What do the unsealed 2006 Palm Beach grand jury transcripts reveal about the questions prosecutors asked alleged Epstein victims?
Executive summary
The unsealed 2006 Palm Beach grand jury transcripts show prosecutors repeatedly questioned the two underage women about whether they understood they had engaged in prostitution and could be criminally liable, and they probed the victims’ backgrounds and behavior in ways critics say cast the girls as culpable rather than as victims [1] [2] [3]. Supporters of the prosecutors counter that some lines of questioning were normal credibility testing for a possible trial, but the transcripts and commentary from legal observers make clear the tenor of the questioning provoked claims that the victims were humiliated and reframed as perpetrators [4] [5].
1. The core line of questioning: “Did you commit a crime?”
Multiple published accounts of the released transcripts document prosecutors asking the girls to acknowledge that they had, in effect, engaged in prostitution and therefore could be charged — including the near-verbatim question, “Do you know you committed a crime?” — language that startled victims’ advocates and later reporters [1] [3] [6]. News outlets emphasized that the assistant state attorney’s framing put the legal burden on the children in front of grand jurors rather than squarely on the alleged adult abuser [2] [7].
2. Lines that suggested consent and probed reputation and behavior
The transcripts show prosecutors asking about whether the girls had consented to sexual acts and about the girls’ reputations, online pages and prior conduct — including references to shoplifting, arrests, drinking, drug use and a MySpace page — which critics say had the effect of undermining credibility rather than focusing on the alleged crimes [2] [4]. Reporting recounts that the prosecutor’s phrasing and follow-up questions at times implied the teens had willingly exchanged sex for money, a characterization that legal commentators said skirted the reality that minors cannot legally consent to adults [4] [7].
3. Graphic victim testimony and financial details also appear in the transcripts
The documents include graphic first‑person accusations and factual details: one witness told how Epstein allegedly assaulted her during visits to his mansion, saying she screamed “no” when intercourse occurred and that Epstein later apologized and gave her $1,000, and another witness described receiving repeated payments and gifts, including a rented car, and visiting the house more than 100 times for which she received roughly $200 each time, according to reporting summarizing the transcripts [1] [8]. The transcripts also record investigators’ testimony about payments to underage girls and other corroborating facts that prosecutors had available by 2006 [8].
4. Context and competing interpretations of why prosecutors asked these questions
Those defending the prosecutors argue some questioning was standard “road‑testing” of witnesses for trial and meant to assess credibility, a tactical move prosecutors sometimes take before grand juries; others — including victim advocates and some attorneys for the girls — say the tone and content reveal an office predisposed to minimize Epstein’s culpability and to cast the victims as responsible [4] [5] [7]. Local leaders and lawyers have publicly disputed whether then‑State Attorney Barry Krischer’s office mishandled the case, with reporting noting Krischer had resisted some police recommendations to pursue more serious felony charges in 2006 [2] [7].
5. Fallout and why the release matters
The transcripts were made public after litigation by The Palm Beach Post and representation by Greenberg Traurig, which argued disclosure was necessary for justice and transparency; their release has fueled renewed criticism that the grand jury proceedings treated victims as suspects and helped create the path to the later plea deal that many say let Epstein escape wider accountability for years [5]. Observers point to the brevity of the July 19, 2006 proceeding — under four hours, during which only two victims and a handful of officials testified — as part of the controversy over how fully the case was pursued [1].
6. Limits of available reporting and open questions
The public reporting and the released pages show what questions were asked, but they do not resolve why specific prosecutorial choices were made behind closed doors; some defenders say trial preparation explains the approach, while critics see institutional failure or influence by Epstein’s power — both interpretations are represented in the sources and neither can be fully adjudicated from the documents alone [4] [5]. The transcripts provide direct evidence of the lines of questioning; assessing motives and alternate internal deliberations requires additional records or testimony not contained in the released files [5].