How complete is the material? I've seen "experts" in Swedish news paper DN claim so much is censored it looks like a cover up. Has that been your impression too?
How complete is the material? I've seen "experts" in Swedish news paper DN claim so much is censored it looks like a cover up. Has that been your impression too?
We have three datasets in Jmail now:
1. DOJ (The White House's docs that they were required by law to drop yesterday plus many court documents, videos, and other docs from many news cycles this year)
2. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT (the House Oversight Committee's releases. giant November drop that led to the original Jmail, then some photo drops this month)
3. Yahoo emails (originally sourced by DDoSecrets, then provided to us, redacted and verified by Drop Site News)
There is so much material in HOUSE_OVERSIGHT that never appears in DOJ, and vice versa. And then the Yahoo drop reveals even more new material. It feels like three odd slices of a giant dataset that keeps getting released.
re: people's complaints about yesterday's release having way too many redactions, I have no idea how much they over-redacted. I hear that they will release even more quite soon though.
Why and how is the data from DDoSecrets redacted?
Do you have a page about each dataset you're sourcing and the background on them like your provide here?
The "EFTA00000468" saga has me distrusting the authenticity of most of these datasets.
Re: the DOJ emails prefixed with "EFTA", I have no idea how over-redacted they are. They definitely seem dubious though.
Re: the DDoSecrets emails though (YAHOO dataset), I have more to share.
Drop Site News agreed to give us access to the Yahoo dataset discovered by DDoSecrets, but on the condition that we help redact it. It's a completely unfiltered dataset. It's literally just .eml files for jeeprojects@yahoo.com. It includes many attached documents. There is no illegal imagery, but it has photos of Epstein's extended family (nephews, nieces, etc) and headshots of many models that Epstein's executive assistant would send to him. I was quite shocked that this thing existed.
We built some internal redaction tools that the Drop Site team is now using to comb through all of this. We've released 5 batches of the Yahoo mail now, with the 1k+ Amazon receipts being the most recent.
A few thoughts on how we do redaction are here: https://www.jmail.world/about.
Unlike the DOJ, we've tried to minimize the ambiguity about what was redacted.
For example: all redacted images are replaced with a Gemini-generated description of that photograph.
Another example: we are aggressively redacting email addresses and phone numbers of normal people to avoid spamming them. Perhaps others would leave it all in, but Riley and I don't want to be responsible for these people's lives getting disrupted by this entire saga. For example, we redacted this guy's email but not his name: https://www.jmail.world/thread/4accfb5f3ed84656e9762740081a4...
Riley and I were not expecting this type of scope when we first dropped Jmail. Jmail is an interesting side project for us, and this new dataset requires full-time attention. Thankfully we have help though. We're happy to take on this responsibility given how helpful, thoughtful and careful both the Drop Site and DDoSecrets team has been here.
I appreciate the links and transparency. Answers a lot of my questions. Thanks
Ah I was going to ask about the Yahoo emails.. are those distinct from the cloned Gmail messages or are they in the same inbox on your site?
Has anyone written a parser for the text messages? A messages-like UI to be able to read through all the texts would be super interesting too. The format DOJ released them in is impossible to follow.
big motivation for the whole project is to help structure the mess that was released
Another person made an oddly beautiful ASCII ui for the text messages. All seem to be from HOUSE_OVERSIGHT (we have those plus DOJ, YAHOO. No dedicated text UI from us)
https://michelcrypt4d4mus.github.io/epstein_text_messages/
He also shouted us out last month which was very kind of him
Yes, it has been redacted far in excess of what the law allows, and the material is a tiny fraction of what the administration was required by law to release by this date
Images were also planted that were not part of the files.
Planted by whom? That were not part of the files? That seems dubious at best. What is your source? It doesn't even make sense.
There is a picture of Bill Clinton with Michael Jackson and Diana Ross that was just publicly available before: https://www.threads.com/@meidastouch/post/DSfEKJslM1H
It doesn't belong into the Epstein Files, and doesn't need to be censored either, but the way it is framed in the DoJ release implies guilt where there is none.
How can you be sure the image wasn't part of the files collected during investigation? What makes you so sure Epstein didn't have the file saved somewhere on a device, server, or account that was collected?
I don’t think I expressed a particular opinion here, I just stated where the suspicion comes from.
That being said, I think we can demand a level of due diligence from public institutions that entails only censoring actual victims on actual pieces of evidence, instead of mindlessly placing black squares on the faces of news article pictures found on his computer. Nevermind that nobody can explain yet how this particular picture ended up in the grand jury files anyway.
This is the same DOJ that released the edited Epstein jail video as "raw", with the attorney general claiming the missing minute was from how the video system reset for a new day, when they had the actual raw video with the missing minute.
Yes, though that was a different situation. If my wallet goes missing I'm not going to immediately blame a person while previously stole something with no other evidence.
Makes sense if you are a criminal.
Surely you can link me to the exact "planted" images you are talking about...
who planted them?
https://bsky.app/profile/meidastouch.com/post/3mag7myutmc2d
Here's at least one notable image.
That's not the exact same image, though. It's a separate image, from the same time and place. The one released may have been in Epstein's possession and therefore part of the files. Either some DoJ drone just redacted all children and non-celebrities due to procedure, or it was deliberately done in such a way as to make Clinton and Jackson look suspicious. Whatever the reason, this was not a Getty stock image planted in the files.
You can see the erroneously redacted image here: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8r38ne1x2mo
It wasn’t erroneous. The DoJ said they were redacting the faces of all non-celebrity women and children under the presumption they could be victims.
You don't have to lean on "experts" (or experts) or people at HN find these things out: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2025-08-01/epstei...
The most incriminating stuff isn't censored, it's been completely destroyed by now