24
submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world to c/Epsteinfiles@lemmy.world

Today I was reading about the judicial progress against another unchecked billionaire rapist and it mentioned some statements Lord Peter Mandelson made to Jeffrey Epstein upon the occasion of Epstein's conviction in 2008.

I didn't recall that exact wording, so I went to the linked article that focused entirely on the emails between Epstein and Mandelson. As I often do, I wanted to see if the quoted section was all there is or just a truncated version of a much longer exchange, so I went to find the EFTA version.

Only thing is, when I went to the DoJ site, these particular career-ending emails are gone, or are at least not found when searching by text, which is what I was doing. They're still readily found in Jmail, of course, though even the Jmail versions no longer have a link to the actual EFTA files on the DoJ site.

Here's the first email mentioned in the above-linked Guardian article, and here's the second. But nothing left on the DoJ site, even though almost 6,000 other records of Epstein's communications with Mandelson remain.

Just to see if this is going to be a thing, I went to another linked article in The Guardian that lists ten points of evidence in the Epstein -- Mendelson correspondence that suggest a close friendship, and looked up each of the quotes on both the DoJ site and in Jmail.

Many were there and findable on a text search just as they should be, but sure enough two are missing from both the DoJ site and strangely also from the Jmail archive: #3: “Peter will be staying at 71st over weekend” from Epstein to Jes Staley, June 2009; and #5: “Petie’s quitting” from Epstein to Jes Staley, May 2010.

Am I missing something? Or are the orange lackeys just back to quietly removing the rich and powerful from the EFTA releases hoping nobody notices.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] kingofras@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Any chance you can drop some bates numbers for these Chunk?

[-] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Unfortunately, no. Those are what I was looking for with the Jmail, but even those pointers to the Bates numbers are gone -- at least for these particular entries -- and Jmail no longer has a link to the actual EFTA files on the DoJ site for these specific emails.

However, the specific sender/receiver is known for each, and the wording is specific enough, so that taken together anyone with text search can take fairly unique strings and get a hit on a non-DoJ archive. The first article is all about Lord Peter Mendelson and references two specific emails, for which I included the Jmail links (see above).

The second article had ten points of evidence from the files, two that I could no longer get from the DoJ site. (I did not bother looking for the birthday book, so I can't say for sure on any parts of that.) From above:

. . . two are missing from both the DoJ site and strangely also from the Jmail archive: #3: “Peter will be staying at 71st over weekend” from Epstein to Jes Staley, June 2009; and #5: “Petie’s quitting” from Epstein to Jes Staley, May 2010.

For example, "Petie's quitting" happens a good bit in Jmail (apparently Petie's a quitter, lol) but we are looking specifically for an Epstein email to Jes Staley: nothing. But we know they were there at some point, because the Graun quoted them.

That's another slight oddity: more often than not, papers have started including direct links to the DoJ site when quoting very specific documents like an email; these too are not present in the articles.

[-] kingofras@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Had a look. Some findings:

  • nothing in the Staley set has been pulled or re-redacted.
  • the one real anomaly is chronological: volume runs 26 to 70 emails/month through October 2011, then down to single digits and stays there through 2013, 17 months before Staley left JPMorgan.
  • Mandelson passage has no Bates number, because it was never in a government production, it came from an independent Bloomberg article, They obtained it from Epstein's personal Yahoo account, a mailbox that never went to Congress or DOJ.
  • Staley transcript was interesting: 6 EFTA numbers were produced by the HOC, and (still) unreleased in the official DOJ corpus. All six are internal JPMorgan compliance records: the 2003 Vanity Fair due diligence email, the Erdoes exchange three days after Epstein's 2006 arrest, the "Rapid Response Team" memo logging $40,000 to $80,000 cash withdrawals several times a month, the 2010 sex-trafficking due diligence report. They sit inside a single 126,662-number gap that accounts for 98.8% of DS12's Bates span, a band where DS12 holds nothing at all. So this really shows beyond question that the large blacked out and missing bates numbers from DS12 are unpublished to protect perpertrators, not victims.

I dont think I need my tinfoil hat for this: the fact that the 12th dataset is so small and that DS13 > DS20 are scaffolded on the server, but never released. So, to state the bleeding obvious: the war in Iran started to prevent the most damning datasets to be released.

[-] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

This is amazing. And I can tell you I'd never have figured out #3 or #4; I am only dimly aware of the non-DoJ sources at best. That is excellent. Thank you.

this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2026
24 points (96.2% liked)

The Trump-Epstein Files™

1368 readers
5 users here now

We keep track of the release of the files, but also to explore what’s already available, and why – with enough exposure – this could bring the man down, and who knows even his regime or the empire.

Want to start digging yourself? Check out our sticky post

Our Rules

(Subject to Change)

Our Justice System

This community is run by volunteers so please don't test the justice system, as with all justice systems it is critically underfunded.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS