all 9 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 32 points 10 months ago*

I went digging around, found some videos (interviews of victims) and audio recordings (apparently recordings of phone calls interviewing victims), and the audio in a majority of those I checked are absolute garbage. Static, distortion, etc.

I'm not even talking about redactions. You can tell the redactions because the audio completely cuts out for a moment (including the static). But the rest of the time, you can't even understand a majority of the words. If this is normal for the DoJ, I'm surprised they ever convict anybody of anything.

So, I'm suspicious of them adding the static to make it impossible to get anything useful out of these.

  • source
  • [–] 25 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    I searched for "Trump" and it came back with nothing.

    Jfc.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    I searched for "Epstein" and it found nothing. I think it's just broken.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago

    I searched EFTA0000 after realizing that those datasets had a lot of photos. Those documents say it all. Pictures of politicians mixed in with redacted CSAM. Clinton with a girl on his lap.

    They’re all implicated. They all need to be held accountable.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 10 months ago

    https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%201/EFTA00000189.pdf

    Image isn't high enough resolution to read the speed dial labels on the phone when zoomed in... and yet, a couple lines are redacted out.

    Suggests to me that there's a higher resolution version that got redacted, and they're uploading lower resolution versions of all images so that some finer details get redacted by proxy.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 10 months ago

    Time to put that data science degree to good use

  • source
  • 10 comments in c/Epsteinfiles@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] [S] 4 points 2 months ago*

    Understand that I'm not specifically concerned with finding these particular emails. The emails were adequately quoted in the articles, and it was only curiosity that caused me to look further.

    As far as the original records from the main DoJ dumps go, those are still out there, not just in the US but around the world, just like pee in a swimming pool, and will remain so. There are multiple public archives and who knows how many private archives, plus whatever got quoted and used in derivative works, such as The Guardian articles I referenced.

    Rather, I'm concerned with what the DoJ is doing, and specifically why. They pulled this more than once at the beginning, releasing records and then trying to retract the more troublesome ones (which is why people started archiving them immediately upon release) and then stopped for a while. Looks like they're back at it.

    Or to put it another way, a highly placed person or group of people made the specific decision -- likely upon request -- to take down those specific records and leave the rest of them up. Why would the presence of these few particular emails on a government server scare anyone? Yet they do, enough for someone to act on that, and have been very quietly removed. That's the interesting part.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    A shit ton of people immediately downloaded everything and uploaded a public archive...

    You could easily cross reference and see if anything changed.

    If what you can't find now is on the archive, then at some point it was taken down. Or you just can't find it online.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (3 children)

    It is still possible that those mails have been quoted from an image, I.e. the DoJ stores a scan, and someone at the Guardian typed them in for the article. Text search will not find text in a scanned image unless someone did OCR on it.

    BUT: there are known cases of evidence from the Epstein case being removed from the site, so this could be just another of those cases.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 2 months ago* (2 children)

    Eh, it's possible, but very, very unlikely. Given the DoJ's own claims and how OCR is what they were using to mass redact the files (like all the redacted instances of "don't" lol) I personally think it's safe to assume that everything on the DoJ site was, at some point and without exception, OCR'd, even the handwritten materials, and that has been my own experience with it.

    In this case I was definitely using text search, but that is the only search available on the DoJ site. I have not had a problem before now with finding anything via text search, not least because when I can't find it with one string I try another, and another, removing punctuation, etc.

    This is the current disclaimer on the site:

    Note on Search Functionality: Due to technical limitations and the format of certain materials (e.g., handwritten text), portions of these documents may not be electronically searchable or may produce unreliable search results.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    As I said, the DoJ is no foreigner to removing published materials again. The idea that the search failure could have technical reasons is something to consume with a grain or two of salt, but not impossible.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 1 point 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    I should add that today there is another Guardian article regarding the now-public transcript of Jes Staley's closed door interview with the House Oversight Committee on July 24. It mentions two separate email exchanges by quote, and all are easily found via search on the DoJ site, usually in multiples, and of course specific Bates numbers are in the transcript as well. (I prefer text search because if you open all the results you'll often get the whole long email chain, but with Bates number you at least have that one isolated quote.)

    However, in this case almost all of the text search results include the wording, "Confidential Treatment Requested by JPMorgan Chase" somewhere on the document. I've spent many hours in the legal cases in the files, and even in cases that are now removed -- like the entire probate proceedings in the USVI -- I have never seen that before for any other individual or organization. If I venture to guess, that notation is likely a relevant factor in where the other now-absent Jes Staley emails have gone.

    EDITED TO ADD: Just for the hell of it, I searched the DoJ site for the text "Confidential Treatment Requested by JPMorgan Chase" exactly as seen on the documents I looked at from the transcript, not even stripping the capitalizations, and it came back with 8602 hits. Many also have a JPM-SDNY Bates number but not all, which tends to suggest that all material related to litigation between SDNY and JPMorgan, or at least whatever JPMorgan provided, has been labeled with that request, but it has little/no prohibitive weight in itself. So for myself, I am back to asking why those specific emails, the contents of which are already public, have been removed from the public-facing DoJ site.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (3 children)

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

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • 5 comments in c/canada@lemmy.ca view that post
    [–] [S] 5 points 9 months ago

    Here's one that I found mentioning Galen Weston Jr. But it doesn't seem very relevant?
    IqpFyg3e6E9FHHv.png

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (3 children)

    Prince Andrew had "contacts in ISIS"! 😮

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments