Family of Jeffrey Epstein Accuser Speaks Out Against Justice Department’s Handling of File Release

Outrage Over Victim Identification in Epstein Documents

The family of Virginia Giuffre, one of Jeffrey Epstein’s most prominent accusers who tragically died by suicide in 2025, has expressed profound anger and disappointment with the Justice Department’s recent release of documents related to the notorious sex trafficking case. Sky Roberts, Giuffre’s brother, along with his wife Amanda Roberts, appeared on “CBS Mornings” to voice their concerns about what they describe as a catastrophic failure to protect survivors of Epstein’s abuse. Their primary grievance centers on the department’s decision to leave victims’ names unredacted while simultaneously concealing the identities of alleged perpetrators—a practice they argue completely contradicts the intended purpose of transparency legislation.

The Roberts family’s emotional testimony highlights a disturbing irony in the document release: intimate, sensitive details about victims’ experiences are now publicly accessible, potentially exposing survivors and their families to renewed trauma. “I mean these are intimate details in these documents that their family members are going to see, their kids are going to see, and to unredact their names is incredibly insensitive and retraumatizing,” Sky Roberts explained during the interview. He emphasized that the Justice Department appears to be prioritizing the privacy of those accused of wrongdoing while abandoning the women who suffered abuse, many of whom specifically requested anonymity. This approach, according to the Roberts family, represents a fundamental betrayal of survivors who have already endured unimaginable trauma and now face the additional burden of unwanted public exposure.

Justice Department’s Response and Remedial Actions

Following intense criticism from victims’ attorneys and advocacy groups, the Justice Department has been forced to take corrective action regarding the bungled document release. On Monday, the department withdrew several thousand documents and related media after lawyers informed a New York judge that nearly 100 victims had their lives “turned upside down” due to inadequate redactions in the latest batch of files, according to reports from The Associated Press. The release contained unredacted images and identities of multiple survivors, a shocking oversight that has raised serious questions about the department’s review procedures and commitment to victim protection.

A Justice Department spokesperson attempted to defend the agency’s handling of the matter, stating that the DOJ “takes victim protection very seriously and has redacted thousands of victim names in the millions of published pages to protect the innocent.” The spokesperson also explained that when a victim raises concerns about a particular document, the file is immediately removed from the department’s website while officials determine whether additional redactions are necessary. However, this reactive approach has done little to reassure critics who argue that such sensitive material should have been thoroughly vetted before any public release. The Epstein Files Transparency Act, which mandated the release of all files related to Epstein and his co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell by December 19, was intended to bring accountability and closure to survivors—not to compound their suffering through careless handling of their most painful experiences.

Scope and Significance of the Document Release

The magnitude of the Epstein file release is staggering, with the latest batch alone including approximately 3 million documents and photographs. The files reference or depict numerous notable figures, adding to the public interest in the case while simultaneously increasing the stakes for proper victim protection. Due to the enormous volume of materials—more than 6 million files in total—the Justice Department announced that documents would be released on a rolling basis rather than all at once. However, as of Sunday, a DOJ official indicated that the review process had concluded despite the fact that only about half of the total files had been made public, a decision that has fueled further suspicion and frustration among survivors and their advocates.

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche addressed concerns about the files’ contents, stating that the recently released documents don’t “allow us necessarily to prosecute.” This admission has struck many observers as particularly troubling, raising questions about why such sensitive victim information was released if the materials lack prosecutorial value. Sky Roberts countered this reasoning by pointing out the extensive cooperation victims have already provided: “I would say my reaction to that is that you have victims, you have survivors, my sister included, that have given depositions after depositions. They’ve given their own testimony under oath to our own Congress… and so we would ask the same of the men that were potentially named in these.” His statement underscores the asymmetry between the treatment of victims, who have repeatedly subjected themselves to painful questioning and testimony, and the alleged perpetrators, whose identities remain largely protected.

Continuing Quest for Truth and Justice

In the wake of the problematic file release, twenty survivors and family members—including Sky and Amanda Roberts—issued a joint statement expressing their dissatisfaction with the incomplete nature of the disclosure. “The public still does not have the full truth about who enabled him, who participated in his exploitation and who has been shielded for years,” the statement declared. Amanda Roberts highlighted inconsistencies in the redaction process, noting, “I think it’s selective, too. So if you go through a lot of these documents, there are points where their names are redacted, but then there are some files that have potentially slipped through.” This observation suggests that the problems with the document release may stem not only from negligence but potentially from deliberate decisions about what information to protect and what to expose.

The Roberts family has made clear that they have no intention of allowing this matter to fade from public attention. They plan to attend an upcoming House Judiciary Committee hearing where Attorney General Pam Bondi is expected to testify, viewing it as an opportunity to demand accountability directly from the nation’s top law enforcement official. Sky Roberts outlined the confrontational approach he believes is necessary: “I think the first question to ask Pam Bondi is… why should you not be held in contempt? There’s one very big piece of the Department of Justice that’s missing here and it is that keyword justice.” His pointed criticism reflects a broader frustration among Epstein survivors and their families, who feel that the criminal justice system has repeatedly failed them—first by allowing Epstein’s abuse to continue for decades, then by permitting his suicide while in custody, and now by mishandling the release of documents that were supposed to provide transparency and accountability.

Broader Implications and the Path Forward

The controversy surrounding the Epstein files release illuminates fundamental tensions in how the justice system balances transparency, victim protection, and accountability for powerful wrongdoers. The Roberts family’s advocacy represents more than just their personal quest for justice regarding Virginia Giuffre’s tragic story; it speaks to systemic failures in how institutions handle cases involving sexual abuse and exploitation, particularly when the accused occupy positions of wealth, power, and influence. Sky Roberts has called for aggressive congressional action, stating, “I think it is about time that we subpoena and we start fully investigating this.” He emphasized that his family wants “more answers from her [Attorney General Bondi] and many members of the Justice Department,” signaling their determination to pursue accountability at the highest levels of government.

The mishandling of the Epstein files serves as a stark reminder of how bureaucratic incompetence or indifference can inflict fresh wounds on those who have already suffered immeasurably. For survivors of Epstein’s abuse network, each revelation brings the possibility of both vindication and retraumatization—a double-edged sword that requires careful, compassionate handling by those in positions of authority. The Roberts family’s public advocacy, though born from tragedy, may ultimately help ensure that future document releases in sensitive cases receive the careful vetting they deserve, and that victims’ voices are centered in processes ostensibly designed to serve their interests. As this story continues to unfold, the fundamental question remains: will the pursuit of transparency serve justice for survivors, or will it become another mechanism through which they are victimized by systems that claim to protect them?