by Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book Substack
SDNY COURTHOUSE, March 26 – Jane Doe 200 sued Jeffrey Epstein's executors Indyke and Kahn, alleging their connection to an incident in which "Epstein came up behind Doe, grabbed her and pulled her pantyhose down before he physically forced her face down on the massage table and violently," etc. On March 26, 2025 a proceeding was held before U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Edgardo Ramos. Inner City Press, which wrote the book on Ghislaine Maxwell, Maximum Maxwell, covered it. From the thread:
Defense lawyer: Jane Doe 200, who claims Mr. Epstein raped her, also says she met Mr. Indyke - but he'd know nothing about it. Her lawyer suggests this was a RICO enterprise. That is false. Indyke did not deal with him daily. My client Mr. Kahn was the bookkeeper
Defense: If Mr. Kahn helps some of these women with tax returns, it was not to help keep them in the country as sex slaves. And it had nothing to do with Jane Doe 200. We have settled 199 claims but not this one, which is unlike the others.
Judge: Their letter does say that Jane Doe 200 had personal contact with Mr. Indyke. Defense: It was never raised until responding to these motions. I am skeptical. Jane Doe 200's lawyer: Propensity evidence is admissible
Jane Doe 200's lawyer: These two men have personal knowledge of Mr. Epstein's sexual assault and assisted in concealing them- Judge: You are making factual allegations that I don't know if they have basis in the record. I've read he assaulted women
Indkye's lawyer: Plaintiff's lawyer is not new to this Jeffrey Epstein saga. Our clients were sued in another case, yes, that they should have known - it was not based on personal knowledge of assaults. He does not need this for Rule 415
Defense: Jeffrey Epstein is dead. The only evidence will come from Jane Doe 200, saying that he raped her. We will oppose her, saying that she continued to visit him. There is no need for this discovery about a 1-time incident. It would take us months to respond.
Plaintiff's lawyer: They are sitting on evidence of 191 other sexual assaults- Judge: If a Mets shortstop shot a Yankees shortstop in front of 50,000 fans, you would not be expected to call 50,000 witnesses. Why not a sample? Plaintiff's lawyer: Subtract the 56
Plaintiff's lawyer: We believe that when Jeffrey Epstein was under investigation he modified documents to reward people who helped conceal his crimes - we believe including Mr. Indyke and Mr. Kahn. We need to understand their financial interest in this case Judge: What's the basis of your theory?
Plaintiff's lawyer: Depositions we took in Epstein cases against JP Morgan Chase and against Deutsche Bank. Kahn's lawyer: There is a sealed deposition, under a protective order - if it has leaked, it violates an SDNY order
Judge: I'll let defendants move to quash, or for a protective order Afterward, the defendants asked to seal some of the transcript. Watch this site.
The case is Jane Doe 200 v. Indyke, et al., 1:24-cv-4775 (Ramos)
***
Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.
Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
