Epstein Data Wiki

Evidence Item 1B136

Properties1
tagstopic, fbi, evidence, chain-of-custody, document-release

25 min read

What this page coversThe custody record of one numbered FBI evidence item: when it was collected, who held it, how it moved, what volume is claimed for it, who was given access, and what the released files do not account for. It does not describe what is on the item12
Item and caseItem 1B136 of case 50D-NY-3027571, the FBI New York investigation whose 1B evidence report runs from 1B1 to 1B1463
Collected on26 January 2021 at 16:00, per the collection-date column of that report3
What the Bureau called it”Highly responsive material on a portable hard drive …” — a derivative set, described in the delivery email as “responsive data obtained from evidence items which were seized through sealed search warrants”14
Volume claimed85 GB. The Sunday status puts it as “Content is 85gigs out of the 2TBs”; the daily dashboard heads its tracking panel “1B136 Tracking (85GB)“51
First recorded review17 March 2025, four years and seven weeks after collection. No document read for this page records any review of the item between those dates6
Reviewed inDCAP, reached through LEEP. No sheet read for this page expands either acronym5
Files counted33,829 on 18 March, 33,985 on 28 March, 34,203 on 31 March, when the review was recorded complete at 100 per cent71
Copies madeAt least one forensic copy of 1B136 was generated on a hard drive for the Director’s office and designated for the Criminal Investigative Division. Nothing read for this page accounts for that copy afterwards8
The three items that moved with it1B144, 1B145 and 1B146, all collected in 2022. The two tape items “were not reviewed, as this would require a new search warrant”329

Item 1B136 is a portable hard drive in the FBI’s trafficking case file on Jeffrey Epstein. It was collected on 26 January 2021. The first review of it recorded in the released files began on the morning of Monday 17 March 2025, four years and seven weeks later, under an order sent the previous evening marked High importance. Within a fortnight the Bureau had put, by its own count, thirty-four people on it, produced “1B136 stats and summary” for a meeting with the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, and recorded the review complete. In the same fortnight it generated a second copy of the item for the Director’s office, and left the much larger items that had travelled with it unreviewed.35671089

This page does not describe the contents of item 1B136, and does not reproduce any description, summary, category or inventory of them. The documents cited here describe handling: collection dates, transfer orders, access lists, folder counts, file counts, delivery emails and status reports. Where a document goes on to describe what is on the item, this page reports that the document does so and stops. That restriction is the page’s warrant, not a gap in it. An item number, a date, a custodian and a volume figure are each checkable on a sheet, and what the record fails to account for is checkable too.

What the item is, and what it is not

The evidence report for case 50D-NY-3027571, filtered on type 1B, is a two-column machine-generated listing: item number and collection date. Against 1B136 it prints 1/26/2021 16:00. The items either side of it carry dates from the Florida investigation of 2006 and from 2019, so the 2021 date sits inside a numbering sequence that is mostly older material.3

It was not itself seized at a search. The email that carried the finished review up the chain opens: “Evidence Item 1B136 contains responsive data obtained from evidence items which were seized through sealed search warrants.” The dashboard calls it material “from digital evidence processed”. On the Bureau’s own account it is a derivative set: files taken out of other exhibits and written to a drive, which is why its collection date is years later than the seizures.41

The three items that moved with it in March 2025 were created later still. The same evidence report dates 1B144 and 1B145 to 25 May 2022 at 14:00, and 1B146 to 22 July 2022 at 10:00, sixteen months after 1B136.3

The volume figure needs care. The status circulated on Sunday 16 March reads: “1B136 - complete for viewing as of right now. Please start review. Content is 85gigs out of the 2TBs.” The daily dashboard heads its tracking panel “1B136 Tracking (85GB)”. So 85 gigabytes is the quantity of content, not the size of the drive, and no document read for this page says what the “2TBs” refers to.51

The transfer, 10 March 2025

At 4:41 p.m. on Monday 10 March 2025 a Washington Field Office agent wrote that, on the guidance of the Acting Assistant Director in Charge, the office was “sending 2x SAs now to pick up” four listed items “for passage to WFO CART”. Two special agents of the Washington Field Office’s Child Exploitation and Human Trafficking Task Force collected them from the V Street evidence control room. At 6:15 p.m. one of them reported they “have all the items and are en route back to NVRA”; at 7:30 p.m., “All the items have been passed to WFO CART.”2

The same chain sets out what the Bureau expected of the four. Of the two tape items it says the Bureau believed they “will contain a backup of all digital evidence in the case file”, adding “however we will need to process the LTO tapes to confirm”. Of 1B136 it says that the item “will be handled per policy”, for a reason the email states and this page does not reproduce, and that the material was “potentially not in Relativity” for a second reason also not reproduced here. The documents read for this page name Relativity as a system the material was not held in; none of them says what Relativity is, or what follows from being outside it.2

At 8:17 p.m. the digital forensic examiner at WFO CART reported the scale of the job: “We are looking at a total of approximately 14.6 Terabytes of archived data to unpack.” The optical item had already been uploaded to DCAP and verified; item 1B136, the same message says, was “secured until we can determine the best way to move forward with it”. Seven minutes later the first restore was running: “Restore of the first set (8.5TB ) kicked off successfully … we will start the second restore job (about 6TB).” By 1:25 p.m. the next day that restore was “on track to be done tomorrow.”2

The volume figures do not reconcile

Three different totals for the same five tape cartridges appear in the released files, and no document read for this page reconciles them.

The 31 March dashboard labels 1B144 as 8 TB and 1B145 as 2.5 TB, 10.5 TB between them, while the description printed alongside 1B145 on the same slide states that “The LTO tapes in this case file can hold approximately 12.5 Terabytes (5 tapes of 2.5TB).” Two cartridges cannot hold 8 TB and three hold 2.5 TB if each holds 2.5 TB. The restore emails give a third figure: approximately 14.6 TB of archived data, unpacked in one set of 8.5 TB and a second of about 6 TB.12

A reader should treat any single terabyte figure for these tapes as the Bureau’s estimate at one moment rather than a measurement. The one number stable across the record is the 85 GB attached to 1B136.

The review, 16 to 31 March 2025

At 4:22 p.m. on Sunday 16 March an A/SAC of the FBI New York Criminal Division circulated a four-item status: 1B136 “complete for viewing as of right now”, the optical item the same, “1B144 - 8TB, mostly non human readable”, 1B145 “is 82% restored”. Under the heading “To do” it reads: “Knock out 146 then assign folders of 136 and prioritize accordingly” and “136 is essential to get reviewed ASAP.”511

At 8:50 p.m. that message was forwarded on, marked High importance: “Happy Sunday! Epstein 1B136 is complete and available for review in DCAP now. We must begin review first thing in the morning. You guys are the only ones currently with access. Please assess and divide the work to provide accurate description of contents asap.”11

The 85 gigabytes were divided into thirty folders, each assigned on a spreadsheet to a reviewer named on the tab. The assignment email of 1:00 p.m. on 17 March told its recipients: “If you are on this email you are assigned a 1B136 Folder to review from the Epstein case 50D-NY-3027571. This is a priority and must be accomplished ASAP. By 3pm today we need to provide a percentage of how many files are completed.” Reviewers were to open a tab per folder from a template and to record, under a four-point instruction, “what each item is, how large each item is, what’s in it, etc. (5Ws)” and “anything perceived to be pertinent”; the two points between those are not reproduced here.5

The first situation report, sent at 7:33 p.m. on 17 March, records how fast the staffing grew: “Initially from 9:00 AM - 12:00PM we had 3 personnel working on the review. At approximately 12:30 PM more personnel were added from C9 and C19 as well as additional C20 totaling 15 people.”6

The daily reports that follow are the clearest custody record the item has, and they are also the least consistent.

Date (2025)Folders completeReview completeStaffing noted
18 March6 of 30—16 people; “631 files / 33,829 files reviewed”
19 March9 of 30—20 people; access problems “continued through the day”
20 March10 of 30—25 people “including our NYPD TFOs”
21 March20 of 30—plus 5, “3 from HVRA and 2 from LIRA”
22 March22 of 30—plus 14 “from WFO around 2pm”
24 March23 of 3063%plus 4 from headquarters
25 March23 of 3073%—
26 March25 of 3076%—
27 March26 of 3094%—
28 March29 of 3098%31 in New York, 3 at headquarters
31 March30 of 30100%2 in New York, 2 at headquarters

Two of those rows carry corrections written by the Bureau itself. On 24 March the reporting agent added: “Just to note, yesterday I said we received more reviewers from WFO, but we received them from HQ.” And on 20 March a supervisor sent the reporting agent a direct instruction about the figures: “Please make sure number of folders completed is consistent between the document and email content.” The same message asks that the item tables be kept “consistent with line items. One of them has extra boxes.”7

The denominator moved

The total number of files in the item was restated upward twice while the review was running. The report of 18 March gives it as 33,829. The dashboard of 28 March gives 33,985, against 33,300 reviewed, which it prints as 98 per cent. The dashboard of 31 March gives 34,203 against 34,203 reviewed, and prints that as 100 per cent.71

Completion was therefore declared against a denominator 374 files larger than the one in use on 18 March, and no document read for this page says what was added, when, or why. The staffing falls away in the same step: 34 people on 28 March, 4 on 31 March, with the dashboard’s own callout reading “4 Total Personnel Reviewing”.71

Access: the second copy, and the Director

On the morning of Wednesday 19 March, with the review at nine folders of thirty, a Washington Field Office examiner raised the question of how the item would reach the top of the building:

Reaching out to see if DOJ/the Director’s office has determined DCAP acceptable interim solution to review the unredacted 50D evidence items. I have generated a forensic copy of 1B136 and 1B146 on a hard drive for this tasking as it is the only items of the four 1 Bs I am capable of producing on hard drive in this short timeframe.

Please let me know if I should deliver this hard drive to CID or if DCAP is acceptable.

The answer came back at 11:06 a.m., and it was both:

Following up on our conversation, I understand DOJ has agreed that DCAP is an acceptable interim solution. Leaning forward to the “hard drive” request, we will make sure that CID receives the hard drive copy of 1B136 and 1B146 that has already been generated. We will also plan on making hard drive copies of the other data when its fully restored an available.8

That exchange is the most consequential custody fact on this page. A second physical copy of item 1B136 was created on 19 March 2025 and designated for delivery to the Criminal Investigative Division. No document read for this page records that copy’s delivery, its storage, its return, its destruction, or any later location.

The FBI’s own timeline of its Epstein response records what happened to platform access the same day. Its 19 March entry states that “The following DOJ users were added to DCAP for review of” the item, and the only name this page takes from that entry is Kashyap Patel. The entry for 16 March in the same timeline lists a “Highly Confidential Responsive Material one-pager”, so a written brief preceded the platform access. The timeline records that the Director was added to the review platform. It does not record what he opened, or when.12

What the review produced, and what was taken out of it

The written product of the review named in these files is a spreadsheet, “1B136 Review 50D-NY-3027571.xlsx”, of thirty tabs, one per folder, each headed with the reviewing agent’s name.

At 7:51 p.m. on Friday 4 April a supervising agent sent it to a colleague with two instructions:

  1. Please save a copy and remove line #3 within every tab (30 total) which states “Reviewer: Agent Name”

  2. Attach to a clean email with below content.

The colleague replied that evening: “No problem, will do!” At 12:38 p.m. the next day the colleague reported back that all the reviewers’ names had been removed, and that the document “should only display the following”: folder name, number of images, number of videos. At 12:54 p.m. the cleaned spreadsheet went to a recipient addressed as “Sir”, with a covering summary. It was acknowledged fifteen minutes later.131415416

What that sequence removed is the per-folder attribution. The delivered version of the only record of the review no longer shows which agent examined which folder of the item, in a document whose stated purpose was to give “accurate description of contents”. For a chain-of-custody record that is the load-bearing column, and it was taken out deliberately, on a written instruction, before the document went up the chain.111315

Two further points are checkable in the paper. First, the covering text was drafted before the cleaned spreadsheet existed: the 4 April instruction email already contains, under the heading “Content of Email”, the full text sent on 5 April. Second, comparing that drafted text with the text actually sent, the only changes are an opening phrase altered from “The majority of the files” to “Most of the files” and the repair of a duplicated word. The summary itself is not reproduced on this page.134

This project holds the covering emails. It does not hold the spreadsheet: the released pages carry the attachment’s file name, not the file. The same 5 April email, spreadsheet attached, was forwarded again inside FBI New York on 10 July 2025.417

The items that were not reviewed

Through the fortnight the daily reports carried 1B144 and 1B145 beside 1B136, and the figure against them never moved. On 20 March the reporting agent wrote “1B144 is complete and ready to review”. On 21 March that was withdrawn: the item was being reevaluated, because, the report says, “the files were proprietary and involved possibly re-processing”, with 1B145 “approximately 1.5 more days to finish being restored”. On 31 March the dashboard shows both restored or nearly so and both at 0 per cent reviewed, under the note: “As of 3/31/2025 1B144 and 1B145 are being discussed regarding if there are responsive materials or not.”71

The answer to that discussion is in an email of 15 April 2025, sent after the Director “asked for status of all remaining Epstein-related reviews”. The review of 1B136, it says, “was completed, and summarized”. Of the two tape items it says they “contained complete images, including non-responsive data, of all evidence processed, and were not reviewed, as this would require a new search warrant.” Of the optical item: “1B146 contained FBI log files from the CART examination process.” The list of those cases closes: “There are no outstanding reviews.”9

The stated reason had changed. On 21 March the obstacle was technical: proprietary files, possible re-processing. By 15 April it was legal: the tapes hold complete images of everything processed in the case, including material outside the scope of the warrants already issued, so searching them would be a new search. No document read for this page records an application for such a warrant. A sealed application would not appear in this release in any event, and this page claims nothing about what may exist outside it.

The practical shape of it is plain enough. The Bureau ran an urgent review of an 85-gigabyte derivative set assembled by its own technicians, and did not look at the archives said to contain a backup of all the digital evidence in the case.29

Where the evidence went

Two entries close the custody record of these items, and both are thinner than a reader needs.

Asked in writing whether the evidence was still in its evidence storage room, the FBI’s records division answered: “WFO/NY removed all evidence from the IMD Evidence Storage Room (ESR) when they departed the CRC on March 25, 2025. The agents advised they were taking the evidence to DC.” The destination in the Bureau’s own answer is what the agents said it was.18

The same division recorded the limit of its own role: “IMD, per discussion and direction from CID and NY, did not review any audio or videos”, for a reason the document gives in terms of its personnel’s training. Review of the material on these items sat with the case squads and with CART, not with the records division.19

One further entry in the FBI timeline belongs in a custody record, although nothing read for this page connects it to item 1B136. Against 30 April 2025 it lists a “C-20 shared drive link to IMD to support investigation into unauthorized destruction”. The document does not say what was destroyed, by whom, or in which case file.10

How reliable the timeline is, by its author’s own account

Much of the sequence above rests on an internal FBI document headed “Epstein Overview: FBI Response”, whose section III is a dated timeline. The email that sent a draft of that overview up the chain on 2 May 2025 carries a caveat a reader should keep:

For Section III (Timeline), I cannot be absolutely certain what all was provided to DOJ. I included all information provided by C-20 up the chain. I highlighted those items I knew had been provided to DOJ because I was in direct contact or was told specifically.20

That is the drafter of the Bureau’s own chronology saying the chronology may be incomplete. Where this page relies on that document, it relies on a document its author would not vouch for in full.

The sequence in February, and what it does not establish

The mobilisation that reached item 1B136 began before anyone mentioned the item. The FBI timeline’s entry for 25 February 2025 records a response to a letter from Senator Marsha Blackburn to Director Patel. The entry puts the subject of that letter in quotation marks, as “recordings”, and states that the response “included 50D case evidence report”. That report is the master listing of items in the trafficking case, the document in which 1B136 appears as a line.123

Two days later the shipment order came. The overview records it with times: “On 2/27/2025, at approximately 9:00 a.m., FBI NY squad C-20 received a request to send all evidence and documents related to Epstein in C-20’s possession to Washington, DC by 8:00 a.m. the following day.” It was met. At about 7:45 a.m. on 28 February the squad delivered the items, and “The shipment included 84 digital items, 70 general items, 2 valuables, 2 ELSUR items, 3 red wells, and one disc containing all three Sentinel case files”.21

Ten days later, two agents drove to an evidence room for a hard drive that had been in the Bureau’s custody since January 2021.

The sequence is documented; the causation is not. No document read for this page states that the Senator’s letter caused the shipment order, the transfer, or the review. What the record establishes is the order of events, the intervals between them, and that the response to the letter enclosed the inventory in which the item sits. The question a reader is entitled to put to the Bureau is narrower and harder: what changed on 25 February 2025 about an item that had been in the Bureau’s custody for four years.

What this page does not establish

The item’s contents are outside this page by design, and three further limits belong on the face of it.

The released chains are redacted. Senders, recipients and names inside the message bodies are blacked out in most of the emails cited here, and no name is supplied from context. The people in this record appear by role: an A/SAC of the New York Criminal Division, a Washington Field Office digital forensic examiner, a C-20 reporting agent. The exception is where the FBI’s own timeline prints a name.

The written product of the review is not here. This project holds the covering emails and the attachment’s file name; it does not hold the spreadsheet, so the thirty folder-level entries, the per-folder counts and the figures behind the daily percentages cannot be checked against the sheets.

And the counts are the Bureau’s own. Every figure on this page (85 GB, 34,203 files, thirty folders, 14.6 TB, 12.5 TB, 10.5 TB) is a number the FBI wrote about its own work, in documents written for its own chain of command. Where two of those numbers disagree, this page prints both.

FBI evidence inventory; Epstein video evidence; FBI intake records; Document redaction integrity; Epstein Files Transparency Act; House Oversight Committee Epstein files; Epstein’s death at the MCC.

Footnotes

  1. “Epstein Dashboard (Case File 50D-NY): March 31, 2025”, marked UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY, FBI New York. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01657136 p.1. Read at the page image as well as in the released text. The image resolves the tracking panels (33,985 files and 33,300 reviewed at 98 per cent on 3/28; 34,203 and 34,203 at 100 per cent on 3/31), the personnel table (31 New York plus 3 headquarters on 3/28; 2 plus 2 on 3/31, with the callout “4 Total Personnel Reviewing”), the restoration states, the 12.5 TB capacity line and the closing notes. The 1B descriptions panel continues past the words quoted here; the remainder is not reproduced. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9 ↩10

  2. Email chain, subject “Re: 50D-NY-3027571 1B Items”, 10 and 11 March 2025, between FBI New York and the Washington Field Office. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01649116 pp.1-4, printed stamps EFTA01649116 to EFTA01649119. The originating message of 4:41 p.m. on 10 March, the guidance from the Acting Assistant Director in Charge, the four-item list and the LTO capacity figure are at pp.3-4, stamps EFTA01649118-19; the 6:15 and 7:30 p.m. transport messages and the 14.6 TB, 8.5 TB and 6 TB restore figures at p.2, stamp EFTA01649117; the 11 March follow-up at p.1. Every correspondent is blacked out and none is supplied here. The item descriptions at p.4 continue past what is quoted; the remainder is not reproduced. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7

  3. FBI case-file export, evidence report for case 50D-NY-3027571 filtered on “Type(s):1B”, item-number and collection-date columns, read at the page image. 1B136 is printed 1/26/2021 16:00; 1B144 and 1B145 5/25/2022 14:00; 1B146 7/22/2022 10:00. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01684602 p.93, printed stamp EFTA01684694. The sheet carries only those two columns, and nothing on it classifies the item by media type. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7

  4. Email of 12:54 p.m. on Saturday 5 April 2025, subject “50D-NY-3027571 - 1B136 (Responsive material) Review of Videos and Images”, from a special agent of the C-20 Child Exploitation and Human Trafficking Task Force, FBI New York, attaching “1B136 Review 50D-NY-3027571.xlsx”. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01649021 p.1. The opening sentence about sealed search warrants is quoted from this sheet; the summary beneath it is not reproduced. The spreadsheet itself is not among the pages this project holds. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  5. Email of 1:00 p.m. on 17 March 2025, subject “FW: 1B136 Breakdown”, with the 11:08 and 11:11 a.m. messages beneath it. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01660765 pp.1-5, printed stamps EFTA01660765 to EFTA01660769. The DCAP and LEEP references and the assignment instruction are at p.1; the tracking-spreadsheet instruction and the four-point guidance at pp.2-3; the four-item status of 16 March, reproduced in this message under the heading “Guidance as of 03/17”, at p.5, which reproduces that status in full. The serial-number lists and the network path on these sheets are not reproduced here. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  6. Situation report of 7:33 p.m. on 17 March 2025, subject “SITREP”, from a special agent of FBI New York squad C-20. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01660774 p.1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  7. Situation-report chain, subject “Sitrep 03/31/2025” and the reports beneath it, running from 18 to 31 March 2025, FBI New York squad C-20 to its supervisors. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01657129 pp.1-7, printed stamps EFTA01657129 to EFTA01657135. The 31, 28 and 27 March reports are at p.1; 26, 25 and 24 March at pp.1-2; the 24 March correction about where reviewers came from at p.3; 22 March at p.3; 21 March, with the 1B144 and 1B145 entries, at p.4; the 20 March instruction on consistency of figures at p.5; the 20 and 19 March reports at p.6; the 18 March report, with “631 files / 33,829 files reviewed”, at p.7. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  8. Email chain of 19 to 21 March 2025 carrying the subjects “Deliverable of electronic archives to Director’s office - 50D case” and “Review/Redaction of JE evidence”. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01660810 p.5, printed stamp EFTA01660814, for the 10:47 a.m. request, the 11:06 a.m. reply and the 11:12 a.m. acknowledgement. No correspondent is named here. Both quotations are given as the sheet prints them, including its spelling. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  9. Email chain of 15 April 2025, subject “Re: 1A videos”, answering a request recorded as “The Director has asked for status of all remaining Epstein-related reviews”. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00163971 p.18, printed stamp EFTA00163988, for the quoted entries and for “There are no outstanding reviews”; the Director’s request is at the foot of that sheet, continuing at p.19, stamp EFTA00163989. The same sheet lists categories of other material reviewed, which are not cited here. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  10. The same timeline, entry for 30 April 2025, read at the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00172473 p.5, printed stamp EFTA00172477. The same sheet carries the entries for 26 March 2025, including “1B136 stats and summary for 3/26/2025 ODAG meeting”, and for 1 and 5 April 2025. ↩ ↩2

  11. Email forwarded at 8:50 p.m. UTC on Sunday 16 March 2025, subject “Fw: 1Bs 50D DCAP”, importance High. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01649036 pp.1-2. The author of the underlying status message signs as an A/SAC of the FBI New York Criminal Division; correspondents are otherwise blacked out and no name is supplied here. The attachment named in the header is not among the pages held here. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  12. “Epstein Overview: FBI Response”, section III, Timeline, marked UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00172473 p.3, printed stamp EFTA00172475, for the entries of 18 and 25 February, 16 March and 19 March 2025. No name is supplied here that the timeline does not print. ↩ ↩2

  13. Email of 7:51 p.m. on Friday 4 April 2025, subject “50D: 1B136 (Responsive material) Review of Videos and Images”, attaching “1B136 Review 50D-NY-3027571.xlsx”. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01649024 p.1. The two numbered instructions and the pre-drafted “Content of Email” are on that sheet. The review summary beneath them is not reproduced here. Sender and recipient are blacked out. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  14. Reply of the same evening, timestamped 00:00:12 UTC on 5 April 2025, same subject. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01649133 p.1. ↩

  15. Email of 12:38 p.m. on 5 April 2025, subject “RE: 50D: 1B136 (Responsive material) Review of Videos and Images”, attaching “20250405 - 1B136 Review 50D-NY-3027571.xlsx”. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01649022 pp.1-2, printed stamps EFTA01649022-23. ↩ ↩2

  16. Reply of 1:09 p.m. on 5 April 2025, subject “Re: 50D-NY-3027571 - 1B136 (Responsive material) Review of Videos and Images”, carrying the 12:54 p.m. message beneath it. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01649215 p.1. ↩

  17. The 5 April 2025 email forwarded inside FBI New York at 2:31 p.m. UTC on 10 July 2025, subject “Fw: 50D-NY-3027571 - 1B136 (Responsive material) Review of Videos and Images”, spreadsheet attached. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01656266 p.1. ↩

  18. “Epstein Follow-Up”, a question-and-answer sheet carried with the same document, marked UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00172473 p.8, printed stamp EFTA00172480. ↩

  19. The same document, section IV, “Material Processed”, under the heading Audio/Video, read at the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00172473 p.5, printed stamp EFTA00172477. The sentence following the one quoted gives the reason, in terms of the division’s personnel, and is not reproduced here. ↩

  20. Email of 10:55 p.m. on 2 May 2025, subject “INITIAL DRAFT of Epstein Overview”, forwarding “Epstein Overview FINAL (draft 1).docx”, described there as “FBI New York C-20’s draft response” to an “OD” request. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00163971 p.20, printed stamp EFTA00163990. The released overview cited above carries the section structure the email describes, including section III, Timeline, and section IV, Material Processed. ↩

  21. The same document, section II, under the heading “Request for Collection Overview”. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00172473 p.1. The quoted shipment inventory and the times of 27 and 28 February are printed there, not in the timeline at p.3. ↩

Backlinks