What have Virginia Giuffre’s family members publicly said about seized Epstein-era files and calls for their release?
Executive summary
Virginia Giuffre’s family has been a public, determined voice pushing for fuller disclosure of the so‑called Epstein files, staging protests and making formal pleas to lawmakers while also issuing statements defending Giuffre’s reputation amid political commentary and contested documents [1] [2] [3]. Their appeals for transparency have intersected with broader debates about victim privacy, political use of the records and selective government releases of material that critics say remain incomplete [1] [4].
1. Family members have publicly demanded the release of the Epstein-era records
Giuffre’s relatives, including her brother Sky Roberts, have taken their demand for transparency into the public square, holding a press conference outside U.S. Rep. Jeff Crank’s office in Colorado Springs to urge him to support full release of the Justice Department’s Epstein files and to remind officials that survivors seek answers and accountability [1]. Local reporting documented Sky Roberts speaking on behalf of the family and fellow survivors during that September 2025 action, framing the request as both a personal plea and a survivor‑led call for institutional accountability [1].
2. The family frames the files as necessary for truth and legacy, while also marking their grief
When Giuffre’s posthumous memoir and related publicity renewed attention to Epstein’s network, family statements described the moment as “bittersweet” and amplified calls for documents that could further corroborate survivors’ accounts and preserve Virginia’s voice, underscoring a dual purpose: historical record and personal vindication [5]. The family has repeatedly emphasized that Virginia endured threats and severe costs for cooperating with authorities, language used to justify their demand that the public record be more complete [2].
3. They have pushed back against attempts to politicize or discredit Giuffre
Family statements have not only sought documents but also rebutted narratives they view as diminishing Giuffre’s role or truthfulness; for example, after media attention on an interview transcript involving Ghislaine Maxwell, Giuffre’s family told CBS that Maxwell’s comments were in “direct contradiction” with her conviction and with “court‑proven lies,” signaling the family’s readiness to contest material they see as misleading [3]. Separately, the family publicly expressed shock after then‑President Trump characterized Epstein as having “stolen” Giuffre from Mar‑a‑Lago, a remark they said was a painful mischaracterization of Virginia’s exploitation [2].
4. Their activism sits amid broader disputes over document release, victim privacy and political motives
Calls from the family come as government publications of Epstein‑era materials have been partial and politically charged: some new releases were pushed by congressional mandates and executive decisions, yet critics — including journalists writing on the subject — say the “files” remain incomplete and selective disclosures complicate rather than settle public questions [4]. The family’s transparency demands therefore intersect with competing priorities: victims’ privacy and safety, prosecutors’ confidentiality, and political actors seeking material that supports partisan narratives [4] [1].
5. Limits of the public record and the family’s stated objectives
Reporting shows clear examples of public actions and statements by family members — protests, press comments by Sky Roberts, and family rebuttals to specific media moments — but the available sources do not provide a comprehensive catalogue of every family member’s words on every seized document nor do they fully detail what specific items the family seeks released beyond the broad “Epstein files” label [1] [2] [3]. Therefore, while it is documented that family members have urged full disclosure and contested narratives they see as harmful, the record in these sources is limited in documenting precisely which seized materials the family has identified and what legal steps, if any, they have pursued beyond public appeals [1] [4].