A newly released report is casting doubt on the authenticity of a May 2014 email exchange between former Bard College President Leon Botstein and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
ANNANDALE-ON-HUDSON — Two weeks after the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary’s ranking Democrat alleged that former Bard College President Leon Botstein sent a potentially incriminating email to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, a cybersecurity report is casting doubt on the email’s authenticity.
Bard Collegereleased a 19-page reporton Thursday that was produced by FTI Consulting at the direction of the college’s Board of Trustees. Based on the firm’s forensic analysis, the cybersecurity experts concluded the email was “highly suspicious” but could not say for certain it was fabricated.
Advertisement
Article continues below this ad
The email in question appears to have been sent by Botstein to Epstein in May 2014. “Is (Jane Doe) for me, or are you keeping her for yourself,” the sender wrote.
That email was part of a trove of Epstein-related documents the U.S. Justice Department released in January, though the line revealing its sender was redacted for reasons that remain unclear. On Oct. 7, U.S. Reps. Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Madeleine Dean of Pennsylvania revealed the email had been sent from Botstein’s email address (“president@bard.edu”).
Following the Judiciary Committee’s letter to the FBI and Justice Department, Botsteinresigned from all Bard-affiliated positions, including his professorship and conducting roles. But he has adamantly denied sending the email.
FTI determined that the email in question has not existed on Bard’s server as far back as July 2017, when the college migrated to a new server.
Advertisement
Article continues below this ad
In addition, the firm noted that the email does not exist in the Justice Department’s files as a separate original email; instead, it appears as quoted text within an email that Epstein purportedly forwarded to himself. An individual forwarding an email can modify the text of the original email without altering the transport headers — a type of metadata — of the forwarding message.
The report said the emails also lacked native transmission metadata or the independently preserved source records necessary to establish the original sender, message chronology or integrity of the emails.
Unlike other emails between the two men, which featured headers with complete weekdays, calendar dates, years and time stamps, Epstein’s email to Botstein had an abbreviated quoted header which read “Sent: thurs 6 AM.”
The response that allegedly came from Botstein is dated May 15, 2014, at 12:45 a.m. — five hours before Epstein sent the initial email. Because Epstein’s email header did not include the complete date and time information, the firm was unable to determine if the discrepancy was due to the emails being sent in different time zones.
