Epstein Data Wiki

Bryan Bishop

Properties2
tagsperson, bitcoin, cryptocurrency, ledgerx, biotechnology, genetics, germline-editing, epstein-correspondence
aliasesBishop, Bryan

27 min read

First appearance in the released correspondenceNovember 12, 2015, on an email from Jeremy Rubin to Jeffrey Epstein and Joichi Ito about the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and bitcoin options. The header’s To line lists all three; Rubin’s own text describes Bishop as “(CC’d)“1
Messages he addressed to EpsteinJuly 21, 2018 to November 28, 2018. A message of November 12, 2015 and one of July 20, 2018 are addressed to others with Epstein copied2345
How he described his own work, July 2018”I have been caught between two worlds— regulation and unregulation— for a few years now. I work directly on the bitcoin system- for fun. For work, I am now leaving LedgerX, the first CFTC-regulated bitcoin clearinghouse, after working there for 4 years as their expert on bitcoin and software development.”3
How others described him to EpsteinRubin, March 2016: “one of the sharpest Bitcoin guys out there (basically the walking bitcoin encyclopedia)”6; Rubin, July 2018: “He’s a smart guy, quirky though. Does a mix of Bitcoin things and dna data storage.”7; Austin Hill, July 2018: “Bryan Bishop (polymath)“8
What he proposed to EpsteinA venture he called, in his own covering email, “the designer baby and human cloning company”9
What he asked for”$1.7m/year for up to 5 years + $1m for lab setup. ($9.5m to fund 5 years, $6m for 3 years)”, August 5, 20189
Epstein on investing”i have no issue with investing the problem is only if i am seen to lead”, July 21, 201810
What the released files record about moneyA solicitation, figures and proposed structures. The searches set out at the foot of this page returned no payment record, wire instruction, subscription agreement, share register, invoice or company formation connected to the proposal, and no record of Epstein investing in LedgerX11
Last document in the release that names himNovember 28, 20185
Related pageThe 2018 proposal to Epstein to edit human embryos

Bryan Bishop, who wrote to Jeffrey Epstein that he worked “directly on the bitcoin system” and had spent four years at LedgerX as “their expert on bitcoin and software development”,3 appears in the files released by the Justice Department under the Epstein Files Transparency Act first as a bitcoin correspondent named on an email to Epstein and Joichi Ito about bitcoin regulation, then as the subject of a 2016 investment approach concerning his employer LedgerX, and finally, in 2018, as a direct correspondent who asked Epstein to fund a human germline-engineering venture.164

This page is about how Bishop came into that correspondence and what the record shows about him. The 2018 germline proposal itself has its own page and is not retold here.4

Nothing on this page is a finding of wrongdoing, and nothing in the documents cited here alleges that Bishop had any part in Epstein’s sexual offences. Every characterisation below is the document’s own. Where Bishop’s or another correspondent’s own words are available they are quoted rather than summarised, and the page says when it is summarising instead.

A note on times. The messages quoted here survive in two production families, one printing an unlabelled “Sent:” field and the other a full internet header with a UTC offset. On the three pairs checked at the image for this page, a message’s own unlabelled “Sent” field and the line quoting that same message elsewhere disagree by four hours, by five and by six.12 No clock time is printed on this page, and no interval on this page has been derived by comparing one of these clocks with the other.

November 2015: how his name reached Epstein

On November 12, 2015, Jeremy Rubin wrote to Epstein and Joichi Ito under the subject “CFTC to regulate bitcoin”. The message opens “Hi Jeffrey, Joi,” and says: “Bryan (CC’d) is doing som= work looking at how cftc is trying to regulate bitcoin options trading.”1 Rubin set out an effort to publish an open letter from bitcoin developers and asked the two of them: “What do you think of the lett=r? Is Bryan right to ask for regulation? Are there advantages to trying to=stay unregulated?”1 The page carries transmission damage of this kind throughout and it is left as printed; the one repair this page makes to any quotation is described in the source note.

Bishop replied the same day, to Rubin, with Epstein and Ito copied. He introduced himself: “Jeremy, thank you for the email. Joi — always a pleasure to run into you in every context. And it is nice to meet Jeffrey— I noticed on your Wikipedia article that you and I share Ben Goertzel in common, wasn’t expecting to see him around these parts… He and I share many motivations and beliefs about the future…”.2 The body of that reply is the explanatory text he says the bitcoin developers were about to circulate, and it describes his employer: “This is exactly what LedgerX has been working on for 2 years now. LedgerX is a startup bitcoin derivatives exchange and clearinghouse backed by Lightspeed Venture Partners and Google Ventures, among others.”2 Bishop asked that the text be kept confidential.2

March 2016: the LedgerX approach

Four months later Bishop’s employer became the subject of an investment approach to Epstein. The documents show Bishop sending the deck that the approach was built on and making the introduction that followed it.

On March 23, 2016 Bishop sent Rubin a LedgerX deck: “Jeremy, Thanks for the chat! I have attached a deck from LedgerX. Happy to talk any time about this opportunity.”6 Rubin forwarded it to Epstein the same evening under the subject “[Potential Investment] Fwd: LedgerX deck”, writing that “LedgerX is trying to raise a series B at around 6M, and they need a $1m lead to trigger other commitments”, and that “The startup seems to have a pretty good team, Bryan Bishop is one of the sharpest Bitcoin guys out there (basically the walking bitcoin encyclopedia).”6 He closed with a question about how money would reach the company: “Also, to discuss an elephant in the room, how would investment get to them? Some people don’t like certain associations, deservedly or not. Is your name good with the CFTC?”6

Epstein answered some fifteen minutes later, measured between the internet headers of the two messages, which are on the same clock: “yes, all financial institutions are easy, but i have no problem putting it in your name to help begin a reputaiton building”.13 Rubin replied that he was “indifferent, biased to having it in your name as it seems odd for me to come across that money — unless we were to form some fund that I’m running that you invested in for example which seems more plausible”, and said he was getting the term sheet and would forward it.14

Bishop’s other act in the sequence was an introduction. On the same evening he wrote to Rubin: “Just wanted to introduce you to LedgerX, in particular our CTO, Zach Dexter. Zach is the ideal person to meet with tomorrow while you are in NY.”15 That message is the source for Dexter’s role, which Bishop states in his own words; the page supplies no attribute for any correspondent that a document does not.

Rubin visited the company the next day and reported back: “I met with them today. They are doing a 30 pre, 40 post, looking for a 4M lead — I think they can come down on that number though, and would probably take a 1M lead. I’ve asked their cto to send an email with some more details.”16 When the further material arrived, Epstein asked for more. On March 26 he wrote: “i would like to see numbers, biz plan, this is a deck for the newspapers”.17 Rubin agreed: “Yeah you’re right. Sorry, I did minimal review of the document this morning, this is a bit fluffy.” and, on the line beneath it: “I’ll ask them for real details.”18 Epstein pressed again the same day: “a ” bit ” , where is the version on how they make money and when , and how much time or cost it takes to get there.”18

That is where the thread stops. The searches described at the foot of this page returned no later message in the LedgerX thread, no term sheet, and no record of Epstein investing in LedgerX.11

July 2018: the reintroduction, and what it was about

Bishop reappears two years later, and the subject at that point is still cryptocurrency.

On the evening of July 19, 2018 Austin Hill wrote to Epstein: “Sorry, was in a conversation with Bryan Bishop (polymath) and thought we should talk. The whole cryptocurrency regulation is making a mess of the markets”, and, on the lines beneath it: “And I thought you would know how the regulators think.” and “There is discussion occurring about a black.swan event in the form of a book by scientists who would publish pseudonymously that would expose the alt coins and provide a scientific framework for assessing alt coin values.” Epstein answered “Happy to tomorrow”, and Hill asked: “Can we do a 3 way video conference in the afternoon ?”8

Two opinions of Bishop reached the record on one document, Vincenzo Iozzo to Jeremy Rubin with Epstein copied, and the document dates both of them to July 20: Rubin’s by the attribution line above it in the quoted chain, Iozzo’s by the header of the message itself. Rubin’s answer is “Yeah I do”, and, on the lines beneath it: “He’s a smart guy, quirky though. Does a mix of Bitcoin things and dna data storage.”; Iozzo’s, at the head of the document, is “Similar feedback, but I don’t know him that well”. Epstein’s question, “bryan bishop wants to talk to me. do you know him?”, is quoted there under a July 19 attribution and survives only as a quoted block with no To or Cc line printed above it, so the document does not record whom that question was addressed to or who was copied on it.7 It gives Iozzo no occupation and this page supplies none.

Hill set up a call for the afternoon of July 20 under the subject “Financial markets & cryptocoins with Jeffrey, Bryan”, with the three of them listed on the invitation as Hill (organiser), Epstein and Bishop.3 Writing to Hill beforehand, with Epstein copied, Bishop introduced himself and his position:

I have been caught between two worlds— regulation and unregulation— for a few years now. I work directly on the bitcoin system- for fun. For work, I am now leaving LedgerX, the first CFTC-regulated bitcoin clearinghouse, after working there for 4 years as their expert on bitcoin and software development. I wrote up a draft blog post which should be posting soon regarding my departure, where I go into some background on regulation vs unregulation. The LedgerX thesis is “regulation first”, which is practically contrarian in the startup ecosystem. However, I sincerely wonder whether regulators are anymore able to regulate or enforce the law in these markets— so much time has passed and I have so little evidence of action being taken against these companies. What we’re seeing, or not seeing, is really interesting.3

Embryos appear nowhere in the invitation or in that self-introduction.3 The July 19-20 lead-in to the call is set out at greater length on The 2018 proposal to Epstein to edit human embryos.

The 2018 germline proposal, in outline

In the hours after that call Hill wrote to Epstein, copying Bishop, that there was an “idea stuck in Bryan’s head” and that if Epstein was serious they should “setup some secure communicati=ns and I’ll let Bryan pitch you on a way to have total deniability”.19 The next evening Bishop wrote to Epstein directly under the subject “Designer babies”, sending a link to a deck about what he called “my designer baby project” and asking “how serious you are about wanting this”.4 Epstein replied eleven minutes later, by the UTC headers on both messages: “i have no issue with investing the problem is only if i am seen to lead.”10

Over the following four months Bishop sent a use-of-funds spreadsheet for “the designer baby and human cloning company” asking ”~$1.7m/year for up to 5 years + $1m for lab setup”, to which Epstein’s whole reply was “no rush”;9 a genetic-editing deck, sent with the words “Just put this together:”,20 to which Epstein replied “thurs?”;21 experimental updates, to one of which Epstein replied “i like implant embryo , wait 9 months. […] great ending”;22 a four-page reference document, headed “Key references for human germline genetic editing”;23 and, in October, a question about legality, to which Epstein answered “we need to get a read on legal. first.”24 On November 27, 2018 Epstein sent Bishop and Hill a link to a New York Times report of the Chinese gene-editing announcement and nothing else,25 and the last exchange in the release is Bishop’s reply of November 28.5

That correspondence is set out document by document, with the structure discussion, the August 2 call, the experimental reports and the November sequence, on The 2018 proposal to Epstein to edit human embryos. It is not repeated here.

Two records of the August 2 appointment sit outside the email threads and are worth noting on a page about Bishop, because between them they fix the meeting in Epstein’s own office paperwork and in a forensic extraction. An “August 2018 Itinerary” sent to Epstein on August 1, 2018, whose sender’s name and address the production blacks out, carries under Thursday August 2 the entry “4-5:00pm Designer Babies-Bryan Bishop” with the meeting’s web address; the backup telephone line beneath it is blacked out and is not reproduced here.26 And a device-extraction report in the release, filed under evidence ID NYC024362.aff4, lists among its calendar items an entry “Designer babies (Bryan Bishop)”, one hour, at 2018-08-02 20:00:00 (UTC), with the same meeting address.27 The calendar invitation’s subject line states the hour of the appointment as “Thu Aug 2, 2018 4pm - 5pm (EDT)”,28 and 20:00 UTC on the extraction row is that hour.27

What the released files record about money

The correspondence records a request and a stated willingness, and the searches described below returned nothing beyond that.

Bishop asked Epstein for money and named a figure, on August 5, 2018.9 Epstein wrote that he had “no issue with investing” provided he was not “seen to lead”.10 Bishop’s own characterisation the following day was that “Sounds like you could be the first investor as long as absolute anonymity is kept”, and he set out why he thought the financial structure would have to be built for anonymity: “we can’t publicly identify who these are or their parents or benefactors, it would brand the child as (essentially, and sadly) a freak for life in the media.”29 Epstein’s reply was “i cant program but iam not bad at structuring :)”.30 In October Bishop told Epstein he had “got a bite” from investors he had met in Tokyo and, later in the same thread, that “the investor that made me an offer is part of a financial services company”.31

None of that is a record of money moving. Bishop’s “Sounds like you could be the first investor”29 is his own reading of a position he was hoping Epstein would take, written the day after Epstein’s reply; it is not a record of Epstein taking it. No payment record, wire instruction, subscription agreement, share register, invoice or company formation connected to the proposal is among the documents these searches returned, and the correspondence names no company for the venture, so there is no entity name under which such a record could be sought.11

On LedgerX the position is different only in that the release does hold documents recording an investment in the company, and they are somebody else’s. Investor materials produced by Blockchain Capital, LLC, whose cover names the fund “CCP II, LP” and is dated October 2015, list LedgerX among eight contributed investments, on a row whose date column reads July ‘14, whose amount column reads $50,000 and whose details column reads “Series A preferred”; beneath the table, in a grey band, the slide reads “General Partners contributed co-investments at cost to CCP II”.32 That is the fund’s own record of the fund’s own money, made twenty months before Rubin’s approach to Epstein, and nothing on the pages cited here records Epstein as an investor in the fund or in LedgerX.32

Bishop’s reference to “my ukraine lab”33 and his later reference to “our overseas lab”34 describe work he told Epstein was being done there; the emails do not identify the laboratory, its owners or its funding source, and nothing cited here establishes that Epstein owned, operated or financed it.3334

Search and source note

Every quotation on this page was read at the page image, at 300 or 400 dpi, on the page pinned in its footnote.

One repair is made and nothing else is. Where the print breaks a line inside a word or a sentence with a trailing ”=” - a quoted-printable soft break, as in “while you are in =” continuing “NY.” - the line is rejoined. The ”=” characters that stand inside words, as at “som= work”, “the lett=r” and “mouse testing=at my ukraine lab”, are transmission damage and are left exactly as printed. Where a quotation joins text separated on the page by a paragraph break, the page says so in the sentence.

In four places this page follows the image against the machine text, which is why a text-layer check cannot locate them: the subject line of the March 2016 LedgerX introduction thread prints “Re: Intro: Jeremy <> Zach at LedgerX” on the image and is garbled in the extraction; Rubin’s “Sorry, I did minimal review of the document this morning” is extracted as “Sony”; the figure ”~$1.7m/year” is extracted as an em-dash and “rn”; and the words “at cost” beneath the Blockchain Capital table are set in a display face the extraction drops. Each was confirmed on the rendered page.

The corpus was searched with column-scoped exact-phrase queries against the full-text index, which covers the EFTA, HOUSE_OVERSIGHT and DOJ-OGR productions together. “Bryan Bishop” returns 70 page hits across 67 documents. The stored text of all 67 was then read for wire, invoice, subscription, promissory, escrow, share-register, term-sheet and company-formation language. The only hit that is not a false positive from the word “information” or from LedgerX’s standard email footer is Rubin’s statement of March 23, 2016 that he was obtaining a LedgerX term sheet; the term sheet itself is not among the documents these searches returned.14

The variants tried were: “Bryan Bishop”; “Bishop” alone, which returns 347 documents, of which the 280 that do not also carry “Bryan Bishop” were narrowed to the 22 that carry the word “bryan” anywhere and each of those 22 opened, none of which concerns this subject; “designer babies” (24 documents), “designer baby” (8), “human cloning” (9), “germline” (21), “embryo editing” (4), “genetic editing” (9), “gene editing” (38), “use of funds” (156), “garage biology” (1), “testis-mediated” (1) and “transfection” (9); the two web hosts in his signature and file links, “heybryan” (8) and “diyhpl” (13); the file names “designer-babies-deck” (6) and “human-germline” (6); the two meeting-room addresses, “taxmastergenetics” (3) and “internetmagicalmoney” (2); “LedgerX” (27) and “Zach Dexter” (12); and “Bryan Bishop LLC”, which returns nothing.

What that does not cover, and the limit is stated rather than filled: it does not search Epstein’s financial records for an unnamed payment, and it cannot search for the venture under a company name, because the correspondence gives it none. An absence claim is a claim, and the claim here is only about what these searches returned.

Telephone numbers, private email addresses, a conference dial-in code and third-party document links appearing in the source documents are not reproduced on this page.

No later statement and no public statement by Bryan Bishop about this correspondence appears anywhere in the released files searched for this page. No check of press coverage, court records or any other public source for a later statement by him has been made for this page; that absence is disclosed here, not filled. Epstein died on August 10, 2019.

Footnotes

Footnotes

  1. Jeremy Rubin to Jeffrey Epstein, Joichi Ito and Bryan Bishop, “CFTC to regulate bitcoin”, Nov 12, 2015. The header’s To line lists all three; Rubin’s body text describes Bishop as “(CC’d)”. The message’s Sent field carries no time zone and no clock time from it is used here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02365389 p.1 of 1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  2. Bryan Bishop to Jeremy Rubin, copied to Jeffrey Epstein and Joichi Ito, “Re: CFTC to regulate bitcoin”, dated in its own internet header Thu, 12 Nov 2015 17:29:05 +0000. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00840767 p.1 of 3. The correspondents’ email addresses are blacked out on this page and are not reproduced. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  3. Bryan Bishop to Austin Hill, copied to Jeffrey Epstein, “Re: Invitation: Financial markets & cryptocoins with Jeffrey, Bryan”, Fri, 20 Jul 2018 02:11:30 +0000, carrying the Google Calendar invitation block beneath it, which lists Hill as organiser with Epstein and Bishop. A conference dial-in code printed on this page is not reproduced here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01005702 p.1 of 2. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  4. Bryan Bishop to Epstein, copied to Austin Hill, “Designer babies”, Sat, 21 Jul 2018 20:50:13 +0000. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01004795 p.1 of 1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  5. Bryan Bishop to Epstein, copied to Austin Hill, Wed, 28 Nov 2018 18:43:37 +0000: “I typed a transcript of his presentation and Q&A while I watched,” with a link to his own transcript of the researcher’s appearance at the Hong Kong human genome editing summit. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01015238 p.1 of 1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  6. Jeremy Rubin to Epstein, “[Potential Investment] Fwd: LedgerX deck”, Wed, 23 Mar 2016 22:11:58 +0000, forwarding Bishop’s own message of the same evening to Rubin, Bishop and Zach Dexter, with the attachment named on the header as “ledgerx-deck-2015-11-16.003.pdf”. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00830911 p.1 of 2. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  7. Vincenzo Iozzo to Jeremy Rubin, copied to Epstein, dated in its own header Fri, 20 Jul 2018 06:01:19 +0000, carrying Rubin’s reply and Epstein’s original question “bryan bishop wants to talk to me. do you know him?” in the quoted chain. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01005705 p.1 of 1. ↩ ↩2

  8. Austin Hill to Epstein, “You up for a conversation.with Bryan Bishop?”, Jul 19, 2018, with Epstein’s replies, all carried in one document whose own header is Fri, 20 Jul 2018 20:01:51 +0000. Hill’s mobile signature block is blacked out. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01004638 p.1 of 3. ↩ ↩2

  9. Epstein to Bryan Bishop, “Re: Designer babies (use of funds)”, Sun, 05 Aug 2018 14:44:01 +0000, quoting Bishop’s message of that morning in full. Bishop’s opening line names the attachment as the use-of-funds spreadsheet for the designer baby and human cloning company, and the figures follow in the same message. Epstein’s whole reply is “no rush”. The link to the spreadsheet is blacked out on this page and is not reproduced. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01003966 p.1 of 1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  10. Epstein to Bryan Bishop, “Re: Designer babies”, Sat, 21 Jul 2018 21:01:11 +0000, quoting Bishop’s message of 20:50:13 in full. Both times are from the internet headers of the two messages, which are on the same clock. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01004801 p.1 of 1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  11. The negative finding about payment is a corpus-search result and not a statement contained in any one document. The queries, their variants and their counts are set out in the search and source note above, and the limits of what they cover are stated there. The principal funding and structure documents are https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01003966 p.1 of 1, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01004801 p.1 of 1 and https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01004839 p.1 of 2. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  12. The offset between the unlabelled “Sent” field of a message and the attribution line quoting that message elsewhere is four hours between Austin Hill’s message of July 20-21, 2018 as stamped at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02599930 p.1 of 1 and as quoted at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02600038 p.1 of 1, five hours between Epstein’s message of August 30, 2018 as stamped at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02625511 p.1 of 2 and as quoted at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02625486 p.1 of 1, and six hours between Epstein’s message of November 27, 2018 as stamped at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02614895 p.1 of 1 and as quoted at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01015238 p.1 of 1. All three pairs were read at the page images. Because the offset is not constant, no clock time is printed on this page. ↩

  13. Epstein to Jeremy Rubin, “Re: [Potential Investment] Fwd: LedgerX deck”, Wed, 23 Mar 2016 22:27:30 +0000, quoting Rubin’s message of 22:11:58 in full. Both times are taken from the internet headers of the two messages, which are on the same clock. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00830915 p.1 of 2. ↩

  14. Jeremy Rubin to Epstein, “Re: [Potential Investment] Fwd: LedgerX deck”, Wed, 23 Mar 2016 22:43:42 +0000, carrying Epstein’s “what is the deal?” of the same evening in the quoted chain. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00830921 p.1 of 2. ↩ ↩2

  15. Bryan Bishop to Jeremy Rubin, Mar 23, 2016, quoted inside Epstein’s “Re: Intro: Jeremy <> Zach at LedgerX” of Sat, 26 Mar 2016 12:38:52 +0000. Bishop’s own words give Dexter’s role. A company office address in the quoted block is blacked out on this page and is not reproduced. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00830796 p.2 of 4. ↩

  16. Jeremy Rubin to Epstein, “Re: [Potential Investment] Fwd: LedgerX deck”, Thu, 24 Mar 2016 20:31:55 +0000. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00830903 p.1 of 3. ↩

  17. Epstein to Jeremy Rubin, “Re: Intro: Jeremy <> Zach at LedgerX”, Sat, 26 Mar 2016 12:38:52 +0000. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00830796 p.1 of 4. ↩

  18. Epstein to Jeremy Rubin, “Re: Intro: Jeremy <> Zach at LedgerX”, Sat, 26 Mar 2016 16:25:02 +0000, quoting Rubin’s reply of 11:32 AM and Epstein’s own earlier message. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00830809 p.1 of 4. ↩ ↩2

  19. Austin Hill to Epstein, copied to Bryan Bishop, “Thanks - just the three of us”. The Sent field on this copy reads Saturday, July 21, 2018 2:30 AM and carries no zone; the same message is attributed to 10:30 PM on July 20 in the attribution line of Epstein’s reply at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02600038 p.1 of 1, which was read at the page image and which carries this message’s text with different transmission damage from the copy quoted above. The video link and the sender’s signature block are not reproduced. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02599930 p.1 of 1. ↩

  20. Bryan Bishop to Epstein, “new genetic editing deck”, Sent Tuesday, August 28, 2018, reading in full “Just put this together:” and a link to the same deck file name. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02625760 p.1 of 1. The covering words are damaged in the print of the sibling copy cited at 21 and are quoted here from this clean copy. ↩

  21. Epstein to Bryan Bishop, “Re: new genetic editing deck”, Sent Tuesday, August 28, 2018, carrying that day’s whole exchange: Bishop’s covering message, Epstein’s “thurs?”, Bishop’s “Yes pick a time” and Epstein’s “coordinate early thurs”. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02625569 p.1 of 2. ↩ ↩2

  22. Epstein to Bryan Bishop, “Re: More genetic editing (cont.)”, Aug 30, 2018, quoting Bishop’s message of that morning. The reply is printed on the page as “i like implant embryo , wait 9 months.” followed by transmission damage and then “great ending”; the bracketed ellipsis on this page stands where that damage is. A telephone number in the quoted message is blacked out and is not reproduced, and a third-party document link on the page is not reproduced. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02625511 p.1 of 2. ↩

  23. “Key references for human germline genetic editing”, four pages, marked “v3” beneath the title, whose second line reads “Narrative outline of our project: Human Germline Genetic Modification” and carries a hyperlink on that title. Its note on approach reads “Note: Our approach is testis-mediated gene transfer (transfection of sperm stem cells).” at p.2. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00804855 pp.1-4. Bishop’s authorship of this file is established on the germline page from his own covering email naming it. ↩

  24. Epstein to Bryan Bishop, “Re: more gene editing (updates)”, Tue, 16 Oct 2018 10:41:06 +0000, quoting Bishop’s message of that day in which he writes “I got a bite (and now the question is, do I want to take /their/ money…)”. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01019549 p.1 of 1. ↩

  25. Epstein to Bryan Bishop and Austin Hill, Sent Tuesday, November 27, 2018, a link to a New York Times report and nothing else. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02614895 p.1 of 1. ↩

  26. “August 2018 Itinerary” addressed to Epstein, Wed, 01 Aug 2018 12:16:57 +0000. The sender’s name and address are blacked out and nothing is inferred about who sent it. The telephone line beneath the August 2 entry is blacked out and is not reproduced. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00479255 p.1 of 4. ↩

  27. Device-extraction report of calendar items, evidence ID NYC024362.aff4, whose section heading and item range are printed on p.1 of the run. The row cited is numbered [52] on the page and was read at the page image: its Date column reads 2018-08-02 20:00:00 (UTC), its Duration column 1 hour, its Summary column “Designer babies (Bryan Bishop)”, and its Location column the meeting web address. The table also has a Time Zone column, and on this row it is blank: the zone relied on here is the “(UTC)” suffix printed inside the Date column of every row. The text layer of this page reorders the columns and interleaves the rows; the row was read from the image, not from the extraction. The report identifies no custodian on the pages read, and none is inferred here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00780767 p.9 of 18. ↩ ↩2

  28. Epstein forwarding to Lesley Groff the Google Calendar invitation “Designer babies (Bryan Bishop) @ Thu Aug 2, 2018 4pm - 5pm (EDT) (Jeffrey Epstein)”, sent by Bishop on Jul 23, 2018 and forwarded Tue, 31 Jul 2018 12:08:25 +0000. The invitation’s agenda line reads “Agenda- Designer babies, structuring, finance, privacy, project goals, feasible outcomes, timelines”, and its backup telephone line is blacked out and is not reproduced. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00478987 p.1 of 2. ↩

  29. Bryan Bishop to Epstein, “Re: Designer babies”, Sun, 22 Jul 2018 15:33:21 +0000. The message dates the proposed call “Wednesday August 2nd”, which was a Thursday; the error is the document’s own. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01004839 p.1 of 2. ↩ ↩2

  30. Epstein to Bryan Bishop, “Re: Designer babies”, Sun, 22 Jul 2018 15:35:41 +0000, quoting Bishop’s message of 15:33:21. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01004841 p.1 of 2. ↩

  31. Epstein to Bryan Bishop, “Re: more gene editing (updates)”, Wed, 17 Oct 2018 10:33:43 +0000, carrying in its quoted chain Bishop’s answer on legality and his line beginning “During my Tokyo trip”. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01019439 p.1 of 2. ↩

  32. Blockchain Capital, LLC, investor materials whose cover carries three lines of title: “BLOCKCHAIN CAPITAL, LLC”, “CCP II, LP” and “OCTOBER 2015”. No page cited here expands “CCP II”. The slide cited is headed “CCP II - 8 CONTRIBUTED INVESTMENTS”, and the LedgerX row of its table was read at the page image: date invested July ‘14, amount $50,000, details “Series A preferred”. The words “at cost”, in the grey band beneath the table, are set in a display face and are dropped by the text layer; they are legible on the image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01088644 pp.1 and 13 of 23. ↩ ↩2

  33. Bryan Bishop to Epstein, “Re: More genetic editing (cont.)”, Sent Thursday, August 30, 2018, reading ”- proceeding with more mouse testing=at my ukraine lab (surgeries/microinjection)”. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02625486 p.1 of 1. ↩ ↩2

  34. Epstein to Bryan Bishop, “Re: Chinese edited embryos are mosaic…”, Mon, 26 Nov 2018 17:09:39 +0000, quoting Bishop’s message of that morning in full, including “Meanwhile our overseas lab has reported some mouse testis transfection results.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01015485 p.1 of 1. ↩ ↩2

Backlinks