What did New Mexico’s attorney general and investigators find about activity at Zorro Ranch and which witnesses were interviewed?
Executive summary
New Mexico’s attorney general opened a state probe of Jeffrey Epstein’s Zorro Ranch in 2019 that gathered land records, flight logs and witness interviews—confirming that investigators interviewed possible victims and ranch staff but produced no criminal charges in New Mexico, and much of the file remains heavily redacted in public releases [1] [2] [3]. State investigators also pursued leads outside New Mexico and later shifted some focus to financial firms thought to have facilitated Epstein’s activities, while lawmakers have pressed for a “truth commission” to compel fuller disclosure [2] [4] [5].
1. What investigators sought and what they found in records
The attorney general’s investigative file assembled hundreds of pages of materials, including New Mexico State Land Office lease records, flight manifests, media clippings and court filings tied to Zorro Ranch—documents that raised questions about discounted land leases, oversight by the State Land Office, and the property’s use for gatherings and flights into the Santa Fe area [2] [6]. The tranche of documents obtained and reported on shows the state probe collected contemporaneous evidence that accusers and attendees described Zorro Ranch as a site where assaults and sexual exploitation occurred, and it flagged potential administrative failings in how public land was leased to Epstein’s entities [2] [3].
2. Who was interviewed: victims, employees, service providers and unnamed witnesses
State attorneys confirmed interviews with “possible victims” who said they had visited and been abused at the ranch, though officials did not publicly quantify how many such interviews were conducted or release full identities or transcripts in the public record [1] [7]. Investigators also interviewed ranch employees and service providers tied to operations at Zorro Ranch; internal files referenced interviews with attendees and others present at the property, but many of those witness statements in released files are redacted [5] [2]. One specific classified entry noted that the AG’s Special Investigations Unit interviewed a person who claims to have given a private yoga lesson at Zorro Ranch, though the name is redacted in the public file [6].
3. High-profile references and accuser testimony included in records
Documents in the broader tranche reference high-profile accusers and descriptions of activity at Zorro Ranch—for example, reporting and depositions that place Virginia Giuffre and photographic evidence at the ranch in the public court record—and these items were among the materials compiled by state investigators as part of the evidentiary collection [2] [3]. State investigators also gathered contemporaneous flight logs and media reporting that suggested recurring visitors and flights to the property, details that prosecutors and legislators later cited in calls for more transparency [6] [2].
4. Limits of the state probe and why no New Mexico charges emerged
Despite the interviews and records collected, no one was ever charged in New Mexico in connection with crimes at Zorro Ranch; the state investigation was constrained by federal superseding jurisdiction, statutory gaps in New Mexico law at relevant times, and extensive redaction of files when material was released publicly [3] [5] [4]. Officials indicated the state office coordinated with federal prosecutors in New York and in some instances deferred to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, while later AG work under Raúl Torrez shifted toward examining banks and financial firms that may have facilitated Epstein’s operations [5] [8].
5. Continuing controversies: redactions, calls for a truth commission and outstanding questions
A central controversy remains the heavy redaction of the AG files—reporters and advocacy groups say key witness identities and internal communications are blacked out “for embarrassing or politically volatile information,” prompting lawmakers to propose a truth commission with subpoena power to un-redact and fully investigate what transpired at Zorro Ranch [4] [2]. New Mexico legislators and some survivors argue that state disclosure and legislative remedies are necessary because the public record as released by the AG’s office leaves unanswered who was interviewed, what they said in detail, and whether institutional failures—such as State Land Office decisions—enabled Epstein’s activities [2] [9].