Epstein Data Wiki

Harvey Weinstein

Properties2
tagsperson, film-producer, october-2017, paul-weiss, peggy-siegal, discussed-subject
aliasesHarvey Weinstein, Weinstein, Harvey, Harvey W., The Weinstein Company, Miramax

55 min read

RoleAmerican film producer; co-founder of Miramax and, from 2005, co-chairman of The Weinstein Company1
Criminal recordConvicted in New York in February 2020; convicted in Los Angeles in December 2022; the New York conviction was overturned on appeal in April 2024 and he was retried in New York in 2025.1
January 2011Sends Peggy Siegal a five-word reply about George Lucas; she forwards the exchange to Epstein the same afternoon23
October 2015Siegal tells Epstein she is “[n]ot working for Harvey W. as he owes me $90,000”4
5 to 6 October 2017The reporting breaks;5 Epstein asks his lawyer Brad Karp “how bad does the harvey weinstein story get?“6
10 to 12 October 2017Epstein proposes to Alan Dershowitz that his accuser may have recalled Weinstein rather than him7
15 October 2017Epstein drafts, for Kathryn Ruemmler, how Goldman Sachs’s chief executive should handle “a harvey prble=” at the bank8
30 October 2017Epstein to a New York Times reporter: “boy am i glad i am old news”9
July 2025Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche questions Ghislaine Maxwell about Weinstein under proffer; she says she never saw him at any Epstein property10
24 July 2025The FBI’s New York office puts his surname on a list of names for which “all the derog” was to be compiled11

Harvey Weinstein is an American film producer, co-founder of Miramax and from 2005 co-chairman of The Weinstein Company, who was convicted of sexual offences in New York in 2020 and in Los Angeles in 2022, whose New York conviction was overturned on appeal in 2024, and who was retried in New York in 2025.1 Those convictions are a matter of public record and are not findings of this release. Nothing in the Epstein files is evidence of the offences he was convicted of, and this page does not treat it as such.

What the released Epstein records hold is something narrower and, on its own terms, worth setting out: Weinstein is a subject other people discussed, and almost never an actor. Across a population of 760 documents measured below, he is the sender of one and the named recipient of one, and both are the same two-message exchange with the publicist Peggy Siegal on New Year’s Day 2011, which reached Epstein’s files because Siegal forwarded it to him.2123 Everything else on this page is an act by somebody else with Weinstein as its object: a lawyer answering a question about him, an accountant listing him as a client of Epstein’s publicist, a former White House Counsel writing about him, an author and a film director sending Epstein links about him, a prosecutor’s office running a standing press-clipping section under his name, a Deputy Attorney General putting his name to a witness, and the FBI adding his surname to a list.

The concentration is sharp. From 5 October 2017, when the New York Times published the first account of allegations against him, Epstein’s correspondence turns to Weinstein repeatedly for about seven weeks, and the correspondents are his own lawyers, a Goldman Sachs candidate he was advising, and two reporters. The interest is not sympathy and it is not outrage; on the face of the documents it is positional. Epstein asks how bad the story gets, tells a reporter he is glad he is “old news”, offers a bank a script for handling the same problem, and proposes to his own defence lawyer that the reporting supplies an alternative explanation for an allegation against them both.

Method

The release is searched here through the full-text index by exact phrase, on a read-only connection, counting a document once however many of its pages match, with no LIMIT on any query whose answer is a count. Scope splits are taken from the identifier prefix, never from a dataset label.

The base phrase "Harvey Weinstein" reaches 569 documents (697 pages): 497 EFTA, 57 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT, 15 DOJ-OGR. The surname alone, Weinstein, reaches 1,348 documents (1,884 pages), and most of those are not him. That gap is this page’s defining hazard and it is censused, not sampled, in the next section.

Name forms. A prefix-range fts5vocab enumeration was run over the index on a mode=ro connection, building the vocabulary table in the temp schema so that nothing was written to the corpus; fifteen prefix ranges were scanned for forms within edit distance 2 of weinstein and twenty for forms within edit distance 2 of harvey. Every candidate was then measured as a two-token phrase against the base. Ten forms return documents the base phrase cannot reach:

formdocumentsoutside the 569
"harvey weinstein"5690
"harvey w"1513
"haney weinstein"87
"harvey weinsteins"95
"weinstein harvey"205
"harvey weinste"53
"harvey weinstei"32
"harvey wienstein"22
"harvey weinsten"11
"harvey weinnstein"11
"liarvey weinstein"11

haney is the extraction’s commonest corruption of harvey beside this surname, and one sheet compounds two names into a single unrecoverable string, printing media mogul and publeher Malmo Weinstein where two independently produced copies of the same passage read media mogul and publisher Mortimer Zuckerman, who had the New York Daily News, and film producer Haney Weinstein.131415 "harvey w" is not a clean form, and it was enumerated rather than assumed: its 13 documents outside the base are eleven him and two other men entirely, the latter a Florida lawyer named Harvey W. Ourland, Jr. and a “Harvey W” in a list of volume editors.161718 Seven of the eleven are copies of one Peggy Siegal message; two more are Siegal on the 2011 Gotham Awards and the publicist Matthew Hiltzik recalling a meeting in what he calls his Miramax days; and the last two are reached by that form only because the export broke the surname in half, the sheets printing harvey-w=instein so that the index holds the tokens harvey, w and instein.19 A word break is the one fault no edit-distance pass can generate, so split and run-together forms were probed by hand: "harvey wein stein" and "harveyweinstein" return nothing, but "harvey w" does, for that reason. Two search forms that look promising are traps and are not used: "mr weinstein" reaches 40 documents outside the base; the window around the phrase was read in all 40, and every one is David Weinstein, the Assistant United States Attorney, in three recurring texts: a 2008 letter from Epstein’s counsel to the United States Attorney’s Office, a Kirkland & Ellis submission, and a 2008 newspaper article, and "h weinstein" reaches ten outside the base of which nine are the token pair produced by Weiner, Daniel H.; Weinstein, Marc A. in one law firm’s copy lines and the tenth is a medical citation reading Kawakami M. Tamaki T, Weinstein IN.

Act rate, re-derived. The desk’s brief for this page reported a sample of 120 of the 569 in which Weinstein was the sender of none and the addressee of none. That sample was right about the shape and wrong about the floor, and the correction is the point. Run over the whole 760-document population defined below, with the rule that a label must carry its value on the same line, or on the next line only where that next line is not itself a label, and reading only the document’s own header block down to the first Original Message, Begin forwarded message or wrote::

  • sender: 1 of 760 (EFTA02016219)
  • named recipient: 1 of 760 (EFTA02029585)
  • first sheets carrying an e-mail From label: 418 of 760 (55%)
  • first sheets carrying a press marker: 13 of 760 (2%), on a strict marker set that excludes Copyright and All Rights Reserved, both of which occur in Epstein’s own signature footer and have produced a false press count on this desk

The press-marker figure is a floor and is stated as one: a clipping pasted into the body of an e-mail carries the e-mail’s header and not the wire service’s. What it is enough to settle is the hypothesis the brief asked to be tested: this is not a corpus of press clippings about a famous name. It is a correspondence file in which a famous name recurs.

A first pass of that classifier returned three senders and seven recipients, and five of the ten were its own defects: two matched a quoted header inside a forward rather than the document’s own, and three matched a bare To: label whose value was absent, where the fallback then took the next line and that line was the subject Jeffrey Epstein's Hollywood Pipeline Ran Straight to Harvey Weinstein.20 Both faults are recorded because the corrected figure is only as good as the rule that produced it, and a reader who implements the rule as written above will land on 1 and 1.

Where a sheet is quoted here, the page image was fetched and rasterised locally and read. Every sheet quoted at the image in this page is 816 by 1056 or 816 by 1073 pixels at 96 ppi in its native raster, checked with pdfimages -list; the renders were made at 200 or 300 dpi, which is two to a little over three times the native resolution and therefore interpolation rather than additional information, and each footnote states the resolution at which its sheet was read. No finding on this page turns on a single glyph, and where one would have to, the token is elided rather than resolved. The Bates stamp is a PDF text object and does not appear in the raster listing.

The surname is at least nineteen people, and one of them is a book

Weinstein alone reaches 1,348 documents. 569 carry the exact phrase "Harvey Weinstein"; the residue is 779 documents, and they were censused one at a time rather than sampled. The rule, stated so it can be re-run: for every residue document, every window of 150 characters either side of every occurrence of the token was extracted, and the document was assigned by the first matching pattern in an ordered list of named patterns. Fifty-one documents matched no pattern and were read and assigned by hand. The result:

assigned todocuments
Michael Weinstein, a photographer engaged in 2012 to photograph 9 East 71st Street173
Harvey Weinstein, the film producer159
Marc A. Weinstein of Hughes Hubbard & Reed, counsel to the executors of the Epstein estate123
David Weinstein, Assistant United States Attorney, Southern District of Florida60
Jack B. Weinstein, the judge, and the treatise Weinstein’s Federal Evidence57
another named Weinstein in a list, ledger, roster or citation38
Jason Weinstein of Steptoe & Johnson, on Epstein tax calls with Philip West and Amanda Varma37
a case name in a citation, chiefly Blue v. Weinstein31
Jim, or James, Weinstein, law professor at Arizona State University, in the Lawrence Krauss correspondence27
Danielle Weinstein, a sales specialist at Manhattan Motorcars18
Sara Weinstein, on a 2012 Haiti benefit10
Yehuda Weinstein, Attorney-General of Israel6
Lou Weinstein of the Heritage Book Shop, a defendant in the Al Seckel litigation6
Eric Weinstein, mathematician, on a speakers list5
Boaz Weinstein of Saba Capital, in fund performance tables4
Ellen Weinstein, an illustrator credited in a magazine4
Paula Weinstein, film producer, on guest lists4
a byline in a government press digest3
Levitt-Weinstein Memorial Chapel and Philip M. Weinstein, funeral directors2
Lauren Weinstein, a mailing-list correspondent2
Judih Weinstein, killed in Gaza, in a press digest2
Bob Weinstein, co-chairman of The Weinstein Company1
Kenneth Weinstein, ambassadorial nominee1
unresolved6
total residue779

So the Harvey Weinstein population reachable through the token Weinstein is 569 plus 159, which is 728 documents. A further thirty-two, which that token does not reach at all, are set out below, bringing the population to 760: 666 EFTA, 75 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT, 19 DOJ-OGR. The other 620 documents belong to other people, and the largest single bucket is not a lawyer or a judge but a photographer.

The six unresolved are named individually, because a residual bucket is where the one real defect hides and a blanket assurance about it is worthless. They are: DOJ-OGR-00022291, an alphabetical contact list whose entry reads Weinstein, Bob with no other particular; EFTA00077360, a Southern District of New York message asking of a voicemail “Is she saying Weinstein or Epstein?”, where the sheet states no referent; EFTA00995234 and EFTA01916126, two copies of a personal message to Epstein of 10 August 2014 reporting a consultation, “Saw Weinstein ( friedmans recommendation) he was really great”, which is plainly a practitioner and not the producer; and, taken together as one class, EFTA00722880 and EFTA02779620, two documents in which the surname stands among Epstein’s own defence lawyers, once beside Robert Critton in a Florida time entry and once in the phrase “Weinstein and Dershowitz for Epstein”. Epstein’s counsel of record in both of those matters included Martin Weinberg, and the desk records the possibility that these are that surname rather than this one. The page does not resolve it and does not assign either document to Harvey Weinstein.

The second of those two was read at the image for this pass, and the run argues the point without settling it: the sheet carrying “Weinstein and Dershowitz for Epstein” names Epstein’s attorney as Weinberg a few lines further down, and the sheet after it names him twice more, in the same construction and about the same correspondence.21 The sheet nonetheless prints “Weinstein” at the line the census turns on, this page prints what the sheet prints, and the assignment stays unresolved. A named unresolved can be checked by anyone; a guess would put an act on the wrong man.

A seventh was unresolved until the run was read rather than the sheet. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021788 is a single sheet of a 2008 newspaper article that quotes a “Mr. Weinstein” on the adequacy of the plea resolution and never introduces him. A fuller copy of the same article, EFTA00745900, carries the preceding sheet, which reads: “David Weinstein, an attorney in the government’s Miami office, declined to discuss the specifics of the case.” The quotation is the prosecutor’s, and the document is assigned to him.22

Thirty-two documents the token Weinstein does not reach

The census above is bounded by the token Weinstein. Grepping this page’s own draft for every name form its own prose mentions, and searching each one, found thirty-two documents outside that boundary, which is why the population is 760 and not 728. This is the check a search-form table cannot do for itself: the forms a writer notices while reading are exactly the ones an edit-distance pass is least likely to generate, and the desk has now been caught twice by a page that printed a corrupted form in its own text and never searched it.

formhimnew to the population
"harvey w"1311
"harvey weinsteins"93
"harvey weinste"53
weinsten65
weinstien22
"harvey wienstein"22
weinsteins122
"harvey weinsten"11
"harvey weinnstein"11
arvey, read by hand11
a URL split as we instein11

The most consequential of the thirty-two is the Goldman Sachs draft quoted below. That sheet spells the surname weinsten and the forename harvey and =arvey, and carries the token Weinstein nowhere: a page built on the surname alone would not hold it.

Among the new documents are two copies of a Page Six report Richard Kahn sent Epstein on 26 June 2018, about Weinstein’s insurers refusing to meet his criminal defence costs,23 and one further copy of the August 2018 thread with Lawrence Krauss, reached only because a URL in it is split across a space.24

Seven of the eleven under "harvey w" are copies of one message from Peggy Siegal, and two are her again; the remaining two of the thirteen are other men, a Florida lawyer and a name in a list of volume editors.1718

The name list is the sharpest illustration, and it is a list-shaped document read at the image rather than at the text layer, for the reason the desk requires. It is a single column of names in Epstein’s run-together style, Billrichardson, Tinabrown, Richardjohnson, Glenntudor, and it carries Weinsten between Val Kilmer and Blavatnik, among Ovitz, Mottola, Jeanluc, Terje, Milken and Summers. Producer’s bars stand inside the column at the image, and the text layer carries none of them as bars: it closes some of the gaps entirely, so that the names above and below run together as though nothing had been withheld, and converts others into printable characters, a bullet in one place and the letter I in another. A reader working from the extraction therefore sees a shorter and cleaner list than the sheet, and reads as text marks that were never letters on it. The list is not counted here, no statement is made about its length, and the bars on it are neither counted nor located.25

Two of the thirty-two change the reading of the October 2017 sequence. On 16 October 2017 Nicholas Ribis wrote to Epstein: “Just announced Colony(Tom) buying interest in Weinstien Co”.26 The next afternoon Landon Thomas Jr. of the New York Times wrote to Epstein under the subject line “Barrack. Weinstein. Smart?”, and Epstein answered “Yes”.2728 A press report held in the same release describes “Colony’s founder Tom Barrack”,29 and a shipping record in it is addressed to “TOM BARRACK COLONY CAPITAL”.30 The two messages are a day apart and neither is reachable from the other by any search on a name, which is why the second sat on this page for some hours with its subject line unexplained.

On 29 November 2017 Epstein sent Michael Wolff the New York Times report of Matt Lauer’s dismissal. Wolff answered: “I think Matt will be bigger than =arvey. Matt must have had a knot in his stomach when he had to report abou= Harvey and Charlie, et al. Andy Lack must have had a knot in his stomach =hen he fired Matt. It’s extraordinary.” Epstein replied, “yup”. Wolff then wrote: “I think Harvey, Matt, Charlie, Kevin, and Brett sh=uld just start a media company together.” Epstein’s answer was one word: “name?”31

And one runs back seven years. On 24 August 2010 Epstein forwarded himself a call list his assistant Lesley Groff had sent him that afternoon, adding at the top the line “harvey, wienstein, richard johnson, tina brown,”.32 The comma between the first two tokens leaves two readings and this page resolves neither: the other entries on the line are two-token full names, which favours one name, but the sheet prints a comma and the page prints what the sheet prints.

One further class of document surfaced by the searches run for this page is named here as a class and left there. It is an unsolicited letter sent to a United States Attorney’s Office, which the office routed internally toward the agents on the Epstein case. Nothing is taken from it and it is not counted in the 760. Its identifier is not printed, and neither is its date, its count, the wording of its routing note, nor the search form that reaches it, because what it describes concerns minors, and a withholding that prints its own retrieval route is not a withholding at all. This is the treatment the federal investigative records below get, and for the same reason.

The cleanest demonstration that the surname alone cannot be trusted is a five-document cluster that a surname reader would hand straight to the film producer. On 2 June 2012 at 11:36:35 UTC Epstein wrote to an assistant: “weinstein. ? did he get back, to you. ???? are you traaveling this week? , knowing that I was going down tomororw why are the shields not here.? , the photos in the dining room. ?”33 She replied at 12:20:19 UTC, “resent you Weinstein’s last email.”34 Seven minutes before that reply she had forwarded him the message in question, headed “This is the last email I received from Michael Weinstein”, in which a photographer proposes “$130 per shot for a total of $6500” for fifty photographs; Epstein answered at 13:03:15, “tell him 6500 all in.”35 The surname is resolved by the thread, the hour and the figure, and by nothing else on those first two sheets.

Before the reporting: 2003 to 2015

A Deutsche Bank internal “Source of Wealth” memorandum on Epstein, circulated within the bank on 30 September 2013 and classified “For internal use only”, records that in 2003 he “publicly bid for New York Magazine, along with advertising executive, Donny Deutsch, investor Nelson Peitz, publishing mogul and owner of The Daily News, Mortimer Zuckerman and film producer Harvey Weinstein”, and that “[t]hey were ultimately out bid by longtime wall street investor Bruce Wasserstein for $55 million.”36 A contemporaneous New York Post clipping of 14 December 2003 preserved in the files indexes the same story under the names “Kravis, Henry, Deutsch, Donny, Weinstein, Harvey, Wolff, Michael, Zuckerman, Mort”.37 That is a documented commercial association and the earliest dated one on this page. The dossier is a secondary compilation, not a primary record of the auction.

The connection that actually recurs is the publicist. On 25 June 2009 at 20:36:23, Epstein wrote to the address “Gmax”, which had asked him to critique the trailer for the film Amelia: “you would do well to have pegggy give you a critique and help.. she helps weinstein all the time. sheis a movie nut”.38 The reply, at 00:51:57 the next morning, is about the distributor rather than about Weinstein: “I have no control at all - it’s out and done - it’s fox searchlight ..they released with out even telling TW ..it is what it is”.38 The sheet does not say what “TW” stands for and this page does not supply one.

Two years later Epstein’s own accountant put a Weinstein billing figure on paper. On 28 June 2011 Richard Kahn of HBRK Associates sent Epstein an analysis of Peggy Siegal Inc.’s billings: “Total billed thru June 22, 2011 was $591,378”, of which the “Major clients billed” were “a) HBO $61,184 b) Weinstein $36,039 c) Focus Features $ 40,000 d) Fox Searchlight $30,383”.39 Weinstein is the second entry on that list and the third-largest of the four by amount. The letters run a) b) c) d) but the figures do not run with them: c) Focus Features $ 40,000 exceeds b) Weinstein $36,039, so the order on the sheet is not an order by size, and calling him the second-largest client would be wrong against him. The record shows the relationship existed in June 2011; it is not a contemporaneous corroboration of the June 2009 remark. Peggy Siegal is published on this wiki and that page, which is about the invoices and accounts of the same relationship, does not carry this document.

The two documents in which Weinstein himself writes both run through her. On Saturday 1 January 2011 at 09:49:26 Siegal wrote to “Weinstein, Harvey” under the subject “George Lucas”, reporting a dinner conversation with Lucas about the Academy Awards and ending “if you see him can you encourage him to see TICS. Can you have a dvd delivered to his boat with a nice note?”3 At 10:33:47 he replied: “Good reconnaissance we will make sure”.3 At 15:49:12 the same afternoon Siegal forwarded the whole exchange to Epstein: “Thought this would amuse you. Happy New Year. Got a ride home Sunday afternoon on Peter Brant’s plane. When are you back? xoxo Peg”.3 The header blocks of both messages also survive as separate single-sheet documents in the production, and it is those two sheets that carry the sender and recipient values the measurement above counts.212 A year later, on 9 January 2012 at 07:49:00, he replied to her again, on a Page Six placement, “Great. Well done”, and she again forwarded it to Epstein.40

On 22 April 2011 Siegal wrote to Epstein from the Tribeca Film Festival, “At Tribeca Grill waiting to hear liarvey Weinstein speak…what devotion to my”, the sheet breaking there.41 And on 12 October 2015, two years before the reporting, she wrote to him: “There are not enough hours in the day to do all the work that pours in. Not working for Harvey W. as he owes me $90,000.!!! Can you send some goons after him? xoxo Peg”.4 That is a commercial complaint about an unpaid fee, and this page reads it as nothing more.

Five months before the reporting, Weinstein’s own publicist was writing to Epstein about him. On 8 May 2017 Matthew Hiltzik, whose New York public relations firm counted Weinstein among its clients, wrote to Epstein under the subject “RE: target audience”: “Had a hilarious meeting with him and Harvey W back in my Miramax days / Was more interested in discussing juliette Binoche than educating Harvey about israel’s issue.”16 A book text held in the release, the merged corpus row for Michael Wolff’s Fire and Fury, whose own sheet is the book’s front cover, describes Hiltzik as “noted for his ability to work with highmaintenance clients, including the movie producer Harvey Weinstein (later pilloried for years of sexual harassment and abuse—accusations that Hiltzik and his staff had long helped protect him from)”,42 and a second book text in the release describes his firm as one long associated with Weinstein.43

October 2017: the seven weeks

The New York Times published its first account of allegations against Weinstein on 5 October 2017. The release records the reaction inside Epstein’s correspondence from the same day, and it is set out here in date order because the sequence is the finding.

5 October, 17:27 UTC. Richard Kahn sent Epstein the Variety report of the Times story, with no comment.5

6 October, 11:55 UTC. Ike Groff sent Lesley Groff, Epstein’s assistant, the Times article itself, under its own headline, “Decades of Sexual Harassment Accusations Against Harvey Weinstein”.44

6 October, 15:41. Epstein wrote to Brad Karp, chairman of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison: “how bad does the harvey weinstein story get?” At 20:21 Karp answered: “I think it gets pretty bad — and a little bit worse every day.”6 Both Sent fields on that sheet are bare of any time zone; the times are given as the sheet prints them. This exchange is already published on people/brad-karp, which carries it in the same terms.

10 October, 18:17:24 UTC. Kathryn Ruemmler, the former White House Counsel, wrote to Epstein: “I will. Are you off the grid? Whoever was not harassed by Harvey Weinstein must feel offended! Jesus.” Epstein replied: “no worry , that means only grandmothers . wait , its not all out yet”.45 The quoted headers inside that sheet carry no zone; the stamp used here is the RFC Date: field of the top-level message.

10 October, 21:36 to 21:38 UTC. Soon-Yi Previn forwarded herself, and then Epstein received, the New Yorker article published that day;46 Epstein wrote back, “how do you think about this stuff. ?”47

10 October, 22:03 to 22:33 UTC. Epstein sent Faith Kates a Deadline report on the reaction to the story.48 She answered, “Did u listen to the tape”;49 he answered, “yup”; and she wrote: “Oh boy all the agents should be taken down they all knew but he was to important to his business so they looked away plus they were all men. Ummm”.50

13 October. Epstein sent a correspondent the complete text of a New Yorker essay on how men in Weinstein’s position implicate the people they assault, pasted into the body of the message rather than linked.51 Two days later he sent the same essay, as a link, to Previn.52 The essay names an accuser and recounts her account; nothing from those passages is reproduced here.

17 October, 16:01 UTC. The satirist Paul Krassner forwarded Epstein a joke about Weinstein entering a treatment programme in Switzerland, ending “Maybe in rehab Weinstein will learn the difference between sex and sexual assault.”53

17 October, 16:54. Landon Thomas Jr., a financial reporter at the New York Times, wrote to Epstein under the subject line “Barrack. Weinstein. Smart?”. Three minutes later Epstein answered: “Yes”.2728

18 October, 19:24. Ruemmler sent Epstein a New York Times opinion column on the reporting, with the words “Wow. This is good.”54

18 October, 12:12 UTC. Epstein sent out, and copied to himself ten seconds later, a Moscow Times report headlined for a Russian actress facing backlash for expressing support for Weinstein.5556

30 October, 15:40. Epstein wrote to Thomas: “i dont go to conferences. I ve had lots =f discussions with my friend since. . 2. =A0 hopefully barrack doesnt get dragged in with rick gates. 3. so fa= boies has escaped the weinstein mess. 4. Henry Ja=ecki being brought in to the james toback stories. 5 =A0 boy am i glad i am old news”.9 The = characters and the =A0 sequences are quoted-printable damage printed on the face of the sheet and are reproduced here rather than repaired; the corpus text layer of this sheet also reads I ye had lots where the image reads I ve had lots, and the image is preferred.

7 November. Epstein sent Ruemmler the Times report on the New Yorker’s account of Weinstein’s use of investigators against his accusers. She answered: “My God. He is so sleezy, and it never sticks to him.” Epstein replied, “Let’s see”.57 The same day he sent the same story to Michael Wolff,58 and later that evening wrote to Wolff: “You can tell SB that whether Saudi paradise papers or Weinstein it will be fun”.59

21 November, 13:54 UTC. Epstein wrote to Thomas: “of course not, I m not sure why he was so sanctimonious and agressive when detailing the harvey weinstein allegations. now watching the overlay , its amazing”.60 The sheet does not name the person the sentence is about, and this page does not supply one.

18 January 2018, 14:17:45 UTC. Arranging a gathering with Wolff, Epstein wrote: “why dont we also ask harvey weinstein to join to make sure we dont get any press :)”.61 Wolff answered three minutes later, “Ha! On another note, this Woody thing is going south very quickly.”62

The defence use

The sharpest use Epstein made of the reporting is documented in a single exchange with Alan Dershowitz, and it needs to be read against what later happened.

On 10 October 2017 at 07:53 Epstein wrote to Dershowitz:

lisa bloom , while representing harvey and taking money for her book sued donald trump and me re a made up 13 year old rape . 2 boeies representing harvey, represents▮ against you and me. . 3 / it is quite possible that it was harvey and not you that she recalled. . 4.

On 12 October at 04:01:01 UTC Dershowitz replied, under the subject line “Re:Weinstein. Roberts.”:

Do you think it’s possible Boies had her accuse me to cover up for his client? How could we prove that ? Did W get massages from ▮? Was he ever on island, nm, pb, ny house , plane ?7

Two producer’s bars on that sheet are rendered by the text layer as characters, and the second is the more dangerous. The corpus extraction reads represents• where the image prints a black bar, and it reads Did W get massages from M? where the image prints a black bar with no letter in it at all. A reader working from the extraction would take “M” for an initial and would be reading a name the producing party withheld. The bars are not resolved here.

“Roberts” in that subject line is Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who alleged from December 2014 that Epstein had directed her to have sex with Dershowitz, an allegation Dershowitz denied from the outset.63 Her answer belongs beside this. In November 2022 the parties stipulated to the dismissal of her defamation action against him with prejudice and without costs, and she issued a statement, reported by CNN and CBS News, saying that she had been very young when she was trafficked by Epstein and in a stressful and traumatic environment, and that “I now recognize I may have made a mistake in identifying Mr. Dershowitz.”64 Dershowitz said that he had never had sex with her and that “I have nevertheless come to believe that at the time she accused me she believed what she said.”64

The documented facts are these, in order: in October 2017 Epstein put to Dershowitz the proposition that the accuser may have recalled Weinstein rather than Dershowitz; Dershowitz answered by asking for evidence that could be used to test it; and five years later the action ended with her statement that she might have been mistaken in identifying him. This page asserts no connection between those events, and none is documented in the release. The question it raises and cannot answer is whether the misidentification theory that surfaced in a private message in October 2017 had any relationship to the way the litigation ended, and no document read for this page speaks to that.

A second document of the same week is left where it stands. On 12 October 2017 at 03:02:28 UTC a correspondent wrote to Epstein, “Did ▮ ever massage Weinstein. ?”, above an exchange of 5 October in which the same correspondent had asked, “How does representing ▮ relate to Weinstein. ? I don’t understand”, and Epstein had answered, “Movie”.65 Four values on that sheet are barred, and the extraction renders one of the bars as a full stop, so that the text layer reads “Did. ever massage Weinstein. ?” and gives no sign that anything was withheld. That is the third bar across these two sheets that the extraction converts into a printable character: a bullet and an apparent initial on the first sheet, and a full stop on this one. The two sheets also carry bars the extraction closes without any character at all.

Epstein continued to work the same seam with a reporter. On 8 November 2017 Thomas sent him the Times profile of David Boies’s role for Weinstein, “Re Boies, Voila.”; Epstein replied, “MONEY!!!! he lost the fee for hank green=urg, and needed money for his firm. if=you look into boies and AIG you will find the answer”66 On 7 November he had already written to Thomas, about an account of Weinstein hiring investigators to identify accusers, that “the same boies that represents ▮ . who makes totally fabricated claims re gore and clinton - boies clients. he refuses to ask them their version of events. They were never on the island and though she gave details of a dinnner. I have never ever met al gore or his wife.”67

The advice to Goldman Sachs

On Sunday 15 October 2017 at 09:37, Epstein wrote to Kathryn Ruemmler, then a partner at Latham & Watkins and a candidate for a senior legal role at Goldman Sachs, a draft of what the bank’s chief executive should say. The sheet carries heavy quoted-printable damage on its face, and is quoted as printed:

recall i thought that the best lloyd interview would have =e crafted to incorporate recent headlines. . well PERFEC= . … , here how i would handle a harvey prble= at goldman. and here are the stepsi would take to prevent it. =C2 women , a new economic hurricane force. had =arvey been charieman of goldman. the disruption would be HUGE.=C2 there are not many competitors for weinsten so the drum =eat to move to another studio is not comparable to what would happen to a =oldman.8

The message goes on to set out numbered points about social media as a regulator, about equal pay, about “mentorship without a hug”, and ends with a reference to a speech on attitude towards women and a “petraues parable.”8 The first word of the second line is elided above rather than transcribed. The extraction reads it Illoyd; at 300 dpi the sheet prints three identical vertical strokes followed by oyd, and in this typeface a capital I and a lower-case l are the same mark, so which is which cannot be settled at any resolution. The line above it prints the same name with two strokes, lloyd. Nothing on this page turns on that token and no reading of it is supplied. people/kathryn-ruemmler is published and carries this document in a single sentence; this page reproduces the passage itself.

Ruemmler told the House Oversight Committee in July 2026 that in one e-mail she had called Epstein “sweetie”, replying, she said, to a message in which he had compared his own conduct favourably with Weinstein’s, and that she used the word “in a patronizing way” to tell him “your conduct involved abuse of power too.”68 No message matching that description was located for this page. The forms were written down before they were run, from what such a message would say in its own words: a short reply, first person, using the word she reported using, or drawing the comparison she reported him drawing. "sweetie" conjoined with Weinstein returns nothing. "sweetie" conjoined with Epstein returns 33 documents; a window around the word was read in each of the 33, and none is the message she described. The base phrase conjoined with "abuse of power" returns 2, with compare 3, with unlike 2, with "worse than" 2, with "never did" 2 and with "at least" 22; the first five sets were read in full and are press profiles, a 2009 column, the Maxwell sentencing exchange quoted below and the Maxwell proffer. That is a report of searches and of what was read, not a finding that no such message exists, and people/kathryn-ruemmler records the same limit independently.

2018 and 2019

On 7 March 2018 Epstein drafted a public statement for another man to issue in his own name, and built it around Weinstein. Writing to Lawrence Krauss under the subject “Re: the version we hope to send out tomorrow morning.”, he set out a first-person denial for Krauss to publish over a BuzzFeed report, which runs in part:

I have been accused of making inapprotiate comments not exposing a louis ck style science experiment. not a harvey weinnstein abuse of employees. no showers massages. . promises of stardon. I have been accused of making imapporiate comments.69

That is the same move as the Goldman Sachs draft of five months earlier, in the same hand: Weinstein as the benchmark a client is to be measured against and found lesser. The draft also has Krauss say that a university review “will end as the past ones did. showing maybe poor socail skills. but definetly no harassment”, and that nothing in it “is intended to diminish the importance of the publics ddressing the serious issues of sexual harassment and sexual assault wherever they occur.”69 The spellings are the sheet’s.

On 27 February 2018 Adam Waldman, writing as litigation counsel to the physicist Lawrence Krauss in a dispute with Arizona State University and BuzzFeed, wrote to the university: “Professor Krauss and I both recognize the =bsolute need to investigate real allegations. Some of the women who =ave bravely come forward with personal harassment allegations against Harv=y Weinstein are my clients and friends. Some of these victims have b=en advised by me. Those actual allegations are entirely distinct fro= a tabloid attempting to manufacture allegations to create harm.”70 The letter reached Epstein’s files, and Epstein replied into the thread the same evening, at 22:41: “you dont understand. AT ALL . !!!”, advising that the university “must do a new thorough investigation. . and dig deeper. . and take every allegatio= from buzz fed an run it down.”70

On 26 June 2018 at 11:52:30 UTC, Woody Allen sent Epstein an iMessage: “Key Question for Judge in Weinstein Case: Can Other Accusers Testify?”, followed by “In case you didn’t see this.”71 At 12:21:04 Epstein answered, “Ive seen. I’ll be back from Middle East . Thurs . You around?”71

On 21 August 2018 Epstein sent Lawrence Krauss a New York Times opinion piece whose URL slug names two women and Weinstein.72 On 15 October 2018 Richard Kahn sent him a Page Six story headlined “Booted Weinstein cop insists he didn’t withhold any evidence”.73 On 4 March 2019 the cognitive scientist Joscha Bach wrote to Epstein about a New York Times letter defending the 2007 non-prosecution agreement, adding that “[i]t seems brave of Starr and the others to take a stand like this in the NYT, while Harvard Law students are demonstrating against their prof Sullivan, because he dares to work as Weinstein’s defense attorney, and Catherine MacKinnon gets tenure there.” Epstein replied the next day: “yes”.74

After Epstein’s death: 2020 to 2025

The United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York circulated a daily press digest. Copies in the release from January to March 2020 carry a standing section headed Weinstein under Matters of Interest, alongside sections for the office’s own cases and one for Epstein. The contents page of the digest for Friday 10 January 2020 lists, on successive lines, “Matters of Interest 12”, “Weinstein 12” and “Rosenberg 14”.75 Sibling digests in the same series print the section’s headlines: “Harvey Weinstein to get special treatment as officials fear an ‘Epstein incident’”,76 “Harvey Weinstein Wanted to Testify. His Lawyers Stopped Him.”,77 and “Harvey Weinstein injured in Rikers Island jail, his publicist says”.78 A prosecutor’s office tracked the two men in adjacent sections of the same briefing sheet.

Maxwell’s own sentencing memorandum invoked him by name, and the government answered it. The government’s submission of June 2022 records: “The defendant argues that she should not be ‘sentenced as if she were Harvey Weinstein’ who was convicted of forcible rape following a state jury trial. (Dkt. No. 663 at 20). These are different cases, under different sentencing regimes, with different facts. It is pointless to compare a state rape case involving adults to a federal case involving child exploitation.”79

The Weinstein litigation entered the Epstein litigation as law. Noble v. Weinstein and Geiss v. The Weinstein Company Holdings are cited repeatedly in briefing in the Epstein-related civil actions, on the construction of the sex-trafficking statute and on the adequacy of a settlement allocation.8081 In the defence of Ghislaine Maxwell, the expert Elizabeth Loftus’s disclosure listed “People v. Weinstein (NY Cty, NY 2020)” among the sex-abuse cases in which she had given evidence on memory,82 and Maxwell’s post-trial juror litigation cited televised interviews with Weinstein jurors as precedent.83

On 24 July 2025 at 07:17:12 UTC the FBI’s New York office circulated an internal tasking message, subject “JE tasks 7/24”. Its second task reads: “Take these names and build out new spreadsheet w all the derog on them.” The list that follows begins:

Trump Weinstein Prince Andrew Glen Dubin Jes Staley Leon Black Les Wexner Alan Dershowitz Bill Clinton - Tony Blair Howard Lutnick - ponzi scheme and money laundering Alexander Guest Jean Luc Brunel William Barr, for being present when a girl was raped11

The list is a single column on the sheet; the annotations attach to the names they follow. Weinstein’s entry carries no annotation. The list is a tasking, not a finding: it directs that derogatory information be compiled, and the annotations record what the bureau was proposing to run down. The corpus text layer of this sheet reads w al t e derog, dropping characters the image prints.

Also in July 2025, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche questioned Ghislaine Maxwell about Weinstein under proffer. The exchange follows a sequence of questions about Jean-Luc Brunel:

TODD BLANCHE: How about Mr. Weinstein, Harvey Weinstein? GHISLAINE MAXWELL: What would you like to know? TODD BLANCHE: Do you know him? GHISLAINE MAXWELL: Yes. TODD BLANCHE: How do you know him? Like, I guess when I say “how do you know him,” is it a relationship you had kind of separate from Mr. Epstein or did you meet him through Mr. Epstein or both?10

She answered that she “wouldn’t say I had any type of relationship with Harvey Weinstein … in any context”, that she met him socially at events and at Miramax events, and that she was friendly with people who worked for him. Asked whether Epstein “had his own relationship with Mr. Weinstein”, she answered “He did.” Asked whether they socialised at the island, in Palm Beach or in New Mexico:

GHISLAINE MAXWELL: I never saw Harvey at any of Epstein’s houses. So socialize — I don’t know that they were friends. I mean, I can’t see them together, either. I mean, literally. … I would imagine — and in fact, I think I have a memory, but I can’t — that when Harvey was trying to raise money for whatever his business was called, I can’t remember what his business was called. Maybe he went there, because Epstein was good at raising money. I just don’t know. But I never saw them. I don’t — I don’t recall seeing Harvey in any of the properties.84

That answer runs in Weinstein’s favour and is carried in full for that reason.

What the record does not settle

Eight of the documents assigned to him in the census above are federal investigative records whose Weinstein-headed sections carry accounts given to agents. Nothing is taken from them on this page and no identifier for them is printed here. They are counted because a census that dropped them would be false.

Whether Weinstein was ever at an Epstein property is not settled by this release and this page does not settle it. What it holds is: Maxwell’s sworn answer that she never saw him at any of them, quoted above; Dershowitz’s October 2017 question about “W”, “Was he ever on island, nm, pb, ny house , plane ?”,7 and the investigative material named in the paragraph above. The searches run for this section were the base phrase conjoined with each of "little st james", island, "palm beach", "new mexico", "71st", massage, manifest, flight and zorro. The island conjunction returns 156 documents; all seven that also carry "little st james" were read. Four are copies of one paragraph of a bank memorandum placing The Financial Trust Company “on the island of St. Thomas”,85 which is a different island and a different sentence; a fifth is another rendering of the same 2003 auction narrative, a sixth is a background note listing him among Epstein’s social acquaintances, and the seventh is a newspaper article naming him as a later parallel.86 None of the seven places him at an Epstein property. A count is not a reading, and the count is given here only beside what was read.

Nothing on this page is a finding of wrongdoing against anyone named in it, and no document cited here is evidence of the offences for which Weinstein was tried.

Timeline

dateeventdocument
Dec 14, 2003A New York Post report on the New York Magazine auction, indexed under his name, is preserved in Epstein’s filesEFTA01661603
Jun 25, 2009Epstein to “Gmax”: “she helps weinstein all the time”EFTA00772333
Aug 24, 2010Epstein adds “harvey, wienstein, richard johnson, tina brown,” to a forwarded call listEFTA00758023
Jan 1, 2011Siegal to Weinstein on George Lucas; his reply, “Good reconnaissance we will make sure”; her forward to EpsteinEFTA01832862
Apr 22, 2011Siegal to Epstein from the Tribeca Film FestivalEFTA02014290
Jun 28, 2011Richard Kahn’s analysis of Siegal’s billings lists “Weinstein $36,039”EFTA00914175
Jan 9, 2012Weinstein to Siegal, “Great. Well done”; her forward to EpsteinEFTA01988263
Oct 12, 2015Siegal to Epstein: “Not working for Harvey W. as he owes me $90,000.!!!”EFTA01788816
Oct 5, 2017Richard Kahn sends Epstein the Variety report of the Times storyEFTA00634861
Oct 6, 2017Epstein to Brad Karp: “how bad does the harvey weinstein story get?”; Karp’s replyEFTA02379209
Oct 10, 2017Epstein to Dershowitz: “it is quite possible that it was harvey and not you that she recalled”EFTA00993606
Oct 10, 2017Ruemmler to Epstein: “Whoever was not harassed by Harvey Weinstein must feel offended!”EFTA00992501
Oct 10, 2017Faith Kates to Epstein: “all the agents should be taken down they all knew but he was to important to his business so they looked away”EFTA00992898
Oct 12, 2017Dershowitz to Epstein, subject “Re:Weinstein. Roberts.”EFTA00993606
Oct 15, 2017Epstein drafts for Ruemmler how Goldman’s chief executive should handle “a harvey prble=“EFTA02582780
Oct 16, 2017Nicholas Ribis to Epstein: “Just announced Colony(Tom) buying interest in Weinstien Co”EFTA00988752
Oct 17, 2017Landon Thomas Jr. to Epstein, subject “Barrack. Weinstein. Smart?”; Epstein: “Yes”EFTA02579525
Oct 30, 2017Epstein to Thomas: “boy am i glad i am old news”EFTA02575195
Nov 7, 2017Ruemmler to Epstein: “He is so sleezy, and it never sticks to him”EFTA00964056
Nov 29, 2017Wolff to Epstein on a media company for five named men; Epstein: “name?”EFTA02560871
Jan 18, 2018Epstein to Michael Wolff: “why dont we also ask harvey weinstein to join”EFTA00907877
Feb 27, 2018Adam Waldman’s letter to Arizona State University reaches Epstein’s filesEFTA02520779
Mar 7, 2018Epstein drafts a public denial for Lawrence Krauss, measured against WeinsteinEFTA00866224
Jun 26, 2018Richard Kahn sends Epstein a Page Six report on Weinstein’s insurersEFTA00905716
Jun 26, 2018Woody Allen to Epstein on the Weinstein caseEFTA00786022
Jan 10, 2020The SDNY daily press digest carries a standing “Weinstein” sectionEFTA00064827
Jul 2025Todd Blanche questions Ghislaine Maxwell about Weinstein under profferDOJ-OGR-00022393
Jul 24, 2025FBI New York tasking: “build out new spreadsheet w all the derog on them”EFTA01648955

See also

Notes

Footnotes

  1. Wikipedia, “Harvey Weinstein.” Used here only for the public-record outline of his career and convictions, which no document in this release establishes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Weinstein ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  2. Header block, Weinstein to Peggy Siegal, “Re: George Lucas,” Jan 1, 2011, 10:33:47. Single sheet, header only; the body is not carried on this sheet. His e-mail address is barred. Read at the image at 200 dpi; native raster 816x1073 at 96 ppi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02016219 p.1 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  3. Peggy Siegal to Epstein, “Fw: George Lucas,” Jan 1, 2011, 15:49:12, carrying both messages of that morning in full. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01832862 p.1 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  4. Peggy Siegal to Epstein, Oct 12, 2015, 08:41, within a thread forwarded at 12:48. Read at the image at 200 dpi; native raster 816x1073 at 96 ppi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01788816 p.1 ↩ ↩2

  5. Richard Kahn to Epstein, Oct 5, 2017, 17:27:05 +0000, sending the Variety report. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00634861 p.1 ↩ ↩2

  6. Epstein to Brad Karp, Oct 6, 2017, 15:41, and Karp’s reply at 20:21. Read at the image at 200 dpi; native raster 816x1073 at 96 ppi. Neither Sent field carries a time zone. The sender’s e-mail address and part of the signature block are barred. The same exchange is published on people/brad-karp. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02379209 p.1 ↩ ↩2

  7. Alan Dershowitz to Epstein, “Re:Weinstein. Roberts.”, Oct 12, 2017, 04:01:01 +0000, carrying Epstein’s message of Oct 10, 2017, 07:53. Read at the image at 300 dpi; native raster 816x1056 at 96 ppi. Two values in the body are barred by the producing party, one in Dershowitz’s own message of Oct 12 and one in Epstein’s quoted message of Oct 10. The corpus text layer renders the bar in Epstein’s message as a bullet and the bar in Dershowitz’s as the letter “M”; at the image neither carries a character. Dershowitz’s e-mail address is barred in the header and again in two quoted header lines. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00993606 p.1 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  8. Epstein to Kathryn Ruemmler, Oct 15, 2017, 09:37. Read at the image at 300 dpi; native raster 816x1073 at 96 ppi. The quoted-printable damage is printed on the face of the sheet and is reproduced rather than repaired. The same document is cited on people/kathryn-ruemmler. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02582780 p.1 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  9. Epstein to Landon Thomas Jr., “Re: Did you go to Saudi?”, Oct 30, 2017, 15:40. Read at the image at 200 dpi; native raster 816x1073 at 96 ppi. The quoted-printable damage is printed on the face of the sheet. The corpus text layer reads “I ye had lots” where the image reads “I ve had lots”; the image is preferred and the disagreement is declared, not repaired. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02575195 p.1 ↩ ↩2

  10. Interview of Ghislaine Maxwell by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, July 2025, transcript page 161. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00022393 p.161 ↩ ↩2

  11. FBI New York internal tasking message, “JE tasks 7/24,” Jul 24, 2025, 07:17:12 +0000. Read at the image at 200 dpi; native raster 816x1056 at 96 ppi. The sender, most recipients and three values in the body are barred; one recipient line survives as “(NY) (FBI)”. The list is a single column on the sheet. The corpus text layer reads “w al t e derog”; the image reads “w all the derog.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01648955 p.1 ↩ ↩2

  12. Header block, Peggy Siegal to Weinstein, “George Lucas,” Jan 1, 2011, 09:49:26. Single sheet, header only. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02029585 p.1 ↩ ↩2

  13. Sheet rendering the passage as “media mogul and publeher Malmo Weinstein.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00168946 p.7 ↩

  14. Independently produced copy of the same passage, reading “media mogul and publisher Mortimer Zuckerman, who had the New York Daily News. and film producer Haney Weinstein.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01375119 p.1 ↩

  15. A second such copy. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01383905 p.1 ↩

  16. Matthew Hiltzik to Epstein, “RE: target audience,” May 8, 2017, 16:32:18 +0000: “Had a hilarious meeting with him and Harvey W back in my Miramax days / Was more interested in discussing juliette Binoche than educating Harvey about israel’s issue.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01046804 p.1 ↩ ↩2

  17. A Florida filing naming “Harvey W. Ourland, Jr.” of Duane Morris LLP, a different person. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01118695 p.3 ↩ ↩2

  18. A bibliographic reference listing “Harvey W” among the editors of a volume, a different person. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00723791 p.23 ↩ ↩2

  19. Two copies of the Faith Kates thread of Oct 10, 2017, on which a quoted-printable soft break splits the surname, the sheet printing harvey-w=instein. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02585604 p.1 and https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02585651 p.1 ↩

  20. Three sheets of an April 2020 exchange forwarding a Daily Beast article, whose sender and recipient values are barred and whose subject line carries the base phrase. These are the documents that defeated the first version of the act-rate classifier. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00040709 p.1 ↩

  21. Memorandum of law in Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 1:15-cv-07433-LAP, Doc. 46, filed Mar 7, 2016, opposing a motion to compel privilege-log entries. Read at the image at 300 dpi; native raster 816x1056 at 96 ppi. The sheet carrying “Weinstein and Dershowitz for Epstein” names Epstein’s attorney as Weinberg lower on the same sheet, and the sheet after it names him twice more. Nothing is taken from either sheet but the phrase already quoted, and no field state on either of them is described here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02779620 pp.17-18 ↩

  22. The same article, in a fuller copy, at the sheet preceding the quotation. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00745900 p.13 ↩

  23. Richard Kahn to Epstein, Jun 26, 2018, 19:02:16 +0000, sending a Page Six report. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00905716 p.1 ; a second copy at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02536013 p.1 ↩

  24. A further copy of the thread of Aug 21, 2018 with Lawrence Krauss, in which the article URL is broken so that the surname is split across a space. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01008088 p.1 ↩

  25. A single-column list of names in Epstein’s files, read at the image at 300 dpi; native raster 816x1073 at 96 ppi. Producer’s bars stand inside the column; the text layer carries none of them as bars, closing some of the gaps and converting others into printable characters. The bars are neither counted nor located here, and no other copy of the list is cited. A bar count and a sibling identifier standing in one footnote are a recovery route whatever the document, and this desk does not print one. Nothing is taken from this document beyond the run of names quoted on the page above. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01733713 p.2 ↩

  26. Nicholas Ribis to Epstein, Oct 16, 2017, 13:37:57 +0000. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00988752 p.1 ; a second copy at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02584081 p.1 ↩

  27. Landon Thomas Jr. to Epstein, “Barrack. Weinstein. Smart?”, Oct 17, 2017, 16:54. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02580298 p.1 ↩ ↩2

  28. Epstein’s reply, Oct 17, 2017, 16:57. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02579525 p.1 ↩ ↩2

  29. A press report held in the release. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01751387 p.1 ↩

  30. A shipping record in Epstein’s files. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01313762 p.5 ↩

  31. Epstein to Michael Wolff, Nov 29, 2017, 15:47, carrying the whole thread from 13:25 that day. Quoted-printable damage is printed on the sheet. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02560871 p.1 ↩

  32. Epstein to his own address, “Fwd: Call List,” Aug 24, 2010, 21:37:01 +0000, forwarding Lesley Groff’s list sent at 14:12. Read at the image at 300 dpi; native raster 816x1056 at 96 ppi. Two telephone numbers and the sender address of the forwarded message are barred. A second copy at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02423117 p.1 . https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00758023 p.1 ↩

  33. Epstein to an assistant, Jun 2, 2012, 11:36:35 +0000. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00544392 p.1 ↩

  34. Reply to Epstein, Jun 2, 2012, 12:20:19 +0000. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00544553 p.1 ↩

  35. Epstein’s reply of Jun 2, 2012, 13:03:15, carrying the forwarded message headed “This is the last email I received from Michael Weinstein” and the photographer’s quotation of “$130 per shot for a total of $6500.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01884358 p.1 ↩

  36. Deutsche Bank internal memorandum, “Jeffrey Epstein Source of Wealth,” Seldon Clarke to Fran M Wickman and others, Sept 30, 2013, 13:56, classified “For internal use only,” within a Deutsche Bank account-authorization package. The passage is the bank’s own secondary summary and not a primary record of the 2003 auction. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00165798 p.19 ↩

  37. New York Post report of Dec 14, 2003 on the New York Magazine auction, preserved as a database printout in Epstein’s files, indexed “People: Kravis, Henry, Deutsch, Donny, Weinstein, Harvey, Wolff, Michael, Zuckerman, Mort.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01661603 p.59 ↩

  38. Epstein to “Gmax,” Jun 25, 2009, 20:36:23, and the reply of Jun 26, 2009, 00:51:57 +0000. Read at the image at 300 dpi; native raster 816x1056 at 96 ppi. The sender address on the reply is barred. The sheet prints “sheis a movie nut”; this copy’s text layer reads “she’s”. The image is preferred and the disagreement is declared, not repaired, so a mechanical comparison of this quotation against that text layer will not match. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00772333 p.1 ↩ ↩2

  39. Richard Kahn to Epstein, “re: Peggy Siegal,” Jun 28, 2011, 20:48:24, forwarding an invoice message from Peggy Siegal Inc. Read at the image at 300 dpi; native raster 816x1056 at 96 ppi. The four lettered figures are transcribed from the image, including the space the sheet prints in ”$ 40,000”. Richard Kahn’s telephone, fax and cell values and several correspondents’ addresses are barred. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00914175 p.1 ↩

  40. Peggy Siegal to Epstein, “Fw: Page Six- Godfathers award the Artists,” Jan 9, 2012, 13:15:57, carrying Weinstein’s reply of 07:49:00. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01988263 p.1 ↩

  41. Peggy Siegal to Epstein, “Re: TFF,” Apr 22, 2011, 13:10:42. The extraction reads “liarvey Weinstein”; the sentence breaks at the foot of the printed body. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02014290 p.1 ↩

  42. A book text held in the release. The corpus row for this identifier is a single merge of 679,525 characters covering the whole book, so it carries no usable page pin and none is given, and the passage above is quoted from that merged text. The sheet the identifier names is a different thing from the row, and it was read at the image on 2026-09-14: it is the front cover of Michael Wolff, Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House — title, subtitle, a photograph of Donald Trump and the author’s name, and no body text at all. So a reader who follows the link lands on a cover and will not find the quoted words there. The passage is not relied on for anything but Hiltzik’s professional relationship to Weinstein, which his own message to Epstein states independently. The container row, and the cover sheet read at the image, are both at https://epstein-data.com/HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019874 ↩

  43. A second book text held in the release, describing “the Hiltzik firm” and its long association with the producer. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00316512 p.9 ↩

  44. Ike Groff to Lesley Groff, “Decades of Sexual Harassment Accusations Against Harvey Weinstein,” Oct 6, 2017, 11:55:24 +0000. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00460036 p.1 ↩

  45. Epstein to Kathryn Ruemmler, Oct 10, 2017, 18:17:24 +0000, carrying her message and his earlier one. Read at the image at 200 dpi; native raster 816x1056 at 96 ppi. Her e-mail address is barred; the quoted headers below the top message carry no time zone. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00992501 p.1 ↩

  46. Soon-Yi Previn, forward of Oct 10, 2017, 21:36:19 +0000. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00714103 p.1 ↩

  47. Epstein’s reply of Oct 10, 2017, 21:38:30 +0000. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00992846 p.1 ↩

  48. Epstein to Faith Kates, Oct 10, 2017, 22:03:08 +0000. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00992848 p.1 ↩

  49. Faith Kates to Epstein, Oct 10, 2017, 22:28:44 +0000. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00714097 p.1 ↩

  50. Faith Kates to Epstein, Oct 10, 2017, 22:33:02 +0000, carrying the whole thread. Read at the image at 200 dpi; native raster 816x1056 at 96 ppi. Her e-mail address is barred. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00992898 p.1 ↩

  51. Epstein to a correspondent, Oct 13, 2017, 19:26:18 +0000, carrying the full text of a New Yorker essay across two sheets. The essay names an accuser and recounts her account; nothing from those passages is reproduced on this page. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00986896 pp.1-2 ↩

  52. Epstein to Soon-Yi Previn, Oct 15, 2017, 19:57:13 +0000, sending the same essay as a link. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00988547 p.1 ↩

  53. Paul Krassner to Epstein, Oct 17, 2017, 16:01:26 +0000. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00981590 p.1 ↩

  54. Kathryn Ruemmler to Epstein, Oct 18, 2017, 19:24, sending a New York Times opinion column. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02580243 p.1 ↩

  55. Epstein, Oct 18, 2017, 12:12:05 +0000. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00569047 p.1 ↩

  56. Epstein to his own address, Oct 18, 2017, 12:12:14 +0000. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00982683 p.1 ↩

  57. Epstein to Kathryn Ruemmler, Nov 7, 2017, 14:34:52 +0000, carrying her reply of 07:30 and his message of 10:50. Read at the image at 200 dpi; native raster 816x1056 at 96 ppi. Her e-mail address is barred. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00964056 p.1 ↩

  58. Epstein to Michael Wolff, Nov 7, 2017, 10:51:01 +0000. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00963925 p.1 ↩

  59. Epstein to Michael Wolff, Nov 7, 2017, 21:48:19 +0000. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00964275 p.1 ↩

  60. Epstein to Landon Thomas Jr., Nov 21, 2017, 13:54:13 +0000. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00950190 p.1 ↩

  61. Epstein to Michael Wolff, Jan 18, 2018, 14:17:45 +0000. Read at the image at 200 dpi; native raster 816x1056 at 96 ppi. Wolff’s e-mail address is barred. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00907877 p.1 ↩

  62. Michael Wolff to Epstein, Jan 18, 2018, 14:20:01 +0000. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00907879 p.1 ↩

  63. See Virginia Roberts Giuffre and Alan Dershowitz, both published, for the full course of that allegation and its denial. ↩

  64. Kara Scannell, CNN, November 8, 2022, and CBS News, November 8, 2022, on the stipulated dismissal of Giuffre v. Dershowitz, as cited on both published pages. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jeffrey-epstein-accuser-virginia-giuffre-drops-lawsuit-against-alan-dershowitz/ ↩ ↩2

  65. Correspondent to Epstein, Oct 12, 2017, 03:02:28 +0000, carrying an exchange of Oct 5, 2017. Read at the image at 300 dpi; native raster 816x1056 at 96 ppi. Four values are barred: the sender value of the top message, a value in its body, the sender value of the quoted message, and a value in that message’s body. The corpus text layer prints a full stop where the first body bar stands. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00993597 p.1 ↩

  66. Epstein to Landon Thomas Jr., Nov 8, 2017, 13:50, carrying Thomas’s message of 08:48. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02571856 p.1 ↩

  67. Landon Thomas Jr. to Epstein, Nov 7, 2017, 14:26:43 +0000, carrying Epstein’s message of 05:42. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00696331 p.1 ↩

  68. Interview of Kathryn H. Ruemmler, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, July 15, 2026, transcript pp.26-27, as cited on people/kathryn-ruemmler. https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Ruemmler-Final-Transcript_Redact-7.28.26.pdf ↩

  69. Epstein to Lawrence Krauss, “Re: the version we hope to send out tomorrow morning.”, Mar 7, 2018, 12:01:08 +0000, carrying Krauss’s message of 01:00 that day. The misspellings are printed on the sheet and are not repaired. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00866224 p.1 ↩ ↩2

  70. Adam Waldman to Arizona State University, forwarded within a thread with Lawrence Krauss and Epstein, Feb 27, 2018; Epstein’s reply of the same day, 22:41. Quoted-printable damage is printed on the sheets. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02520779 pp.1, 4 ↩ ↩2

  71. Forensic extraction of an iPhone, messages 401-500 of 32,198. Woody Allen to Epstein, Jun 26, 2018, 11:52:30 UTC, and Epstein’s reply at 12:21:04 UTC. Read at the image at 200 dpi; native raster 816x1056 at 96 ppi. The participants’ telephone numbers and several other senders’ identifiers on the sheet are barred. The sheet prints “Ive seen”; the text layer reads “lye seen”, with a lower-case L for the capital I. The image is preferred and the disagreement is declared, not repaired, so a mechanical comparison of this quotation against that text layer will not match. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00786022 p.13 ↩ ↩2

  72. Epstein to Lawrence Krauss, Aug 21, 2018, 21:54:27 +0000. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01008078 p.1 ↩

  73. Richard Kahn to Epstein, Oct 15, 2018, 09:15. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02618306 p.1 ↩

  74. Joscha Bach to Epstein, Mar 4, 2019, 19:01, within Epstein’s reply of Mar 5, 2019, 00:02:44 +0000. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01031566 p.1 ↩

  75. SDNY News Clips, Friday, January 10, 2020, contents page. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00064827 p.1 ↩

  76. SDNY News Clips, carrying “Harvey Weinstein to get special treatment as officials fear an ‘Epstein incident’” under “Matters of Interest.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00067620 p.14 ↩

  77. SDNY News Clips, carrying “Harvey Weinstein Wanted to Testify. His Lawyers Stopped Him.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00065241 p.20 ↩

  78. SDNY News Clips, Monday, March 9, 2020, carrying “Harvey Weinstein injured in Rikers Island jail, his publicist says.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00014263 p.19 ↩

  79. Government’s sentencing submission, United States v. Maxwell, footnote 8. The quotation inside it is the government’s quotation of the defendant’s own memorandum at Dkt. No. 663 p.20, which is not itself cited here. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00010536 p.46 ↩

  80. Noble v. Weinstein, 335 F. Supp. 3d 504, cited in briefing in Epstein-related civil litigation on the construction of the federal sex-trafficking statute. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02833903 p.36 ↩

  81. Geiss v. The Weinstein Company Holdings, cited in briefing objecting to a settlement allocation and in briefing on participation in a venture. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00037109 p.4 ↩

  82. Expert disclosure listing “People v. Weinstein (NY Cty, NY 2020)” among the sex-abuse cases in which Elizabeth Loftus gave evidence on memory science. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00007466 p.23 ↩

  83. Post-trial briefing citing televised interviews with jurors, including “Weinstein Juror Reflects On Witness Testimonies, CBS Morning (Feb. 28, 2020).” https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00009108 p.4 ↩

  84. Same interview, transcript pages 162 and 163. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00022393 pp.162, 163 ↩

  85. Four copies of one paragraph of that bank memorandum placing The Financial Trust Company “on the island of St. Thomas in the US Virgin Islands,” which is the source of the island co-occurrence in those documents. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00165798 p.19 ↩

  86. The fifth and sixth of those seven: a second rendering of the auction narrative, and a background note listing his social acquaintances. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00263107 p.5 ; https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00261990 p.7 . The seventh is a newspaper article naming him as a later parallel to Epstein; its identifier is absent from the site’s image store and is deliberately not linked here. ↩

Backlinks