Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-24669House OversightFBI Report

Attorney for Jeffrey Epstein warns DOJ of ABC airing unverified Jane Doe 3 allegations

The passage reveals that Epstein's counsel is actively contacting the Office of Legal Counsel to pre‑empt a network interview, citing a prior FBI interview where the accuser refused cooperation. It su Epstein's attorney sent a formal notice to the Office of Legal Counsel about an upcoming ABC intervi The letter cites a 2007 FBI interview where Jane Doe 3 refused to cooperate with the investigation

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #028928
Pages
1
Persons
1
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage reveals that Epstein's counsel is actively contacting the Office of Legal Counsel to pre‑empt a network interview, citing a prior FBI interview where the accuser refused cooperation. It su Epstein's attorney sent a formal notice to the Office of Legal Counsel about an upcoming ABC intervi The letter cites a 2007 FBI interview where Jane Doe 3 refused to cooperate with the investigation

Tags

jeffrey-epsteinmedia-influencemedia-suppressionabc-newslegal-strategyoffice-of-legal-counselfbicourt-filingslegal-exposurehouse-oversightlaw-enforcement-interaction

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
MARTIN G. WEINBERG, P.C. ATTORNEY AT LAW 20 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 1000 EMAIL ADDRESSES: BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02116 a NIGHT EMERGENCY: April 24, 2015 Via Email and U.S. Mail John Zucker Assistant Legal Counsel Office of Legal Counsel 77 W 66TH St, Room 1628 New York, NY 10023 Re: Good Morning America and Night Line interview with Jane Doe 3 Dear Mr. Zucker: I represent Jeffrey Epstein. I have been informed by Producer James Hill that ABC intends to air an interview, conducted by a Good Morning America co-host, of a woman known in court papers as Jane Doe 3.’ I write to put you on notice that ABC’s publication of Jane Doe 3’s accusations is grossly negligent or worse. The accusations, many of which relate to my client, relate to alleged conduct that occurred approximately 15 years ago. The current accusations are simply reformatted and embellished echoes of previous allegations, which were first made by Jane Doe 3 to tabloid publications in the United Kingdom in 2011 and which have no independent news value. These allegations were then and remain now uncorroborated and have been refuted or undermined by other, credible evidence. Indeed, a federal judge recently refused to consider these allegations in pending litigation, finding them “immaterial and impertinent”, while striking the allegations and denying Jane Doe 3s Motion to Join, See Jane Doe 1 and 2 v. United States, 08-CV-80736-KAM (S.D. Fla.), Dkt 324 at 5. In addition, in that very same litigation, Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent Timothy R. Slater filed a declaration stating that when Jane Doe 3 was interviewed by the FBI in 2007 she refused to cooperate with the investigation of Mr. Epstein declaring she wanted nothing to do with the matter. For ABC to air these untested allegations on national television as “news” when Jane Doe 3 intentionally declined eight years ago to subject these same allegations to verification by the FBI would be grossly irresponsible and severely damaging to Mr. Epstein and others. "Mr. Hill informed me that she was waiving whatever rights to anonymity she might assert but I will, because of certain legal obligations, refer to her as Jane Doe 3.

Technical Artifacts (1)

View in Artifacts Browser

Email addresses, URLs, phone numbers, and other technical indicators extracted from this document.

Wire Refreformatted

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.