Does the Epstein files say they ate babies?
Executive summary
The recently unsealed tranche of Department of Justice documents tied to Jeffrey Epstein has reignited lurid online claims that he and his associates "ate babies," but the public record in these reporting sources does not provide verified evidence that Epstein or his circle engaged in cannibalism or the consumption of children [1] [2]. What the files and resurfaced material do show is a mix of disturbing allegations, viral eyewitness claims from a 2009 clip by Gabriela Rico Jiménez, and unverified social-media amplification—not court-proven facts [3] [4] [1] [5].
1. What the newly released Epstein files actually contain, as reported
Reporting about the January 2026 DOJ release emphasizes a wide trove of documents that include emails, references to videos, and allegations about horrific abuse; some outlets note references to a yacht party and grotesque acts such as people eating feces from intestines in the files or testimony, though these accounts are presented as allegations in the documents rather than proven acts adjudicated in court [3] [5]. Multiple news pieces describe an email allegedly from an Epstein-associated address referencing a “torture video,” which has fueled speculation and outrage but does not itself substantiate cannibalism claims [4].
2. The Gabriela Rico Jiménez clip that revived the narrative
A 2009 viral video of Mexican model Gabriela Rico Jiménez, in which she claims she witnessed wealthy people “eating a person,” has been re-circulated in the wake of the DOJ release and has become a focal point for the cannibalism rumors; Jiménez’s dramatic outburst and subsequent disappearance from public view are documented in contemporary reporting and are cited repeatedly by outlets relaying the renewed interest [3] [4] [1] [2]. Those reports note that her allegation was sensational and that she vanished from the public record after the incident [3] [4].
3. Evidence versus amplification: what independent reporting says
Responsible summaries in the coverage stress that, despite the volume of graphic allegations being shared online, there is no criminal charge or court-adjudicated evidence that Epstein ate babies or engaged in cannibalism [1] [2]. Several outlets explicitly warn that social-media accounts and unverified profiles have amplified these claims beyond what the documents themselves substantiate, and that readers should distinguish between allegations in unsealed files and proven criminal conduct [1].
4. How sensational sources are shaping public perception
A number of outlets and aggregators have leaned into the most shocking phrasing—“ate babies,” “cannibalism,” “dismemberment”—and some less rigorous sources present these claims as fact or highlight the most lurid document excerpts without the context that they remain allegations, which contributes to rapid rumor formation [2] [5]. Conversely, mainstream reports included in this set explicitly caution that such claims remain unverified and that the DOJ releases have not produced charges of cannibalism [1] [2].
5. Where reporting is limited and what remains unanswered
The assembled reporting shows renewed public interest and mentions specific documents and a viral video, but none of the cited stories provide court-admitted evidence or a verified chain of proof that Epstein or his associates ate babies; the facts stop at allegations, references, and viral eyewitness claims [3] [4] [1] [2] [5]. The sources do not resolve whether the references in the files describe literal cannibalism, metaphorical or abusive acts, mistaken testimony, or malicious hoaxes, and they do not identify corroborated victims or criminal charges for such acts [1].
6. Bottom line: what can be stated with confidence
Based on the articles reviewed, the DOJ’s recent Epstein file release has sparked and reawakened vivid accusations and viral footage tying elite gatherings to alleged ritualistic abuses, but there is no verified, court-established evidence in these reports that Epstein “ate babies” or that cannibalism was legally proven [1] [2]. The phenomenon is as much about the power of sensational allegations and social-media amplification as it is about the content of the documents themselves [1] [5].