The DOJ cannot be allowed to get away with these obscene Epstein redactions

We appear to be witnessing one of the most disturbing cover-ups in history with the Epstein files, from the reluctance to release the files to the lack of arrests to the weird use of language to minimise child rape to the absurd attempt to pin this on Russia. One of the most egregious examples of this apparent cover-up is the redactions.

We are all aware of the farcical cases of whole pages being redacted and documents being published and unpublished. Reps. Ro Khanna, Thomas Massie, and Jamie Raskin have called out the over-redaction, missed deadlines, and incomplete releases. Over 50% of pages in the files appear to be non-responsive, and in one report, 81 of 82 pages were blacked out.

Today, I want to focus on the redactions of names where there is an indication of crimes or wrongdoing. The cases where people could be seen as unlawfully protected from reputational harm, where redactions seem inconsistent with the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

Remember, the Epstein Files Transparency Act was clear the victims’ identities should be protected. The Act allows for redactions for other reasons, including national security and the protection of ongoing investigations, as well as attorney-client privilege and other legal privileges, and obviously, child sexual abuse and death images. It forbids redactions for political sensitivity or to protect reputations.

There could be justifications for the redactions I’m about to highlight, but as you are about to see, that is questionable. As far as I can tell, we haven’t had a convincing explanation for any of these redactions. It seems likely, given the failures of the DOJ to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act that many redactions are unnecessary, either through sloppiness or a cover-up.

To me, it appears to be both, while the DOJ argues they are down to human errors, technical issues, and victim safeguards. The victim safeguards argument seems unconvincing when you consider victims have been wrongly named and some are suing for privacy breaches.

The following redaction seems obscene. I don’t care if you have no other evidence against this person, the fact they sent such an email to Epstein means the world deserves to know who they are. The only exception would be if there is an ongoing investigation into this person. Since we have been told no further arrests are likely to be made, this explanation seems unlikely.

We know that some of Epstein’s victims were very young so there is no ambiguity about what is meant by “Your littlest girl was a little naughty”. We are looking at a clear admission of paedophilia.

Let’s take a look at the next one. Is this some weird in-joke? Or is it the coded language of paedophile cannibals?! All I know is there appears to be no good reason to hide the recipient. Note the email took place one year after Epstein’s conviction so they know they are talking to a convicted paedophile.

It’s worth noting there are many messages from Epstein to others in which he appears to use coded language, possibly regarding paedophilia or even cannibalism. This includes many references to food items, such as pizza where it appears he is not talking about pizza. Paedophiles often use food references as code, although I’m unaware of any cannibal code.

At minimum, the above message shows Epstein was friends with someone who had a warped sense of humour. It’s surely in the public interest to let us know who they are, especially considering they could be named in other files. This could be stopping us from joining the dots.

The baby stuff only gets more disturbing. This email suggests Epstein paid a woman to traffic babies for what purposes, I don’t want to know, but it makes the claims of ritual sacrifice and cannibalism seem more plausible.

From what I can tell, the redactions are not suspicious as this looks like it was forwarded to authorities from a third party, one year after Epstein’s death. However, it casts light on how potentially sinister the previous baby email was. The Epstein files contain multiple disturbing suggestions about babies and small children.

As far as I understand, Zorro Ranch has never been checked for bodies, despite reports of bodies being buried there, e.g., one email claims two foreign women were strangled and buried nearby.

If the content of the files and online speculation is to be believed, more crimes might have taken place at Zorro Ranch than Epstein island (although there are more documented cases at the latter).

There are no names redacted in the next email, but why was a photo, presumably of Netanyahu, redacted? If it showed Netanyahu in a compromising position (speculative), you can blur out the girl, no need to redact the entire photo! If the nature of the photo meant this was not possible, an explanation would be useful, given the high profile nature of those involved.

The people in the chain are Jacob Frenkel, former Governor of the Bank of Israel and later Chairman of JPMorgan Chase International, and Jes Staley who was then a senior JPMorgan executive, and later CEO of Barclays until his 2021 resignation amid Epstein ties.

The next email discusses a “photo shoot” opportunity for someone’s niece. It mentions her “mom’s contact info” suggesting she is likely to be young. Epstein mentions a conversation with Bill Gates about getting “rid of poor people as a whole”. The name at the top is redacted — it is the person who forwarded the chain of emails to Epstein. Other names are not redacted. The conversation involves Epstein and Hollywood producer Barry Josephson.

Here is an interesting one. Remember the “I loved the torture video” email. Well, a social media user is suggesting the email signature is a possible match for Peter Mandelson’s. This is far from conclusive and could be pareidolia. Whoever the recipient is, concealing their identity is only fuelling speculation and could lead to false accusations. It therefore makes sense to clarify.

Here is one that has been altered. The email is real, but the unaltered version shows the girl was 19 years old, not nine. Many prominent social media users were fooled by this hoax. Regardless, the person’s name should not have been redacted unless they are being investigated. We are talking about someone potentially raping a victim of sex trafficking. Imagine, for example, it was Prince Andrew or Donald Trump or some other high profile figure. It would be in the public interest to let us know.

This document shows Epstein’s inner-circle, but more than half of the names and faces are blacked out. Why? We were told only victims’ identities would be protected (with limited scope for exceptions). The very least a close associate of Epstein deserves is public embarrassment, unless there is genuine reason to believe they were a victim or unknowing participant.

We know one of the unnamed people was Maxwell’s assistant and four were employees of Epstein (one was a girlfriend/employee of Epstein).

You might argue there was not enough evidence to prosecute these individuals, but this does not appears to be the case. We know that prosecutors felt there was enough evidence to prosecute more than just Epstein and Maxwell.

A draft indictment shows that three of Epstein’s employees arranged appointments between Epstein and his victims between 2001 to 2005. These people allegedly tried to “persuade, induce, and entice individuals who had not attained the age of 18 years to engage in prostitution.” They would call the girls and arrange for them to come to Palm Beach, Florida, where Epstein would pay them for sex. Given the girls were minors, this was rape and paedophilia.

The assistants were tasked with leading the girls to the master bedroom where Epstein awaited them, so it would be hard to claim they did not know what was taking place. The indictment suggests they would ask the girls to recruit their friends, and at least one of them raped the girls themselves. Nineteen girls were involved in this particular case and some were as young as 14. Epstein threatened one of the girls that if she spoke out, “bad things would happen to her.”

Explanations for the redactions and lack of prosecutions have been vague to say the least. We were told there was an immunity deal for the co-conspirators on the understanding Epstein upheld his end of the deal. Part of the justification was a concern about lack of evidence and whether witnesses would fall apart under cross examination. The witnesses were unhappy with this explanation and tried to strike down the non-prosecution agreement.

A 2020 Justice Department Office of Professional Responsibility accused the US Attorney who made the decision of “poor judgement” and called the non-prosecution agreement a “flawed mechanism”.

In the absence of a convincing explanation, my best guess is some of these people were CIA/Mossad agents who are being protected. A 2019 Daily Beast article claims Anthony Acosta said in his vetting to be Trump’s Labor Secretary, he backed off because Epstein “belonged to intelligence”.

This explanation makes sense, considering Epstein was given an incredibly lenient sentence for his paedophilia and rape. This included being allowed out to work for 12-18 hours a day and serving the last year of his sentence under house arrest. His accomplices were allowed to get on with their lives as though nothing happened.

Not only are we not seeing prosecutions, but we are not allowed to know the names of many of Epstein’s closest associates. People who stayed friends with him long after his convictions for sex offences against a minor. People who discussed disturbing things that sometimes hinted at serious crimes. We must demand justice.

---

Thank you for reading. All of my content will always be freely available, but if you wish to support my work, you can do so at Ko-fi or Patreon. Likes, shares and comments also help massively.