Lead Epstein Reporter Claims "It's Worse Than I Thought" as More Victims Surface

Summary

IHIP News – Episode Summary Episode: Lead Epstein Reporter Claims "It's Worse Than I Thought" as More Victims Surface
Date: January 18, 2026
Host(s): Jennifer Welch & Angie Sullivan
Guest: Julie K. Brown (Investigative Journalist, known for her work on the Epstein case)

---

Main Theme

Jennifer and Angie interview Julie K. Brown, the journalist whose reporting was pivotal in reopening the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. The conversation explores recent developments following a new, heavily redacted Justice Department document release, ongoing failures by authorities to protect victims, and the painful, expanding scope of the Epstein case as more victims continue to surface.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. New Justice Department Document Drop (00:26–05:40)

• Julie was surprised to find her name unredacted in flight itineraries within the documents, especially under her maiden name, which she rarely used professionally.
• The inclusion was traced to a Miami Herald-purchased ticket for victim Annie Farmer to attend an interview, not because the government was directly monitoring Julie.
• Julie and Annie Farmer, one of the victims, spoke about their names appearing in the files and shared concerns about the apparent government handling of victim information—even Annie’s husband’s details were exposed.
  • “You’re in this club you don’t want to really be in, but you are.” – Julie K. Brown [04:57]

2. Investigative Journalist Safety Concerns (05:40–06:40)

• Julie admits the experience has changed how cautious she is, particularly when traveling. She uses secure communication platforms more often and is more mindful of privacy and source protection.
  • “It really has occurred to me that maybe I better do something with my phone.” – Julie K. Brown [05:55]
  • “Yes, because I’m still investigating this story, and I’m finding out stuff.” – Julie K. Brown [06:20]

3. More Victims Coming Forward (06:40–08:26)

• Julie describes the ongoing emergence of new victims who hadn’t previously come forward, facilitated by victim support networks.
• Victims communicate amongst themselves, piecing together parts of the case independently—forming an informal, grassroots investigative effort.
  • “That’s why I’ve said this is bigger than I ever thought… All these women have their own little chats together, their own little support mechanisms… They are sort of their own little investigative squad.” – Julie K. Brown [07:11]
• Due to trust issues, many victims don’t want to speak publicly or on the record.

4. Justice Department’s Response and Failures (08:26–13:09)

• Despite political announcements (e.g., Pam Bondi’s supposed case reopening), Julie confirms no victims known to her have been contacted by authorities.
  • “They don’t want to know. They just really didn’t take this case as seriously as they should have from the get go.” – Julie K. Brown [08:44]
• Discussion of the cycle of intermittent attention and neglect by the Justice Department, and skepticism about true investigative intent.
• Julie asserts that governmental reluctance to publicly engage with or protect victims is part of a conscious cover-up.
  • “It’s a matter of—they’re trying to cover it up. They don’t want the truth, really. They want to cover it up, and that’s why they’re doing it the way they are doing it.” – Julie K. Brown [12:31]
  • “As the cliche goes, the cover-up is almost sometimes worse than the crime.” – Julie K. Brown [13:06]
• The public’s recognition of this cover-up is increasing.

5. Complexities of the Epstein Files & Ongoing Confusion (13:09–14:25)

• Julie and the hosts describe the files as opaque, difficult to interpret, and seemingly designed to obfuscate the truth and confuse both journalists and the public.

6. Insights Gleaned from the Released Files (14:25–17:19)

• Julie emphasizes repeated betrayals of the victims: by Epstein and his associates, their families, lawyers, and authorities.
• A particularly gut-wrenching email from a Florida prosecutor reveals victims’ desperate need for support—including a suicide attempt by one.
  • “Could you imagine, you’re handling a case and one of your witnesses tries to commit suicide…” – Julie K. Brown [15:52]
• The government’s response to supporting victims was minimal and impersonal—even hiring counselors located in other states.

7. International Connections and Ongoing Mysteries (17:19–18:59)

• Brief discussion of Epstein’s purported links to Israeli intelligence, specifically his dealings with former Prime Minister Ehud Barak.
• Julie believes Epstein exaggerated his intelligence connections for financial and social leverage, but says the absence of unredacted files leaves questions largely unanswered.
  • “I think he liked to pretend that he was a spy, but I don’t think… I think he just used it to make money.” – Julie K. Brown [18:33]

8. Theories of Epstein’s Death & Forensic Failings (18:59–22:13)

• Julie references recent claims by Mark Epstein, Jeffrey’s brother, asserting new forensic analysis will show Jeffrey Epstein was murdered.
• Julie, who doubts Epstein’s suicide, criticizes the Bureau of Prisons for never properly investigating nor preserving evidence, describing the scene as “botched—or maybe done like on purpose.”
  • “They should have treated it like a suspicious death, a potential crime, from the very beginning, and they didn’t.” – Julie K. Brown [21:13]
  • “They didn’t even, I don’t even think they saved the so-called noose that he used… Is that incredible?” – Julie K. Brown [20:57]

9. Alex Acosta and Institutional Malpractice (22:13–25:09)

• Discussion of Alex Acosta’s documented ignorance regarding the scale of Epstein’s abuse, failing to acknowledge the number of victims involved—nearly 40—for whom he claims not to have read statements.
  • “He admitted in there that he wasn’t aware of how many victims there were. So can you imagine?” – Julie K. Brown [22:35]
  • Julie explains why she and others refer to Epstein as a “pedophile,” countering those who argue otherwise based on victims’ ages, emphasizing that Epstein preyed on especially vulnerable and very young girls.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “You’re in this club you don’t want to really be in, but you are.” – Julie K. Brown [04:57]
• “They don’t want the truth, really. They want to cover it up, and that’s why they’re doing it the way they are doing it.” – Julie K. Brown [12:31]
• “As the cliche goes, the cover-up is almost sometimes worse than the crime.” – Julie K. Brown [13:06]
• “They should have treated it like a suspicious death, a potential crime, from the very beginning, and they didn’t.” – Julie K. Brown [21:13]
• “If you would talk to them like I talk to them, you would be able to put these pieces together... But these victims don’t trust the FBI or the government right now, so they’re not going to.” – Julie K. Brown [10:09]
• “There is a big difference if you have three victims, but they had almost 40, almost 40 teenagers. And he [Acosta] said he didn’t know that.” – Julie K. Brown [22:39]

---

Closing

The conversation concludes with Jennifer and Angie reiterating their support for the victims and offering their platform should any want to speak publicly. Julie is thanked for her work and insights, with the invitation to return for future discussions.

---

For listeners or readers unfamiliar with the latest developments, this episode underscores both the ongoing nature of the Epstein investigation and the immense institutional resistance to full disclosure and justice for the victims. The discussion blends journalistic skepticism, empathy for survivors, and urgent questions about the state of justice and transparency in America.

Transcript

[A]

Foreigning us today is Julie K. Brown, who, as everyone knows who's been paying attention, broke the Epstein files, Epstein probe wide open in 2017 with a series of articles and investigative journalism. Welcome, Julie. Thanks for being with us.

[B]

Great to be here.

[A]

Okay, so I want to start by asking you when this drop came from the Justice Department, which was limited, redacted. But one interesting thing to me was that they were keeping tabs on you. What was that like in that moment and has there been any follow up with the Justice Department on that?

[B]

Well, you know, let me back up. I had somebody point out to me that they saw my names in connection with a plane itinerary, a flight itinerary. So of course that sounded very odd. I knew my name would be in there because the whole reason why the Southern District of New York opened the case to begin with was because of my investigative story in the Miami Herald. So of course they're mentioning my story throughout. You know, did you see this? Did you look at that? So I knew my name, but when someone called me and said, well, there's a flight itinerary with your name on it. And when they showed me a copy of it, it had my ma name attached to it. And that's very odd because I don't use my maiden name professionally. So I thought, what is this? Now everything is blacked out, of course, except for my name. So all I know when I first looked at it was this is my name because I have an unusual maiden name. And I don't know why they're doing this because everything's all blacked out. You can't really tell. So it did take me a couple of days to unravel what it was about. And what they are saying is they weren't monitoring me. They were monitoring one of the victims who I had purchased a flight ticket for. And the reason why. And I didn't purchase it. Actually, it was the Miami Herald that purchased it. And I used my company credit card, which I guess at the time, this was a long time, this was a while back, had my maiden name attached to my company credit card. But anyway, what they were trying to say was, look, we weren't monitoring you. Now keep in mind, my name's the only thing on this page practically for me to understand what it was. So then, of course, I look at the itinerary. Then I had to go back in my emails because this was from, you know, eight years ago. It was actually happened. Also on the itinerary happened to be a flight that I was taking the Day before he was arrested. So. So anyway, we. We had planned, my videographer, Emily Michaud, and I, to fly to Arkansas to meet with Maria and Annie Farmer, two victims, and interview them. Annie lived in Texas. Maria was in Arkansas. So in order to do the interview, we agreed to fly Annie to Arkansas so he could all do the interview in one place. So that was what it was. They were monitoring her itinerary, and because I had purchased the flight, my name was attached to it. So they're saying they. We weren't really following you, we were monitoring you. We were really monitoring a victim who they didn't even really name on the record. But I knew who it was because that was the only person I had ever. A victim, I had ever bought a flight ticket for. So it took a bit. But it's interesting because Annie called me. I was so glad she called me, because sometimes you kind of feel like you're. You're in this together with this story. You know, you're in this club you don't want to really be in, but you are. And in some ways, of course, she's been through. The victims have been through so much, but in some ways, I feel their pain, you know, and I have to understand their pain in order to write what I write. So we're sort of in this club together where we can commiserate sometimes. And this was one of those cases because her. It turned out her husband was also unredacted in one of those itineraries. So her husband's name was out there. I didn't know it was her husband at the time. She told me, she said that they had even gotten a flight itinerary for her husband when she. I guess she was flying with him to someplace and they got his itinerary. And the whole thing didn't make any sense because the itinerary, think about it, was from 2008, 2019. And Annie was involved with the Epstein Gan Maxwell situation when she was young, when she was kid. So it makes sense they would monitor her flights from back then because they wanted to show that they flew her to the. The ranch in New Mexico, for example. I'm sure they wanted to know her itinerary then, but why would they be wanting to know her itinerary in 2019? So it's still a little bit squishy. I think about exactly what they were doing, But I feel pretty confident they really. It was a mistake on their part that they didn't really mean to catch me up in this, or at least that's What I'm telling myself, right, as.

[A]

As the, as they're prone to do now, raiding journalists home, I mean, that's got to be scary thinking that that's actually happening. Being a journalist on such a hot button case. Has that given you pause in any of this?

[B]

Well, I haven't really flown much since I saw that, so I think when I fly, I'm, I, I. It really has occurred to me that maybe I better do something with my phone or something. I'm, I'm just concerned that I might end up somewhere where I'll be taken aside and someone will want to see what's on my phone. So, you know, I, I do have to be mindful. Some of the things I have done recently. I, I wouldn't want the government to know who I'm talking to. So, yes, it has given me a lot of pause, and it is making me more careful. I'm on signal now more than I ever was before. So, yes, because I'm, I'm still investigating this story, and I'm finding out stuff.

[A]

You know, what I've heard and seen you talk about this issue with the Epstein files, not, you know, they're being redacted so heavily, we're missing stuff, but that you have seen. I'm sorry, you've had victims still coming forward, contacting you, ones that we hadn't even been on the radar before this. I mean, that just makes me sick to my stomach.

[B]

Yeah, yeah, it is. It's astonishing. And that's why I, I've said this is bigger than I ever thought, because, you know, what's basically happened is this movement, the, the Epstein victims movement has taken flight. And all these women have their own little chats together, their own little support mechanisms. They never had this, this organized before. So they are talking to each other and comparing notes and saying, oh, yeah, I was with that guy. Oh, yeah, I was on the ranch then. And they're sort of their own little investigative squad where they're putting pieces together. And, you know, I am in contact with some of them, so they are telling me what they're hearing and how they're getting. You know, of course, all this is off the record, which makes it very difficult because I can't really report what they're saying, but. But I feel like it gives me, you know, the encouragement to keep going, because I know that this is bigger and it's, it's more than what most people understand, how big it is, and I'm not sure how I can nail it, because a lot of Them don't want to talk publicly. And these are some really powerful people that are involved.

[A]

Have. Has the Justice Department, because we saw that Pam Bondi said, I'm reopening the investigation. Have any of the victims you're in contact with been contacted by the Justice Department? If you can reveal that?

[B]

No, I thought it was.

[A]

I thought it was bullshit, too. She's just saying that so she can withhold documents.

[B]

They don't want to know. They don't want to know. They don't want to know. And to be honest with you, I suspect that it's this. This has been the case all along. It's not even just a Trump administration thing. I really think that they. They just really didn't take this case as seriously as they should have from the get go. And while there were points in time, I think they reopened it and looked at it again and tried to do more investigation. I think that then it kind of got quiet and then they moved on to something else, and then it came up again. So it's been fits and starts with this whole case, and as a result, if you don't really take it seriously, you're not going to get to the truth, right?

[A]

Well, and the people are so powerful that are involved in this. Politicians, rich people, I mean, we don't know how far it goes. What if you were investigating and you had the power of the Justice Department, where would you be investigating? Which, which offshoots of this would you pursue?

[B]

I would talk to these victims. They're the key. You know, that's number one. Because if they felt secure and safe and protected, that would be the first thing I would do as an, as a prosecutor or FBI investigator. I would make sure that they were so protected, you know, and then I would. If you would talk to them like I talk to them, you would be able to put these pieces together. I mean, you would have the evidence, you would put it together. You know, I think a lot of these victims have, you know, besides saying what happened, I think a lot of them have evidence like photographs, emails, texts, you know, other people that they told about. I just think you could put this together if you were really dedicated to doing that and you could do it through the victims. At least part of it could be built through the victims. But these victims don't trust the FBI or the government right now, so they're not going to, you know, then I don't think that they want to talk to them because they're too scared.

[A]

Well, and why wouldn't they be? You see, Ghislaine Maxwell, what has been, you know, her being shipped off to the country club, prison and dogs everywhere. You know, so what, when they saw that, when, you know, Ghislaine is now in this posh prison with dogs, how did that impact them?

[B]

I mean, that's another piece that makes them feel like they distrust the government. That might even be the biggest sign not to talk to the government for them, because the government in some ways, I mean, look, they haven't talk, you know, Bondi hasn't talked to the victims, but yet she sent her second in command to talk to the person that preyed upon them, that sexually abused them, that trafficked them. So think about, you know, what that looks like. You know, that you're giving your, you know, you're giving these, you know, this benefit and the benefit of the doubt and, you know, you're moving her to cushy confines and doing all these things and you won't even talk to the victims. I mean, it's just a bad look.

[A]

Well, it looks so favor, you know, like so much favoritism. And I, when all this was starting to boil up, my first thought was, bring in the victims to Congress. You don't need to depose Ghislaine Maxwell or Bill Clinton or bring in the victims. And I find it interesting that that has never been on the table, even between Democrats or Republicans. They've spoken with the victims, but in.

[B]

Private, they don't want to know what the victims have to say. They don't. It's. It's a matter of. They're trying to cover it up. They're. They don't want the truth, really. They want to cover it up, and that's why they're doing it the way they are doing it. I mean, and by the way, the American public isn't stupid. They can see through this. They know exactly what's happening here, that it is a cover up. I, I hear that word more often than I have ever heard it concerning what's going on now. And, and as the cliche goes, the COVID up is almost sometimes worse than the crime.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

You know, because when you're trying to cover it up, you make mistakes. There's still people that know out there with the Justice Department that knows, you know, I. One would hope that someone would finally come forward and say, look, they're. They're hiding this or they're hiding that, but, you know, I will see. I mean, this whole thing is so chaotic the way that they're doing it that I think it's Being done this way on purpose.

[A]

Right. To keep the information from coming out.

[B]

Keep people confused, off guard. You know, just kind of not knowing. I mean, it's hard for me to figure out these files. So if it's hard for someone like me, could you imagine, I mean, just the regular public or, you know, a media influencer who doesn't know the history of the case, it's even more, you know, difficult to find out what's important here.

[A]

What about. Did you learn anything from the Epstein drop? I mean, I know they were ridiculously limited. They're not all, you know, not all the pages have been released, but did you have any? And did you find out any new information with the drops that were dropped, other than that you were being monitored on your flight locks?

[B]

Well, what I saw was, you know, when I started this, this whole case way back in 2016, and as I investigated, I could see how these victims were betrayed consistently. Not only, you know, by Epstein and its lawyers and the private investigators that tailed them and made their life hell, but in some cases, even their own lawyers in some cases betrayed them. Their families betrayed them. The prosecutors betrayed them. The FBI agents who promised them that they were going to arrest him betrayed them. And now what I can see in here is they told me that, okay, there was some evidence of that that I could show in my original reporting, but now I can see it even more. I mean, there's. There is an email in there from the lead prosecutor in Florida, and this really breaks my heart. I hope I don't cry. But there is an email in there where she says to one of her bosses, we've got to get support for these women. They want closure on this case. I just presented it before the grand jury and I had to take a break and I. I took a break and I came back in the grand jury room and I overheard a grand juror say, wow, I'm really glad they're presenting this still, because I thought they were going to whitewash it. Right. Even the jurors knew that there was a good chance. And then she's saying, I've got to get help for the victims. They want closure. One of them tried committing suicide. So past week, could you imagine, you're handling a case and one of your witnesses tries to commit suicide. I mean, if that's not, you know, a sign that, that this. The Justice Department was, you know, not doing its job, it's that because these were girls, remember, back then, they were, you know, 14, 15, 16 year old girls, and they had no, virtually no Counseling, no, victim support. They said that had gotten a grant to get someone to help them. And the people that were assigned to the case were based in Maryland.

[A]

That seems odd. So there was going to be zoom, or was it just.

[B]

We can offer this 2005. This was. Oh, yeah, you're right, 2007. So. No, I mean. But doesn't this also show that they weren't serious about this case if they're not protecting the victims? You know, they were never serious about this case and. Or Epstein made it so that they sort of pressured them enough to just sort of let the case go, you know, whitewash it, which is what they did.

[A]

Which is exactly. And I feel like we're still continuing to see that effort. Did you find anything in your reporting that Jeffrey Epstein was connected to the Israeli intelligence service? I think I've asked you that before, but I was just.

[B]

Well, he was very close to who? Barack. Who was a former Israeli prime minister. In fact, you know, in court records, we have seen that he's been accused of being involved with some of these young women and girls. So he has denied it. He has also made it very hard for journalists to report it. He's very on top of whatever is written out there and. And has his lawyers immediately get. You know, mount a campaign anytime someone tries to really get close to that piece of the story. But beyond that, he was doing a lot of business with Epstein. And, you know, I. I think he was involved to some degree. I don't think that he was a spy per se. I think just like everything else Epstein said, he. He, you know, did or he knew or, you know, he was very much of a guy who liked to brag about his contacts. And I think that he liked to pretend that he was a spy, but I don't think he. He. That was his. I think he just used it to make money. You know, his connections with foreign intelligence and maybe shared. Shared some information that he had. But, I mean, we really don't know because we haven't seen those files.

[A]

Okay, I have to follow two questions. Number one, did you see that Mark Epstein, Jeffrey Epstein's brother, which I have such complicated relationship about what I think about him, given his breath. But anyway, that's a whole different story that he is releasing an autopsy that said in February that he procured that Epstein was murdered. And what are your thoughts on that?

[B]

As I understand. It's funny, I was just looking into this yesterday, and as I understand it now, I haven't really gotten to the bottom of it yet, but As I understand it, it sounds like he had some more forensics done on the setup there, you know, at the jail. Like, you know, think about, I've always, you know, I'm in the position that he did not commit suicide. Okay. So you know, when you do a crime scene investigation, one of the things that you do do is sort of this forensic examination of the crime scene. So as I understand it, that is what he has, he's had some people do and that's what they're going to release I think in February. So it might be sort of a, sort of like a diagram or a reenactment of this to show that he couldn't possibly have committed suicide in the way that they say he committed suicide. So that's what my understanding so far anyway, I'm still, you know, picking away at it, but that's what I think he did. In other words, he's doing the job that the Bureau of Prisons or the just and or the Justice Department should have done from day one. He's hiring the people that are really looking at the crime scene, which is going to be especially challenging because they never sealed the crime scene there. It was contaminated. They let people in there. They didn't take photographs, they didn't ever took samples, you know, DNA samples or, you know, they didn't even, I don't even think they saved the so called noose that he used. I don't even think they saved that. Is that incredible?

[A]

I mean really, that is incredible how badly it was botched?

[B]

Botched or maybe done like on purpose. You know, it's, you know, they should have treated it like a suspicious death, a potential crime from the very beginning and they didn't. And they took, it was too short amount of time before Barr announced it was a suicide. I mean you don't do that. It's, it's, you do an investigation first. You, you say something like it looks like a suicide. But we really don't know until we really examine all the evidence and interview everybody. But that's not what they did.

[A]

It really is just, I mean it, you want. It defies logic how badly the COVID up has gone on. This like death all the way up. You know, you have Alex Acosta who is the U.S. attorney in charge of the investigation. Well, I didn't read the victim statements. It's like this case was handled. I mean malpractice across the board on every single stop.

[B]

Well, let me add one more thing about Acosta because that's another. That was part of the Epstein files. That I was really particularly interested in is his testimony before the Office of Professional Responsibility that investigated this after my series happened. And he not only said that he didn't read the victim statement, he admitted in there that he wasn't aware of how many victims there were. So can you imagine? I mean, there is a big difference if you have three victims, but they had almost 40, almost 40 teenagers. And he said he didn't know that. How could you not know that? You're making a decision whether to prosecute a man who is one of the most prolific pedophiles and in history. And by the way, there's a lot of argument over the word pedophile pertaining to him, because technically, the definition of pedophilia is someone that really goes after children, as in under the age of 10, pre puberty. But the reason why I am okay with calling it that is because the. The women, the girls. I'm sorry, the girls that Epstein preyed upon weren't just girls. They were girls that look like. Right. They were 12, 11, 9. He did not. He didn't like developed girls. He wanted the innocent girls that were scared because that's what he liked. He got off on the fact that they were scared. That's why he didn't go and pay the $300 he was paying these girls to a prostitute, because he could have afforded the most high class prostitutes ever. Think the derangement that he had was that he liked the scared little girls he like. I know it's horrible to think about, but it's important for people to understand that, because a lot of people think, and including the original Palm beach state prosecutor, who didn't really even want to prosecute him at all, they considered these girls to be prostitutes at the time.

[A]

Which is so gross.

[B]

That is in of itself. It's also, when you think about the girls that he preyed upon, it's even worse because they were clearly not prostitutes. They were just girls that didn't. Haven't found their way yet in life and were still struggling in many ways with either their families. You know, some of them were homeless. Even. So, you know, it's important to understand, and that's sometimes what's lost in Alex Acosta's list of excuses for not following through with prosecuting him.

[A]

Yeah, I just don't think there's any excuse for any of this behavior. And please let the victims know that we will continue to support them if they want to, you know, have a platform to speak. We would love to have them. Julie. I would love for you to come back. I find every time I have a conversation with you, I learned something and it's interesting. So thank you for being on, and I hope you will come back again.

[B]

Thanks for having me.