EDIT: TLDR After I wrote and posted this post, Bubble_bursts identified and linked to the original doc in the file dump, so I am posting that link here now (edit). But at the time of posting this, I did not have access to that link/file. FYI.
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%208/EFTA00013180.pdf
My Morning Run
So, I saw a telegram post early this morning re: supposed document that shows that the DOJ - the Southern District of New York, to be exact - had a Press Release (statement) saying that Epstein was found dead, but which was pre-dated to August 9, when the official story is he was found dead on August 10.
My first reaction is: OK, this sort of 'data' leads directly into certain confirmation biases that many folks in the 'truther sphere' (including here, at GAW) posses.
When I see something like that, something that is so juicy, dripping with 'conspiracy' vibes, something that gets all the emotional juices flowing for some folks, along with associated retweeting, spreading, clicking, my first reaction is pretty much always: go to source.
I raised this point, casting doubt on the post, because the telegram poster didn't provide ANY information on the source of the document, where it could be found, etc.
THEN, later, I came to GAW and saw a post about this stickied. Here it is:
Also, a related post by Purrkiss that shows Liz Hurchhill posting the same supposed image of the release.
https://x.com/liz_churchill10/status/2020347917962473789
SAUCE Found?
Article? Ok, Gateway Pundit. Next Step, peruse article for source.
The Daily Mail on Sunday obtained a federal statement from then-Manhattan US Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman announcing Jeffrey Epstein’s death on Friday, August 9, 2019, ostensibly from suicide.
While at first glance this looks meaningless, there is actually a huge problem. Epstein did not actually die until A DAY LATER.
Big statements from the GWP, but...
OK. Some progress. And I thought to myself, "gee, I guess i was wrong. Looks kinda legit." Let's go to the Daily Mail.
Daily Mail:
PERUSE Daily Mail article. Where is the source?
Huh. OK, an image of a document, but no source. Where the heck is the source? An image can EASILY be doctored. Too easy. Need Source. All the best dishes come with sauce, frens.
WENT to see if Grok could help.
Grok Searches to Find Sauce
Here's my conversation with Grok, good ol'd AI database searcher.
https://x.com/i/grok?conversation=2020690212138168619
Despite repeatedly asking to find the actual source image/document being shown in the Churchill X post, or the Daily Mail, Grok cannot point me there.
Grok does point to the original statement on the SDNY website:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/statement-manhattan-us-attorney-death-defendant-jeffrey-epstein
With archive to back it up
Showing the original statement there is dated August 10, the date of the reported 'death'.
When pressed to provide a link to the original image document, this is what Grok said:
There is no evidence of an official paper document, scanned image, or PDF version ever being released by the SDNY or DOJ for this specific statement—press releases from that office during this period were typically issued digitally via their website, without accompanying printable formats like PDFs.
And more:
No original "paper" or image-based document exists in public records, DOJ archives, or third-party sources (including FOIA-released Epstein files, which contain thousands of PDFs but none matching this exact press release format). If a physical copy was ever printed internally (e.g., for media distribution), it has not been made public or archived.
If you're seeking further records, a FOIA request to the DOJ could potentially uncover internal drafts, but based on extensive searches of released Epstein files (over 3 million documents as of 2026), no such original image or paper version has surfaced.
What Do We Have Here, Really?
So, what do we have? A sensational narrative, of a DOJ release that was supposedly drafted BEFORE Epstein was reported dead, 'proving' (to some) that yes, indeed, Epstein didn't die or that it was all a psyop.
But we also have: an image document whose source cannot be found, even by a massive AI driven search engine like Grok. An image document that could easily be created/modified/doctored etc to show whatever the creator/doctor wants. (Grk says its not AI generated, but who knows?)
So, Sensational Claim + Unverifiable Sauce + (Potential) Confirmation Biases = ?
Very Clickable Disinfo Psyop?
Until someone, anyone, can provide actual direct linkage to the <ahem> original official document on some DOJ website or in the Epstein Files, I'm calling this a narrative disinfo Psyop.
So far, the ONLY thing supporting this narrative is: Confirmation Bias + an article by the Daily Mail (which provides zero source, and only says "A federal statement ..... has surfaced in newly released Justice Department files") touting unverifiable sauceless image.
Recent Precedents To This Narrative
This sort of narrative (psyop, imo) has been used multiple times recently. Remember when there was a supposed book detailed Charlie Kirk's murder was 'published' the day before? Proving that it was all some sort of psyop (by who, white hats, mossad, spy vs spy?). But when you dug into it, it became evident that an author uploading their 'book' to Amazon can input ANY date for publication they want, including back-dating it.
Same stuff, pretty much.
What are Your/My First Steps?
What I don't really understand is why for so many people, out there and here at GAW, their FIRST reaction is: "This must be true, therefor <my response>" instead of actually questioning whether the original premise, a premise that leads DIRECTLY into their biases, is true or not.
About 85%+ of the upvotes and comments in the currently stickied post all react as if the information is/must be true, and any comments questioning the veracity, or even declaring it bogus, are way down on the comment list with almost no votes.
Hmmmm.
Ok, maybe I'm a skeptic when it comes to things that look too convenient, too easy. Maybe my own confirmation bias is showing?
"Free thought" is a philosophical viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, revelation, or dogma.
Q
Addendum: Please note, I'm not making any statement on whether Epstein killed himself, is dead, is alive, or what have you. Heck, I don't know and suspicions aside, I don't really think anyone has enough information to be able to make a claim beyond doubt one way or the other.
Also, I'm not saying the document IS false. Again, limited evidence to that effect. But, in the absence of conclusive data, my opinion at this point, that this is disinfo. It's (currently) completely sauceless.
That's all.
MY AI IS BETTER THAN YOUR AI!!
Sauce
Ach, aye!
Anytime you see a document purporting to be from the files, you can just enter the EFTA document number in the lower right hand corner into the search bar of the Epstein files library on the DOJ website and pull it right up.
Excellent info. Thanks.
If only one source exists of the image, and it's on the DoJ website, then one COULD conclude that it is the only image, and therefore legit.
... or it could be doctored in the first place.
And that is the problem.
So glad to see (what I think is) the most effective reasoning.
Agree.
My gut told me everything you found in the leg work.
Thank you for posting, we need more of this for others who need their guts checked or recalibrated.
Even though the frog who blows bubbles, and pokes them with a stick, found the (supposed) original, two things still remain.
A. Is there a way to verify that the original is real, and not a doctored or created file that was slipped in (all investigative organs collect any related data and drop that in 'the file')?
B. Why don't more people simply question its source or reality before accepting it?
We may have found the original doc, but the process of simply accepting without questioning is the real problem here. (And the focus of my post. Rather than simply, what was the GWP / Daily Mail article based on)
u/bubble_bursts
But do you accept that there is a HUGE difference between running such a story without a document in the Epstein Files dump VS with a document in the Epstein Files dump
The contention in the original post was that such a document does not exist and Grok couldn't find it.
Infact most of the OP is dedicated to finding this sauce.
Whether you trust anything, not just this document, just because it was part of the official Epstein files is an entirely different matter, but a matter that can be addressed by directing the question to the DOJ. If we find a sensational item in their dump, its our duty to spread it far and wide, and throw the ball back into DOJ's court to either prove the veracity of the document or investigate who manipulated the document, and potential motives. Each of this is valuable in itself.
Yes, certainly.
But to clarify, my original post stated that 'until someone can provide actual direct linkage', I have X opinion/View, and I did not assert that the document does not exist. I only reported that I could not find it and none of the other sources provided a link (as you have).
The post was, in that sense, an exercise in critical thinking. The process sin't wrong, imo. In fact, it led directly to you actually reporting that link, didn't it?
I fully agree that if something 'sensational' is found in their (sic, the DOJ) dump it is incumbent on us to spread it far and wide, and throw the ball back on them.
Let me ask something by way of reply: Do you think it is reasonable to assume that the document in question exists in the dump when no source or linkage has been provided?
(I guess one might put a certain credibility in an article from the Daily Mail or even GWP, but like I said, I'm <biased towards being skeptical. Do you think I take that too far?)
My first thought is that its a fake article and second thought is, when can I finish whatever I am doing so I can look it up on the DOJ site.
Your post is perfectly spot on. When we find articles without sauce we have to be very very paranoid. And your post directly resulted in me finding the sauce - which is what these digs are for. To know one way or another.
Now when someone talks about these articles or someone says "Did you know SDNY had written the release about Epsteins death the day before his death?" we can answer "Yes, absoliutely. I found the page in the DOJ dump. Its quite possible there are lot of things fishy about his suicide, but we should also keep in mind that just because something is in the dump does not mean its true"
Thats how I would look at this.
I’ve listened to count (and any interest) of the number of times this stupid thing has been posted since yesterday. Good thing no one talks about Democrat fraud anymore.
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%208/EFTA00013180.pdf
Crap.
I mean, Yay!
Thanks, BB. That's pretty darn definitive. It exists.
But then, we start upon another thread that meets similar issues. How did this file end up in the Epstein docs? Was it created, and inserted? Is it real? How do we verify?
Just because its in the 'Epstein files' doesn't mean it's true or legitimate. But, at least we know where the Daily Mail got their data from.
I guess for some it might be kind of exhausting to continually question things, but after being psyopped and see pysops everywhere now, I find this to be the best approach I can find to make me feel confident that my opinions are based on evidence and data, as opposed to pure bias. Not that I ever have confirmation bias. Oh, no, not I. /sarc
But, nice find.
Stoopid Grok. You're so dumb sometimes, Grokky. But, you're just a smartass young kid, after all. Plenty of time to grow up.
Thanks for the actual link, bubble.
Now if only they’d uploaded the versions with the metadata, so we could also check and make sure the scan of this wasn’t changed after the scanning took place/we truly are looking at an original
The point of discussion in this thread was that OP was unable to find a link to this document with Aug 9th date as reported by GWP, DailyMail etc.
I have proven that the document is an authentic document within the DOJ file release. Whether the DOJ file release itself is trustable or not is a completely different question.
BTW, its very easy to modify / manipulate metadata.
Yep, exactly.
hey, where (how) did you find it?
(great find, btw)
Okay here is one, not sure if it warrants a whole post, I am not even sure what this means, but it was the day before the "death":
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00173222.pdf
Haha, I credited my AI, but the search was all done by yours truly. I couldn't find the document when I searched for obvious terms like Geoffrey Berman and/or August 2019, but in the end I searched for "hurdle to giving Epstein" and Bingo, it was unique enough to get me the correct link.
BTW, I uncovered a few more interesting documents when searching for this, I will make more posts later.
Perhaps, a victory for NI over AI (natural intelligence over artificial intelligence)
I wasn’t suggesting you were trying to prove or disprove anything else by sharing the document link here. I am glad you did.
It would just be nice if we had less redactions and real files, not scans, of everything.
How would they share real files?
I see your point ):
Post title of the Year!
Am I missing something here? You say there's no source but you post the source in your first link.
Yes, that was an EDIT. Perhaps I expressed it poorly, but AFTER I posted this post, BB dug up and found the link to the actual document, so for reference, I edited the post (as indicated by "EDIT") and added the found link.
Too much fake shit out there. I took it with a grain of salt, but am glad to now know the truth, because the full and honest truth sets us free.
I really love the intense citizen journalism on GW, however things turn out on any particular issue.
👆 this guy “Elite Research Board”s. Have some bonus updoots.
u/#updoot
Btw “Liz [C]Hurchill”? You on the comms squad now? 😉
Hur Hur..
<sshhh>
Alexander Acosta is “SOLID”
https://greatawakening.win/p/1ASFcjaQTL/what-do-viktor-shokin-and-alexan/c/
Why people still fail to do the the die diligence work is an easy answer: Info overload, confirmation bias, and weariness. I should probably reorder that to info overload, weariness, and confirmation bias. One leads to the next which then leads to the next.
We've been at this for so long, and haven't seen much in the way of true accountability, so we hope for some things to be true. When they end up being presented as being truthful, we stop short of true follow-through because there's a fear or worry that by doing so, we miss the next juicy morsels, which then leads to more lost time hunting them down. This leads to concessions that the info being presented can be trusted and believed, even without du diligence verification. We're all guilty of it. How many posts have been made here, stickied, and then proven to be false or at the very least, misleading?
The people who find the most info and disseminate it are the ones who have laser focused themselves or their team to only one or two aspects of the goings on. Mike Benz, Data Republican, Whitney Webb are examples of this.
Anyone trying to be all encompassing in their info production get left behind or are forced to leave behind juicy morsels due to the extreme speed of the informarion flow. I liken it to being stuck in a Class 5 rapid and trying to stay stationary in the center of the river. It's impossible. The river will force you to move forward or be drowned in the flow.
All we can do is try harder to stay more focused and not be distracted by the little details.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, fren.
I tend to feel frustrated when I see people not applying the due diligence that I tend to think should be just basic, standard practice. But I think you hit on some really relevant points.
Def: information overload is a factor, and probably a big one. although, I guess that's why I revert to some basic practices like questioning source, etc. If I didn't, how would I process the overload?
Weariness is a factor. And confirmation bias tendencies, which I'm guessing we all have.
So, while I say, all the more reason to knuckle down on solid, best practices for processing information that comes to one, I think those factors you talk about are not the easiest to counter, and slippage is understandable.
ty
Every day I become more convinced epstein is a big distraction. Keep thi gs in perspective. The American system originated by hamilton must be restored. That is the focus that defeats them. First you de water a flooded room, then you dry it andnkill all the mold while fixing the cause of rhe flood.