The release of thousands of pages of documents relating to the abuse of late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein by the US Department of Justice has left some who had been eagerly awaiting the files disappointed.
By law, the Justice Department must publish all materials by the end of Friday. But only some of them have been issued, many with many revisions.
Lawmakers who pushed for these documents to be seen have called the Justice Department’s efforts insincere, and some legal experts say the redactions may only fuel persistent conspiracy theories.
“We just want to get all the evidence of these crimes,” Liz Stein, an Epstein survivor, told the BBC.
Stein told Radio 4’s Today program she believed the Ministry of Justice was “brazenly contravening the Epstein Files Transparency Act” – a law that requires all documents to be disclosed.
She noted that survivors are genuinely concerned about the potential for “the slow dissemination of incomplete information without any context.”
Marina Lacerda, who was 14 when Epstein assaulted her, told the BBC that some survivors “remain nervous and skeptical about how the rest of the files will be released.”
“We are very concerned that it will be revised the same way it was today.
“We’re a little disappointed that they’re still going on now and distracting us with other things.”
US Department of JusticeAmong the latest information released is a photo of Epstein’s now-jailed girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell, outside Downing Street – the British Prime Minister’s office and residence – a document alleging that Epstein introduced a 14-year-old girl to US President Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago, and multiple photos of former President Bill Clinton.
Other photos released 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 British Labor Party politician and ambassador to the US.
Mentioning his name or photographing him in the files is not an indication of any wrongdoing. Many of those identified in the files or in previous releases related to Epstein have denied any wrongdoing.
Trump has consistently denied any wrongdoing in connection with Epstein and has not accused Epstein’s victims of any crimes. Clinton has never been accused of wrongdoing by survivors of Epstein’s abuse, and has denied knowledge of the sex 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 collection of framed photos on a desk, according to CBS, the BBC’s media partner in the US. The pictures showed Bill Clinton, and another of the Pope. In one of the open drawers was a photo of Trump, Epstein and Maxwell.
Other missing files included photos of a room with what appeared to be a massage table, nude photos and nude paintings.
It was not clear why the files were not available.
In a post on X on Saturday evening, the Justice Department wrote: “The images and other materials will continue to be reviewed and redacted consistent with the law with an abundance of caution as we receive additional information.”
The BBC asked the Ministry of Justice to comment.
Deputy US Attorney 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 materials that could identify them.
But many documents have been heavily redacted.
The Justice Department said it would comply with Congress’ request to release the documents, with some conditions.
It deleted personally identifiable information about Epstein’s victims, material depicting child sexual abuse, material depicting physical abuse, any records “that would jeopardize an active federal investigation” or any confidential documents that must remain confidential to protect “national defense or foreign policy.”
The Justice Department said it “does not redact the names of any politicians,” and added a quote they attributed to Blanche, saying: “The only redactions applied to documents are those required by law — period.”
“In line with applicable law and laws, we do not edit the names of individuals or politicians unless they are victims.”
John Day, a criminal defense lawyer, told the BBC that he was surprised by the amount of information that was withheld.
“This will fuel the fire if you are a conspiracy theorist,” he said. “I don’t think anyone expected there would be this many redactions. It certainly raises questions about how faithfully the Department of Justice is following the law.”
Mr. Day also noted that the Justice Department is required to provide a record of what has been redacted to Congress within 15 days of the files being made public.
“Until you know what’s been redacted, you don’t know what’s been redacted,” he said.
In a letter to the judges overseeing the Epstein and Maxwell cases, US Attorney for the Southern District of New York Jay Clayton said: “Victims’ Privacy Services recommends deleting the faces of women in photographs with Epstein even when not all of the women are known to be victims because it is not practical for the Department to identify every person in the photo.”
Clayton added that “this approach to the images could be seen by some as over-retouching” – but “the department believes it must err on the redaction to protect victims in the compressed time frame.”
ReutersBaroness Helena Kennedy, a human rights lawyer and her Labor counterpart in the UK House of Lords, said she was told that the redactions in the documents were to protect victims.
“The authorities are always concerned” about “exposing people to further distortion in the public mind,” she told the BBC’s Today programme.
She said many of Epstein’s survivors seemed “very keen” to disclose the material, but added that they “may not be so keen if they knew exactly what was there.”
Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna, who led the charge with Republican Congressman Thomas Massie to release the files, said the release was “incomplete” and added that he was looking at options such as impeachment, contempt or referral to prosecution.
“Our law requires them to explain the revisions,” 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 the document’s requirements.
He said the release of the document “flagrantly fails to comply with the spirit and letter of the law” of the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
After the release, the White House called the Trump administration “the most transparent in history,” adding that it had “done more for victims than Democrats ever did.”
Blanche was asked in an interview with ABC News whether all documents mentioning Trump in the so-called Epstein files will be made public in the coming weeks.
“Assuming it complies with the law, yes,” Blanche said. “So there’s no effort to hold anything back because there’s Donald Trump’s name or anyone else’s name, Bill Clinton’s name, Reid Hoffman’s name.
“There’s no effort to back down or not back down because of that.
“We do not redact the names of famous men and women associated with Epstein.”
Additional reporting by Yaroslav Lukiev