The Epstein archive and related court records contain extensive evidence of systematic obstruction of justice, witness tampering, and concealment of evidence during the 2005-2006 Palm Beach Police investigation, the 2006-2008 federal investigation, and subsequent civil litigation. This evidence includes document destruction, witness intimidation through private investigators, concealment of the 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement from victims, misleading communications with crime victims, and ongoing harassment of witnesses who filed civil suits. While only Ghislaine Maxwell has been prosecuted for the underlying sex trafficking conspiracy, the obstruction evidence documented in FBI investigative files, court orders, and victim testimony reveals potential violations of federal obstruction statutes that remain largely unprosecuted.
Overview of Obstruction Evidence#
The most detailed evidence of obstruction appears in the FBI's August 2019 co-conspirator memo, which documented Sarah Kellen's role in destroying evidence during the 2005-2006 Palm Beach investigation, constituting potential violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (witness tampering and obstruction) and 18 U.S.C. § 1519 (destruction of records in federal investigations).
Additional obstruction evidence includes the systematic concealment of the Non-Prosecution Agreement from victims in violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act, extensive use of private investigators to intimidate and harass victims who filed civil suits, and coordinated efforts by prosecutors and defense counsel to keep the NPA secret from both victims and the public.
Document Destruction and Evidence Removal#
Destruction of Phone Books and Massage Records
The FBI co-conspirator memo documents Kellen's systematic destruction of evidence, including massage-related phone books containing victim contact information and scheduling records critical to prosecuting sex trafficking charges under 18 U.S.C. § 1591.
Palm Beach Police Property Seizures
Palm Beach Police property receipts from the October 20, 2005 search warrant execution at Epstein's residence document the seizure of "phone message books, photos, VHS tapes, CDs," establishing a baseline of what materials existed before obstruction occurred. The contrast between what was initially seized and what may have been destroyed or concealed suggests systematic evidence removal.
The recruitment patterns article documents the systematic record-keeping that assistants maintained, records that appear to have been systematically destroyed.
Concealment of the Non-Prosecution Agreement#
Negotiations to Keep the NPA Secret
Perhaps the most extensively documented obstruction involves the deliberate concealment of the 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement from victims, in direct violation of their rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771. Internal emails between prosecutors and defense counsel, revealed through the Jane Doe v. United States CVRA litigation, document explicit agreements to keep the NPA secret.
On September 18, 2007, according to court documents, prosecutors assured defense counsel Jay Lefkowitz that "a non-prosecution agreement would not be made public or filed with the Court, but it would remain part of our case file." As the NPA was being finalized on September 24, 2007, Lefkowitz emailed the line prosecutor stating: "Please do whatever you can to keep this from becoming public."
The same day, September 24, 2007, prosecutors emailed Lefkowitz: "Thank you, Jay. I have forwarded your message only to [United States Attorney] Alex [Acosta], and I don't anticipate it going any further than that... The other will be placed in the case file, which will be kept confidential since it also contains identifying information about the girls."
Coordination on Victim Notifications
On September 26, 2007, according to court documents, the line prosecutor emailed Lefkowitz stating: "Hi Jay—Can you give me a call at [xxx-xxxx] this morning? I am meeting with the agents and want to give them their marching orders regarding what they can tell the girls."
This coordination between prosecutors and defense counsel on how much to tell crime victims about a resolution of the investigation represents a fundamental breach of prosecutorial ethics and potential obstruction of victims' statutory rights.
Misleading Letters to Victims
After the NPA was signed on September 24, 2007, prosecutors sent letters to victims stating the investigation was "ongoing"—language that Judge Kenneth A. Marra later found "mislead [sic] the victims to believe that federal prosecution was still a possibility." The DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility report confirmed that from the time the FBI began investigating Epstein through September 24, 2007, "the Office never conferred with the victims about a NPA or told the victims that such an agreement was under consideration."
CVRA Violations as Obstruction
On February 21, 2019, Judge Marra ruled that prosecutors violated the CVRA, finding: "Despite the Government's efforts to cripple this litigation, the record leaves no doubt that the government committed a crime-victim rights violation... The Government gave the Epstein defense team notice of the NPA and conferred with them throughout the process, yet purposefully withheld this information from the victims."
The systematic concealment of plea negotiations from victims, combined with misleading communications after the agreement was signed, constitutes potential obstruction under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c) (corruptly obstructing an official proceeding by concealing information from parties entitled to participate in that proceeding).
Witness Intimidation and Harassment#
The July 2010 Jane Doe Surveillance Incident
The most extensively documented case of witness intimidation appears in court filings from M.J. v. Epstein, Case No. 9:10-cv-81111-WPD (S.D. Fla. 2010). On the evening of July 1, 2010—shortly before a court-ordered mediation and just days after Judge Palermo had ordered the parties "not to communicate, speak or harass one another in any way"—a victim known as Jane Doe was subjected to systematic surveillance and intimidation.
According to detailed court filings, Jane Doe left her house to go to the store and noticed a car (Infiniti SUV, license tag T-KNOLZ) following her everywhere she went. When she pulled into a driveway to allow the car to pass, the car pulled into the neighborhood and stopped nearby. The surveillance was deliberately visible—when Jane Doe pulled over, the pursuer pulled over; when she parked, he parked visibly close by.
When police confronted the man in the car, he identified himself as a "private investigator" hired to "watch" Jane Doe, though he refused to identify who hired him. The investigator appears to have been Thaddeus Knowles. Later that evening, at approximately 10 p.m., the investigator was observed "intermittently flashing his high beam lights into Jane Doe's home" and "intermittently attempting to videotape anyone inside the home."
Court documents state that "Jane Doe felt like a prisoner in her own home and that she believed her physical safety was threatened if she remained there. She further believed that this intimidation was being orchestrated by defendant Epstein." A retired police officer who responded to assist Jane Doe took her from her home to a secure location, and when they attempted to leave, the investigator attempted to follow them despite being warned not to do so.
Pattern of Investigator Harassment
The M.J. v. Epstein motion for protective order documents that "investigators have in the past aggressively followed key witnesses to intimidate and scare them," citing the Palm Beach Police Incident Report. The motion notes: "The use of 'investigators' to aggressively harass his victims is not new to Epstein, as investigators have in the past aggressively followed key witnesses to intimidate and scare them."
The systematic nature of this harassment is evident from court testimony that in the 48 hours before the July 1, 2010 surveillance incident, Jane Doe "had received telephone calls from two ex-boyfriends that investigators were at their homes, knocking on their doors and trying to talk to them about Jane Doe—apparently because of this case."
Tracking Victims to Australia
Court filings reference the complaint of Jane Doe 102 v. Epstein, documenting that "Epstein has even tracked down adverse witnesses as far away as Australia in the past to send the message not to testify against him regarding his illegal sexual exploits."
Threats Against Witnesses
According to court documents, during the FBI investigation, one victim received a message from another victim speaking on Epstein's behalf: "Those who help will be compensated and those who hurt will be dealt with." This explicit threat, documented in the Palm Beach Police Department Incident Report at page 83, constitutes potential witness tampering under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b).
Alfredo Rodriguez and the "Insurance Policy"
Alfredo Rodriguez, an employee of Epstein who kept a "black book" of names of minors Epstein was sexually abusing, stated that he was afraid Jeffrey Epstein would make him "disappear" unless he had an "insurance policy" (i.e., the black book). This statement, documented in the Criminal Complaint, U.S. v. Rodriguez, No. 9:10-CR-80015-KAM, demonstrates the climate of fear and intimidation Epstein created around potential witnesses.
"Accidental" Encounters During Depositions
During civil litigation, court filings document that "Epstein intentionally crossed paths with the victim and stared her down as an attempt to intimidate her" at the deposition of Jane Doe #4. On November 5, 2009, Epstein again appeared at the location where Jane Doe #3 was present for her 8-hour psychological examination. "Epstein knew at that time that Jane Doe #3 was already emotionally fragile and suffering through a grueling psychological examination and he chose to exacerbate her condition by suddenly appearing within feet of her."
These encounters occurred "despite the court's elaborate procedures to prevent these encounters and irrespective of the various court orders in place warning Epstein against this behavior."
Witness Tampering During Federal Investigation#
Intimidation of Co-Conspirators
The M.J. v. Epstein motion states that "during the FBI investigation of his sexual abuse of young girls, Epstein intimidated and harassed other possible witnesses against him—namely Sarah Kellen, Leslie Groff and Nadia Marcinkova. Indeed, this intimidation was so serious that federal prosecutors prepared draft federal charges against him for witness tampering charges."
The motion notes: "Ultimately, for reasons that are unclear, these charges were not filed." This failure to prosecute witness tampering charges during the 2006-2008 federal investigation represents a significant missed opportunity to hold Epstein accountable for obstruction.
Legal Strategy Communications Crossing Into Obstruction#
Meetings "Off Campus"
Court documents reveal that on September 16, 2007, the line prosecutor wrote to defense counsel about meeting outside the U.S. Attorney's Office: "Maybe we can set a time to meet. If you want to meet 'off campus' somewhere, that is fine." This unusual proposal to meet away from the prosecutor's office suggests efforts to conceal the extent of cooperation with defense counsel.
Creating Federal Jurisdiction "For Prison Purposes"
On September 16, 2007, according to court documents, the line prosecutor wrote to Epstein's counsel: "AUSA recommended that some of the timing issues be addressed only in the state agreement, so that it isn't obvious to the judge that we are trying to create federal jurisdiction for prison purposes."
This email suggests prosecutors were manipulating jurisdictional issues to create a federal charge that would allow Epstein to serve time in county jail rather than state prison, while concealing this strategy from the judge who would sentence him.
Avoiding Press Coverage
On September 16, 2007, court documents show the Office discussed filing charges in Miami-Dade County rather than Palm Beach "to hopefully cut the press coverage significantly." The deliberate effort to reduce media scrutiny suggests consciousness that the agreement being negotiated would not withstand public scrutiny.
Court Orders Against Contact and Their Violation#
State Court No-Contact Order
When Epstein pled guilty on June 30, 2008, Palm Beach Circuit Court Judge Deborah Dale Pucillo ordered Epstein "not to have any contact, direct or indirect" with any victims. She expressly stated her no-contact order applied to "all of the victims," according to court transcripts.
Federal Court No-Contact Order
On July 31, 2009, U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra entered a no-contact order in Case No. 9:08-cv-80119, ruling: "In light of Defendant's response to Plaintiff's motion for no contact order, suggesting that the state court's order only applies to some victims and that parties are always allowed to contact each other directly, the Court finds it necessary to state clearly that Defendant is under this court's order not to have direct or indirect contact with any plaintiffs, regardless of the intended scope of the state court's order."
Magistrate Judge Palermo's Warning
As Jane Doe's case approached trial and a settlement conference was scheduled for July 6, 2010, Magistrate Judge Palermo issued an order starkly commanding: "The parties are instructed not to communicate, speak or harass one another in any way. Any violation of this Order will not be tolerated. The parties are instructed to GOVERN THEMSELVES ACCORDINGLY."
The July 1, 2010 surveillance and intimidation incident occurred just five days after this order was issued, demonstrating Epstein's willingness to violate direct court orders forbidding contact with victims.
Payments as Potential Bribes or Hush Money#
Settlement Agreements and Silence
The DOJ OPR report notes that "by mid-2010, Epstein reportedly settled multiple civil lawsuits brought against him by victims seeking monetary damages, including the two petitioners in the CVRA litigation." These settlements, occurring during ongoing CVRA litigation challenging the NPA, may have included confidentiality provisions that effectively silenced victims.
Court filings note that "despite numerous civil suits being filed against Epstein for sexual abuse, none of the victims in those cases have felt able to proceed to trial. Counsel for Jane Doe have been advised that many of these victims were afraid to take their cases all the way to trial."
Payments to Co-Conspirators
The immunity provisions of the 2007 NPA themselves may have functioned as a form of compensation to co-conspirators in exchange for their silence. The agreement protected "any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, Lesley Groff, or Nadia Marcinkova"—the very individuals who could have provided the most damaging testimony against Epstein.
Timeline of Obstruction-Related Activity#
October 20, 2005: Palm Beach Police execute search warrant at Epstein's residence, seizing phone books, photos, and other evidence
2005-2006: During active investigation, Sarah Kellen instructs staff to remove evidence from Epstein's residence and provide it to private investigator; instructs staff to remove massage-related phone books from USVI home and shred them
July 19, 2006: Palm Beach County grand jury indicts Epstein for felony solicitation of prostitution
2006-2007: FBI investigates federal sex trafficking charges; prosecutors prepare draft indictment and 82-page prosecution memorandum
June 7, 2007: FBI delivers CVRA victim notification letter to Jane Doe 1, promising to protect her rights including "reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the United States"
September 13, 2007: Line prosecutor emails defense counsel: "I have been spending some quality time with Title 18 looking for misdemeanors"—suggesting effort to reduce charges
September 16, 2007: Prosecutor proposes meeting defense counsel "off campus"
September 18, 2007: USAO assures defense the NPA "would not be made public or filed with the Court"
September 24, 2007: Defense counsel emails prosecutor: "Please do whatever you can to keep this from becoming public"; NPA signed same day; prosecutors send email stating case file "will be kept confidential"
September 26, 2007: Prosecutor emails defense counsel: "I am meeting with the agents and want to give them their marching orders regarding what they can tell the girls"
Post-September 24, 2007: Prosecutors send letters to victims stating investigation is "ongoing"—language later found to be misleading
June 30, 2008: Epstein pleads guilty in state court; Judge Pucillo orders no contact with "all of the victims"
July 7, 2008: Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 file emergency CVRA petition challenging NPA
July 31, 2009: Judge Marra enters federal no-contact order
July 1, 2010: Private investigator conducts visible surveillance and intimidation of Jane Doe, five days after Judge Palermo's order forbidding harassment
November 5, 2009: Epstein appears at location where Jane Doe #3 is undergoing psychological examination, intimidating her
By mid-2010: Epstein settles multiple civil suits, potentially including confidentiality provisions
February 21, 2019: Judge Marra rules prosecutors violated CVRA, finding they "purposefully withheld" information from victims while conferring with defense counsel
July 2019: Epstein arrested in New York; FBI identifies 10 co-conspirators including those who participated in obstruction
August 10, 2019: Epstein found dead in cell
November 2020: DOJ OPR report concludes prosecutors used "poor judgment" but did not commit professional misconduct
Applicable Criminal Statutes#
18 U.S.C. § 1512 - Witness Tampering and Obstruction
The evidence documented above supports potential charges under multiple subsections of 18 U.S.C. § 1512:
- § 1512(b): Intimidating or threatening witnesses with intent to influence testimony (July 2010 surveillance incident; "Those who help will be compensated and those who hurt will be dealt with" threat)
- § 1512(c): Corruptly obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding (concealment of NPA from victims entitled to participate under CVRA)
- § 1512(d): Intentionally harassing another person with intent to hinder their communication with law enforcement (private investigator harassment of multiple victims)
18 U.S.C. § 1519 - Destruction of Records in Federal Investigations
The destruction of massage-related phone books and removal of evidence from Epstein's residences during active federal investigation constitutes potential violation of this statute, which carries up to 20 years imprisonment.
18 U.S.C. § 1503 - Influencing or Injuring Officer or Juror
The systematic efforts to conceal the NPA from crime victims and mislead them about the status of the investigation may constitute obstruction under this general obstruction statute.
18 U.S.C. § 371 - Conspiracy
The coordination between multiple co-conspirators (Kellen, staff members, private investigators) to remove and destroy evidence constitutes potential conspiracy to obstruct justice.
Prosecution Gaps and Immunity Issues#
Despite the extensive evidence of obstruction documented in FBI files and court proceedings, no obstruction charges have been filed against any of Epstein's associates. Several factors may explain this:
-
NPA Immunity: The 2007 NPA granted immunity to "any potential co-conspirators," which prosecutors in 2007 believed covered only the four named individuals (Kellen, Ross, Groff, Marcinkova) but which defense counsel has argued extends more broadly. However, the NPA specifically covered "offenses set out on pages 1 and 2" and "offenses that have been the subject of the joint investigation"—arguably not covering subsequent obstruction that occurred during civil litigation in 2010.
-
Prosecutorial Discretion: The DOJ OPR report concluded that while prosecutors used "poor judgment" in negotiating the NPA and violated the CVRA, they did not commit professional misconduct justifying discipline. This reluctance to find misconduct by fellow prosecutors may extend to reluctance to prosecute obstruction by Epstein's associates.
-
Passage of Time: The 5-year statute of limitations for most federal obstruction charges expired for conduct occurring during the 2005-2008 investigation period. However, the July 2010 witness intimidation incident and any ongoing obstruction during civil litigation from 2010-2019 would be within the statute of limitations at the time of Epstein's 2019 arrest.
-
Focus on Underlying Crimes: Prosecutors in 2019 focused on the underlying sex trafficking charges against Epstein and later Maxwell, rather than pursuing obstruction charges against other co-conspirators.
Cross-References#
The obstruction evidence documented here relates directly to:
- Epstein's Co-Conspirators - particularly Sarah Kellen, who directed evidence destruction
- 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement - the agreement whose concealment constituted CVRA violations
- Recruitment and Trafficking Patterns - the underlying criminal conduct that obstruction sought to conceal
- Evidence Overview and Prosecution Roadmap - comprehensive assessment of all prosecutable conduct
- Relevant Criminal Statutes - detailed analysis of obstruction statutes