From: "

From: " To: Cc: Subject: RE: Maintaining & Reviewing Evidence Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2025 20:46:00 +0000 Importance: Normal Copy receipt. Thank you. From Sent: urs ay, arc , : To: > Cc: Subjec : am aining eviewing vi ence Good evening DD Bongino- To follow-up and provide a response to questions regarding the status of evidence in the 50D and 90A, as well as how the evidence was reviewed and maintained: • All the evidence seized by the FBI in the 50D and 90A cases remains in FBI custody in its entirety. • All evidence seized was within the scope of the warrant and focused on Epstein's sex trafficking of minors conspiracy spanning through the 1990s and early 2000s. Some portions of evidence would not be reviewed because it would be outside the scope of the warrant. • Digital evidence items (computers, cell phones, thumb drives) are imaged prior to review. The imaging process creates a bit for bit copy of the original identically matching the original item. Most CART examiners make 2 bit for bit copies, a working copy, and an archive copy. The original item is never used again. • In criminal cases, this item is returned to evidence control for storage until a case is closed when it is either returned or destroyed. • The archive copy is submitted back to evidence control for storage at a later time ONLY should it be needed. • The working copy is processed by a forensic software tool (cellebrite, etc) to be reviewed for evidence scoped by the search warrant. Processing through a forensic tool can utilize Known File lists to exclude operating system files from review since they contain no evidentiary value. • Upon full review and scoping of the processed item by either the examiner, case agent or, other authorized individual, a derivative evidence report is created containing ONLY the items in scope of the warrant. This report is entered into evidence and working copies are made for use in court. Once the report is generated with all the scoped files, some CART examiners will create a second archive copy of what has been marked pertinent and non-pertinent, should the entire item need to be re-reviewed, but not reprocessed. • For example, in conducting the review of seized items, such as a cell phone, once the phone review is completed within the scope of the SW, the non-pertinent items are not transferred into the derivative evidence copy. However, the cell phone and its original contents are maintained as original evidence in storage. • Reprocessing items is against the FBI CART Policy Guide, unless approved by the Digital Forensics & Analysis Section SC for exigent circumstances (new warrant with different scope, or new software tools to EFTA00164740 pull previously non-parsable items such as chat applications). I am available any time for any questions. Thank you, EFTA00164741