Which entries in the unsealed Epstein files are sworn depositions versus FBI 302s or anonymous tips?
Executive summary
The newly unsealed Epstein trove contains at least three distinct kinds of documents that reporters and advocates have highlighted: formal sworn depositions from civil litigation, FBI 302 interview memoranda created by agents, and a stream of tips or unverified allegations compiled by FBI staff and other entities; specific, named depositions that have been flagged in reporting include Juan Alessi’s 2009 deposition and Jeffrey Epstein’s 2016 deposition in Virginia Giuffre’s lawsuit, while reporting also documents FBI summaries of tips and internal 302-style memos [1] [2] [3]. The Justice Department says the millions of pages came from multiple sources — federal and state cases, multiple FBI investigations, and an inspector general probe — and that the release includes both investigative memos and material not strictly part of the case files [4].
1. What the reporting identifies as sworn depositions
Several news outlets point to specific sworn depositions in the release: Juan Alessi, Epstein’s former house manager, gave a deposition in 2009 that is described in reporting, and Epstein sat for a deposition in September 2016 during Virginia Giuffre’s defamation suit against Ghislaine Maxwell [1]. Those court depositions are civil-case transcripts or sworn testimony tied to litigation, and their presence in the tranche is consistent with the Justice Department’s statement that it turned over material from Florida and New York cases and civil matters connected to Epstein and Maxwell [4]. Reporting does not provide a comprehensive inventory of every deposition included, so beyond the named examples journalists have highlighted, a full catalog of sworn transcripts in the release is not available from the cited sources [3].
2. FBI 302s and internal memos: what reporters say they found
Multiple outlets emphasize that the release contains FBI-created investigative products — agent summaries, timelines and 302s — which encapsulate interviews, tips and internal assessments; The Guardian notes an “Epstein Investigation Summary & Timeline” and a September 2019 FBI-style memo about meetings with Epstein’s attorneys, while other reporting frames the tranche as including thousands of internal FBI records and memos [2] [3]. News analyses and explainers have stressed the centrality of 302s as the operational record of what agents were told and what they did, and that those memoranda could alter public understanding of what victims and witnesses told investigators at the time [5] [6].
3. Tips, anonymous allegations and aggregated summaries
News organizations report that the files include tip compilations and recently compiled summaries of dozens of tips — including a document that appears to be an FBI summary of more than a dozen tips involving former President Trump — and that not all entries are formal interviews or sworn testimony [2]. The Justice Department itself warned that some released items contained “untrue and sensationalist claims” submitted to the FBI before the 2020 election, underlining that tip material can include anonymous or unverified allegations that require additional vetting [7] [2].
4. How to distinguish them in the tranche and why it matters
Sworn depositions are typically filed in court dockets and are verbatim transcripts tied to litigation; FBI 302s are agent-prepared summaries that capture interviews but are not sworn testimony; and tips or tip-summaries are often informal entries or intake notes that may lack corroboration [1] [5]. Reporters and advocates have argued that identifying which documents are 302s versus sworn depositions — and which are mere tips — matters for assessing evidentiary weight, privacy redactions and whether material should have influenced past prosecutorial decisions [5] [8].
5. Limits of public reporting and competing narratives
Despite millions of pages being released, outlets and advocates warn the release may be incomplete or inconsistently redacted: survivor attorneys say the handling was “outrageous” and asked where additional FBI files are, while other outlets flag unredacted victim names and inconsistencies in what was produced [8] [9]. The Department of Justice’s explanation that material came from multiple sources and that some items were unrelated to core case files complicates efforts to produce a simple, complete list of “which pages are depositions versus 302s versus tips” from current reporting alone [4] [10].
6. Bottom line
Based on available reporting, the release definitely includes at least some sworn depositions (notably Alessi’s 2009 and Epstein’s 2016 deposition) alongside numerous FBI 302-style memos, internal summaries and aggregated tips — the latter sometimes labeled by the FBI or the DOJ as unverified or sensational — but a comprehensive, source-backed mapping of every entry in the tranche into those three categories has not been published in the cited sources and remains a work-in-progress for journalists and advocates sifting the 3+ million pages [1] [2] [4] [8].