Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Original poster

Epstein files question

9 replies

Mamamamamm · 20/02/2026 18:12

I have gone down a rabbit hole and I wish I hadn’t .

But I am just wondering what does it mean when they say ‘mentioned’ - that they were involved or that they were discussed and could have been something other than that celebrity being involved ? That is confusing me .

OP posts:
HopefullyOneRandomDay · 20/02/2026 22:13

I think it could literally be anything, but I'm yet to go down the massive rabbit hole myself!

Original poster
Mamamamamm · 21/02/2026 20:24

HopefullyOneRandomDay · 20/02/2026 22:13

I think it could literally be anything, but I'm yet to go down the massive rabbit hole myself!

You don’t want to it’s awful !

But at the same time , people need to know. Just be careful if you do as it will stay with you. X

OP posts:
Oddities1 · 21/02/2026 22:21

If they are 'mentioned' in the files they could literally just be mentioned. I for example searched Beyonce and lots of emails with her name in with regards to people asking JE to get them tickets - but I only read a few. So many names mentioned I'm sure many of them not involved in the horrors.

persephonia · 22/02/2026 00:10

Or Pope Francis being mentioned in a "we need to unseat the pope" email from Steve Bannon to Epstein. Or Theresa May in a "me, Boris Johnson and Farage were talking about getting rid of her". Neither Pope Francis or May come out of that badly. They didn't have any direct contact with him. Steve Bannon comes out very badly in the files (frequent direct contact with Epstein, talking about young women etc). And people like Farage and Johnson are somewhat tarred by association. The fact that Bannon, good friend of Epstein and creepy guy as an American claimed to be plotting with them to unseat a UK Prime Minister isn't a great look. But it's not as bad as being implicated in the worst crimes.

But yeah, just searching by name in the files and seeing you got a "hit" doesn't really tell you anything. And some names in the most damning emails are still redacted. So there could be people who did awful stuff we don't know about yet.

CallMeEvelyn · 22/02/2026 00:16

How are you reviewing them? I've gone down various rabbit holes already, but the enormity of the material is such that I need to find an efficient way of reviewing it. I'm not going to read 3 million files, but I would like to read those identified by other reviewers as key and search for names within them. It is apparent the DoJ dumped a huge amount of material that most people won't review directly and instead they will rely on press headlines. I'd like to have my own opinion and think critically.

persephonia · 22/02/2026 00:39

CallMeEvelyn · 22/02/2026 00:16

How are you reviewing them? I've gone down various rabbit holes already, but the enormity of the material is such that I need to find an efficient way of reviewing it. I'm not going to read 3 million files, but I would like to read those identified by other reviewers as key and search for names within them. It is apparent the DoJ dumped a huge amount of material that most people won't review directly and instead they will rely on press headlines. I'd like to have my own opinion and think critically.

Honestly, this is where trained/experienced journalists are actually a good thing. I am not saying there aren't massive issues and biased in media. (Plus it's become very clickbaity inorder to stay competitive.) But, there's more to analysing this content than just searching for mentions etc. 3 million pages isn't a huge amount of documents in terms of legal discoveries for example.

The financial Times were on Mandleson's back for a long time and are a good source of information on some of the fallout of the files. The BBC has done some good reporting on the issues but completely swerves anything to do with Trump. Probably because they are scared of getting sued. Etc. Patrick Boyle who normally talks about financial issues has some really good analysis as does Coffeezilla who is normally about frauds. What those 2 podcasters have in common is they are used to doing detailed reporting on financial crimes which is a different skill set to the conspiracy theorist skill of weaving narratives from very little. (Even though conspiracy theorists sometimes wind up being right).

On the crazier theories - The baby eating rumours come from people reading into oddly written, possibly coded references in the emails. It's completely possible they did kill or eat babies. But it is sort of speculation (and the codes could mean something else). Whereas Sarah Ferguson emailing him to say she heard he had a son is real and very disturbing. As is his interest in eugenics/having lots of children etc. and his Amazon purchases including children's clothes and toys. And paedophiles do abuse babies. There is some genuine really creepy stuff in there that sounds like it's made up by tin foil hatters but isn't. I think if he did have a child/children, what happened to them is a really important question. And if he didn't why did Fergie think he did. That's a real and horrifying rabbit hole.

Pryceosh1987 · 22/02/2026 01:19

I think innocent until proven guilty in each charge. The man has already passed on. To a worse place i imagine.

Beekman · 22/02/2026 01:53

Pryceosh1987 · 22/02/2026 01:19

I think innocent until proven guilty in each charge. The man has already passed on. To a worse place i imagine.

It you’re saying Epstein is innocent until proven guilty, I think you might find he was found guilty. Death does not exclude him from a full investigation.

CallMeEvelyn · 23/02/2026 23:05

persephonia · 22/02/2026 00:39

Honestly, this is where trained/experienced journalists are actually a good thing. I am not saying there aren't massive issues and biased in media. (Plus it's become very clickbaity inorder to stay competitive.) But, there's more to analysing this content than just searching for mentions etc. 3 million pages isn't a huge amount of documents in terms of legal discoveries for example.

The financial Times were on Mandleson's back for a long time and are a good source of information on some of the fallout of the files. The BBC has done some good reporting on the issues but completely swerves anything to do with Trump. Probably because they are scared of getting sued. Etc. Patrick Boyle who normally talks about financial issues has some really good analysis as does Coffeezilla who is normally about frauds. What those 2 podcasters have in common is they are used to doing detailed reporting on financial crimes which is a different skill set to the conspiracy theorist skill of weaving narratives from very little. (Even though conspiracy theorists sometimes wind up being right).

On the crazier theories - The baby eating rumours come from people reading into oddly written, possibly coded references in the emails. It's completely possible they did kill or eat babies. But it is sort of speculation (and the codes could mean something else). Whereas Sarah Ferguson emailing him to say she heard he had a son is real and very disturbing. As is his interest in eugenics/having lots of children etc. and his Amazon purchases including children's clothes and toys. And paedophiles do abuse babies. There is some genuine really creepy stuff in there that sounds like it's made up by tin foil hatters but isn't. I think if he did have a child/children, what happened to them is a really important question. And if he didn't why did Fergie think he did. That's a real and horrifying rabbit hole.

Show quote history

It's not 3 million pages. It's 3 million documents from what I understand, which is significant disclosure.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page