Which other specific filenames in the DOJ Epstein Library contain the words 'cannibal' or 'cannibalism' and how can researchers access them?
Executive summary
The DOJ's so-called "Epstein Library" contains multiple mentions of the words "cannibal" (reported 52 instances) and "cannibalism" (reported six instances) across a wide tranche of released materials, but the publicly reported evidence does not show those terms as part of sworn, corroborated criminal charges against Jeffrey Epstein [1] [2] [3]. One specific document identifier reported in media coverage — EFTA00147661 — is cited as containing an unverified allegation describing ritualistic violence, and other mentions appear in diverse file types such as media digests, an academic syllabus, a transcript and an email [4] [3].
1. What the sources say about how many times those words appear and where they show up
Fact‑checking outlets and mainstream coverage converged on the same numeric tally: "cannibal" appears roughly 52 times across the DOJ release and "cannibalism" about six times, according to reviews cited by Snopes and replicated in other reports [1] [2] [3]. Those occurrences are not concentrated in a single indictment or investigative report but are scattered through the released corpus — for example in media digests compiled by investigators, an academic syllabus that surfaced in the files, an Epstein‑era transcript of a conversation, and at least one email referencing a restaurant called "Cannibal" or jerky [3].
2. Which specific filenames have been identified in reporting
At least one discrete DOJ file identifier has been flagged in news reporting: EFTA00147661, described in published summaries as a document that contains a woman’s allegation of witnessing "ritualistic sacrifice" and extremely graphic claims including dismemberment; that file number has been quoted in coverage of the DOJ tranche [4]. Beyond that single identifier, public reporting names categories of documents (media digests, syllabus, transcript, email) where the words appear but does not publish a comprehensive list of the other exact filenames or Bates numbers [3] [1].
3. What those occurrences actually mean — evidence, rumor, or raw tips
Reporting and fact‑checkers emphasize that the presence of the words in the released files does not equate to vetted, admissible evidence that Epstein or named associates committed cannibalism; in many instances the references are unverified tips, summaries of public allegations, or benign uses of the words (e.g., restaurant names, metaphorical usage) rather than first‑hand forensic proof [3] [5]. The high‑profile ritualistic allegations discussed in some documents trace back to an anonymous 2019 interview and linked materials that the FBI could not corroborate, and the DOJ release included the raw material without adjudicating its truth [3] [2].
4. How researchers can try to access the relevant documents (and the reporting limits on access guidance)
The DOJ released more than three million pages in the Epstein-related release beginning late 2025 and in January 2026, and media organizations and fact‑checkers conducted keyword searches across that corpus to produce counts and locate items like EFTA00147661 [1] [2]. However, public reporting reviewed here does not supply a complete index of filenames nor a step‑by‑step public URL for direct download of every document cited; therefore researchers seeking full access should consult the official DOJ release portal and published indices where available and may need to request specific Bates‑stamped files from the Department of Justice under the release’s public access mechanism or follow up with outlets that have scraped the corpus (reporting indicates searches were done but does not publish the entire file list) [1] [3].
5. Caveats, competing narratives and implicit agendas in the coverage
Multiple outlets warn that lurid claims about cannibalism have been amplified by social media and recycled older viral footage (e.g., Gabriela Rico Jiménez) with scant verification, and that sensational narratives can be driven by actors seeking attention or to discredit institutions; fact‑checking organizations explicitly note the files include unverified tips and redactions, and do not amount to courtroom findings [3] [6] [7]. Readers should weigh the documented fact that words appear in the corpus against the absence of corroborating investigative outcomes in the public record [3] [2].