Jessica Cadwell

Snapshot

Introduction

Jessica Cadwell appears in released records as a paralegal who communicated directly with Jeffrey Epstein and worked on matters involving his Florida civil litigation. Her signed emails identify her professional role and show the practical work behind discovery, the process through which parties seek information for a lawsuit.

This account examines specific correspondence, law firm letters and a court exhibit. It separates her own messages from statements by attorneys and from a name printed on letterhead. It does not present a complete biography or infer misconduct from legal work.

Key Takeaways

• Cadwell’s signatures identify her as a paralegal. They name different firms at different dates.
• The records cover scheduling, requests for documents and a notarial acknowledgment.
• A March 2013 exchange concerns possible freelance work and business advice. It does not establish a completed arrangement.
• Requests, proposed dates and statements by correspondents must be distinguished from confirmed events and court findings.

Professional Identity in Original Communications

EFTA00774275, page 1 records an April 27, 2009 email from “J Cadwell,” followed by the full name Jessica Cadwell, the initials CP and the title Certified Paralegal. Its signature names Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A.

The August 2009 correspondence uses her full name and the titles Certified Paralegal and Florida Registered Paralegal at Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman LLP. These are contemporaneous professional identifications. They do not establish her current credentials or the exact date she changed firms.

Robert D. Critton Jr.’s January 4, 2010 letter lists Cadwell among that firm’s paralegals. Her name also appears on a May 25, 2010 letter signed by Critton. Neither letter is signed by Cadwell, so their legal arguments should not be attributed to her.

April 2009 Telephone Scheduling

The April 27 email shows Cadwell asking Epstein what time would suit him after he requested a call. The subject line supplies no substantive topic. The message establishes a scheduling exchange, not that a call occurred or what was discussed.

August 2009 Service and Discovery

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_033503 and 033504 preserve Cadwell’s questions to Jacquie Johnson about service on Maxwell. Johnson answered yes to Cadwell’s service question, while saying they were still trying to get the details. She also reported that a deposition had been rescheduled from August 17 to September 23, 2009. These messages are not a return of service or proof of attendance.

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_033506 contains Cadwell’s August 6 request to Bradley J. Edwards for a signed authorization to seek a Jane Doe plaintiff’s juvenile justice records. She also requested more time for responses to written discovery questions. The email does not show that authorization was signed or records were obtained. The plaintiff’s identity and sensitive history are not reproduced here.

Notarial Acknowledgment in the 2009 Settlement

The execution page of Virginia Giuffre and Epstein’s settlement agreement bears Cadwell’s printed name, notarial signature and seal beneath Epstein’s acknowledgment dated November 25, 2009. The exact locator is PDF page 11, printed page 8, Bates Giffure_email_002091, in Document 334-1 of Giuffre v. Dershowitz, No. 1:19-cv-03377, Southern District of New York.

This establishes her recorded notary role on that page. It does not establish that she negotiated or drafted the agreement. The agreement states that it is not an admission of liability or fault. Its September 8, 2021 filing date is distinct from the 2009 signatures. A December 29, 2021 court order directed that the document be unsealed on or about January 3, 2022.

Recarey Deposition Coordination

EFTA00733279, page 1 contains an April 26, 2010 message from Cadwell about a deposition identified as Recarey’s. She said Bob had asked her to send the arrangements to Epstein. She reported a changed office location and said she had confirmed it with Story. Epstein forwarded the message to Story Cowles.

The email documents a logistics update. It does not supply testimony, confirm that the deposition proceeded as scheduled or establish that everyone receiving the email attended.

March 2013 Career Discussion

EFTA01741024 and EFTA01741025 preserve a March 8, 2013 exchange about Cadwell’s plans to leave BCLC and consider freelance paralegal and private investigation work. She raised possible future litigation assistance and asked Epstein for business advice. He offered to help, and she welcomed his input.

The exchange shows continuing contact and proposals. It does not establish when she left the firm, whether Epstein financed a business or whether a new employment or consulting agreement followed.

Chronology

• April 27, 2009: Cadwell replies to a request for a call.
• August 6 and 11, 2009: Correspondence addresses discovery and deposition plans.
• November 25, 2009: Epstein’s settlement acknowledgment bears Cadwell’s notarial signature.
• January 4, 2010: A Critton letter lists Cadwell as a firm paralegal.
• April 26, 2010: Cadwell sends the Recarey logistics update.
• May 25, 2010: Another Critton letter lists her on its letterhead.
• March 8, 2013: Cadwell discusses possible freelance work and business advice.

Evidence Appearances

• EFTA00774275: April 27, 2009 email, PDF page 1. Direct correspondence and a full professional signature.
• HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_033503 through HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_033507: August 6 through 11, 2009 email chain, five stamped images. Service questions appear on 033503 and 033504; the records request is on 033506. Privileged portions remain redacted.
• Giuffre v. Dershowitz, Document 334-1: PDF page 11, Bates Giffure_email_002091. Cadwell’s notarial signature on Epstein’s acknowledgment.
• EFTA00608084: January 4, 2010 letter, PDF page 1. Cadwell is listed on letterhead; Critton is the signatory. The following page is marked as a draft proposed order.
• EFTA00733279: April 26, 2010 forwarded email, PDF pages 1 and 2, Bates EFTA00733279 and EFTA00733280. The substantive scheduling message is on page 1.
• EFTA00192625, PDF pages 37 and 38: May 25, 2010 letter, Bates EFTA00192661 and EFTA00192662. Cadwell’s name is on the first page’s staff list; Critton signs the second.
• EFTA01741024: March 8, 2013 exchange, PDF pages 1 and 2, Bates EFTA01741024 and EFTA01741025; secondary stamps EFTA_R1_00030777 and EFTA_R1_00030778.

Limitations and Open Questions

The reviewed sources identify particular work and communications. They do not establish Cadwell’s full employment history, all her contact with Epstein or her knowledge of his conduct. A professional role or direct correspondence does not itself establish participation in abuse.

Several messages contain redactions. Their missing content cannot be reconstructed from the visible text. Repeated copies of a chain are not separate conversations or independent corroboration.

No response from Cadwell addressing these records was located in the sources reviewed through October 18, 2026. That is a limited search result, not a claim that she refused to comment or has never commented. This article makes no allegation of criminal wrongdoing against her and does not offer a comprehensive charging history.

Related EpsteinWiki Articles

• Detective Joseph Recarey
• Story Cowles
• Reading Names in Epstein Records

Conclusion

The records show Cadwell performing legal support tasks, signing a notarial acknowledgment and discussing possible later work. Their value lies in those specific roles and exchanges. They do not make her responsible for the conduct of a client or for every argument made by the lawyers whose correspondence lists her name.

Questions and Answers

Was Cadwell identified as an attorney?

The cited signatures identify her as a paralegal. The settlement execution page separately identifies her as a notary.

Do the scheduling emails prove a deposition happened?

No. A schedule records a plan. A transcript or another record of the completed event would be needed to establish attendance and testimony.

Did she write the letters that list her on firm stationery?

The January and May 2010 letters are signed by Robert D. Critton Jr. A staff listing alone does not establish authorship.

Does the March 2013 exchange prove Epstein funded her business?

No. It records discussion of plans and an offer of help, without a documented payment or completed agreement.

Sources

1. J. Cadwell and Jeffrey Epstein, April 27, 2009 scheduling email, EFTA00774275, PDF page 1. Released record copy hosted by Epstein Data.
2. Cadwell, Johnson, Edwards and Epstein, August 2009 correspondence, HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_033503 through 033507, stamped images hosted by Epstein Files. A five page PDF copy is also available. Related reproduced text appears in a House Judiciary Committee meeting submission, PDF pages 14 and 15, marked HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_029881 through 029883. These are overlapping copies, not independent accounts.
3. Virginia Giuffre and Jeffrey Epstein, Settlement Agreement and General Release, Document 334-1, filed September 8, 2021, Giuffre v. Dershowitz, No. 1:19-cv-03377. PDF page 11 contains the acknowledgment; PDF page 3 contains the no admission provision. Court exhibit copy hosted by Courthouse News Service.
4. Southern District of New York, December 29, 2021 unsealing order, Document 390, page 1. Court order copy hosted by Justia.
5. Robert D. Critton Jr., January 4, 2010 letter, EFTA00608084, PDF page 1. Released record copy hosted by Epstein Data.
6. Cadwell and Epstein, April 26, 2010 Recarey deposition correspondence, EFTA00733279, PDF pages 1 and 2. Released record copy hosted by Epstein Data.
7. Robert D. Critton Jr., May 25, 2010 letter within EFTA00192625, PDF pages 37 and 38, Bates EFTA00192661 and EFTA00192662. Released record copy hosted by Epstein Data.
8. Cadwell and Epstein, March 8, 2013 correspondence, EFTA01741024, PDF pages 1 and 2. Released record copy hosted by Epstein Data.