Comment by esseph
11 hours ago
> And? What does that have to do with the absence of witnesses of a sex trafficking ring involving anyone else?
Did you just ask, in a post about evidence being taken and keep from investigators, why there isn't evidence?
> This isn’t even news, it was a big deal back in the day and is covered extensively in the report about the DoJ’s conduct.
Then why is it news FROM TODAY/YESTERDAY?
---
In a March 19 deposition with the House Oversight Committee, Darren Indyke, Epstein's longtime personal attorney, said he learned after Epstein's 2008 conviction that the hard drives were in the possession of Riley Kiraly, a private investigations firm.
"The Committee requests that you make yourself available for a transcribed interview to provide insight into the contents, removal, storage, and location of materials removed from Mr. Epstein's Palm Beach home," the letter to Riley says.
source: https://www.businessinsider.com/jeffrey-epstein-safe-diamond...
That computer and surveillance equipment was removed from Epstein's home and withheld from law enforcement throughout his Florida case has been public since 2020. That Riley Kiraly possessed the equipment was known to the lead prosecutor as well. [46;176]
You can CTRL-F "computer" and get 92 matches indicating their importance:
https://context-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/do....
It seems that the only "news" is the bit that you mentioned about Indyke/Riley. Indyke apparently was not involved in the Florida case. At least he isn't mentioned in the linked DOJ report among Epstein's counsel.
I don't know what it would take for it to be deemed necessary to seize the equipment that the prosecution failed to get almost 20 years ago.