The House Oversight Committee has released 20,000 pages of Epstein-related documents, but none of them contain the material that defines the actual criminal investigation. The files provided by DOJ are administrative, surface-level records—travel notes, donor correspondence, foundation emails—while every operational document relating to the procurement, movement, placement, or guardianship status of minors is absent. Worse still, the Committee appears to be searching these 1990s-era records using modern terminology such as “trafficking,” “safeguarding,” and “abduction”—words that did not exist in government or welfare documentation at the time. Any involvement by Blair, Clinton, Mandelson, Dunkley, or any agency during 1996–2000 would have appeared instead under historical child-welfare terms like “Education” “placed out,” “boarding out,” “juvenile division,” “ward,” or “child welfare.” None of these terms appear in the released dataset. In other words, the 20,000-page release is not only incomplete—it is methodologically incapable of revealing the truth. Below is my formal submission to the U.S. House Oversight Committee explaining precisely why the released material does not capture the essence of the Epstein investigation and what must happen next.

To:
House Oversight Committee
U.S. House of Representatives
2157 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Email: oversight_clerks@mail.house.gov

Subject: Submission of Public Transcript, Complaint, and Cross-Jurisdictional Evidence – Epstein Network, Associated Meetings, and Withheld Records
Date: 7 November 2025

Dear Members of the House Oversight Committee,

I write in response to your recent release of approximately 20,000 documents relating to the Epstein Network. After detailed analysis, I must raise the following concern:

The 20,000-page release does NOT contain the substance of the Epstein investigation.

The Department of Justice has provided only administrative, non-operational material.
None of the files relate to procurement, recruitment, transport, movement of minors, guardianship status, island operations, CCTV, message books, or any other operational evidence.
Without these documents, the public cannot understand the nature or scale of the crimes under investigation.

The absence of core material fundamentally undermines the stated purpose of the release.

1. Oversight is Treating the 20,000-Document Set as if It Represents the Investigation

Your public communications present the released documents as if they:

represent the Epstein investigation,
show the scope of the network,
reveal involvement of global actors, and
demonstrate transparency.

However, the released dataset cannot achieve any of these things.

2. The Release Is Misleading Because the Wrong Terminology Is Being Applied

The documents appear to have been searched, indexed, or reviewed using modern terms such as:

“trafficking”
“abduction”
“safeguarding”
“social care”
“child protection”

These terms did not exist in government or welfare documentation in the 1990s.

Therefore, searching for these words in 1996–2000 documents will always yield a false null result.

This is a methodological flaw that renders the review incomplete.

3. The Correct 1990s Terminology Is Missing Entirely

Between 1996–2000, the operative terms in government, welfare, and trans-Atlantic administrative practice included:

“child welfare”
“welfare department”
“juvenile division”
“placed out”
“boarding out”
“under guardianship / ward”
“institution”
“charitable home”
“home for girls / home for boys”

These terms were used for child placement, movement, supervision, and inter-agency transfers.

Yet none appear in your 20,000-page dataset.

This strongly suggests:

missing material,
an incomplete or incorrect dataset,
or that DOJ did not provide the classes of documents relevant to the trafficking operation.

4. Blair’s 1996 “Education, Education, Education” Speech Marks the Terminology Shift

Tony Blair’s “Education, Education, Education” speech on 1 October 1996 (following New York meetings) introduced a structural reframing in how children’s responsibilities were recorded.

This era did not use modern safeguarding language.

Any involvement by Blair, Clinton, Mandelson, Dunkley, or other figures during 1996–2000 would appear under:

education terminology,
child-welfare terminology,
juvenile-division terminology,

NOT under “trafficking” or “abduction.”

The fact that none of these period-correct terms appear in the released dataset indicates that the release does not represent the underlying investigation.

5. Findings From the Document Review

Across the five major merged files (Blair, Clinton, Mandelson, Dunkley, Epstein):

10,215 lines reference education.
Most references are standard policy language or philanthropic material.
Very few co-mention any Epstein-network individuals.
None contain operational or welfare-era terminology.

Tony Blair

Extensive education reform language; no operational overlap with Epstein.

Bill Clinton

Foundation education programmes; occasional mentions of Epstein only in donor or network contexts.

Peter Mandelson

Higher-education, EU research, skills; no overlap with Epstein.

Matthew Dunkley

Children’s services, DfE operations; no overlap with Epstein.

Epstein

Philanthropic education offers, tuition promises; none linked to UK/US welfare-era terminology.

This confirms that the released dataset is administrative only.

Conclusion: The Release Does Not Capture the Essence of the Investigation

Because the released documents:

use modern search terms that did not exist at the time,
omit all 1990s welfare/juvenile terminology,
omit all operational trafficking evidence, and
contain only administrative or philanthropic material,

the dataset cannot be considered an accurate or complete representation of the Epstein investigation.

Oversight must therefore demand that DOJ produce the withheld operational files, including any material classified under:

“child welfare,”
“juvenile division,”
“placed out,”
“boarding out,”
“ward,”
“under guardianship,”
or any equivalent period-correct terminology.

Thank you for your attention. I request confirmation that this submission has been received and that these issues will be addressed in the Committee’s next steps.

Warm regards,
Martin Newbold

thestealingofemily.co.uk