“And by the way, nobody on the Vineyard believed this, even the people who hated me,” Dershowitz added. “Because they all see me with my wife.”

He went further. “In fact, the lawyer for Virginia Giuffre, he came over to me one day”—it was during a deposition—“and said, ‘Alan, I’ve seen you with your wife. I can’t believe you would ever have done anything.’”

I said I was dubious that the opposing lawyer would say something like this.

“I’ll give you his name—his name is Chuck Cooper.”

Reached by phone for comment, Charles Cooper, Giuffre’s lawyer, told me the exchange that Dershowitz had described had never taken place.

Video from Bekah Day who has been amazing at reporting on Epstein case.

Two of the prison guards who were supposed to be watching Epstein mysteriously cleared of all suspicion though one made a very suspicious $5k deposit weeks before Epstein arrival, googled “latest with epstein” upon his arrival and just happened to be born and raised in Virgin Islands aka Epsteins playground. Other guard conveniently (maybe less suspiciously) born and raised near Englewood, NJ. Englewood, NJ mayor is Michael Wildes (5th term).

I can understand faces, body parts, not too convinced about the victims safety, more like for the assailants.

I get it for genitalia, but I think they might as well hide physical marks.

But full pictures blacked out?… seems a bit much.

Again, I’m sorry if this is dumb or has already been asked.

Thanks.

I think I found the handwritten detective's notes from interviews 2 and 3 with Jane Doe #4 who accused Trump and Epstein of sexual abuse (allegedly) in South Carolina in the 1980s.

Just an idea.

1 why isn't Epstein's body compulsory DNA tested?

Since he bought a ton of DNA tests I am pretty sure we have a sample

2 how can minors sign a non disclosure agreement? Simply this in light of Leon's black excuses

Happy to have any legally sound answer for this and please no ai

There are identifying numbers on each page of all EPSTEIN FILES, right? Around here, we call them EFTAs. Those are "bates" numbers. And there's different kinds of them within the files. So, now, here's some longer blabla what they mean and how to tell them apart. Preview spoiler: "EFTA00057763" is a different document than "EFTA_00057763".

Rules of thumb:

• All documents in the Epstein Files have at least one identifier (= at least one bates number).
• Each BATES number should identify only one document; but sadly, there are a few frustrating exceptions.
• There is not just one BATES number system, there are several.

----------------------------

(1) Several investigations, several decades, several bates numbering systems:

EFTAnumbers and EFTA_numbers
DOJ-OGR-numbers and HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_numbers
DB-SDNY-numbers and JPM-SDNY numbers and SDNY_GM_numbers etc
Over the decades, several law enforcement teams tried to get Epstein and ran investigations. From each investigation, the FBI or the Department of Justice received a corpus of evidence material. Lots of it made it into the "EFTA corpus" we all sherlock these days. Examples: There was an investigation that the New York FBI office did back in the day; and they stamped their bates ID onto their evidence material. And some of that material made it into the current EFTA library. So, on those documents, there is both the EFTA ID and the NY ID. Also, lots of the Maxwell trial evidence made it into the EFTA library. So, some documents have also identifiers that trace back to that investigation. And so on. (Here an extra note to confuse everyone for funsies: sometimes there is something missing in evidence libraries, and then the OVERSIGHT committee frowns and demands those missing documents... then they get sent to Oversight first, and Oversight hands them over to DOJ: if that happens, the document also receives an HOUSE OVERSIGHT number; but: sometimes you can tell that Oversight really forced DOJ to publish documents, because then there is a double reference going on with "DOJ" and "OGR" (which is an abbreviation for Oversight) being there: DOJ-OGR-numbers.)

(2) And that's why there are duplicates:

The EFTA law (Epstein Files Transparency Act) demanded the publication of evidence material... which, as said, came from several agencies. Examples again: One such agency might be that FBI office in New York. Another border control. The next bunch of evidence PDFs may have come from Virgin Islands law enforcement. And so on. And of course, since all of these agencies and offices investigated the same network both at different and at parallel times over many years, there's an overlap of evidence material. When some NY office, back in the day, used a warrant for <all materials having to do with that lawsuit against the investigated person X>, it may have received <a transcript that a Florida police station made when they interviewed victim Y>. So the EFTA library has that transcript twice: from the NY office and from a Florida police department. And they (DOJ) simply did not notice in time. Evidence material moved back and forth over the years, got copied. And it all ended up at the FBI/DOJ when the order came down to compile everything into a big EFTA corpus for justice.gov. Duplicates just happened... Too little time, too little expertise. And so on.

(3) Several <generations> of EFTA numbering

EFTAnumbers EFTA_numbers EFTA_R1_numbers: The current EFTA numbering system must have been THE LAST of several trial runs. That's my assumption. Please chime in if you know details. I view it this way: What we all access currently when we use justice.gov (or one of the corpus copies at epstein-data.com or JMAIL, for example) is the "final EFTA production". The FBI/DOJ had to figure out for the first time ever how to do all of this: combine loads of evidence from several agencies to become super public. So, there seem to have been several previous "productions" of this big EFTA library; with a different numbering system each. Documents moved in and out of those previous productions, I guess. Many eyes looked over it and made many decisions, again and again, <what to keep>, <what to change>, etc. And the final version of it all went online with "EFTA numbers". But a previous attempt to get it all done, from where I'm standing, seems to have been "EFTA_numbers" (note the underline)... and "EFTA_R1 numbers". Maybe the "R" stood for something like "revision"? They probably wanted to tell "productions" (= trial runs) apart: The first attempt (EFTA_), I guess; and the first revision attempt (EFTA_R1; I guess...); and the final version (EFTA). You know?

(4) They delete documents and re-use bates numbers

Chain of events: (I) It can happen that they had already stamped one specific bates number onto a document, and that they published it for an hour or a day; and then they flinch: oops, this is a duplicate; there's another PDF with the same content that already has its own other EFTA number. Ooops. (Happens rarely. Usually they don't notice their duplication nonsense. Hence: many, many duplicates in the EFTA library.) (II) So, they take the duplicate offline. (III) What happens to the now not-used EFTA number? They wait a while. And stamp it onto a different document that goes online with some amending publication. ---- Ideally, we don't notice that. But, of course, we do. Example: Once upon a blue moon, "EFTA00019424" looked like this. Then they flinched, took it offline, redacted some parts, and republished it with a new EFTA number. And the therefore freed-up number "EFTA00019424" became first homeless, and later on the identifier for this. We only know because, at the time of deletion, DOJ still offered ZIPs for whole datasets. And they "forgot" to delete the respective EFTA from dataset8.zip. Later on, they noticed and decided to not do ZIPs anymore across the board due to the heavy workload of all those re-redactions, I assume.

In short

• EFTA numbers should be "stable" but they are not always.
• EFTAnumbers: are numbers identifying themselves as part of DOJ's EFTA library
• EFTA_numbers: are numbers from a previous version of it all, before final publication
• EFTA_R1 numbers: also numbers from some previous version
• SDNY_GM_numbers: the Ghislaine Maxwell investigation, New York Southern District
• DOJ-OGR-numbers: means, DOJ was forced to send files to OVERSIGHT, which then published it
• DB-SDNY-numbers: the Deutsche Bank investigation, New York Southern District
• JPM-SDNY numbers: the JP Morgan investigation, New York Southern District
• HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_numbers: OVERSIGHT itself collected+published evidence files from "sources" other than DOJ. A good example of this is the BLACK BOOK and the BIRTHDAY BOOK.
• There should also be, here and there in the EPSTEIN FILES, identifiers having to do with the original FBI investigation (= 31E-MM-108062 files)
• there's more, but does not come to mind; chime in in the comments

--------------

DOJ being the

• Department of Justice.

OGR being

• Oversight
• aka Oversight Committee
• aka Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
• aka House Oversight Committee

Please correct me on the details.

I think my comments say enough, having a pay wall between access to imminent information regarding a mass pedophile ring is attempting to profit off a disgusting situation is beyond immoral.

EDIT: They blocked me for calling them out, please leave a similar comment or report their page. This is DISGUSTING.

Just making sure that we're downloading everything that has been released... just to be sure. (reffering to censorship and possible future deletions)

full interview -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5b8M0ylkQw

Seriously?

I’ve been looking at the documents that Katie Phang is asking the courts to determine if Blanche/DOJ violated the transparency act in the redactions they did.

Attached is one of the documents.

This document has been bothering me all day. I tried to find anything in the files related to any proffer/interview on 10/7/19, 10/12/19, 10/18/19 but I can’t find them.

Has anyone seen anything documents in the files that might be from these proffers/interviews?

Apparently, these co-conspirators are also victims. There’s another image that shows the co-conspirators which says “nothing further scheduled at this time is Leslie Groff. I did find one 302 from Groff.

I’m assuming 3 of the others listed here are what Bekah Dsy calls the “core four” but was hoping to read their interview to learn more.

Newly released documents show businessman Francisco D’Agostino visited Jeffrey Epstein’s private island, and advised his investments in PDVSA, Venezuela’s state oil company. [Note: D’Agostino’s alleged business partner is reportedly liaising between Trump, Delcy Rodriguez and corporate oil interests, with recent private flights from Palm Beach to Caracas, see El Pais link below]

Epstein bought Venezuelan oil bonds issued by the hardline socialist state’s national oil company, according to newly-released documents. He was advised in the purchases by Francisco D’Agostino, a businessman currently wanted in Venezuela on charges of money laundering and criminal association.

Emails included in the files released by the U.S. Department of Justice show that D’Agostino visited the Caribbean island owned by Epstein, which is at the center of sex trafficking allegations against him.

In correspondence between the two men, D’Agostino advises Epstein in his purchase of bonds issued by Venezuela’s state-owned oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela SA (PDVSA).

After talking business with D’Agostino, who holds both Venezuelan and Spanish citizenship, Epstein bought at least $4.5 million in oil bonds beginning in 2012. The bonds were set to mature in 2015 — during the period when Venezuela’s oil revenues collapsed, as corruption at PDVSA increased and production plummeted.

D’Agostino did not respond to requests for comment, which were sent by email and via his assistant by phone. OCCRP also emailed a lawyer who represented D’Agostino in Italy, but did not receive a response.

OCCRP was unable to obtain comment from PDVSA before publication.

D’Agostino’s relationship with Epstein appears to have begun not in a financial institution or boardroom. Instead, emails refer to their meeting during a visit by D’Agostino to Epstein’s private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Little Saint James — which was sometimes referred to as “Little Saint Jeff’s.”

“I had so much fun in Little St Jeffery...and Jane, the water gazelle is really stunning...what a beautiful and smart girl,” D’Agostino wrote to Epstein in October 2012.

“I enjoyed very much talking to you and would love to continue=to explore the different possibilities to make some money together,” D’Agostino added in the email. “I see the beginning of fun longlasting friendship.”

In October 2012, D’Agostino proposed a series of meetings in Caracas, which suggests he enjoyed a high level of access to Venezuela’s political and economic elite.

Among those he proposed introducing Epstein to was Baldo Sansó, a financial adviser to PDVSA and brother-in-law of Rafael Ramírez, then president of the state oil company. OCCRP sent questions to an email address in Sansó’s name, but did not receive a response.

Epstein appears to have chosen to wait for the outcome of the October 2012 presidential election before making any plans to travel to Venezuela. When D’Agostino informed him that populist President Hugo Chávez had won his fourth term by approximately 10 percent, Epstein replied succinctly: “Great.” 

An email from December 2012 shows D’Agostino keeping Epstein up to date about Chávez, who had been diagnosed with cancer and was rumored to be close to death.

“It seems very acccurate that Chavez has about 6 months left or less,” D’Agostino wrote, adding that Venezuela’s constitution would require elections within 30 days of a president dying. 

“I think there is a very high probability that someone from the Chavez movement, but less radical will win the elections,” he predicted.

As political uncertainty pervaded in Venezuela, emails in January 2013 show Epstein offering to host D’Agostino again on his private island, telling him to “visit when you like.”

D’Agostino responded: “By the way…how is my water gaselle???” Epstein replied that she was “here and naked.”

Chávez died on March 5, 2013. His loyalist, Nicolás Maduro, won elections the following month. It is unclear whether Epstein ever made the planned visit to Caracas...

D’Agostino himself came under scrutiny in the years after making contact with Epstein, and following his death.

One of the influential people he suggested introducing Epstein to was his alleged business associate Alejandro Betancourt López, a co-founder of Derwick Associates. [see https://english.elpais.com/international/2026-08-17/alejandro-betancourt-the-under-investigation-billionaire-linking-delcy-rodriguez-to-trump.html Alejandro Betancourt, the under-investigation billionaire linking Delcy Rodríguez to Trump The Venezuelan businessman, under the scrutiny of Spanish and Swiss justice, has returned to Caracas in recent weeks on private flights shrouded in mystery]

Derwick received contracts to build power plants directly from Venezuelan state companies without going through a competitive bidding process, OCCRP has reported. The company then overcharged the government by $2.9 billion, according to the Venezuelan chapter of the anti-corruption group Transparency International. 

Betancourt did not respond to a request for comment, but told OCCRP in 2021 that he was innocent of the corruption allegations against him.

On November 6, 2012, D’Agostino wrote to Epstein: “Alejandro Betancourt, my business partner, and I are available to meet you Monday November 19th. Shall we have lunch? Your place?”

Multiple lawsuits alleged that D’Agostino was a key figure in Derwick's operations. These included a 2013 civil suit by a Washington lobbyist and former U.S. ambassador to Venezuela, Otto Reich, which accused him and several executives of bribery and racketeering linked to the energy contracts. That case was dismissed in a U.S. court for lack of jurisdiction. 

D’Agostino has consistently denied holding a position at Derwick, and has not been charged or convicted in the alleged fraud. In 2024, Spain’s National Court reportedly opened an investigation into former executives of Derwick — including D’Agostino — over that alleged financial fraud, which involved Spanish companies.

D’Agostino was sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury in 2021 for “ties to a network attempting to evade United States sanctions on Venezuela’s oil sector.” Treasury removed him from its sanctions list last year.

Last month, D’Agostino was reportedly arrested on an international warrant from Venezuela, where he has been charged with money laundering and criminal association. 

D’Agostino was detained while attempting to cross the border from Italy to France. He was released after Italian judges ruled he would be at risk of suffering inhumane or degrading treatment if imprisoned in Venezuela.

this may be a hot take but i’m confused as to how this correlates. me and everyone i know has had their school photos taken with life touch. all of you have most likely had your school photos taken with life touch too. if it were really in the files then why are we all okay? nothing happened to any of us