Epstein Data Wiki

Maxwell Trial Exhibits

Properties1
tagstopic, maxwell-trial, exhibits, sealing, document-release, southern-district-of-new-york

28 min read

The prosecution’s own indexHeaded, on four lines, “United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell”, “20 Cr. 330 (AJN)”, “Government Exhibit Index” and its date. Five columns: GX, Description, Status, Bates Range/Identifier, Produced to Defense. Footed on every page “SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17”1
When the Status column appearsThe 11/23/2021 index has four columns and no Status. The 11/29/2021 index, dated the day the trial opened, has five, and prints every sealed row in red213
The two values it assigns”Public” and “Sealed”, with “Marked for identification” for physical objects that carry no Bates number1
Rough scale, machine-read from a damaged text layerAbout 373 exhibit rows in the 11/29 index, of which about 214 are marked Public and about 143 Sealed4
How a sealed exhibit became a public oneA second row for the same Bates number under an “-R” designation and a description beginning “Redacted”, marked Public and produced to the defence six weeks after the original5
The mark on the exhibit itselfA yellow-on-black sticker, four lines: “GOVERNMENT”, “EXHIBIT”, the exhibit number, and the case number “S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)“678
A second, separate mark on the flight records”*Publicly released in”, “U.S. v. Maxwell”, set on three lines in plain type at the head of the page, apart from the sticker and carrying no case number89
What the Southern District warned in March 2025”The exhibits themselves do not indicate whether they are sealed, so they must be reviewed in tandem with the Excel index.”10
A third mark, applied at releaseBlack boxes captioned “DOJ REDACTION” in the body of exhibits the Department published in 202511
A fourth mark, and the only one that gives a reason”*Redacted to protect potential victim information”, at the head of every page of a document published in July 2025 whose surviving content is a title and a column of line numbers running to 25412

The government exhibits from United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell are in the released files as documents, not as a list of them. They carry the sticker the prosecution put on them when they were offered, they carry the Bates numbers of the productions they came out of, and several of them carry a second mark, added later, saying that this particular piece of paper was publicly released in that case. Those marks are the subject of this page. Each one is a decision by a named institution about what the public would be allowed to read, printed on the document the decision was about.681

The decisions came in a sequence, and the sequence is visible on the paper. A bank produced records under a request for confidential treatment. The prosecution offered them, stamped them, and entered them on an index that sorted every exhibit into Public or Sealed. Sealed exhibits were re-offered in redacted form and the redacted version was marked Public. Three years later the Bureau asked the Southern District for the exhibits and was told they were available but that the exhibits could not be read without the index. In July 2025 the Department published a memorandum and attached one of them; later it published the set, with a further layer of redaction of its own, labelled in its own name.65101311

For the courts’ unsealing decisions in the Florida and New York civil proceedings, see Unsealing decisions. For the Second Circuit’s redaction categories in Brown v. Maxwell and the sealing standard applied in the criminal case, see Redacted filings. For the statutory grounds the Department reports for its own redactions, see Document redaction integrity. The FBI evidence numbering that this material sits beside is at FBI evidence inventory.

The index, and the column that was added the week the trial began

The prosecution maintained a Government Exhibit Index and revised it repeatedly through the autumn of 2021. Successive versions survive in the release under separate identifiers, dated 10/28, 11/20, 11/23 and 11/29/2021.21

Until late November the index had four columns: the exhibit number, a description, the Bates range or identifier, and the date the exhibit was produced to the defence. The version dated 11/23/2021 is in that form.2

The version dated 11/29/2021, the day the trial opened, has five.3 The new column is headed “Status”, and it carries three values. Physical objects that were never reduced to a document are “Marked for identification” and have no Bates number beside them: a message pad, a massage table, a hard drive. Everything else is either “Public” or “Sealed”. The sealed rows are printed in red, exhibit number, description and status together, so that the sealed material is legible as a block at a glance.1

That is the load-bearing decision on this page, and it is a decision about the public rather than about the jury. Both a public and a sealed exhibit went to the jury. What the column records is which of them the world outside the courtroom would be shown. Every page of the index is footed “SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17”.1

How a sealed exhibit was turned into a public one

The index also records the mechanism by which material moved from one status to the other, and it does so four times over on a single page of the 900 series, whose other rows describe photographs of a townhouse exterior and interior.

Row: “GX-903”, “Photograph of Massage Room”, Sealed, Bates SDNY_GM_00166252, produced to the defence 2021.10.11. Immediately beneath it: “GX-903-R”, “Redacted Photograph of Massage Room”, Public, Bates SDNY_GM_00166252, the same Bates number, produced to the defence 2021.11.28. The pattern repeats at GX-904 and GX-904-R, at GX-906 and GX-906-R, and at GX-935 and GX-935-R.5

So an “-R” exhibit is not a different document. It is the same page with something taken out of it, offered as a separate exhibit so that a redacted version could be shown publicly while the original stayed sealed. The dates say when: the originals were produced to the defence on 11 October, the redacted counterparts on 28 November, the day before trial. The same construction appears in the 400 and 800 series, where the description reads “Redacted December 16, 2002 Invoice” and the like.514

This matters for reading the released set, because a large number of the exhibits the Department published carry the “-R” suffix. A reader who takes an “-R” exhibit for the whole exhibit is reading the version built for publication, and the index is the document that says so.

The mark on the exhibit

The 500 series is “Financial Records”, and it is JPMorgan Chase material. Its exhibits are in the release under several identifiers, and at the image each carries the same furniture.

Government Exhibit 501 is a June 2007 JPMorgan Private Bank relationship statement for Air Ghislaine Inc. The sticker sits in the lower right corner: yellow field, black border, “GOVERNMENT” over “EXHIBIT” over “501” over “S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)”. The foot of the page, in ordinary type and nothing to do with the sticker, reads “Confidential Treatment Requested by JPMorgan Chase”, beside the bank’s own production number in the JPM-SDNY series.6 Government Exhibit 502 is the corresponding statement for Ghislaine Maxwell’s personal checking account over the same month, with the same sticker, the same confidentiality legend and its own JPM-SDNY number.7

Those two legends are worth reading together. One is a bank asking that material it was compelled to produce be kept out of public view. The other is a court exhibit sticker. They are on the same sheet of paper, and the second one prevailed.

Government Exhibit 507, a JPMorgan signature card, carries the same sticker at 507.11 Financial Trust Company account-opening papers are in the same series. The company and the bank have their own pages: Financial Trust Company, Inc. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A..

The second mark, which is not the same mark

The flight records are the 660 series, and they are where a careless reading goes wrong, so the point is set out plainly.

The first page of the pilot’s log carries two marks, in different places and different type. In the top right is the same yellow sticker as on the bank records, on four lines: “GOVERNMENT”, “EXHIBIT”, “662 -RR”, “S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)”. In the top left, unboxed, in plain black type, and carrying no case number, is a separate legend across three lines: “*Publicly released in”, then “U.S. v. Maxwell”.8

They are not one stamp broken across lines. The sticker is the trial mark, applied when the exhibit was offered. The plain legend is a release mark, applied to say what became of it. The bank records in the 500 series carry the sticker and do not carry the legend.678

The same two marks, in the same two places, are on the Department’s own copy of the same log, published in July 2025 as an attachment to a memorandum. That copy is the better scan: the log is legible across the full width of the page where other copies lose the right-hand columns.9

Nothing on this page describes what any flight log records, and no passenger is named from it.

What the Southern District told the Bureau, and what it warned

On 20 March 2025 a message went to two recipients under the subject “Exhibits used in trial”: “We will be asked for all the evidence used at trial. Where they used under seal?” A reply came the same day, marked as external to the Bureau, and was forwarded on within it the following day.

“All of the exhibits admitted at the Maxwell trial (both Government and defense) — including many sealed exhibits, as notated in the Excel index attached to this email — are available at this USAfx link:”, with the link itself blacked out, and continuing “(Note: The exhibits themselves do not indicate whether they are sealed, so they must be reviewed in tandem with the Excel index.)” The attachment is named US_v.Maxwell_Government_Exhibit_Index(admitted).xlsx. Every correspondent in the thread is redacted.10

That parenthesis is the most useful sentence in the file for anyone handling this material. The prosecution’s position, in writing, is that an exhibit’s face does not disclose its own status. A sticker reading GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT says an exhibit was offered. It does not say whether the court permitted the public to see it. Only the index does, which is why the index and not the exhibit is the primary document for that question.

A month earlier a special agent of the FBI’s Baltimore/Delaware Violent Crime Safe Streets Task Force had sent New York the pre-trial version of the same index under the subject “Trial gov exhibits”.15

The Department’s own layer

The exhibits the Department published in 2025 carry a third kind of mark, and it is the only one that names the body that applied it.

Government Exhibit 507 is a JPMorgan signature card bearing Ghislaine Maxwell’s printed name and signature. Parts of the form are covered by solid black boxes captioned, in white capitals inside the box, “DOJ REDACTION”. The account-number boxes on the same form are covered by unlabelled black, which is the older layer, from the production the exhibit came out of. The two are distinguishable at the image by the caption alone: the Department signs its withholdings and the earlier hands did not.11

The caption is machine-legible. It appears in the text layer of 189 pages across 120 documents in the released files.16 The Department’s grounds for redacting under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, and the justification it published in the Federal Register, are set out at Document redaction integrity and are not repeated here.

Two further points about the released set, stated at the level they can be supported. First, the same exhibit appears in the release more than once, under identifiers from different productions, and the copies do not carry identical redaction. Second, the Department’s release file names distinguish an exhibit whose trial designation ends in “-R” from one whose file name carries a “_Redacted” suffix; these are different operations by different actors at different times, and reading one as the other will mislead. Neither the file names nor the folder paths are printed on the pages; they are release metadata, and they are identified as such in the footnotes wherever this page uses them.17

How many exhibits are in the release

There is a real number and it has two honest halves.

On the index side: the 11/29/2021 index carries roughly 373 exhibit rows, of which roughly 214 are marked Public and roughly 143 Sealed. Those figures are machine counts over an OCR text layer that renders “Sealed” as “Scaled” and “GX-1” as “GX-I” throughout, so they are approximations and are offered as such; the ratio, about two sealed exhibits for every three public ones, is the durable part.4

On the release side: the Department published the trial exhibits on justice.gov in a folder named for the case, split into Defense Exhibits and Government Exhibits, and the government side is subdivided into sixteen folders named for the prosecution’s own series: 0 Series Message Pads, 50 Series Other Physical Exhibits, 100 Series Photographs of People, 200 Series Photographs and Videos from PBPD Search, 300 and 400 Series ESI, 500 Series Financial Records, 600 Series Miscellaneous, 660 Series Flight Records, 700 Series Photographs of Places, 720 Series Maps, 740 Series Interlochen Records, 800 Series FedEx Records, 820 Series Mar-A-Lago Records, 900 Series NYC Photographs, 1000 Series Stipulations. The folder names reproduce the series headings of the exhibit index itself.1815

Counted from those paths, the published trial-exhibit tree holds 24 defence exhibits over 279 pages and 252 government exhibits over 618 pages. That count comes from the release’s file naming and folder structure, not from the face of any document, and it is stated on that footing.18

What the two halves do not do is reconcile, and the reason is documented rather than mysterious. The index is dated the first day of a month-long trial; exhibits were offered and redacted counterparts prepared after it was printed; and the March 2025 email describes an “admitted” index compiled afterwards, in a spreadsheet whose contents are not in the released files. A count of what was admitted at trial cannot be taken from the documents on this page. A count of what was published can.10418

Two searches that look as though they would answer the question do not. The phrase “government exhibit” and the case number “20 Cr. 330” both return large numbers of pages, but they return every filing, transcript and letter that mentions an exhibit as well as the exhibits themselves, and neither is a count of exhibits.

Exhibits produced as a number with no picture

A distinct class of item in the released files consists of a single page whose entire content is a sentence saying the image is missing. Forty such documents can be identified, each one page long but for one, and each reading, with only capitalisation varying: “Image for this document USGME00014759 is not exported.”, followed by two further control numbers.19 Each carries a Bates number in the USGME series, which is the series in which the Maxwell exhibit material was numbered and the series that supplied the identifier on the “Masseuses” attachment described below.20

The question is whether that is a withholding or a processing failure. The released files answer it, in the government’s own words, four years earlier.

In the spring of 2021 Maxwell’s counsel put to the Southern District a list of “thousands of Bates numbers” the defendant was unable to view at the Metropolitan Correctional Center. The office had its paralegals go through them and returned a spreadsheet with a key explaining each status entry. Under the heading “Missing”, the key reads: “‘Image for this document is not exported’ means that we do not have these images. We are conferring with our vendor regarding these documents and will reach back out once we have obtained assistance.”21

In August 2021 the same thread carried a second key, this one written from the vendor’s own Relativity search results, with an attachment named Maxwell_problem_files_-_Images_Not_Exported.xlsx. Its entry for this category reads: “NATIVE, TXT W/ PLACEHOLDER – This indicates that the document has a native format and extracted text, but there were some pages or the entire document that could not be imaged. An image placeholder was provided that says ‘Image for this document is not exported.’ For these documents you will need to view either the native file or the extracted text.”22

So the string is not an artefact of the 2025 release at all. It is a standard image placeholder produced by the litigation-support vendor that processed this evidence, and the United States Attorney’s Office defined it twice in writing, to opposing counsel, as an imaging failure it was pursuing with that vendor. Two further considerations point the same way. The failure was raised by the defence, not by the government, so it was not a shape the government chose. And where the Department does withhold in this release it says so, in a labelled box and a marked file name, neither of which appears on any of these pages.1117

What the documents do not establish is the link between the two dates. No document in the release says that the placeholders published in 2025 are the same placeholders generated in 2021; that rests on the identity of the sentence and the Bates series. And in the 2021 production the placeholder came with a native file and extracted text that a reader could open instead. In the release it does not: the extracted text is the placeholder, so what the reader gets is an exhibit number, a control number, and nothing else. On the evidence here this is an export failure carried into a public release rather than a decision to withhold, and the residual uncertainty is about the carrying, not about the failure.

The list that was never an exhibit

One document in this family has to be described exactly as the Bureau describes it, because it has been described wrongly before.

On 18 February 2025 a special agent of the FBI’s Baltimore/Delaware Violent Crime Safe Streets Task Force wrote to a New York recipient under the subject “Masseuse List, black book, flight logs”, attaching a file whose name carries a USGME Bates number. The email says: “The attached item titled ‘Masseuses’ was going to initially be a trial exhibit but was not used at the Maxwell trial. It was located on one of Epstein’s digital devices seized from his Manhattan residence. The names listed are believed to be women and girls, some of which were identified minors, who were contacted by Epstein, Maxwell, and his staff to massage Epstein.”20

The same email closes on the redaction question that runs through this page. Of the address book and the flight logs together it says: “At trial, the black book and the flight logs had minor victims redacted from the public.” That is the Bureau, in 2025, describing a redaction the prosecution applied in 2021, and it is the fourth actor to appear on this page as having decided what the public would see. The pilot’s name is blacked out in this email and is not supplied here.20

The Bureau’s description is the description. This page reports that the document exists, that it was prepared as an exhibit and not used, and nothing further about its contents. Nothing from it is quoted, linked or paraphrased.

What the Department published in July 2025 is worth recording, though, because it is the fullest statement on any of these pages of a reason for a mark. Every page of the published version carries, at the head, in plain type and behind an asterisk, the legend “*Redacted to protect potential victim information”. Under that legend the pages hold a title and a column of line numbers running to 254, and nothing else. The document as released is a row count and a reason. The same legend, in the same form and the same position, appears on pages of the contact book published beside it.12

Set that legend beside the one on the flight log. “*Publicly released in”, “U.S. v. Maxwell” and “*Redacted to protect potential victim information” are the same house style, the same asterisk, the same plain type at the head of the sheet, applied to opposite outcomes. The release marks both what it opened and what it closed, and it marks them in the same hand.912

The July 2025 memorandum and its attachments

On the release side the last decision in the sequence is the shortest document in it. In July 2025 the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation published a two-page joint memorandum on the Epstein holdings. It opens “As part of our commitment to transparency” and closes with the determination “that no further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted.” In between it records that “this review confirmed that Epstein harmed over one thousand victims”, that “[s]ensitive information relating to these victims is intertwined throughout the materials”, and that much of the material “is subject to court-ordered sealing”.13

Four documents were published alongside it as lettered attachments. The release names them A through D: an evidence list from the Maxwell case, the flight log released in that case, a redacted contact book, and a redacted masseuse list.23 Attachment B is the pilot’s log described above, complete with both of its marks.9 Attachment D is the “Masseuses” document that the Bureau said had been prepared as an exhibit and not used, published in redacted form by the Department four years after the prosecution decided not to offer it.2320

Attachment A, the evidence list, is the 1B inventory held at FBI evidence inventory and is not described again here.

What this page does not establish

The number of exhibits admitted at trial is not established here. The index this page rests on predates most of the trial, and the “admitted” index compiled afterwards exists in the released files only as the name of a spreadsheet attached to an email.101

Nor is the relationship between the index and the published set established. The designations do not line up row for row: published files carry “-R” designations that the 11/29 index does not show, and the index carries designations that no published file answers to. That is consistent with ordinary trial practice, since redacted counterparts were still being produced on the eve of trial and would have continued to be produced through it, but nothing in the documents cited here settles it and nothing here asserts what became of any particular exhibit.51418

Finally, with one exception, the marks on the paper are evidence of decisions and not of reasons. The sticker says an exhibit was offered. The index column says what status it was given. The “DOJ REDACTION” box says the Department covered something. None of those says why. The exception is the victim-information legend, which states a ground and states it for a whole document rather than for a passage. The general justification the Department has published for its redactions under the Act is recorded at Document redaction integrity.

FBI evidence inventory; Unsealing decisions; Redacted filings; Document redaction integrity; Epstein video evidence; Epstein Files Transparency Act; Ghislaine Maxwell; United States v. Epstein (S.D.N.Y. 2019); Financial Trust Company, Inc.; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.; Epstein investigations overview.

Footnotes

  1. “United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell”, “20 Cr. 330 (AJN)”, “Government Exhibit Index”, “11/29/2021”, with the column headings “GX”, “Description”, “Status”, “Bates Range/Identifier” and “Produced to Defense”, and the footer “SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17”. Read at the page image; the sealed rows print in red. The text layer of this page renders the caption as “GhisThine Maxwell”, so the correct spelling here is taken from the image and not from the extraction. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00085040 p.1. The description cells for photographs of people are redacted in the document and no name is taken from any page of it. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9

  2. The same index dated “11/23/2021”, carrying four columns, headed “GX”, “Description”, “Bates Range/Identifier” and “Produced to Defense”, and no Status column. Read at the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00068540 p.1. Further versions dated 10/28/2021 and 11/20/2021 are in the release under separate identifiers. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  3. Government’s Sentencing Memorandum, United States v. Maxwell, p. 7 of 55: “On November 29, 2021, the defendant proceeded to trial on Counts One though Six.” https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00010536 ↩ ↩2

  4. Counts taken by machine over the text layer of the 11/29/2021 index: about 373 rows carrying an exhibit designation, about 214 carrying “Public” and about 143 carrying “Sealed”. The text layer of this document renders “Sealed” as “Scaled” on most rows and “GX-1” as “GX-I” throughout, so the figures are approximate and no individual row is asserted from them. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00085040 pp.1-10. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  5. The 900 series page of the 11/29/2021 index, for the paired rows “Photograph of Massage Room” / Sealed / SDNY_GM_00166252 / 2021.10.11 and “Redacted Photograph of Massage Room” / Public / SDNY_GM_00166252 / 2021.11.28, at GX-903 and GX-903-R, and for the same construction at GX-904, GX-906 and GX-935. Read at the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00085040 p.10. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  6. JPMorgan Private Bank relationship banking summary for Air Ghislaine Inc, 1 to 29 June 2007, bearing the Government Exhibit sticker at 501 with the case number “S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)”, the legend “Confidential Treatment Requested by JPMorgan Chase” at the foot, and a JPM-SDNY production number. Read at the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01655169 p.1. The account numbers and the mailing address are covered by black boxes on this copy; no value is taken from the page and no other copy of the exhibit is cited. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  7. JPMorgan Private Bank premier banking summary for Ghislaine Maxwell, 1 to 29 June 2007, bearing the Government Exhibit sticker at 502 with the same case number and the same confidentiality legend, and its own JPM-SDNY number. Read at the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01656658 p.1. Account numbers on this page are covered; none is reproduced. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  8. Pilot’s flight log, first page, bearing in the top right the four-line sticker “GOVERNMENT”, “EXHIBIT”, “662 -RR”, “S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)” and, separately, in the top left and in plain type, the three-line legend “*Publicly released in”, “U.S. v. Maxwell”. Each line is transcribed from the image; the words are separate lines on the page and are not contiguous text, so the transcription will not match a text-layer search. The two marks are in different places on the sheet and in different typefaces; they are not one stamp. Read at the page image at 170 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01660504 p.1. No entry from the log is quoted and no passenger is named. A second copy of the same 118-page exhibit is in the release as https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02846460. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  9. The Department’s own copy of the same first page of the same exhibit, published in July 2025, carrying both marks in the same two positions. Read at the page image at 140 dpi from https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00022173 p.1. The text layer of this copy is heavily damaged and renders most of the page as noise; the image is nonetheless the cleaner of the two, holding the right-hand columns that other copies lose. Nothing is quoted from its text layer. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  10. Email thread forwarded 21 March 2025 under the subject “FW: Exhibits used in trial”, carrying a Southern District reply of 20 March 2025 and the originating request of the same day, and attaching “US_v.Maxwell_Government_Exhibit_Index(admitted).xlsx”. Read at the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01657178 p.1. Every correspondent and the USAfx link itself are blacked out; no correspondent is named here. A second document forwarding the same message is not cited. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  11. Government Exhibit 507, a JPMorgan account signature form, bearing the exhibit sticker at 507 and, in the body, solid black boxes captioned “DOJ REDACTION” in white capitals, alongside unlabelled black boxes over the account-number fields. Read at the page image at 140 dpi from https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00015718 p.1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  12. The published version of the fourth attachment, every page headed “*Redacted to protect potential victim information” over a title and a column of line numbers running to 254, with no other content surviving on any page. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00022386 pp.1-7. The same legend appears on pages of the third attachment, https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00022291, which is not otherwise cited or described here. Nothing beyond the legend and the numbering is taken from either document. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  13. Joint memorandum of the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, July 2025, two pages, for the quoted passages. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00022166 pp.1-2. Read from the machine text of a clean typed document. ↩ ↩2

  14. The same index, description cells reading “Redacted December 16, 2002 Invoice”, “Redacted December 23, 2002 Invoice” and “Redacted October 14, 2002 Invoice” in the 800 series, and “Redacted Certified Birth Certificate of” in the 10 series, each paired with an unredacted row. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00085040 pp.3, 9. Read from the machine text of those pages; the descriptions of the underlying exhibits are redacted in the document and nothing is supplied here. ↩ ↩2

  15. Email of 25 February 2025 from a special agent, FBI Baltimore/Delaware, Violent Crime Safe Streets Task Force, subject “Trial gov exhibits”, attaching “2021.11.16_US_v._Maxwell_Government Exhibit_Index.pdf”. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00038615 p.1. Sender and recipient are redacted; neither is named. ↩

  16. The caption “DOJ REDACTION” is legible in the machine text of 189 pages across 120 documents of the released files. Count taken by search over the corpus text layer, not from the face of any single document, and offered on that footing. ↩

  17. The Department’s release file names, and the folder paths under which the trial exhibits are published on justice.gov, are metadata of the release rather than text printed on any page. Where this page relies on them it says so. The distinction drawn here is between an exhibit designation ending in “-R”, which the prosecution’s index shows was created for trial, and a file name carrying a “_Redacted” suffix, which corresponds to the “DOJ REDACTION” caption described above. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00085040 p.10 for the first; https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00015718 p.1 for the second. ↩ ↩2

  18. Counted from the folder paths and file names under which the Department publishes the trial exhibits at justice.gov, under “Court Records/United States v. Maxwell, No. 120-cr-00330 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) - Trial Exhibits”, divided into “Defense Exhibits” (24 documents, 279 pages) and “Government Exhibits” (252 documents, 618 pages) in sixteen series folders whose names are given in the text. This is release metadata and not text on any page; a representative document from the 500 Series folder is https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01655169, whose exhibit sticker is described at note gx501. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  19. Forty documents in the released files carry a page whose entire text is an image placeholder; thirty-nine of them are a single page and the fortieth is a three-page run with the placeholder on one page. Representative text: “Image for this document USGME00014759 is not exported.” followed by two further control numbers. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01737504 p.1. The forty were identified by search over the corpus text layer; the count is stated on that footing and none of the documents has been read at the image, there being no image to read. ↩

  20. Email of 18 February 2025 from a special agent, FBI Baltimore/Delaware, Violent Crime Safe Streets Task Force, to an FBI New York recipient, subject “Masseuse List, black book, flight logs”. Read at the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00038620 p.1. Sender, recipient and the pilot’s name are blacked out; the attachment is not cited, not linked and nothing in it is reproduced. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  21. Email of 20 May 2021 from a Southern District correspondent to Maxwell’s counsel, in a thread headed “US v. Maxwell - [conferral re photo and other discovery deficiencies]”, enclosing a status spreadsheet for “the thousands of Bates numbers you listed as unviewable at the MDC” and setting out a key to its entries, including, under the heading “Missing”: “‘Image for this document is not exported’ means that we do not have these images. We are conferring with our vendor regarding these documents and will reach back out once we have obtained assistance.” Read at the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00065828 pp.2-3. Named counsel appear in this thread; only the quoted institutional language is used. The text layer of p.3 renders “.raf files” as “.saf files”; that line is not quoted. ↩

  22. Email of 11 August 2021 in the same thread, attaching a spreadsheet whose name reads at the image “Maxwell_problem_files_-_Images_Not_Exported.xlsx”, where the text layer renders it “Maxwell_problem_filess images_Not_Exported.xlsx”, and setting out the vendor’s Relativity search-result categories, including: “NATIVE, TXT W/ PLACEHOLDER – This indicates that the document has a native format and extracted text, but there were some pages or the entire document that could not be imaged. An image placeholder was provided that says “Image for this document is not exported.” For these documents you will need to view either the native file or the extracted text.” Read at the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00065828 p.1. ↩

  23. The four lettered attachments published with that memorandum, named in the release as an evidence list from the Maxwell case, the flight log released in that case, a redacted contact book and a redacted masseuse list, at https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00022170, https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00022173, https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00022291 and https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00022386. The lettering and the descriptions are the release’s own file naming and are not printed on the documents; neither the contact book nor the masseuse list is cited, linked or described beyond the Bureau’s own characterisation at note prov. ↩ ↩2

Backlinks