Key information from the email:

*   **Subject:** FW: Epstein investigation
*   **Date:** Wed, 12 Feb 2020 16:51:34 +0000
*   **Inline-Images:** image001.jpg; image002.jpg
*   **From:** redacted
*   **To:** redacted

On my way back.

Here's the information from the email header:

*   **From:** Jill Greenfield
*   **Sent:** Wednesday, February 12, 2020, 11:50 AM
*   **To:** \[redacted]
*   **Cc:** \[redacted]
*   **Subject:** RE: Epstein investigation

Sorry - I was stuck on a call — here now

Jill Greenfield
Partner 
D: 
M:

Personal Injury Team of the Year - Solicitors Journal Awards 2017

- From: [redacted] <[redacted]>
- Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2020 4:38 PM
- To: Jill Greenfield <[redacted]>
- Cc: [redacted] <[redacted]>
- Subject: RE: Epstein investigation

No problem – we just tried calling, but didn’t catch you. Let us know when you’re free and we’ll give you a try back.
thank you,
[REDACTED]

From: Jill Greenfield
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2020 09:52
To: 
Subject: RE: Epstein investigation

Ok — If I am not at my desk I am stuck on a con call and will e mail you when I am free

thanks

EFTA00014387

Jill Greenfield

Partner
D:
M:

Personal Injury Team of the Year - Solicitors Journal Awards 2017

An email sent Wednesday, February 12, 2020, at 2:51 PM from an individual to Jill Greenfield. The subject of the email is: Re: Epstein investigation.

Jill,

That works, thank you — we'll plan to call you at 4.30 GMT, or just let us know if you prefer a different time, otherwise we'll look forward to speaking with you then.

thanks,



On Feb 12, 2020, at 04:42, Jill Greenfield < wrote:

Hi



Yes a discussion would be fine — I am around after 4.00 GMT, 11.00 am Eastern if that helps.

Jill

Jill Greenfield

Partner 
D:
M:

Personal Injury Team of the Year - Solicitors Journal Awards 2017

From: [REDACTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 3:10 PM
To: [REDACTED]
Cc: Multiple recipients (several names/emails redacted)
Subject: RE: Epstein investigation

Jill,

We wanted to briefly follow up, particularly because I think when we first spoke with you there was a possibility your client was going to be interviewed by the metro police this week. Would it make sense to chat regarding any of the below?

EFTA00014388

thanks,

- From: [redacted]
- Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2020 14:25
- To: [recipient name redacted] <redacted>
- Cc: [multiple recipients redacted] (at least two additional recipients)
- Subject: [redacted]

- Additional context: a one-word greeting appears above the header (recipient name redacted).

Jill,

Thanks for circling back, and we'll do our best to answer these questions. In terms of who would be in the room, the most likely answer is that it would be two of the prosecutors and the two law enforcement officers on the case. The only reason I saw "most likely" rather than having a definitive answer is that when we're interviewing in a foreign country, it sometimes is the case the local law enforcement also insists on having representatives present. I don't believe that's required in the U.K., but we can check on it and give you a definitive answer in the coming days if that's useful. (Also, if she preferred to be interviewed in the U.S., we certainly could guarantee that the room would be just the case team, and we could arrange for travel and lodging for her. Let us know if that's the case, but otherwise we're of course happy to travel to her.)

Regarding access to notes, it would principally be the investigative team—so again, the prosecutors and the FBI team working on the case. Our respective supervisors also theoretically have access to our files, but the reports are not generally widely disseminated. The basic logistics are that an agent takes notes during an interview, and then types up those notes into a formal report (called an FBI Form 302). We don't ordinarily share notes with other entities, but I can also check on that to see if I can make a more specific representation with respect to your client.

With respect to anonymity, I confess that I'm not familiar with the distinction you're referring to. In terms of our investigation, we don't publicly disclose the names of individuals we meet with, and we don't disclose to any other witnesses, for example, the identities of victims or witnesses we are meeting with. (And our policies on that don't change even for individuals who are in the position of your client, who have been widely publicly reported to have been connected to Epstein and/or his employees or associates). But if that doesn't answer your question, we're of course happy to discuss further. Let me know if it might be useful to have a call? Or if not, also happy to address any follow-up via email.

thanks,



Key information from the email:

*   **From**: Jill Greenfield
*   **Sent**: Saturday, February 08, 2020 13:17
*   **To**: \[REDACTED]
*   **Cc**: Kyle Phillips, Louise Scott, \[REDACTED]
*   **Subject**: Re: Epstein investigation

Hi



Thanks for this. I've been asked who would be in the room and thereafter who would have access to any notes made. Would her permission be sought before disclosing to any other parties or officials?

As you know there is a real difficulty in relation to her anonymity in the US versus the UK. Are you able to provide any comfort on this?

EFTA00014389

Many thanks

Jill

Jill Greenfield, a Partner, won the Personal Injury Team of the Year award from Solicitors Journal Awards 2017. Her direct and mobile numbers are obscured.

Kimage001.jpg

Sent from my iPhone

On 6 Feb 2020, at 21:53,

> wrote:

Ms. Greenfield,

Thank you again for speaking with us earlier today regarding our interest in talking with your client in connection with our investigation into the conduct of Jeffrey Epstein.

As requested, we wanted to briefly memorialize our current views and understandings of your client, and also to reiterate our interest in approaching any discussion with great care and sensitivity, particularly to avoid adding to her trauma or causing re-victimization.

As we mentioned on the phone, your client is not a target of our investigation—it sounds like the analogue in the U.K. may be the "suspect" category—and we currently do not have reason to believe that she has committed any U.S. federal crime. As we discussed, our knowledge of your client specifically is somewhat limited, having never spoken to her—and therefore knowing about her only through other witnesses and records—but it certainly has been our experience that the overwhelming majority of young women and girls who were in the orbit of Jeffrey Epstein during the relevant periods were subject to his abuse. It does not surprise us, nor do we have any trouble believing, that your client was similarly a victim. I hope that is helpful in understanding the capacity in which we hope to speak with her.

Separately, and as we also discussed, any discussion with our team would be entirely voluntary—and that extends not just to whether she would be willing to meet with us at all, but also including her ability to decline to discuss particular topics or even particular questions, and to talk with her counsel at any time, to take any breaks that would be beneficial while we're meeting, etc.

In terms of topic areas, we would be hoping to learn about the general narrative of her interactions with Epstein and his other associates and employees, including Ghislaine Maxwell, whom we understand she may have worked directly for. That would broadly include how she came to be in contact with them, the nature and scope of her employment, any instructions she was given relating to other women or girls, and just generally her experiences and observations in interacting with them. We ordinarily would also be interested in understanding the general nature of the abuse she was subjected to, but I want to emphasize that we would not need to discuss with her the specifics if she weren't comfortable with that, and in particular we often don't even broach that subject in a first meeting.

Please let us know if you have any additional questions, and in particular whether any other information from us would be useful, and we look forward to speaking with you again soon.

Regards,



EFTA00014390

Assistant U.S. Attorney
Southern District of New York

## Fieldfisher, Riverbank House, 2 Swan Lane, London EC4R 3TT.

## www.fieldfisher.com

We do not intend to change our bank details. II you receive any communication that any of our bank details have changed, telephone us and speak to your contact at our office before transferring any funds. We do not accept responsibility for monies paid into a wrong bank account in any circumstances. This email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you receive this message in error, please contact the sender immediately, destroy the email and any attachments and do not use, copy, store or disclose this email and any attachments for any purpose. Fieldfisher does not accept service of documents by electronic means without express prior agreement.

For details about what personal information we collect and why, please see ow Privacy Notice on our website at www.fieldfisher.com.

Fieldfisher is the trading name ofFieldfisher LLP, a limited liability pannership registered in England and Wales (registered number OC3I8472) and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors' Regulation Authority. A list of its members and their professional qualifications is mailable at its registered office, Riverbank House. 2 Swan Lane. London EOM 311'. We use the tam partner to refer to a member of Fieldfisher LLP or an employee or consultant with equivalent standing or qualifications.

EFTA00014391