EXPLAINER: The Truth About the Epstein Files So Far, Photo by Photo
Without context, the Epstein files and the many intriguing photographs of famous faces are being used by politicians, journalists and clickbait merchants to manipulate public interpretation.
When the long-awaited Epstein files began to emerge, the public response was immediate and visceral. Phone screens filled with faces long associated with power, celebrity, intellect, and money. Names were barked out again. Suspicions reignited. And yet, as the dust settled and the images were examined with care rather than fury, a quieter truth became unavoidable: what had been released so far documented proximity and social overlap… but not criminal acts.
The disclosure itself came not from a courtroom drama but from legislative mandate. A congressional requirement forced the Department of Justice to release unclassified material related to Jeffrey Epstein, a man whose historical social universe continues to provoke obsession. The deadline loomed, slipped, and then staggered forward in uneven tranches. What arrived was incomplete by the government’s own admission, with large portions withheld or redacted. Still, the images alone were enough to ignite a media firestorm. And that was undoubtedly the intention.
Intentionally released without any context, and instantly weaponised by politicians and the press to smear individuals whom they dislike (above all, President Donald Trump), they now continue to circulate and generate condemnation for innocent men and women. Guilt by association.
Yesterday I asked Ian Maxwell, one of Ghislaine Maxwell’s siblings, for his take on the files and the way in which they’ve been released. He provided the following comment/statement:
“The public has the right to expect full transparency when it comes to the release of the ‘Epstein Files’. As far as the newly released images are concerned, however, what we’ve seen so far includes a significant amount of selective redaction and for the most part a seemingly intentional lack of context.
“Far from providing truth and clarity we have disinformation and confusion. House Democrats with a political agenda to smear President Trump and Republicans, motivated by a similar desire to smear Bill Clinton, are seeking respectively to make political capital from the Files. The fact that neither President is accused of wrongdoing is barely mentioned or commented upon. The imputation of guilt by association is a dangerous mindset that has destroyed the reputations of many innocent parties, not least that of my sister.
“In a letter to Congress to coincide with initial release of a tranche of the Files on 19 December, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche confirmed that the DOJ had asked lawyers for Epstein’s victims to provide names of survivors and relatives so those identities could be protected, resulting in a list of more than 1,200 people. These are the same financially interested private attorneys who, by their own admission, made secret settlements with 25 Epstein-connected men.
“One must ask if the names of these men and their relatives have also been proposed for redaction? We don’t know, but what we do know from my sister’s Habeas Petition filed last week is that evidence of those secret settlements – which would have changed the outcome of Ghislaine’s trial had they been revealed to the Defense - were hidden from her. Confirmation by Senator Chuck Schumer that ‘Senate Democrats are [also] working closely with attorneys for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein … to assess what documents are being withheld and what is being covered up …’ indicates these same attorneys are working both sides of the aisle.
“It is indeed ironic not to say scandalous as well as hypocritical that the same accusers’ lawyers who sought to cover up their impermissible and unethical conduct in the context of the prosecution and trial of my sister are now aiding the Democrats in alleging a cover up to protect Donald Trump.”
Click here to listen to my latest one-hour interview with Ian Maxwell, in which he discusses his sister’s trial, elaborates on the contents of her habeas corpus petition, and reveals her ‘real role’ in Jeffrey Epstein’s life.
Now, let’s take a look at some of the photographs that have been released so far and add some context and facts to the faces.
Bill Clinton and Ghislaine Maxwell in a Swimming Pool
One of the first set of images to cause a stir show former US president Bill Clinton in a swimming pool alongside Ghislaine Maxwell, and in a hot tub with a woman whose face has been redacted. The photograph is undated in the released material and provides no contextual information regarding its location, purpose, or circumstances.
The image does not depict any illegal activity. There are no minors visible. There is no sexual conduct, coercion, or inappropriate interaction shown. The photograph records a moment of social proximity between adults. Some have falsely claimed that ‘the DoJ only redacted the faces of victims/’survivors’ - but this simply isn’t true. This fact is demonstrated throughout the releases, both in imagery and documents.
The Clinton image’s significance rests entirely on association rather than action. Its release confirms that Clinton and Maxwell were in one another’s company at some point in time, a fact that has been publicly acknowledged for years through flight logs and testimony. The photograph itself adds no evidence of wrongdoing.
Despite online viral online speculation and intentional disinformation claiming that the swimming pool was on Epstein’s island, it was in fact taken, as I’ve been able to confirm, at the Empire Hotel in Brunei.
“The White House hasn’t been hiding these files for months only to dump them late on a Friday to protect Bill Clinton,” a spokesperson for Clinton said in a statement on X.
“This is about shielding themselves from what comes next, or from what they’ll try and hide forever. So they can release as many grainy 20-plus-year-old photos as they want, but this isn’t about Bill Clinton. Never has, never will be,” the statement added.
“Even Susie Wiles said Donald Trump was wrong about Bill Clinton,” it said, referring to comments made by White House chief of staff to Vanity Fair in which Wiles acknowledged that Clinton had not been on Epstein’s Caribbean island despite repeated claims by Trump to the contrary.
In the statement, Clinton’s spokesperson Angel Ureña said: “There are two types of people here. The first group knew nothing and cut Epstein off before his crimes came to light. The second group continued relationships with him after. We’re in the first. No amount of stalling by people in the second group will change that. Everyone, especially MAGA, expects answers, not scapegoats.”
Clinton’s spokesperson reiterated what has been stated for years: Clinton cut off contact with Epstein well before Epstein’s 2008 conviction, had no knowledge of his alleged crimes at the time of their association, and never visited his island. None of the images released contradict that statement. They show social proximity, not criminal behaviour.
The same pattern repeats across the release. A painting of Bill Clinton in a dress hanging in Epstein’s home has been treated as scandalous, despite being an artwork whose existence has been known for years (the blue dress representing the infamous garment that came to symbolise the scandal concerning their affair).
Just for added context, Epstein also owned the below satirical painting of President George Bush, created by the same artist (Petrina Ryan-Kleid) who painted the ‘blue dress Clinton’.
Jeffrey Epstein and Michael Jackson Standing Together Indoors
Another image shows Jeffrey Epstein standing alongside Michael Jackson. Both men are fully clothed. Jackson is wearing sunglasses. The setting appears informal, possibly residential, but is not identified in the released material. Some reports state that Jackson visited Epstein to discuss a real estate purchase.
The photograph does not depict illegal activity. There are no minors present. There is no indication of sexual conduct or exploitation. The image shows two public figures in the same space at the same time, with no accompanying documentation linking the encounter to criminal behaviour.
Again, it was posted without context to intentionally mislead the public. But here’s the context: The photograph was taken behind the scenes of a Democratic fundraising event in 2002. And that leads us nicely onto the next image, also featuring the ‘King of Pop’.
Michael Jackson, Bill Clinton, Diana Ross, and multiple ‘mysterious children’
One of the most widely circulated examples of all is a photograph showing Michael Jackson standing alongside Bill Clinton and Diana Ross, with several children visible in the frame. In the version released today, the children’s faces are fully redacted. Presented without explanation and embedded inside an Epstein-branded archive, the image has been treated as ominous, as though it documents something sinister, with the insinuation being that the children were victims of Jeffrey Epstein.
But they were not.
The photograph, along with others taken at the same time, has in fact been public, unredacted, for many years. It was taken at event I touched upon above. Diana and her son, Evan Ross, performed Heal The World with Jackson at an event intended to raise money for the Democratic Party.
The children are Michael Jackson’s and Diana Ross’s children. There is no connection to Epstein, no allegation attached to the image (other than, perhaps, he took the photo), and no suggestion in the original context that it depicted anything untoward. The sense of menace arises entirely from the act of redaction and the context in which the image has been reintroduced, not from the photograph itself.
Below is an image I found of that event. Note that Ross and her son Ivan are both wearing the same clothes as those they are wearing in the image from the Epstein files.
Interior Images from Epstein’s Private Island – The Dentist’s Chair
One of the most discussed images from the island shows a dentist’s chair.
The image is unsettling to many viewers due to its incongruity. However, the photograph itself shows an object, not an act. There is no person in the chair. No procedure is taking place. No illegal activity is depicted.
Sky News makes clear that while the presence of such an object raises questions, the image alone does not constitute evidence of abuse or criminal conduct.
Another interior photograph shows masks mounted on the walls of the same room.
Again, of course, the photograph does not show illegal activity. It depicts interior décor. There are no people present, no acts being committed, and no evidence of criminal behaviour.
The unease generated by the image is interpretive rather than evidentiary, and the media have tried to manipulate the public’s interpretation of what are, in reality, nothing more than (somewhat tacky) masks. One headline, for instance, written by the Daily Mirror, claimed that they are ‘death masks’ (casts made from the face of a dead body). But I’m sure you’ll agree with me that, though I’m a big fan of Laurel and Hardy and truly wish that Stan Laurel looked like this when he died, sadly, it’s seriously unlikely to have been the case…
Image of a Woman’s Body with Text from Lolita
One of the most widely circulated images referenced in the Sky News live feed shows a woman’s torso photographed close-up, with handwritten text from Vladimir Nabokov’s novel Lolita written across her skin. The woman’s face is not visible in the image, and no identifying information accompanies the photograph. Her age is not stated. The location, date, and circumstances under which the photograph was taken are not provided in the released materials.
I do, however, know the identity of this woman, and am just waiting on legal advice before I reveal it. I can confirm, however, that she was over the legal age of consent at the time the photograph was taken.
Screenshot of a Text Message Referencing “Girls”
The message is incomplete. No names, phone numbers, timestamps, or metadata are visible in the released version.
The screenshot does not, on its own, demonstrate illegal activity. Though it does appear that the sender could be suggesting escorts to Jeffrey Epstein (highly likely, and some of the women who he surrounded himself with, including Sarah Ransome, were indeed escorts), the message clearly provides the age of the woman referenced as being 18.
Epstein with Noam Chomsky
In other images, Epstein is shown sat on his plane with controversial public intellectual Noam Chomsky. The photographs appear to show the two men seated together in conversation.
The images do not show illegal activity. There are no minors present and no sexual or exploitative conduct shown. The photographs confirm acquaintance, not complicity.
But their relationship had already long been public knowledge anyway.
Another file shows that Chomsky had written a letter of support for Epstein with the salutation “to whom it may concern”. It is not dated, but it contains a typed signature with Chomsky’s name and citing his position as a University of Arizona laureate professor, a role he began in 2017, as first reported by the Massachusetts news outlet WBUR.
“I met Jeffrey Epstein half a dozen years ago,” read the letter. “We have been in regular contact since, with many long and often in-depth discussions about a very wide range of topics, including our own specialties and professional work, but a host of others where we have shared interests. It has been a most valuable experience for me.”
It is unclear whether Chomsky sent the letter to anyone. Nonetheless, it exalts Epstein for teaching Chomsky “about the intricacies of the global financial system” in a way “the business press and professional journals” had not been able to do. It boasted about how well connected Epstein was.
“Once, when we were discussing the Oslo agreements, Jeffrey picked up the phone and called the Norwegian diplomat who supervised them, leading to a lively interchange,” the letter read. The letter recounted how Epstein had arranged for Chomsky – a political activist, too – to meet with someone he had “studied carefully and written about”: the former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak.
Epstein had – “with limited success” – aided efforts from Chomsky’s second wife, Valeria, to introduce him “to the world of jazz and its wonders”, the letter continued.
It concluded, “The impact of Jeffrey’s limitless curiosity, extensive knowledge, penetrating insights and thoughtful appraisals is only heightened by his easy informality, without a trace of pretentiousness. He quickly became a highly valued friend and regular source of intellectual exchange and stimulation.”
Epstein with Steve Bannon
Another photograph shows Epstein with political figure Steve Bannon. The image appears informal, with both men dressed casually and sitting at Epstein’s desk in his New York townhouse.
The photograph does not depict illegal activity. There is no sexual conduct, no minors, and no indication of criminal behavior. The image documents contact between two individuals, nothing more.Bannon was one of Trump's closest advisers in the run up to the 2016 election and in the early days of his first administration, but resigned from the White House in August 2017.
He has acknowledged he was making a film about Epstein prior to his death and reportedly has around 15 hours of footage that he promises to eventually release. Bannon grew close to Epstein and visited him multiple times, offering to help repair his public image.
Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell at Social Gatherings
Additional images show Epstein and Maxwell together at social events, at Balmoral, and on flights together. These appear to be both formal and semi-formal gatherings and private moments. No minors are present.
The ‘scrapbook’
Much shock and horror has also been exhibited online over scrapbook photographs. The newly released files include a curated photograph book or collage featuring Epstein and a young female whose face is redacted.
Without context, they do indeed appear sinister (even with context, they are nonetheless creepy).
But many of these images have appeared in the press before, sometimes decades ago. The woman, I can confirm, is Nadia Marcinko, born in Slovakia, who met Epstein as a teenager and remained closely associated with him for years.
Epstein helped her relocate to the United States, paid for her education, and supported her training as a pilot. She went on to fly aircraft, including Epstein’s, and managed aspects of his property portfolio.
Marcinko’s story has always complicated the dominant narrative. She has not described herself as a victim of sexual abuse by Epstein. In interviews over the years, she has characterised their relationship as consensual, albeit unequal and deeply entangled with power and dependence. She has spoken of control and influence but has not alleged rape or sexual assault.
Photograph of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor Surrounded by Women in Windsor Castle
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor (Prince Andrew) is shown lying across a group of women in a room identified as Windsor Castle. Ghislaine Maxwell appears standing at the edge of the frame, and the women’s identities have been redacted in the released version of the image.
The location was identified by comparing features in the background — such as a fireplace — with known interiors of Windsor Castle. The photographic release provides no date, no explanation of the context, and no metadata confirming circumstances surrounding the image.
It does not depict illegal activity. There are no identifiable minors in the photo, no sexual acts are visibly taking place, and the scene does not show coercion or exploitation. Basically, it’s clearly a snapshot of a posed photograph during an evening of fun.
The Maria Farmer FBI/Police Report from 1996
Among the thousands of pages and images now being publicly released from the Epstein files is a 1996 law-enforcement complaint made by Maria Farmer. This document, newly made available by the Department of Justice as part of the 2025 release, describes Farmer’s allegations that Jeffrey Epstein stole photographs she had taken of her younger sisters and threatened her over them.
Outlets such as CNN have claimed that this ‘vindicates’ Maria Farmer, who has long insisted that she made a police report about Epstein back in 1996. What they aren’t telling you, however, is that the document in fact proves that she lied.
For years and in multiple interviews, Farmer, who has a long list of contradictions and demonstrable lies relating to her allegations (more on that in a separate post), claimed that she had made a police report that accused Epstein and Maxwell of sexually assaulted her and her sister. But the report shows that she actually reported a theft of photographs and made no mention of Maxwell or sexual assault whatsoever.
Over the coming days and weeks, as well as releasing more exclusive interviews that I’ve conducted with key witnesses over the past five years for my upcoming book, Naked Lies, I’ll be posting more explainers to try to add some context and sanity to the politically-motivated Epstein file releases.
Redaction is meant to protect identities, preserve privacy, and prevent harm. But in the Epstein file release, it has also functioned as a powerful narrative tool. By removing context, faces, dates, and provenance from otherwise familiar images, the release does not merely withhold information — it reshapes meaning.
An image placed inside an Epstein-branded archive does not arrive neutrally. It arrives already charged. When identifying details are stripped away, viewers are invited to fill the vacuum with suspicion. Faces become anonymous. Children become symbolic. Association is silently transformed into implication.
This is particularly evident in the treatment of photographs that were already public, already contextualized, and already understood. When such images are reintroduced with heavy redaction and without explanation, they are not clarified; they are destabilized. The viewer is encouraged to see menace where none previously existed.
The effect is subtle but consequential. Redaction, in this context, does not simply obscure facts — it reframes innocence as ambiguity, and ambiguity as potential guilt. In a case as emotionally charged as Epstein’s, that reframing can distort public understanding, blur evidentiary standards, and reward insinuation over proof.
Transparency, properly understood, should illuminate. When it instead darkens familiar ground, it ceases to be neutral disclosure and becomes editorial intervention by omission.