sworn affidavit. The pages also bear an additional EFTA stamp series, EFTA_00201979 through EFTA_00202001, and SDNY_GM_00329253 through SDNY_GM_00329275.

---

The complaint and early investigative steps

The opening account says a fourteen-year-old and her family reported unlawful sexual activity on March 15, 2005. The affidavit recounts her account of being taken to the residence under an offer to earn money for a massage and says Epstein was identified through a photographic lineup. The following page describes the arrival, the interior of the house and her allegations. These passages are the police summary of her statement, not an interview transcript.

The controlled-call section says police obtained parental consent for the young complainant to assist. It describes recorded calls seeking another appointment, a voicemail arranging an April 5, 2005 visit at 11 a.m., and a discarded telephone message recovered from the residence that matched that appointment time. The affidavit presents the recovered message as support for the scheduling account; it does not reproduce the recording or the message slip.

An October 3 interview introduces an account from a person who said she had brought other girls to the house for payment. The continuation records her statement that Epstein preferred younger girls and that those she brought were fourteen to sixteen. The redactions leave the interviewee’s identity unresolved in this copy; her account does not independently establish another person’s conduct.

---

How the witness accounts are presented

The interview sequence includes initial denials, later disclosures and explanations for reluctance to speak. One young interviewee initially denied an inappropriate encounter in front of her parents; the affidavit records that she later contacted police and said she had not been fully truthful. Her follow-up account continues onto the next page. A separate October 12 interview records a denial of misconduct and a report of prior contact by a private investigator. The affiant’s impression that answers sounded scripted is an assessment, not proof of witness interference.

The accounts across the middle pages describe recruitment through acquaintances, arrival through the kitchen, preparation of an upstairs massage area, payments and alleged sexual contact. They vary in the number of visits, clothing described, responses to unwanted contact and amounts reported. Several interviewees said they had no formal massage training. Those differences should be preserved rather than combined into a single account attributed to every witness.

The October 11 account describes repeated visits beginning when the interviewee was sixteen. Its continuation includes a physical description of Epstein and an allegation of forced penetration. Other accounts on page 15 and page 19 describe additional alleged penetration. These are attributed witness allegations in a probable cause document. The physical description is not a medical examination or a measured anatomical finding.

The January 9, 2006 interview begins near the end of page 19 and continues on page 20. It describes an approach framed as a modeling opportunity, alleged sexual contact and threats discouraging disclosure. The same page separately introduces interviews with adults aged eighteen or older. The adult and minor accounts are distinct parts of the narrative and must not be conflated.

---

Investigative checks described in the affidavit

The rental-car passage says police located a silver Nissan Sentra after an interviewee described a car arranged for her. The affiant reports that the car was registered to Dollar Rent a Car, rented by a houseman and paid for with Epstein’s credit card. The underlying rental contract and payment statement are not included in this PDF; this is the affiant’s report of the check.

The Western Union passage within the affidavit says subpoena results showed a $200 transfer from Epstein dated December 23, 2004, described by an interviewee as a Christmas bonus. The source does not append those transaction results. The separate acknowledgment on page 23 therefore cannot be treated as the receipt proving this particular payment.

The search narrative says police executed a warrant at Epstein’s Palm Beach home. The affiant describes a pink-and-green couch matching earlier accounts, photographs, massage tables and telephone-message books with carbon copies. The messages reportedly contained names, telephone numbers and appointment information. These observations are described in the affidavit; the search warrant, full inventory, photographs and message-book pages are not reproduced here.

The same search passage describes two cameras concealed in clocks, one in a garage and another in a library behind Epstein’s desk. It says a computer hard drive was reviewed and that images of interviewees appeared to come from the camera behind the desk. The file does not contain that footage, a forensic report or evidence establishing a wider recording or blackmail operation.

The former-household-employee interviews concern the routines at the residence, the apparent ages of visitors, room preparation and cleanup. The next page describes documents produced by a former employee concerning flowers and a rental car. These are supporting accounts reported by the investigator, with their own limits on what the employees personally observed.

The concluding records analysis says police subpoenaed cellular and home telephone records and compared call dates and times with interview accounts. It also says records from Jet Aviation showed arrivals and departures of Epstein’s plane at Palm Beach International Airport during 2005. The affiant reports that relevant calls occurred before arrivals or while Epstein was in Palm Beach. The PDF contains the summary of those comparisons, not the underlying call data, aircraft records or a passenger manifest.

---

The proposed charges and the document’s limits

The final affidavit paragraph states that the investigator found probable cause to charge Epstein with four counts of unlawful sexual activity with a minor under Florida Statute 794.05(1), and with lewd and lascivious molestation under Florida Statute 800.04(5). The paragraph describes these as second-degree felonies. This is a description of the provisions and charging theory cited in the May 2006 affidavit, not a statement of current law.

The charge block on the first page also prints “(4) counts.” The scanned image and concluding paragraph agree. The source’s searchable text misrecognizes that figure, so relying on extraction alone would give an incorrect count.

The probable cause conclusion is the affiant’s assessment of the evidence then summarized. It is not an indictment, verdict, plea agreement or judgment. This file alone does not establish what prosecutors ultimately charged, which allegations were adjudicated or what disposition followed.

---

The separate Western Union page

PDF page 23, stamped EFTA01308510, is a faxed acknowledgment from Western Union’s Custodian of Records. The transmission header shows November 23, 2005. It references Western Union subpoena file 075686 and case number 05ML000099, and says the original subpoena seeking money-transfer records was received.

The acknowledgment contains no transaction listing, transfer amount or named sender and recipient of a payment. It does not explain why it appears after the affidavit in this PDF. Its presence is evidence that this letter is included in the released file, not proof that it documents the Christmas payment described on affidavit page 16.

---

Evidence Appearances

The complete file is mapped below. Each identifier is a printed page stamp in this PDF. The descriptions distinguish interview accounts, the affiant’s reported checks and the separate final letter.

---

Redactions and source limitations

The source contains extensive redactions covering witness identifiers, contact details, schools and other information. Names partially visible in the scan or imperfect text extraction are not a reliable basis for identifying a protected person. The redactions leave identifying information unresolved.

The affidavit is a police narrative that incorporates reported witness statements, the investigator’s observations and summaries of records. Reading those layers separately matters: an interview allegation is not the same thing as a direct police observation, and a police summary of a subpoena return is not the return itself. The record contains neither the full recorded interviews nor an opportunity to assess every underlying exhibit.

The Epstein Data PDF and EpsteinWiki attachment are identical copies of this scanned file. The visible production stamps and confidentiality labels do not, by themselves, establish a complete chain of custody or explain every redaction. No inference about a person’s conduct should be drawn merely from appearing in the record.

---

Sources

1. EFTA01308488, direct PDF at Epstein Data. Palm Beach Police Department probable cause affidavit, sworn May 1, 2006, PDF pages 1–22; separate Western Union acknowledgment, PDF page 23. Printed stamps EFTA01308488 through EFTA01308510.
2. EFTA01308488 document viewer. Reader interface for the same file.
3. EFTA01308488, preserved EpsteinWiki PDF attachment. Identical source copy hosted with the original evidence record.