Justice Department Faces Renewed Scrutiny After Disputed Epstein Document Rekindles Questions of Transparency

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department is facing mounting criticism after acknowledging that a controversial document connected to the Jeffrey Epstein case — and recently released among thousands of pages of records — was determined by the FBI to be fake, raising new questions about the department’s handling of one of the most sensitive investigations in recent memory.

The document in question, a purported letter allegedly sent by Epstein to Larry Nassar, the former Olympic gymnastics doctor convicted of sexually abusing hundreds of young athletes, surfaced publicly after being included in a large batch of Epstein-related files released earlier this year. The letter contained explicit language and referenced unnamed powerful figures, prompting immediate public outrage and widespread online speculation.

The progressive media outlet Midas Touch Network first reported on the letter, emphasizing at the time that its authenticity had not been established. According to the outlet, the document had been submitted years earlier for forensic handwriting analysis following Epstein’s death in federal custody in 2019. However, the results of that analysis have never been made public.

Shortly after Midas Touch contacted the Justice Department for comment, officials initially said they were reviewing the matter. Within hours, the department responded again, stating that the FBI had previously determined the letter to be fraudulent, citing discrepancies such as a Virginia postmark and inconsistencies in the return address.

That explanation has only intensified scrutiny. Critics, including legal analysts and survivors’ advocates, are asking why a document deemed fake was retained for years in federal files and ultimately released to the public without clarification or contextual warning.

“If this letter was irrelevant and inauthentic, why was it preserved, and why was it released alongside authentic documents?” wrote Roger Sollenberger, a journalist who has closely followed the case. “Are other records unreliable? And if so, how would the public know?”

The controversy has struck a particularly painful chord with Epstein survivors. Ashley Rebitzer, an Epstein survivor and longtime advocate, condemned the department’s handling of the disclosure.

“Someone put false information into a case file involving the sexual abuse of children,” Rebitzer said in a statement. “That should terrify everyone. If anyone in government created, altered, or knowingly released fake records, that is a betrayal of survivors and a corruption of justice.”

Justice Department officials have not publicly addressed why the letter remained in the case file for years, nor whether a forensic handwriting analysis was ever completed. Records indicate that such an analysis was planned around 2020, but no findings have been released.

Former federal prosecutor and legal analyst Harry Litman said the episode reflects either extraordinary incompetence or a deliberate effort to undermine confidence in the broader disclosure of Epstein-related records.

“The noncompliance is so extreme that those are really the only two explanations,” Litman said in an interview. “What’s most troubling is the impact on victims — people who have waited years for transparency, only to be thrown back into confusion.”

Litman and others also questioned the department’s claim that processing the Epstein materials was an overwhelming task. Officials have said that hundreds of thousands of documents were reviewed by large teams of lawyers and FBI personnel. But veteran prosecutors note that federal investigations often involve far larger volumes of records handled by far smaller teams.

The timing has also fueled suspicion. Versions of the disputed letter were referenced in public records obtained by the Associated Press as early as 2023, raising questions about why authentication issues were not resolved long before the recent release.

For the Justice Department, already under intense political pressure over its handling of high-profile investigations, the episode has become a flashpoint. Critics argue that releasing disputed materials without explanation risks eroding public trust not only in the Epstein disclosures, but in the department’s credibility more broadly.

As demands grow for answers — including who inserted the document into federal files, when the FBI reached its conclusion, and why the public was not informed sooner — the department has remained largely silent. For survivors and the public alike, that silence has only deepened the sense that the full truth of the Epstein case remains frustratingly out of reach.