The Epstein files have been revealing a lot, but this time the focus is on three especially disturbing *allegations*: communications about toxic plants linked to mind-altering effects, apparent diary entries describing pregnancies and babies being taken away, and a major update involving a potential search for bodies connected to Epstein’s former New Mexico property. This comes from coverage discussed on *Sidebar* (Law&Crime), hosted by Jesse Weber. The material is presented as documents and claims referenced in the files, not as proven facts. The question is why these particular threads keep surfacing in the record.
We start with the “plants” allegation. One email described as being from Jeffrey Epstein to “Anne Rodriguez,” dated March 3, 2014, includes the line: “Ask Chris about my trumpet plants at nursery,” followed by a reply: “will do.” A key issue raised is whether “trumpet plants” refers to *angel’s trumpet* (a nightshade-family ornamental plant) and, specifically, compounds associated with it. If that reference is innocent gardening talk, why does it later intersect with materials about a drug linked to “free will” claims?
The discussion then turns to scopolamine, a compound often mentioned in media stories about intoxication and memory effects. The segment notes that, according to TMZ and other reporting, scopolamine has been described as capable of causing memory loss and interfering with someone’s will, and that it may not show up on *standard* toxicology panels (though it could be detectable with targeted testing). The point being made is not that it was used, but that the topic appears in proximity to Epstein-related communications. The question becomes: why would this compound be on the radar in the first place?
Another email dated January 27, 2015 is described as forwarding Epstein a Daily Mail article about scopolamine—framed in sensational terms as a drug that “eliminates free will.” The quoted article language describes “Devil’s Breath,” claims it can “wipe memory,” and says it can be administered in drinks or blown toward victims. It also includes quotes attributed to sources claiming it is “odorless and tasteless” and that a person can be “guided wherever you want.” If someone is forwarding a piece like this, what exactly are they trying to communicate—and to whom?
Crucially, the host emphasizes that he did not see definitive proof in the documents that Epstein actually used scopolamine to drug and assault anyone. Still, the segment points to an FBI crisis intake memo dated October 8, 2019, described as a report from a caller claiming to be an Epstein victim. The memo, as quoted, alleges the caller was raped in 1984 at age 14 and states she was drugged beforehand, drifting in and out of consciousness. If such allegations exist in intake materials, what corroboration—if any—was pursued?
The segment then introduces a separate document described as a February 2022 “victim impact statement” sent to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in South Florida (naming Tony Gonzalez). It is attributed to “Joseph Monzaro” and describes an incident dated December 26, 2014 involving alleged drugging. The host notes he recognized the name from prior coverage: a person who filed a federal lawsuit claiming sex trafficking and exploitation involving Sean “Diddy” Combs and others. Why would a statement like this appear in Epstein-related files if it does not directly mention Epstein?
In the quoted statement, the writer describes arriving home around 5:30 p.m., touching something on a door handle that “resembled Vaseline,” and then losing memory until waking in the backseat of a car. The account names “Eric Mahias” as driving and “Bony Rivera” in the passenger seat, with dialogue about the writer waking up and being expected to fall asleep again. The statement then alleges: “I gave him a lot of that scopolamine,” followed by a claim that the writer had tolerance due to childhood use for seasickness. If this is included in the file set, what is its evidentiary relationship to the broader investigation?
From there, the segment shifts to a second topic: what appear to be diary entries from a young girl included in the released materials. The host describes the passages as horrifying, with descriptions of trauma, pain, and alleged abuse, including entries centered on pregnancy and childbirth. The entries are described as including Ghislaine Maxwell being present, and as suggesting babies were taken away. If authentic, what chain of custody exists for these pages—and how were they authenticated?
The host reads excerpts that describe fear, dissociation, a “decision” that can’t be told to “Jeffrey,” and details involving doctors, injections, and instructions to “close your eyes.” One page reportedly includes an image of a sonogram alongside the words, “She is gone and she won’t be coming back,” and nearby text styled like a poem titled “child.” The segment repeatedly notes uncertainty: the identity of the writer is unknown, the claims are unverified, and it is unclear what investigations were initiated based on the account. If the materials are real, why is so much still unconfirmed?
The diary material is also described as containing specific references that the host suggests may align with known details about Epstein’s world. One passage mentions arriving in Palm Beach and being taken to a nearby house on “Ocean Boulevard or Street,” and references a “new driver, not Mr. Juan,” which the host links to Juan Alessi, who testified in Maxwell’s trial. The host argues that such specificity raises questions about how the writer would know these details without real contact. But specificity alone is not proof—so what corroboration exists beyond the writing itself?
The segment then connects these diary pages to prior public speculation about Epstein having “secret children.” It cites messages attributed to Sarah Ferguson referencing hearing that Epstein “had a baby boy,” and expressing hurt and confusion about his disappearance. The host emphasizes uncertainty: the claim may be untrue, but if it were true, the child would be around 15 years old today. When combined with diary language about being an “incubator” and talk of creating a “superior gene pool,” the material fuels a theory—but does it produce evidence?
More excerpts are read describing a baby being held briefly—“10 to 15 minutes”—before being taken, and the writer pleading, “She is mine. I want her back.” Other lines describe fear of attachment, exhaustion, missed school, treatment for an eating disorder, and repeated dread about whether “they” will take “this one too.” The host also reads an entry describing a miscarriage and the writer flushing fetal remains, followed by anger directed at “Jeffrey” and the line: “I am not your personal incubator.” If these passages reflect real events, who else—medical staff, drivers, property employees—could corroborate timelines?
The host describes the diary pages as resembling a scrapbook with images and collaged words, suggesting themes of coercion and profit. He cites phrases like “Inhuman profit,” “family,” “Who knew?” and “Protect the vanishing children,” as well as imagery of courtrooms and warnings like “You should never be here alone.” The segment also mentions a reference to Jean-Luc Brunel, described as an Epstein associate who died in custody while under investigation in Europe, and includes a crude, accusatory passage about him. If the pages are part testimony and part collage, what was their original purpose—and who compiled them?
The final topic is the allegation of buried bodies connected to Epstein’s former New Mexico property, Zorro Ranch. The segment references an email dated November 2019, described as being directed to “Edward Aragon” (identified by KOB4 as a local radio host), claiming it comes from a former staffer at the ranch. The email asserts that material was taken from Epstein’s home as “insurance” for future litigation and makes a shocking allegation about “two foreign girls” buried on orders of Epstein and “Madame G,” with deaths described as occurring during “rough fetish sex.” If such a claim exists in an email, what steps were taken to verify it before it spread?
The update presented is a statement attributed to the New Mexico Department of Justice. According to the quoted statement, after reviewing information recently released by the U.S. Department of Justice, Attorney General Raúl Torrez ordered that the criminal investigation into allegations of illegal activity at Zorro Ranch be reopened. The statement says the prior state investigation was closed in 2019 at the request of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for SDNY, and that revelations in previously sealed FBI files warrant further examination. If a state agency is seeking access to “complete unredacted” federal files, what does that suggest about what they believe remains unresolved?
The statement further indicates that special agents and prosecutors intend to work collaboratively with law enforcement partners and an “Epstein Truth Commission” established by the New Mexico Legislature, while evaluating jurisdictional issues. It also emphasizes evidence collection and preservation of whatever “remains available,” and promises updates “as appropriate.” The host’s takeaway is straightforward: watch what happens next, because this could move from internet speculation into formal investigative action. If the investigation is being reopened “quickly and deliberately,” what evidence can still be found—if any—years later?
