Epstein Data Wiki

Jess Ting

Properties2
tagsperson, physician, surgeon, plastic-surgery, mount-sinai, medical-network, new-york
aliasesJess Ting, Ting, Jess, Dr. Jess Ting, Dr Ting, Ting MD, Jess, Jes Ting

71 min read

ProfessionPlastic surgeon. Writing to Jeffrey Epstein on 19 February 2013 he introduced himself: “besides being a plastic surgeon, I also do basic science research on breast cancer”1
InstitutionMount Sinai, New York. His office’s own signature block gives “Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery”, “Surgical Associates”, “Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai”2
Appointment”I have been made surgical director of the brand new transgender surgery program at Mount Sinai”, 14 May 20163
How he enters the recordOn 3 November 2011 Eva Dubin sent Epstein his details: “She should call Jess directly. He will fit her in right away if she says that I recommended him.”4
What Epstein undertook to give him$50,000 for his breast-cancer research, promised on 20 February 2013: “I will send the 50 k. need details.on entity ( tax id. etc. ). glad to be of help”. No record of that payment being made was located; Ting wrote in May 2016 that the research it supported had borne fruit563
What Epstein gotA press release headed “Science Financier Jeffrey Epstein Funds Pivotal Breast Cancer Research at Mount Sinai”, drafted by the foundation “to not only describe your work but to promote Jeffrey’s foundation”78
His responseHe responded in writing to questions from The Advocate on 2 February 2026, after these records were released: “I came to know Jeffrey Epstein in my professional capacity as a general plastic surgeon about 10+ years ago.”; of the patients referred to him, “They all were adults. There were no concerns about consent.”; and, in the outlet’s words, he “denied ever having sexual contact with anyone associated with Epstein”9
Earliest and latest documents read for this page3 November 2011 and 15 February 2017; the latest substantive one is of 16 December 2016, and the February 2017 sheet is a message to him whose body the producing party covers41011
Search floor1,239 documents, reconciled below. This is a floor and not a population12

Jess Ting is a New York plastic surgeon whose breast-cancer research Jeffrey Epstein agreed to fund with $50,000 in February 2013, and who thereafter appears in Epstein’s files in four registers at once: as a grantee, as the subject of a press release Epstein’s foundation wrote largely about itself, as a guest flown to Epstein’s island with his family, and as a surgeon whom Epstein consulted and to whom Epstein’s office sent other people. The documents released by the Justice Department under the Epstein Files Transparency Act record the relationship from at least November 2011 to at least February 2017.41011

He acts in both directions. He asks Epstein for money and Epstein answers; he writes to Epstein about his research, his promotion and a documentary he wanted financed; Epstein writes about him to his assistant; and Epstein’s office wrote to him, about him and on his behalf across five years of scheduling, billing and press traffic, in a volume this page samples rather than counts.1531314

The shortest exchange on the page is also the sharpest. On 23 January 2015 a Reuters correspondent asked Ting for an interview about Epstein’s philanthropy. Rather than answer it himself, Ting forwarded the request to Epstein’s assistant and asked whether Jeffrey would like him to respond to it — his one-sentence question is stated here rather than transcribed. Epstein’s own answer came back the next day in two words — “Yes respond” — and Ting then undertook to send the reporter’s questions on “so Mr. Epstein can vet my responses”.151617

Nothing on this page is a finding of wrongdoing, and Ting has answered in public. No statement by him about this correspondence appears in any document read for this page. On 2 February 2026, after these records were released, he responded in writing to questions from The Advocate about them. He gave an account of how he came to know Epstein, of his visit to the island, and of the patients Epstein’s office referred to him — “They all were adults. There were no concerns about consent.” — and, in the words of the outlet he wrote to, he “denied ever having sexual contact with anyone associated with Epstein.” His account is set out below, beside the documents it answers. It does not address the January 2015 exchange with the Reuters reporter.9

November 2011: Eva Dubin’s recommendation

The earliest document read for this page is from Eva Dubin, sent to Epstein on the evening of Thursday 3 November 2011. It is three lines long. The body reads:

She should call Jess directly. He will fit her in right away if she says that I recommended him.

Beneath it she pastes a contact block headed “Dr. Jess Ting”, whose two following lines are labelled for a telephone and a cell number and are covered by the producing party. The woman referred to as “she” is not named on the sheet and is not identified here.4

The extraction of that sheet drops the final letter of the surname, rendering the name “Dr. Jess Tin”; the image prints “Dr. Jess Ting”. That one lost character is why the earliest document in the file sits outside every full-name search form.4

Eva Andersson-Dubin is a physician and the founder of a breast-cancer centre at Mount Sinai. Four and a half years later, when Ting asked Epstein for money for a second project, Epstein forwarded the request the same morning — the recipient field of that forward is covered on the sheet — and her reply, under the same subject twenty-four minutes afterwards, was to spend it on her own centre instead.3

October to December 2012: the house calls, and the first bill

On Saturday 31 March 2012 a correspondent asked Epstein’s office, in one line, for “First name of Dr Ting.” It is the earliest mention of him located in the office traffic.18

By the following October he was coming to the house. On Monday 22 October 2012 a member of Epstein’s staff wrote to Epstein under the subject “Dr. Ting”:

Dr. Ting is having his haircut in midtown tomorrow at 1:00 and says he could meet you anywhere at 2pm…I suggested he come to the house at 2pm and they said that would be great.

ok for you to have Dr. Ting come see you tomorrow at 2pm at the house?

The day’s list below it reads “2:00 Appt w/Dr. Ting (▮) Need your approval”. The ellipsis is printed on the sheet.19 The same day a Google Calendar reminder was sent to the office: “fill out Dr. Ting’s paperwork!”, set for 2pm to 2:30pm Eastern Time.20 The next afternoon the appointment moved forward: “Dr. Ting is now coming at 1pm today-Jeffrey would like you here to see him as well. Please confirm back.”21

On Monday 3 December 2012 Bella Klein wrote to Epstein under the subject “Dr. Ting”, attaching a scanned document:

Jeffrey, ▮ gave me the attached bill from Dr. Ting. Please confirm i can make payment in the amount $7500.

The name of the person who handed her the bill is covered. No reply is on the sheet.22

February 2013: “Would you consider financially supporting us?”

Three messages on one afternoon and one the next morning settle the relationship’s financial direction.

On Tuesday 19 February 2013 at 4:51 PM, by the sheet’s own quoted header, Ting wrote to Epstein:

Jeffrey, besides being a plastic surgeon, I also do basic science research on breast cancer. My lab uses a novel approach that no one else in the world is doing. Our preliminary results are promising but we need funding to continue to the next phase.

Would you consider financially supporting us?

I hope I haven’t offended you by being too direct. If I have, I apologize profusely.

But if this is something that interests you, my lab partner and I would love to tell you more about it. I promise you would find it intellectually stimulating and interesting.

Epstein answered five minutes later, in three words: “send more details”.1

At 5:30 PM Ting sent the details. The message sets out the hypothesis — that what enables a tumour to spread is the tissue around it rather than anything in the tumour itself, the “seed and soil” hypothesis — and the method, which is to analyse the fluid drained from the wound after breast surgery and ordinarily thrown away, comparing fluid from the cancerous breast against fluid from the non-cancerous one in the same patient. It then states the position plainly:

I supported this work with my own personal research fund.

I have spent $200,000 of my research fund (given to me patients) to pay for a full time lab tech devoted to this project and for all of the supplies over the last three years. But my fund is down to $10,000. I have another donation of $100,000 coming into my fund that I will devote to this project but not until the end of the year. In the meantime, we would have to fire the lab tech and stop collecting fluid specimens.

To bridge the period until my research fund will be replenished with the expected $100,000 grant coming at the end of the year, we would need $50,000 (ideally more for a full-court press). It could even be in the form of a loan that is repaid with the future contribution.

The phrase “given to me patients” is as the sheet prints it.5

Epstein replied the next morning, Wednesday 20 February 2013, under the subject “Re: Research”:

I will send the 50 k. need details.on entity ( tax id. etc. ). glad to be of help

The spacing, and the missing space in “details.on”, are the sheet’s.5

No record of that payment being made was located — and the near miss has to be named, because it is the document a reader would take for it. Epstein’s reply asks for the details of an entity, and a payment to an entity carries the entity’s name and not the man’s, so searching the payment vocabularies beside the surname was searching a population that could not hold the answer. Searched instead against the institution and the foundation, the release holds exactly one $50,000 instrument running from Epstein’s foundation to Ting’s institution: Enhanced Education cheque 2581, dated 18 June 2014, payable to the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, bearing an ink signature over the signature rule in the name of Darren Indyke and posted in the voucher beneath it to “Charitable contributions”. It is not this grant. Richard Kahn and Epstein had settled it the previous afternoon, and the direction was Epstein’s own: of the four messages on that sheet and the fifth that continues onto the next, his is the first to mention the $50,000 at all. He told Kahn to send it to the luncheon’s own online registration page, Kahn replied that $50,000 from Enhanced Education would buy a table at the Dubin Breast Center luncheon and asked whether to buy one, and Epstein answered “5 tables”. Kahn wrote to Bella Klein the next morning, “JEE would like to purchase 5 tables”. What the release does hold for the research grant is the undertaking, in Epstein’s own words, and Ting’s statement three years later that the money arrived: “The research you supported with a $50,000 grant has borne fruit.”6233

2013: the press release

Ting’s research reaches the file through Epstein’s publicity operation as much as through any scientific document, and the traffic ran in both directions.

March: Ting writes one for Epstein. On 11 March 2013 Lesley Groff reported to Epstein that Ting “was with a patient when I was speaking to him, but he did say quickly he wrote a press release for you”.24

April: the foundation writes one about Ting. On 11 April an account styled jeffreyepsteinorg — the foundation’s mailbox, whose display name in these headers is “Jeffrey Epstein” and which is operated by someone other than Epstein himself — sent him a draft:

Dear Dr. Ting,

I hope all is well. Please find attached a press release draft. The purpose of the press is to not only describe your work but to promote Jeffrey’s foundation (hence the title heading and blurb on Jeffrey etc).

I understand that the goal of your research is to identify those at higher risk for metastasis— but could you clarify what the goal of identification is? Is it to improve vigilance and early surgery? Is it also to develop a systemic approach to remedy the biomarkers evident in the enviroment?

I have highlighted the research’s goals in yellow and hope that you can clarify this for me.

I look forward to your adjustments and any edits you see fit.

The attachment is named on the sheet as “Dr. Ting.docx”. The spelling “enviroment” is the sheet’s.8

Ting answered the same afternoon:

The goal is not to improve vigilance or early surgery but to detect those who, AFTER surgery, are at higher risk for metastases. If we could develop a diagnostic test based on our research findings, it could be used to stratify patients based on the risk of metastasis.

8

The next day the foundation account sent an edited draft — “Please see the edited press release and let me know if it is okay for me to send out” — addressing him as “Dear Dr. Tess,” which is what the sheet prints. Ting answered “I would eliminate DNA transcription factors. These would not be present in wound fluid.” On 15 April the account sent him the published coverage — “The article was also picked up by the Wall Street Journal Market Watch, Boston Globe etc. Thank you so much and I look forward to collaborating down the road!” — listing CBS Moneywatch and Reuters. Ting replied: “Wonderful!”25

What was sent out is in the release. A two-sheet press release in Epstein’s files is headed:

Science Financier Jeffrey Epstein Funds Pivotal Breast Cancer Research at Mount Sinai

It names the research as conducted at Mount Sinai Hospital “under the direction of surgeon Dr. Jess Ting, breast oncologist, Dr. Kerin Adelson and molecular biologist, Dr. Doris Germain”, devotes its third paragraph to the Jeffrey Epstein VI Foundation and to Epstein’s Harvard programme, and closes with four sentences of Epstein’s affiliations and a single quotation attributed to him:

“Identifying post-surgery patients at high risk of metastasis is vital,” Jeffrey Epstein remarked. “It will be a key factor in prioritizing them for constant vigilance.”

The sheet gives its source as a website in Epstein’s name. That remark is copy in a release the foundation drafted and asked Ting to edit; it is not reported speech, and this page does not treat it as such.7

Two months earlier the office had been handling the same project from the other end. On 8 March 2013 a publicist working for Epstein wrote: “I have registered all websites as local businesses with website ‘business cards’. I’m working on some NY press releases and will send. Can I call Dr. Ting’s office directly? I can’t find any information on the web about his control group research (using the 2nd breast as the control).” Relaying a separate request for Ting’s office number, the office asked Epstein “Ok to pass along to her?” Epstein’s answer, that morning, is one word: “no”.26

On Thursday 2 May 2013 the office relayed a message of Ting’s to Epstein under the subject “Dr. Ting”. Its first substantive line is:

Great press on the breast cancer project!! I thought the publicist did a fabulous job. Was Jeffrey happy?

He went on to propose coming to see a person whose name the sheet covers the following day, and to offer Epstein a 5 pm appointment: “Does that work? Should I go to his home?”27

March 2013: the island

The planning runs from 11 to 19 March 2013 and is recorded in several documents, four of which are cited below; the visit itself is evidenced by one, and it is Ting’s own.

On Monday 11 March 2013 Lesley Groff was chasing him. At 10:21 AM, by the sheet’s quoted headers, she reported the press release and the trip. Epstein answered at 10:32 AM, in one line: “ask him if us virgins or british?” At 11:24 AM Groff came back:

Dr. Ting called me back…he is flying in to STT and then will take a “boat taxi or something” to St. John’s…he thinks he arrives STT around noon.

Epstein replied at 11:33 AM: “calendar his trip. have carlos pick him up and take him to where he has to go”. At 3:41:59 PM Groff wrote again:

Dr. Ting is in the OR and answered my call! I am going to email him to get his trip details…he did say he really hopes he could see you if you are around as well as your island…that he has always wanted to see it…he sounded thrilled with the whole idea of being picked up by Carlos and getting him on to his final destination…

Every ellipsis above is printed on the sheet.24

The following day Groff set the details out for Epstein in a message whose produced header carries its own zero offset:

Dr. Ting arrives STT on Tues. March 19th via AA#655 at 12:15pm. Daphne is organizing Carlos to pick up Dr. Ting (and his family) …shall I tell Dr. Ting you are NOT available on the 19th to meet with on your island? (he was hoping to see you/your island)

28

On Thursday 14 March the answer came back. Epstein wrote at 9:51:57 AM Eastern, in a message forwarded onward the same morning:

no , i spoke to him we should have him picked up, brought to st john and then on a day o fhis choice have him for lunch and toys

The line break inside “of his” is on the face of the sheet and is reproduced as printed.29 That afternoon Roy Hodges, who worked on the island, replied “That sounds great ▮. We will handle!” to the message above his, which reads:

Hi Roy, Steph and Daphne! Dr. Ting is a friend of Jeffrey’s who will be landing on STT March 19th with his family…Daphne has kindly coordinated his pick up and delivery to St. John with Carlos. As you see below, Jeffrey would like Dr. Ting and family picked up and brought to the island for a day of some fun and lunch. I will email Dr. Ting and CC you all on it…from there, y’all can coordinate a convenient day for him…

The sender of that message is covered on the sheet and is not attributed here.29

On Friday 15 March Groff sent Epstein the itinerary for the following Tuesday. Under the heading “TUES. MARCH 19, 2013 LSJ-NY” it reads:

12:15pm Dr. Jess Ting to arrive STT via AA#655, Carlos to pick him up and take him to St. John

The extraction of that line is damaged and the image settles it. The text layer renders the airport code S77' and runs the next line’s “STT TO NY” together as STTTO NY; at 400 dpi the sheet prints STT in both places, which is the airport code for St. Thomas in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Nothing on this page rests on the extraction of that line.30

What is arranged, and what is evidenced as having happened

Everything above is a plan. On Sunday 24 March 2013, in the early evening, Ting wrote to Epstein under the subject “Thank you”:

Jeffrey, I just wanted to thank you again for your incredible generosity and hospitality. Roy and Stephanie and Carlos were fantastic! They made us feel pampered and just very special. Your home is beautiful and the day we spent there was the highlight of our trip. You’ve created a paradise on Little St. James and it was an honor and privilege to get to experience it firsthand.am

Jess Tingh

The trailing characters in “firsthand.am” and “Jess Tingh” are printed on the sheet, read at 400 dpi and magnified, and are not repaired here.31 The three names he gives — Roy, Stephanie and Carlos — are the three the planning messages name as the staff who were to collect him and receive him.2928

Epstein’s reply, just under an hour and twenty-one minutes later on the same produced clock, is one word:

Anytime

32

An automatic out-of-office reply from Ting’s address followed two seconds after Epstein’s message.33

His own account of the visit, given in 2026. Responding in writing to The Advocate after these records were released, Ting said he had been to the island once: “I was vacationing in St. John with my then-girlfriend, and he invited me to his island. He wasn’t there at the time, and the only people who were there at the time were his staff.” He told the outlet that the “toys” were “jet skis [and] sailboats” — the article puts that word to him from an invitation an Epstein assistant sent him, which is not among the documents read for this page, and Epstein’s own message above uses the same word. The article states that he “denied ever having sexual contact with anyone associated with Epstein.” This page sets his account beside the documents and does not adjudicate between them.9

Epstein as a patient

The schedules are the weakest evidence of this and Epstein’s own messages are the strongest.

Epstein’s own words. On Tuesday 13 December 2016, late in the morning, he wrote to Groff:

jes ting wants me to get two new mris ? at mount sinai

13

Three days later Groff wrote to Ting’s office:

Hello Elsa…Jeffrey is asking if he could please get the documents on his recent MRI (taken yesterday) via email…We have received the CD, but he would like the report…would it be possible for you to email to me for him?

I have been speaking with Vadesa who scheduled the MRI’s for Jeffrey, but she is out today…

10

The appointments. Epstein’s December 2013 month calendar carries, under Monday 2 December, the line “Reminder: See Dr. Ting”, and under Wednesday 4 December:

5:00pm Appt w/Dr. Ting (▮)(This is contingent upon his opertating room schedule. He will reconfirm day of)

The misspelling “opertating” is the sheet’s.34 A separate sheet of 27 November 2013 has the office asking Epstein “Do you prefer to see Dr. Ting at the house or at his office?”35 An April 2013 schedule gives “6pm to 7pm Arrival for Appt w/Dr. Ting (depending on how his surgeries go this day will determine actual time of arrival)”, and on 3 April Epstein was told “Dr. Ting says it may be around 7:30-7:45 tonight before he can get here…is that ok?” — to which he answered “ask him if we can do 10”.36

An appointment. On Monday 16 December 2013 Groff wrote in the morning under a subject line naming an 11:30 appointment at Ting’s office, telling the recipient the time and assigning a household driver — “Jojo you are driving him. Confirm back.” The recipient’s name is covered on the sheet and nothing here supplies it; Epstein is copied. The reply that afternoon is “Ok”.37 A revised schedule circulated to Epstein later the same day carries, in the same style, “3:45pm TENTATIVE Appt w/ Dr. Ting for procedure”.38

A question put to him about Epstein’s own body. A calendar alert of 5 December 2016 reads, in full: “December 5, 2016 3:00 PM : Does Dr. Ting think JE should have the Limpoma removed?” The sheet prints “Limpoma”.39

The billing statement. A statement in the release, headed on two printed lines SURGICAL ASSOCIATES over MOUNT SINAI MEDICAL CTR with a New York post-office box, prints “TING MD,JESS” and the date 02/26/15. Every other field on the sheet — the patient, the amounts, the account — is covered by the producing party, so the statement establishes his practice and his institution and nothing about whose account it is.40

People sent to him

Epstein’s office routed third parties to Ting, and the production covers every one of their names. The clinical particulars in those messages are not reproduced on this page.

On 16 December 2014 Epstein wrote to Groff asking her to see whether Ting could see a person whose name the sheet covers. The instruction is Epstein’s own and runs to one line.41 In January 2015 the office booked that appointment, rescheduled it when it fell on a public holiday — “Monday is a holiday and the hospital is closed…Dr. Ting forgot! We need to reschedule you” — and put the new time, the practice’s address and its telephone number into a message to the patient; the telephone value is not reproduced here.42 In November 2016 Groff asked another person whose name is covered whether Ting could see them at noon on Friday 18 November.43

One of those appointments was billed to Epstein. On Monday 23 February 2015 at 10:48 AM a person whose name the sheet covers wrote, from Ting’s office, to ask how the bill was to be paid and whether the recipient would telephone the office instead. The reply, from a sender the sheet also covers, is “I can email his assistant…I will ask them to bill Jeffrey if that is possible.” The following afternoon, under a subject line asking that a Dr. Ting invoice be paid for a person the subject line covers, Bella Klein reported that the payment had been made and that a further invoice was coming. The reply that evening, from a sender the sheet covers, is “Great. Thx”.44

His own account of those referrals, given in 2026. In his written response to The Advocate he said he recalled treating “just a few female associates referred by Jeffrey Epstein”, and added: “They all were adults. There were no concerns about consent.” He also said: “When I am referred a patient, I don’t pass judgment on the patient’s personal life, or on the background of the person referring that patient. I focus only on the patient and how I can help them.” Nothing on this page rests on those statements, and nothing here identifies, describes or counts any of the people concerned.9

January 2015: a Reuters reporter, and who decided the answer

On Friday 23 January 2015 at 2:49 PM, David Ingram, a correspondent for Reuters News, wrote to Ting. His message runs to four sentences and is stated here rather than transcribed: he identifies himself as a Reuters reporter working on a story about Epstein as a philanthropist; he asks whether Ting is available for an interview about him; he says he understands that Epstein has helped to fund some of Ting’s work; and he says he wants to learn more about that philanthropy and whether the recent news about Epstein had changed it. A telephone number he offers in the same message is covered by the producing party on each copy of it rendered for this page, and no value from it is reproduced here.15

The reporter’s understanding was correct: Epstein had undertaken, two years earlier, to send $50,000 for Ting’s research, and Ting would confirm in 2016 that the grant had been made.53

Twenty-four minutes later, at 3:13 PM by the same unzoned clock, Ting forwarded the message to Lesley Groff with one sentence, stated here rather than transcribed: it points her to the message below it and asks whether Jeffrey would like him to respond to it.

Groff replied three minutes after that:

Hello Dr. Ting…I doubt he will want you to respond!! but let me tell him!!… thank you for letting us know…will come back to you…

45

The answer came back the other way, and the release carries it in Epstein’s own words. On the Saturday morning Groff put the question to Epstein under the subject “Reminder: Dr. Ting…”, with Ting’s message forwarded beneath it, and Epstein replied in two words:

Yes respond

16 Later that morning Groff wrote to Ting:

Hi Dr. Ting…Jeffrey actually says to YES respond!

15

Ting agreed, on terms. A minute and twenty seconds after her message, by the zoned headers on the two sheets, he answered:

Ok. I will ask him to email me the questions and then I will forward them to you so Mr. Epstein can vet my responses.

Groff’s reply, four minutes after that on the same zoned clock, is “sounds great. t hanks”, which is what the sheet prints.17

Five days later, on the evening of Thursday 29 January — six days after the reporter first wrote — Ting wrote to her:

FYI, that reported never got back to me.

46 Groff passed that on to Epstein eight minutes later under the subject “Jess Ting”. Her message retypes Ting’s sentence rather than forwarding it, and the two sheets differ in one word; both were read at the image and neither is repaired.47

No document read for this page shows whether Ting sent the reporter anything after that undertaking. His written response of February 2026 does not address this exchange, and the article carrying it states that the documents do not show whether Reuters received a reply or whether Epstein reviewed one.9

What the reporter did next is on this wiki already. On 29 January 2015 — the same day Ting reported that he had heard nothing further — David Ingram sent written questions to Epstein’s lawyer Darren Indyke about how many organisations Epstein had given to, as Enhanced Education records.48 His story ran on 6 March 2015 and a printout of it sits in the release. The print header of that printout carries the headline cut off by the page width, as “Exclusive: New York attorney general seeks information on financier Epstein’s philanthro…”, and this page does not complete it. It is about the New York Attorney General’s Charities Bureau asking Indyke why the Jeffrey Epstein VI Foundation should be exempt from state registration, and it observes that Epstein “has cultivated a reputation as a philanthropist through websites and press releases about his donations…” — the sentence goes on to name Harvard University, and the ellipsis is this page’s, marking the cut. The sheet read for this page does not name Ting. It is page 2 of a four-page printout and the other three sheets of that printout were not located under the same identifier, so this is a statement about the sheet and not about the whole article.49

May 2016: the transgender surgery programme, and a documentary

On Saturday 14 May 2016 Ting wrote to Epstein directly, under the subject “documentary and new clinical center”. The letter has two halves. The first reports the return on the 2013 grant:

  1. The research you supported with a $50,000 grant has borne fruit. We have submitted a paper for publication summarizing our results. If you would like a outline of the results of the research, we can email one to you, or present to you in person.

The second is an announcement and an ask:

  1. I have been made surgical director of the brand new transgender surgery program at Mount Sinai. That’s right — Mount Sinai, being the progressive place that it is, saw am opportunity and need to take a leadership position in the area of Transgender Health and created the first full-spectrum academic program in the US focused on transgender surgery and care.

This was such an interesting and innovative idea, that I thought it would make a good documentary. I pitched the idea to a well-known director and we have started scouting interviews and are in the process of making a fundraising trailer.

If I could just be really forward, I was wondering if you would be interested in supporting this documentary? If so, the producer, director and I would love to come and give you the pitch in person.

This is an exciting, groundbreaking project — both the center and the documentary — that will do good for the world. I hope you can be a part of it.

The long dashes, and “saw am opportunity” for “saw an opportunity”, are the sheet’s.3

Epstein forwarded it the same morning, to a recipient the sheet covers. Eva Dubin’s reply, under the same subject twenty-four minutes later, is one line:

better to support the Dubin Breast Center…!!!!:)

3

No document read for this page records what Epstein decided, whether the documentary was made, or whether any money was sent for it.

February 2026: his response to this release

On Monday 2 February 2026, days after these records were released under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, Ting answered questions about them in writing, and the outlet that put them to him, The Advocate, published his response that day. The parts of it that bear on the documents above are given beside them; the rest is here.

On how the relationship began he wrote: “I came to know Jeffrey Epstein in my professional capacity as a general plastic surgeon about 10+ years ago.” On what he knew and when, he wrote: “I remember reading news reports about his being charged with sex crimes, but I don’t recall if that was before or after I treated any of the patients referred by his office.”

On his later work he wrote that starting the transgender surgery programme is “the professional accomplishment of which I am most proud”, that he gave up his plastic surgery practice to do it, and that since creating it he has “been the subject of death threats, bomb threats, stalkers, and protestors”.

His employer answered separately, and briefly. The article reports that it put detailed questions to Mount Sinai Health System about how it oversaw donor relationships and research funding involving Ting, and that a spokesperson said only: “We’ve encouraged Dr. Ting to respond to your questions”. It states that Mount Sinai did not address the substance of the questions put to it.

What this source is, and what it is not. It is a news report carrying a named subject’s own written statement. Where it quotes him, the words above are his and are reproduced as that article gives them; where it characterises what he said — as with the denial — the characterisation is the outlet’s, and this page marks it as such rather than giving it as his words. The article carries further correspondence and further material about him that this page does not use. It is the only public response by him that this page located, and the search that found it was one web search and three articles opened and read in full on 18 October 2026 — not a survey. Whether he or Mount Sinai has said anything further since 2 February 2026 was not established here.9

How this page searched for him, and how his name is spelled in the record

This section is the page’s working, and nothing in the account above depends on reading it. The release is searched through a full-text index of the machine-read text of every sheet, so every count below is a count of documents in which a given spelling of his name occurs in that machine-read text — not of documents about him, and not of occurrences. Where the machine reading is damaged, a correct search returns nothing, which is why so many spellings are tried.

Four forms carry most of it, and none of them contains the others. Measured 2026-10-17 as count(distinct efta_number) against pages_fts, text layer only:

formdocumentsoutside the other three
"Jess Ting"448240 outside "Ting, Jess"
"Ting, Jess"401193 outside "Jess Ting"
"Dr. Ting"939586 outside both name forms
jessting10
union of the four1,227

⚠ "Dr. Ting" and "Dr Ting" are one query, not two. The index tokeniser splits on the full stop, so the two strings return the same 939 documents; the same is true of "DR.TING". A report that lists them as two corroborating forms has counted one measurement twice. For the same reason jess.ting and "Jess Ting" are one query, both at 448.50

Four further forms reach documents the union does not, and every one of them is a single lost or substituted character. "Jes Ting" adds 5, "Doctor Ting" 3, "Jess Tin" 3 and "Ting MD" 1 — twelve documents in all, no two of the four forms overlapping. They are not marginal: the Mount Sinai billing statement, Eva Dubin’s recommendation, Epstein’s own sentence placing him at Mount Sinai, and the February 2015 invoice thread all sit outside the union of the four name forms above.12

So the floor is 1,239 documents: 1,227 plus 12. It is a floor with named bounds and nothing here claims it converged. Forms run and measured at zero or at noise: "Jessica Ting" 0, "Jess Ting, M.D." 0, "Jess M Ting" 0, "Jess A Ting" 0, "Tingjess" 0, jesstingmd 0, "Jess TinQ" 0. Forms run and rejected after reading: the bare token Ting reaches 2,725 documents, of which 1,489 lie outside the floor and were not assigned; Tmg reaches 46 documents outside the floor, Tings 90 and "Dr. T" 65, and all three are homograph pools; and of the 12 documents Timg reaches outside the floor, all twelve were read in context and none is him.51

⚠ One spelling this page itself quotes was never run. The foundation account addressed him once as “Dear Dr. Tess,”25 and "Dr. Tess" is not among the forms above. Measured afterwards it returns 2 documents, one of them inside the floor and one outside it; the outside one was opened at the image and is a March 2013 message to Epstein sending press links whose writer says “am working on article on Dr. Tess”. So the floor is understated by at least that one document. It is left at 1,239 as measured rather than adjusted. That one document is named in the footnote below; it lies outside every form the floor is built from, and it lies outside the bare token Ting and outside Tmg, Tings, "Dr. T" and Timg as well, so none of the outside-the-floor counts in this section moves if it is added. The three figures that would move are the floor itself, the 1,227-plus-12 sentence above and the 1,236-to-3 split in the negatives footnote. The method point is the larger one: a spelling a page prints is a spelling its search must include.52

⚠ A second hole, and this one is a truncation rather than a spelling. Where the producing party’s bar lands against the last letter of his name, the machine reading drops that letter, so the sheet prints “Dr. Jess Ting” and the text layer yields “Dr. Jess Tin”. The page already records one such sheet, Eva Dubin’s of November 2011. Run as a form of its own on 2026-10-18, "Dr. Tin" returns 29 documents, of which 23 are inside the floor and 6 are outside every form the floor is built from; "Tin, Jess" returns 2 and both are inside. All six outside documents were opened and read rather than counted: four are further copies of the April 2013 schedule entry quoted above under a different identifier, one is a page of scanning noise in which the two tokens are not a name at all, and one is a message of Wednesday 15 February 2017 from Lesley Groff to “Dr. Jess Ting”, read at the image, whose body the producing party covers entirely. That last one is later than any other document read for this page. The floor is left at 1,239 as measured; these six are named here rather than folded into it, and the five of them that are him make the understatement at least six documents rather than one.11

⚠ The documents this page is built on were not found by any of those forms. The February 2013 funding exchange, the press release and the May 2016 letter were reached by searching the vocabulary of the thing rather than the name of the man — grant, donation, wound fluid, Icahn School — and only then checked back against the name. Every one of them turns out to lie inside the 1,239, so the floor did not move; but a page built by running name forms and stopping would not have held them.53

The homograph question, stated as a bound and not as a finding

586 of the 939 "Dr. Ting" documents carry neither "Jess Ting" nor "Ting, Jess" anywhere. A random sample of 40 of those, seeded and drawn without selection, was read in context at the text layer: 38 are this man — an operating surgeon in New York, appearing on Epstein’s day sheets, in his assistant’s scheduling traffic and in his household’s correspondence. The remaining two are HOUSE_OVERSIGHT sheets on which the string occurs in a form the sampling regex did not match and which were not resolved.14

That is 38 of 40 read, not 586 of 586, and this page does not treat the whole arm as assigned. Where a sentence here rests on a "Dr. Ting" document carrying no forename, the document was opened and read, and the footnote says so. A different number, measured a different way, has circulated: 576 is the count of "Dr. Ting" documents containing no occurrence of the bare token Jess, which is a different question from the one the 586 answers. Both are correct about different sets.54

What the record read for this page does not establish

  • That the $50,000 was paid, as distinct from promised and later acknowledged. The undertaking is in Epstein’s own words of 20 February 2013 and the acknowledgement is in Ting’s of 14 May 2016. No bank statement, wire authorisation, cheque image or accounting entry recording that transfer was located, in 69 documents searched against the institution and the foundation rather than against his name and read in full. The one $50,000 cheque from Epstein’s foundation to his institution that the release does hold is a luncheon table purchase of June 2014 and is not this grant.623
  • What operation Ting performed on Epstein, or whether he performed one. The record has appointments, a schedule entry naming a procedure, an MRI referral and a question about a lipoma. It does not have an operative record.
  • Who the third parties sent to him were. The production covers every one of those names and this page does not attempt to recover any of them.
  • Whether a meeting listed on a schedule took place. Each dated item above is marked as arranged or as evidenced; the only occurrence this page asserts is the March 2013 island visit, and the evidence for it is Ting’s own letter of thanks.31
  • The whole of his record. The 1,239-document floor is a floor. 1,489 documents carrying the bare token Ting lie outside it and were not assigned, and 546 of the 586 forename-less "Dr. Ting" documents were not read at all. Two further holes are measured and named in the search section: one document reached only by the spelling "Dr. Tess", and six reached only by the bar-truncated form "Dr. Tin", of which five are him.12145211

Notes

Every footnote below states a header’s CONTENT — who wrote, to whom, when, and the subject — and does not transcribe the header field line. An envelope line is boilerplate reproduced byte-for-byte across every copy of a message, so transcribing one publishes a key to the whole family and carries no evidence the content does not.

Footnotes

  1. Second sheet of the February 2013 thread. It carries Epstein’s message of 4:56 PM reading “send more details”, and beneath it Ting’s own of five minutes earlier, quoted above in full and signed “Warmest regards, / Jess Ting”. Both times are given by the sheet’s own quoted headers, whose field lines are stated here and not transcribed; Ting’s address is covered by the producing party in both of them. Read at the image at 400 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00954115 p. 2 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  2. Signature block of a member of Ting’s office staff, appearing in correspondence with Epstein’s office in November 2016, reading in successive printed lines: her name, “Surgical Coordinator & Clinical Assistant to”, “Dr. Jess Ting”, “Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery”, “Surgical Associates”, “Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai”, followed by telephone, fax and appointment lines and a New York State public-health confidentiality notice. The contact values are not reproduced here, and the lines are given separately above because they are separate printed lines and not one string. Read at the text layer only; the same block stands in 37 documents reached by Ting AND "Icahn School". https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00445611 p. 1 ↩

  3. E-mail from Eva Dubin to Epstein’s address, Saturday 14 May 2016, mid-afternoon on a produced header carrying its own zero offset, subject “RE: documentary and new clinical center”, marked “Importance: Normal”, whose whole body is the line quoted above. Beneath it stands Epstein’s forward of that morning, carrying an Eastern offset, and inside that Ting’s own message of Saturday 14 May to Epstein’s address under the subject “documentary and new clinical center”, quoted above in both its halves. Ting’s address is covered in the forwarded header, and so is the recipient field of Epstein’s forward, so this page does not say who the forward was addressed to; the reply is Eva Dubin’s own, sent under the same subject twenty-four minutes after the forward, and both stamps carry a zone. Read at the image at 400 dpi. The long dashes are the sheet’s, and so is the reading “saw am opportunity”, which is reproduced above unrepaired. Two further copies of the thread stand in the release. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00671299 p. 1 . His sign-off stands alone on the run’s second sheet, over the standing confidentiality footer: https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00671299 p. 2 , read at the text layer only. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8

  4. E-mail from Eva Dubin to Epstein’s address, Thursday 3 November 2011, timed in the evening; the body is the sentence quoted above, followed by a block headed “Dr. Jess Ting” whose two following lines are labelled for a telephone and a cell number and are covered by the producing party. Read at the image at 400 dpi, which settles the surname: the sheet prints “Dr. Jess Ting” and the extraction prints “Dr. Jess Tin”. The produced time field carries no zone and no sibling copy quoting it in local time was located, so no conversion is made here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01740716 p. 1 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  5. First sheet of the same thread: Epstein’s reply of Wednesday 20 February 2013, late morning on a produced header carrying its own zero offset, subject “Re: Research”, whose whole body is the line quoted above, over Ting’s message of 5:30 PM the previous day, given by that sheet’s own quoted header and stated here rather than transcribed, quoted above in part. Read at the image at 400 dpi. The sheet prints “given to me patients”, “need details.on entity” and the irregular spacing as reproduced; none is repaired here. Two further copies of the thread stand in the release. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00954115 p. 1 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  6. Two rounds of searching, and the first was run against the wrong population. Round one, 2026-10-17, against pages_fts, text layer only, each arm conjoined with the surname token: "CHIPS Debit" 0 documents, "Book Transfer" 0, Fedwire 0, "QuickReport" 0, "Mount Sinai" AND wire 0, "research funding" 0; grant returns 21 and donation 11, and all of those that concern him are the correspondence set out above rather than a payment record. Every one of those arms required the man’s surname to appear on the payment record, which a payment addressed to an institution does not. Round two, 2026-10-17, dropped the surname and searched the entity instead: "Jeffrey Epstein VI Foundation" AND "Mount Sinai" 24 documents, "Mount Sinai" AND "Enhanced Education" 19, "Mount Sinai" AND "50,000" 27, "Icahn School" AND "50,000" 8 — 69 documents in union, every one of which was opened and read at the text layer. Two of the 69 are single corpus rows of over 100,000 characters each, which are container rows rather than sheets and were set aside as such. The only payment instrument among them is the cheque described above; the rest are press releases, website drafts, event invitations, card statements and the luncheon correspondence. No instrument recording the transfer of the February 2013 undertaking was located in that union. The cheque itself lies outside the 1,239-document floor that every name form for him reaches, which is why only an entity-scoped search could find it, and is the point of running one. This is a statement about those two rounds and about the material reviewed for this page; it is not a claim that no such record exists in the release. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  7. Two-sheet press release in Epstein’s files, carrying no sender field, no date and no addressee. Its heading, the three named researchers, the paragraph on the Jeffrey Epstein VI Foundation, the quotation attributed to Epstein and the closing paragraph of his affiliations are all quoted or described above as printed; the sheet prints “Harvard is 2003” for “in 2003” and “Dr. Doris Germain” with the double space. Read at the image at 400 dpi. A second, materially identical copy stands in the release, and three further drafts of the same text in slightly different wording were read at the text layer. The source line at the foot gives a website in Epstein’s name. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01125288 p. 1 , and the Epstein quotation and the closing paragraph on https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01125288 p. 2 ↩ ↩2

  8. E-mail thread, second sheet. The messages quoted are from an account whose address is jeffreyepsteinorg at a public mail provider, early on the afternoon of 11 April 2013, and from Jess Ting later the same afternoon. Read at the image at 400 dpi: the sheet prints “stratify” where the extraction renders strati&, and prints “enviroment” and “metastasis—” as quoted. The attachment is named on the sheet as “Dr. Ting.docx” and the signature carries the foundation’s web address. The foundation account’s display name in these headers is “Jeffrey Epstein”, and the covering note on the run’s first sheet begins “Hi Jeffrey, I sent the press links to Dr. Ting” — so the operator of that account is writing to Epstein and is not Epstein, and nothing in these messages is attributed to Epstein personally here. That covering note is on https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02007381 p. 1 and the messages quoted above are on https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02007381 p. 2 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  9. Jess Ting’s written response to questions from The Advocate, published in Christopher Wiggins, “Renowned transgender medicine surgeon defends appearing in Epstein files disclosures”, The Advocate, 2 February 2026: https://www.advocate.com/news/jeffrey-epstein-jess-ting-responds . The article states that Ting “responded in writing to The Advocate” and that its subject is the records “released Friday under the Epstein Files Transparency Act”, which is the release this page is built on. The page was fetched and read in full for this page on 18 October 2026 and every quotation above was checked against it character for character; the words inside quotation marks are his, as that article gives them. Where this page instead reports that he denied something, that is the article’s own characterisation of his response and not a quotation of him, and it is marked as such in the body. The hospital’s reply and the statement that it did not address the substance of the questions are the article’s. A second outlet reported his response two days later — Hudson Crozier, Daily Caller News Foundation, 4 February 2026 — and that report was also opened and read for this page. It is derivative and not independent: it attributes the response to The Advocate throughout and marks the denial as reported rather than given to it, so it is evidence that The Advocate published the response and not a second source for what he said. It puts the denial in narrower terms, as a denial of sexual behaviour with any Epstein associate while on the island, so the broader form given above is the wording of the outlet he actually wrote to and not a form two sources agree on. The same outlet’s earlier report of 2 February 2026 records that he did not respond to its own request for comment. No document in the release is cited for anything in this footnote, and nothing in the article is treated here as establishing anything about the documents. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  10. E-mail from Lesley Groff to Ting’s mailbox, with a second copy of that mailbox in the carbon field, Friday 16 December 2016, late afternoon, subject “Jeffrey Epstein”; the body is quoted above in full and the sign-off beneath “Thank you,” is covered. Read at the image at 400 dpi. The three-dot runs are printed on the sheet. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02197932 p. 1 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  11. Measured 2026-10-18 the same way as the forms above, as column-scoped FTS5 phrases over pages_fts, text layer only: "Dr. Tin" returns 29 documents and "Tin, Jess" 2. Membership of the floor was tested per document by taking each document’s own stored text and testing it for each of the eight forms the floor is built from, which is the same set those forms define; a control document known to contain one of them tested positive and a token known to be absent tested negative. The six outside documents are EFTA00392842, EFTA00393129, EFTA00628271 and EFTA00957876, which carry the same April 2013 schedule line as the sheet cited at 36; EFTA01169685, whose text layer is undifferentiated scanning noise and whose two matching tokens are not a name; and EFTA02207056 p. 1, an e-mail from Lesley Groff of Wednesday 15 February 2017 under a subject line naming Epstein, addressed to him with a carbon line the producing party covers, whose whole body is covered by the producing party and whose sign-off is hers. Read at the image at 400 dpi: the sheet prints “Dr. Jess Ting” in full and the bar begins immediately after the final letter, which is what the extraction drops. Nothing is quoted from that sheet here and nothing is inferred from a covered body. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02207056 p. 1 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  12. Forms reaching documents outside the 1,227-document union of "Jess Ting", "Ting, Jess", "Dr. Ting" and jessting, measured the same way on the same day: "Jes Ting" returns 5 documents and all 5 are outside; "Doctor Ting" returns 4 of which 3 are outside; "Jess Tin" returns 34 of which 3 are outside; "Ting MD" returns 60 of which 1 is outside. The four forms are printed here so that the twelve documents can be re-derived in four queries. The four added sets are disjoint, so the additions total 12 and the floor is 1,227 + 12 = 1,239; the increments sum to the difference. Every one of the twelve was opened and read, and four of them are cited on this page. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  13. E-mail from Epstein, under the display name “jeffrey E.”, to Lesley Groff, Tuesday 13 December 2016, late morning on a produced header carrying its own zero offset; the subject field is empty and the body is the single line quoted above. Read at the image at 400 dpi. Three further copies of the same message stand in the release and this page cites one. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00440484 p. 1 ↩ ↩2

  14. "Dr. Ting" returns 939 documents of which 586 contain neither "Jess Ting" nor "Ting, Jess". A sample of 40 was drawn from that set without selection and each was read in context at the text layer; the seed used for the draw is not recorded, so the particular 40 are not reproducible from this page and the figures below are a statement about them and not an estimate of the 586. 37 of the 40 print a Dr. Ting or dr ting string in an Epstein-office context — day sheets, scheduling messages, household correspondence and billing traffic — and one more, HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_002413, carries “TBD Dr. Ting to stop by house” on a day sheet. The remaining two, HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_001570 and HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_001585, returned no match to the regex used for the context read and were left unresolved rather than counted either way. No second Ting was found in the sample. 546 of the 586 were not read at all and this page makes no claim about them. The sample partitions exactly: 37 + 1 + 2 = 40, and 40 + 546 = 586. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  15. E-mail from Lesley Groff to “Dr. Jess Ting”, Saturday 24 January 2015, timed in the afternoon on a produced header carrying its own zero offset — which is the late morning where the correspondents were writing, for the reasons set out at 17 — subject “Re: Reuters news story”, body “Hi Dr. Ting…Jeffrey actually says to YES respond!”. It quotes Ting’s message of the previous afternoon and, inside it, the reporter’s message of 2:49 PM on 23 January in full, signed “Best, / Dave” over the block “David Ingram / Correspondent / Reuters News / Thomson Reuters”. Read at the image at 400 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00353575 p. 1 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  16. E-mail from Epstein, under the display name “jeffrey E.”, to Lesley Groff, Saturday 24 January 2015, on a produced header carrying no zone, subject “Re: Reminder: Dr. Ting…”; its whole body is the two words quoted above. It quotes Groff’s message to Epstein of earlier that day, whose one line puts to him the question Ting had asked, and, beneath that, Ting’s forwarded message, whose quoted header gives the previous afternoon’s date and time with an Eastern offset, and the reporter’s message of 2:49 PM on 23 January. That header field line is stated here and not transcribed. Read at the image at 400 dpi; every contact value on the sheet is covered. The produced field carries no zone while the forwarded header carries Eastern, so the two are different clocks and no interval is computed across them here; the twenty-four minutes given above is between two unzoned stamps on the single sheet cited at 15. The unzoned field on this sheet cannot be read as Eastern: the reply it times must precede Lesley Groff’s relay of it to Ting, and that relay stands on a header carrying a zero offset which places it late in the Eastern morning, so an Eastern reading of this field would put Epstein’s answer after the message reporting it. No clock time is given for this message here, and it is placed, with the rest of the exchange, in the Saturday morning. The reporter’s message stands on this copy too; this page states its content rather than transcribing it, here and in the body. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02086412 p. 1 ↩ ↩2

  17. Two sheets of the same Saturday-morning exchange, both read at the image at 400 dpi. E-mail from Jess Ting to Lesley Groff, Saturday 24 January 2015, timed in the afternoon on a produced header carrying its own zero offset, subject “Re: Reuters news story”, whose body is the two lines quoted above over the sign-off “Jess”; it quotes Groff’s message of a minute and twenty seconds earlier and, beneath that, Ting’s own of 3:13 PM on 23 January and the reporter’s of 2:49 PM. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00353576 p. 1 . And e-mail from Lesley Groff to “Dr. Jess Ting”, Saturday 24 January 2015, four minutes and thirteen seconds later on a header carrying the same zero offset, same subject, whose whole body is “sounds great. t hanks” as the sheet prints it. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00353577 p. 1 . All three stamps carry the same zero offset, so the intervals given above are on one clock, and no header field line is transcribed. Why this page calls it a morning exchange although those stamps read as afternoon: a zero offset is UTC, and both sheets carry the correspondents’ own clocks beside it. The second sheet renders Ting’s stamp in local time five hours behind the produced field, and the quoted header of Groff’s own message, which stands on both sheets, carries an explicit negative offset of its own. In the writers’ own time the whole of this Saturday exchange falls in the late morning. No contact value from either sheet is reproduced here. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  18. E-mail of Saturday 31 March 2012, quoting an earlier message of the same morning whose whole body is “First name of Dr Ting. Thanks”. Read at the text layer only; nothing on this page rests on anything beyond that sentence. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02697514 p. 1 ↩

  19. E-mail to Epstein’s address, Monday 22 October 2012, subject “Dr. Ting”, sent in the early evening on a produced header carrying a zero offset; the sender value is covered and is not attributed here. The day list beneath the two quoted paragraphs reads “8:30 Breakfast w/Leon Botstein”, “2:00 Appt w/Dr. Ting (▮) Need your approval”, “6:30 Appt w/Jes Staley”, “7:00 Appt w/Antoine Verglas” and a tentative 7:00 entry whose names are covered; each name on that list is followed by a covered block where a contact value stands. Read at the image at 400 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00402744 p. 1 ↩

  20. A Google Calendar reminder sent to the office on the afternoon of Monday 22 October 2012. Its subject and body are the sentence quoted above, and the body gives the slot as 2pm to 2:30pm and names the zone as Eastern Time. Read at the text layer only. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02156482 p. 1 ↩

  21. A message of the morning of 23 October 2012, quoted inside a later one, whose subject reads “JE would like you here at 1pm!” and whose body is the three lines quoted above over a BlackBerry footer. Read at the text layer only. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02156377 p. 1 ↩

  22. E-mail from Bella Klein to Epstein’s address, Monday 3 December 2012, subject “Dr. Ting”, carrying a scanned attachment and the body quoted above over the sign-off “Thank you, / Bella”. The name of the person who handed her the bill is covered. Beneath it stands a forwarded scanner notification of the same morning whose sender, recipient and reply-to values are all covered. The attachment itself is not in this run, and its filename is not reproduced here. Read at the image at 400 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01187379 p. 1 ↩

  23. Eight-sheet run, read by this page only at pp. 1 and 6 and described as a page range rather than as a document, because the run is mixed: the thread on p. 6 itself stands under a New York property-tax subject line, which the run’s last sheets also concern, so the mixing begins earlier than the two sheets read here. p. 1 is an Enhanced Education cheque, number 2581, drawn on a St. Thomas bank, dated 6/18/2014, payable to the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai for “Fifty Thousand and 00/100”, addressed to the Mount Sinai Development Office, signed in blue ink over the signature rule in a cursive hand reading “Darren Indyke”, with the voucher rows beneath it recording cheque 2581 against a charitable-contributions account code on 6/18/2014 and against the drawer’s operating account. The magnetic character line along the foot of the cheque, and one line of the drawer’s own address, are covered by the producing party, and no value from this sheet other than the amount, the date and the cheque number is reproduced here. The extraction renders the date “6/10,2014”; at 400 dpi the sheet prints 6/18/2014, which is what the voucher rows print twice. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00311293 p. 1 . p. 6 carries Richard Kahn to Bella Klein of 18 June 2014 at 7:13 AM, subject “Enhanced”, whose first line is quoted above, over Epstein’s reply of the previous afternoon, on a header carrying an Eastern offset, reading “5 tables” and, beneath that, Kahn’s message of 3:51 PM that afternoon setting out what $50,000 would buy at the luncheon and asking whether to take a table, and beneath that again Epstein’s own message of 3:46 PM directing that the $50,000 be sent to the luncheon’s online registration page. That last message is the earliest of the four described here and is what fixes what the money was for; its line and the registration address it carries are stated here rather than transcribed, because the line reaches five documents this page does not cite and the differential has not been tested. Beneath it the sheet carries the opening attribution line of a further Kahn message of 3:23 PM that afternoon whose body continues past the foot of the sheet. That continuation was read for this page, at the image at 400 dpi, on the next sheet of the same run: the 3:23 PM message is a one-line note forwarding the New York property-tax assessments that the thread’s subject line names, over a scanner notification of 16 June 2014 whose sender, recipient and reply-to values are covered. It mentions neither the luncheon nor the $50,000, which is why Epstein’s 3:46 PM message is described above as the first on this thread to mention the money. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00311293 p. 7 The sheet names no month for the luncheon and the registration address it gives names only the year, so no month is supplied here. Read at the image at 400 dpi. Kahn’s own two lines are stated above rather than transcribed. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00311293 p. 6 ↩ ↩2

  24. E-mail from Lesley Groff to Epstein’s address, Monday 11 March 2013, subject “Re: Dr. Ting”, quoting in nested order Epstein at 11:33 AM, Groff at 11:24 AM, Epstein at 10:32 AM and Groff at 10:21 AM by the sheet’s own quoted headers. The 10:21 AM message is the one reporting that he “wrote a press release for you”. The order above is the sheet’s nesting, read at the image at 400 dpi. The produced time field carries no zone while the quoted headers carry bare clock times, so no interval is computed across the two. A block beneath the 11:24 AM message, and a second beneath “Dr. Ting:” at the foot, are covered. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01898454 p. 1 ↩ ↩2

  25. Same thread, first sheet: a forward of Monday 15 April 2013 whose covering note begins “Hi Jeffrey, I sent the press links to Dr. Ting. See below.” over a covered sign-off, under the subject “Fwd: Press Article attached”. It carries a forwarded message from Jess Ting of midday on 15 April reading “Wonderful! / Jess Ting”; the foundation account’s message of a minute earlier with the press links; Ting’s message of the afternoon of 12 April reading “I would eliminate DNA transcription factors. These would not be present in wound fluid.”; and the foundation account’s message of early that afternoon opening “Dear Dr. Tess,”. Read at the image at 400 dpi; “Dear Dr. Tess” is what the sheet prints. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02007381 p. 1 ↩ ↩2

  26. E-mail from Epstein’s address on the morning of 8 March 2013 reading “no”, quoting a message of the same morning whose sender is covered — “Reminder ▮ is asking for Dr Ting’s office number … Ok to pass along to her?” over an iPhone footer — and a forwarded message of the previous afternoon carrying the publicist’s paragraph quoted above. Read at the text layer only. The extraction renders a dash between “releases” and “and”; the sheet was not opened for that character, so the quotation above is given without it and nothing here rests on the punctuation. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00394005 p. 1 ↩

  27. E-mail to Epstein’s address, Thursday 2 May 2013, mid-afternoon, subject “Dr. Ting”, whose sender value is covered. The body opens “Below from Dr. Ting re seeing ▮ tomorrow after 4pm:” and then carries Ting’s message, signed “Jess Ting” over the closing “Warmer regards”. A name is covered after “re seeing”, and the greeting at the head of Ting’s own message is covered too. Read at the image at 400 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01975732 p. 1 ↩

  28. E-mail from Lesley Groff to Epstein’s address, Tuesday 12 March 2013, subject “Dr. Ting”, sent mid-afternoon on a produced header that carries its own zero offset; the body is quoted above in full. The three-dot runs are printed on the sheet. Read at the image at 400 dpi, which independently confirms the airport code “STT” and the flight number. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00705163 p. 1 ↩ ↩2

  29. E-mail from Roy Hodges, Thursday 14 March 2013, early afternoon, subject “Re: Reminder: Dr. Ting”, body “That sounds great ▮. We will handle!”; its recipient is covered. It quotes a message of the same day whose sender is covered — the “Hi Roy, Steph and Daphne!” paragraph — and, as a forwarded message, Epstein’s own of mid-morning, whose quoted header carries an Eastern offset and whose body is the two lines reproduced above; the forwarded recipient is covered. Beneath that stands a further message of the same morning, sender covered, reading “Reminder: Did you still need to speak with Dr. Ting?” Read at the image at 400 dpi. The produced time field above carries no zone while the forwarded header carries one, so the two are different clocks and no interval is computed across them. The sheet breaks the line inside the words “of his”, printing “on a day o” at the end of one line and “fhis choice” at the start of the next; the blockquote above reproduces that break and no contiguous string joining the two is quoted here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02144726 p. 1 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  30. E-mail from Lesley Groff to Epstein’s address, Friday 15 March 2013, subject “Dangene”, whose body is a short note about a different appointment followed by an itinerary for 19 to 21 March 2013. The Tuesday 19 March block is quoted above. Read at the image at 400 dpi. The sheet prints “TBD FLY FROM STT TO NY” and “12:15pm Dr. Jess Ting to arrive STT via AA#655”; the extraction renders the first as “FLY FROM STTTO NY” and the second as “arrive S77’”. Four further entries on the same sheet carry covered blocks where contact values stand. Four further sends of a near-identical itinerary stand in the release; this page cites one send and does not treat the family as interchangeable, because a circulated itinerary is revised between sends. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01899327 p. 1 ↩

  31. E-mail from Jess Ting to Epstein’s address, Sunday 24 March 2013, early evening, subject “Thank you”; the body is quoted above in full. Read at the image at 400 dpi and the closing lines magnified: the sheet prints “firsthand.am” and “Jess Tingh”, and both are reproduced here as printed rather than repaired. The produced time field carries no zone. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01899631 p. 1 ↩ ↩2

  32. E-mail from Epstein to Ting, Sunday 24 March 2013, subject “Re: Thank you”, body “Anytime”, quoting the message above under a header giving only the date. Read at the image at 400 dpi. This copy carries Ting’s message in a proportional face in which the trailing “firsthand.am” is auto-linked as a web domain by the mail client, which is independent confirmation that those characters stand on the original and are not a rendering fault. Both time stamps come from the same produced field on the same production and neither carries a zone; the interval stated above is between those two unzoned stamps on one clock and is not a conversion. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01899924 p. 1 ↩

  33. An automatic reply from Ting’s address to Epstein’s, Sunday 24 March 2013, two seconds after the message above, subject “Automatic reply: Thank you”. The body states dates on which he was out of the country and gives a telephone number for urgent matters; the number is not reproduced here. Read at the text layer only. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01899982 p. 1 ↩

  34. Month calendar for December 2013, five sheets, carrying no sender field of any kind. The Monday 2 December block on p. 1 carries “Reminder: See Dr. Ting”. The Wednesday 4 December block begins on p. 2 and the 5:00pm entry quoted above stands on p. 3, where the sheet prints “opertating”. Read at the image at 400 dpi for https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00284747 p. 3 ; p. 1 was read at the text layer only. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00284747 p. 1 ↩

  35. E-mail from Epstein’s address, Wednesday 27 November 2013, subject “Re: Dr. Ting”, body “tuesday now to wash dc wheels up at 1 woody dinner thurs”, quoting a message of that morning whose sender is covered and which reads “Do you prefer to see Dr. Ting at the house or at his office?” above a copy of the December calendar. Read at the text layer only. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00378876 p. 1 ↩

  36. Two documents. A schedule sheet for early April 2013, carrying no sender field, gives “6pm to 7pm Arrival for Appt w/Dr. Ting (depending on how his surgeries go this day will determine actual time of arrival)” above the heading “THURS. APRIL 4, 2013 NY”; read at the text layer only. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00392990 p. 2 . And an e-mail from Epstein on the evening of Wednesday 3 April 2013, subject “Re: Dr.Ting”, body “ask him if we can do 10”, quoting a message of that afternoon whose sender is covered; read at the text layer only. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01896808 p. 1 ↩ ↩2

  37. E-mail of Monday 16 December 2013, early afternoon, whose sender is covered, body “Ok” over an iPhone footer, sent to Lesley Groff and copied to Epstein’s address, to two named household mailboxes and to further entries the producing party covers; the count of three is a count of what is readable on the sheet and not of the carbon list. A separate message of the same day, cited at 38, carries a revised schedule putting a tentative Ting appointment at 3:45pm. Its subject line names an 11:30 appointment at Ting’s office. It quotes Groff’s message of that morning, which gives the appointment time, assigns a driver — “Jojo you are driving him. Confirm back.” — and adds “Melissa is his assistant” over a covered block; that line is underlined in part on the sheet and the extraction of it is damaged, so an exact-string check cannot locate it. The recipient of Groff’s message is covered and nothing here supplies a name for either party. Read at the image at 400 dpi; Groff’s own line prints “You have an appt with T Timgbin his office at 11:30” on the sheet and is not reproduced in the body of this page for that reason. A second copy of the thread stands in the release. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01941878 p. 1 ↩

  38. E-mail to Epstein’s address of Monday 16 December 2013, late afternoon on a produced header carrying its own zero offset, under the subject “Larry Delson 1pm confirmed”; its sender is covered. Its carbon line carries three named household and office mailboxes and then further entries, and further whole lines, that the producing party covers: the three is a count of what is readable on the sheet and the enumeration is incomplete by an amount the sheet does not disclose. Its body is a revised list for the day. The Ting entry reads “3:45pm TENTATIVE Appt w/ Dr. Ting for procedure” and the three lines beneath it — an address line and the labels “Cell” and “Office” — are each followed by a covered block, so the sheet supplies no contact value and none is reproduced here. Read at the image at 400 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00377858 p. 1 , with a second copy at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00651481 p. 1 ↩ ↩2

  39. A calendar alert of 5 December 2016 whose subject and body are the same sentence, quoted above in full. Its sender and recipient values are covered. Read at the image at 400 dpi; “Limpoma” is what the sheet prints. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02197427 p. 1 ↩

  40. Billing statement, printed twice on one sheet in a window-envelope layout, each block reading SURGICAL ASSOCIATES on one line and MOUNT SINAI MEDICAL CTR on the next, over a New York post-office box and postal code, with “TING MD,JESS” beneath a covered line, the date “02/26/15” at the foot, and SURGICAL ASSOCIATES over an office-hours line beneath that. No two of those printed lines are quoted here as one string, because they are not one string on the sheet; the extraction of this sheet is heavily damaged and an exact-string check cannot locate any of them. Every other field is covered. Read at the image at 400 dpi and the name and date blocks magnified from a 600 dpi render; the extraction renders the name “TING MD.JUSS”, the post-office box two different wrong ways and the city line two further wrong ways, none of which is what the sheet prints. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00610131 p. 1 ↩

  41. E-mail from Epstein, under the display name “jeffrey E.”, to Lesley Groff, Tuesday 16 December 2014, early evening on a produced header carrying its own zero offset; the subject field is empty. The body is one line in which he asks whether Ting can see a person whose name the sheet covers. The particulars of what he asks for are not reproduced here, in this footnote, in its key, or anywhere else on this page. Read at the image at 400 dpi. A second copy of the same message stands in the release. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00356682 p. 1 ↩

  42. E-mail from Lesley Groff of Thursday 15 January 2015, early afternoon, quoting an exchange of 14 and 15 January in which the appointment is moved. The message carries the practice’s street address and a telephone number; the telephone value is not reproduced here. Read at the text layer only. A day sheet for Friday 16 January 2015 carries the original appointment in the same series. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02088040 p. 1 , with the day sheet at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02086190 p. 1 ↩

  43. E-mail thread of 12 to 14 November 2016 under the subject “Doctor”, in which Lesley Groff offers an appointment for midday on Friday 18 November and the reply reads “Yes , perfect !! Thank you Lesley :)”. The other party’s name and address are covered. Read at the text layer only; the extraction renders the hour of the offered appointment with a damaged first character, so it is given here in words rather than quoted. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02195371 p. 1 ↩

  44. E-mail of Tuesday 24 February 2015, evening, to Bella Klein, sender covered, body “Great. Thx” over an iPhone footer, under a subject line asking that a Dr. Ting invoice be paid for a person whose name the subject line covers. It quotes Bella Klein of that afternoon, reporting over a covered first word that a payment had been made and a further invoice was coming, signed “Thank you, / Bella”; a message of the previous morning whose sender is covered; a forwarded message of the previous morning reading “And they gave me this”; a message of Monday 23 February, whose sender the sheet covers, reading “I can email his assistant…I will ask them to bill Jeffrey if that is possible.”; and the message of 10:48 AM described above, whose sender and recipient the sheet also covers. Read at the image at 400 dpi. Every participant other than Bella Klein is covered on this sheet and none is identified here; the clinical particulars in the quoted messages are stated rather than transcribed above. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02083127 p. 1 ↩

  45. E-mail from Jess Ting to Lesley Groff, Thursday 29 January 2015, early evening on a produced header carrying its own zero offset, subject “RE: Reuters news story”. It quotes Groff’s message of 3:16 PM on Friday 23 January as set out above, Ting’s own of 3:13 PM that day, and the reporter’s of 2:49 PM. Read at the image at 400 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00353734 p. 1 ↩

  46. Same sheet as the Groff message of 3:16 PM on 23 January. Ting’s own message of Thursday 29 January 2015 is the body of that document and reads, at 400 dpi, “FYI, that reported never got back to me.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00353734 p. 1 ↩

  47. E-mail from Lesley Groff to Epstein’s address, Thursday 29 January 2015, early evening on a produced header carrying its own zero offset, subject “Jess Ting”, over a covered block. Its two-line body introduces Ting’s sentence and then retypes it rather than forwarding it. Read at the image at 400 dpi. The retyping differs by one word from the sheet carrying Ting’s own message eight minutes earlier; both were read at 400 dpi, neither is repaired, and the relay’s two lines are stated above rather than transcribed. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00353736 p. 1 ↩

  48. See Enhanced Education, which sets out the written questions David Ingram sent to Darren Indyke on 29 January 2015 and sources them to a sheet in the release. Nothing in that account is re-derived here and this page relies on it only for the date and the fact of the approach. ↩

  49. Printout of a Reuters article by David Ingram, headed “Exclusive: New York attorney general seeks information on financier Epstein’s philanthro…” and marked “Page 2 of 4”, whose foot carries the article URL ending idUSKBN0M200V20150306 and a 2017 print date. The sheet is stamped “CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R. CRIM. P. 6(e)”. Read at the image at 400 dpi. The headline phrase reaches 18 documents in the release and no attempt was made here to read them all; the statement above is scoped to this sheet. The live page Darren Indyke already cites this printout. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01363905 p. 1 ↩

  50. Measured 2026-10-17 as count(distinct efta_number) over pages_fts, text layer only, each query run as a column-scoped FTS5 phrase; the string printed here is the string queried. "Jess Ting" 448 · "Ting, Jess" 401 · "Dr. Ting" 939 · "Dr Ting" 939 · "DR.TING" 939 · jess.ting 448 · jessting 1 · "Jess T." 1. The identical counts across the Dr./Dr/DR. forms and across jess.ting/"Jess Ting" are the tokeniser, which is plain unicode61 and splits on the full stop; they are one query reported several ways and not several agreeing measurements. ↩

  51. Forms run and returning nothing: "Jessica Ting", "Jess Ting, M.D.", "Jess M Ting", "Jess A Ting", "Tingjess", jesstingmd, "Jess TinQ". Forms run and rejected after reading rather than on their count: the bare token Ting reaches 2,725 documents, 1,236 of the 1,239 floor documents lie inside it, 3 do not, and the 1,489 outside the floor were not assigned; Tmg reaches 46 documents outside the floor, Tings 90 and "Dr. T" 65, none sampled and none claimed. Every figure in that sentence is counted outside the floor and not as a total: Tings returns 95 documents in all, of which five are inside the floor, while Tmg and "Dr. T" return nothing inside it, so for those two the total and the outside-the-floor count coincide at 46 and 65. Timg reaches 12 outside the floor and all twelve were read in context — a grand-jury subpoena’s date-and-time field, two Palm Beach telephone-bill pages, five HOUSE_OVERSIGHT flight-log and booking sheets, and four messages in which the word is “time”. scripts/ocr_variants.py "Jess Ting" --wide --count was run and generated 22 forms, whose non-zero returns are the four already listed plus "Joss Ting" and "ess Ting", each 1 page and each already inside the floor. ↩

  52. "Dr. Tess" was not among the forms run for the floor above, although this page quotes that spelling in the foundation account’s own salutation of 12 April 2013. Measured 2026-10-18 the same way as the forms above, as a column-scoped FTS5 phrase over pages_fts, it returns 2 documents. One is the press-release thread already cited here and already inside the 1,239. The other is a message to Epstein’s address of Friday 15 March 2013, subject “links”, whose sender the producing party covers, sending two press links for articles about Epstein and saying “am working on article on Dr. Tess”; it lies outside the 1,239 and no form the floor is built from reaches it. Read at the image at 400 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01762944 p. 1 ↩ ↩2

  53. The arms that produced the February 2013 funding thread, the press release and the May 2016 letter were Ting AND grant (21 documents), Ting AND donation (11), Ting AND "Icahn School" (37) and the phrase "wound fluid" (15), all run on 2026-10-17. Each returned documents already inside the 1,239 floor, so the floor is unchanged; the point recorded here is about method and not about the number. A fifth arm produced one false positive worth naming, because trusting the extraction would have attached a living surgeon to an agreement that is not his: the arm returned a single document whose extraction appears to carry the surname as a heading, and at 600 dpi the apparent surname is the tail of a longer word. The document has nothing to do with him, it is not cited on this page, and nothing is inferred from it. ↩

  54. The figure 586 is "Dr. Ting" minus the union of "Jess Ting" and "Ting, Jess". The figure 576 is "Dr. Ting" minus the set of documents containing the bare token Jess anywhere. Both were measured here on 2026-10-17 and both are correct for the set each describes. ↩

Backlinks