The release of thousands of pages of documents related to the abuse of late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) has left some who were eagerly awaiting the files disappointed.
By law, the Justice Department had to make all materials public by the end of Friday. But only a few have been published, many of them with numerous editorials.
Lawmakers who pushed for these documents to see the light of day have described the Justice Department’s efforts as disingenuous, and some legal experts say the redactions may only fuel ongoing conspiracy theories.
“We just want all the evidence of these crimes to be available,” Epstein survivor Liz Stein told the BBC.
Stein told Radio 4’s Today program that he thought the justice department was “really blatantly going against the Epstein Files Transparency Act,” the law that requires all documents to be disclosed.
Survivors are really concerned about the possibility of a “slow release of incomplete information without any context,” he said.
Marina Lacerda, who was 14 when Epstein abused her, also told the BBC that some of the survivors were “still nervous and skeptical about how they are going to make the rest of the files public.”
“We are very concerned that it is still worded in the same way as today.
“We are a little disappointed that now they continue to insist and distract us with other things.”
US Department of JusticeAmong the most recent information released is a photo of Epstein’s now-imprisoned confidant Ghislaine Maxwell outside Downing Street, the office and residence of the U.K. prime minister, a document alleging that Epstein introduced a 14-year-old girl to U.S. President Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago, and multiple images of former President Bill Clinton.
Other published photographs show the interiors of Epstein’s homes, his trips abroad, as well as celebrities including Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, Mick Jagger, Michael Jackson, Diana Ross and Peter Mandelson, a former UK Labor Party politician and ambassador to the United States.
Being named or photographed in the archives is not an indication of misconduct. Many of those identified in the files or in previous communications related to Epstein have denied any wrongdoing.
Trump has consistently denied wrongdoing in relation to Epstein, and Epstein’s victims have not accused him of any crime. Clinton has never been accused of any crime by survivors of Epstein’s abuse and has denied knowledge of his sexual crimes.
At least 15 of the released files were no longer available on the Justice Department’s website on Saturday.
One of the missing files showed a large number of framed photographs on a desk, according to CBS, the BBC’s US media partner. The photos showed Bill Clinton and another era of the Pope. In an open drawer was a photograph of Trump, Epstein and Maxwell.
Other missing files included photographs of a room with what appeared to be a massage table and photographs and paintings of nudes.
It was unclear why the files were no longer available.
In a post on
The BBC has asked the Department of Justice for comment.
Deputy US Attorney General Todd Blanche said on Friday – the day the materials were released – that the department had identified more than 1,200 Epstein victims or their relatives, and withheld material that could identify them.
But many of the documents are also heavily redacted.
The Justice Department said it would comply with Congress’s request to release documents, with some stipulations.
He redacted personally identifiable information about Epstein’s victims, materials depicting child sexual abuse, materials depicting physical abuse, any records that would “jeopardize an active federal investigation” or any classified documents that must remain secret to protect “national defense or foreign policy.”
The Justice Department said it was “not redacting the names of any politicians” and added a quote they attributed to Blanche, saying: “The only redactions applied to the documents are those required by law, period.”
“In accordance with the statute and applicable laws, we are not redacting the names of individuals or politicians unless they are victims.”
John Day, a criminal defense lawyer, told the BBC he was surprised by the amount of redacted information.
“This is only going to fuel the fire if you’re a conspiracy theorist,” he said. “I don’t think anyone anticipated there would be so many redactions. It certainly raises questions about how closely the Justice Department is following the law.”
Day also noted that the Justice Department must provide Congress with a record of what was being drafted within 15 days of the files being released.
“Until you know what’s being redacted, you won’t know what’s being hidden,” he said.
In a letter to the judges overseeing the Epstein and Maxwell cases, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Jay Clayton said, “Victims’ privacy interests argue for redacting women’s faces in photographs with Epstein, even when not all of the women are known to be victims because it is not feasible for the department to identify every person in a photo.”
Clayton added that “this approach to the photographs could be viewed by some as excessive redaction,” but that “the department believes that, in the compressed time frame, it should err on the side of redaction to protect victims.”
ReutersBaroness Helena Kennedy, a human rights lawyer and Labor peer in the UK House of Lords, said she was told the redactions in the documents were there to protect victims.
“Authorities are always concerned” about “exposing people to further vilification by the public,” he told the BBC’s Today programme.
Many Epstein survivors seem “very interested” in having the material exposed, he said, but added that “maybe they wouldn’t be so interested if they knew exactly what was there.”
Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna, who led the effort with Republican Congressman Thomas Massie to release the files, said the disclosure was “incomplete” and added that he is exploring options such as impeachment, contempt or referral to trial.
“Our law requires them to explain the wordings,” Khanna said. “There is no single explanation.”
Massie supported Khanna’s statement and posted on social media that Attorney General Pam Bondi and other justice department officials could be prosecuted by future justice departments for failing to comply with document requirements.
He said the document’s release “manifestly violates both the spirit and the letter of the law” of the Epstein Archives Transparency Act.
Following the publication, the White House called the Trump Administration the most “transparent in history,” adding that it “has done more for victims than Democrats ever have.”
Blanche was asked in an interview with ABC News whether all the documents mentioning Trump in the so-called Epstein files will be released in the coming weeks.
“Assuming it’s consistent with the law, yes,” Blanche said. “So there’s no effort to hide anything because there’s Donald J. Trump’s name or anyone else’s name, Bill Clinton’s name, Reid Hoffman’s name.
“There’s no effort to hold back or not hold back because of that.
“We are not redacting the names of famous men and women associated with Epstein.”
Additional reporting by Jaroslav Lukiv
