Add known info; add entity/org profiles; add events; add “course of action”

Community Feature Requests
1

Hi! This is a great tool.

A few suggestions:

  • Enrich the “Persons” category by including fields for known aliases as well as email addresses. For example, Ghislaine went by “Adam Gurgly,” at least per EFTA00263097.
  • Consider adding a required tag for “degree of certainty.” For example, the above document describes the Ghislaine alias, but we know nothing about its authorship and veracity, so it can’t be taken as truth that she went by “Adam Gurgly,” barring other support.
  • Create entity/org profiles. Establish the equivalent of “Persons,” except for organizations. This will be a useful tool for holding entities accountable for affiliations or conduct that is surfaced in these documents.
  • Create “homework/draft” profiles or a place to park future search terms or areas for review. This would work especially well in the entity/org sense, so that a user could tap into “ExampleCo, LLC” and do research outside of the files to determine the entity’s state of incorporation, ownership structure, board of directors, officers, etc. This will or can eventually become actionable information.
  • Create “events” and/or timelines. Consider these the narrative of what happened based on the existing information. Every statement should be backed up by a citation. Similarly, these narratives should be accessible in the “homework/draft” format, so that people can flesh out details for areas of inquiry that other reviewers identify. For example, when reading a file, a user may see that ExampleCo, LLC held a private party on April 1, 2009. Other emails may reveal who attended, where it took place, etc. That should be crafted and linked to people.

That’s all I can think of for now. This is a fantastic tool. These features may already exist in some format—I’m still getting acquainted here.

2

Hi @Rabbit, thank you — these are excellent, well-thought-out suggestions. Let me walk through each one and share what we already have and where we’re heading.

1. Known Aliases and Email Addresses on Person Profiles

Great call. We do have some alias data scattered across documents but it’s not surfaced as a dedicated field on person profiles yet. Adding structured aliases and known email addresses to the person schema is on our roadmap. The “Adam Gurgly” example from EFTA00263097 is exactly the kind of thing that should be linked to Ghislaine Maxwell’s profile with a citation.

For now, our AI Research Assistant can find alias references across 1.6M+ documents if you search for them — but you’re right that these should be first-class fields on the person page, not buried in document text.

2. Degree of Certainty Tags

This is a really important point and speaks to something we take seriously — every claim needs sourcing, and not all sources are equal.

We partially address this already:

  • Our document review system uses a weighted consensus model — 3+ independent reviewers must agree before a finding is marked as confirmed.
  • Our AI agents are designed to flag findings with evidence quality scores and explicitly note when something is unverified.
  • The Dossier system includes community notes that can be rated as helpful/not helpful.

But a formal confidence/certainty tag on person-document links and entity claims (e.g., “confirmed by multiple sources” vs. “mentioned in single unverified document” vs. “alleged/disputed”) would be a valuable addition. We’ll look into building this as a structured field.

3. Entity/Organization Profiles

This is something we’ve been thinking about. Currently, organizations appear in our data as text mentions within documents, but they don’t have their own dedicated profile pages like persons do.

An Organizations section — parallel to /persons — with profiles showing incorporation details, known officers, document mentions, and connections to persons would be very powerful. Think: Southern Trust Company, J.P. Morgan, Deutsche Bank, L Brands, Gratitude America, etc. Each with the same cross-referencing treatment we give to individuals.

We have extracted entity data from EFTA documents that includes organization names, so the raw data exists — it just needs a proper UI.

4. “Homework/Draft” Profiles and Research Parking

The closest thing we have right now is the Dossier system — community-created investigative dossiers that can include pinned documents, community notes, and citations. Any user can create a dossier on a topic and others can contribute notes.

What you’re describing — a structured research workspace where someone can park leads, link external findings (state incorporation records, board of directors, etc.), and build out a profile over time — could be a natural extension of the dossier system. The idea of making these “actionable” by connecting them back to the document evidence is exactly the right approach.

5. Events and Timelines

Good news — we already have a Timeline page with 6,000+ events spanning 1974-2025, covering arrests, flights, filings, depositions, and key dates. Each event links to source documents.

What we could improve:

  • User-contributed events: Let reviewers create new timeline entries directly from documents they’re reviewing (“I found that ExampleCo held a party on April 1, 2009, per document X”).
  • Event-person linking: Connect events to specific persons and organizations so you can view any individual’s complete chronological narrative.
  • Citation requirements: Every event backed by a specific document reference, as you suggest.

The vision of building out narrative threads from document evidence — linking people, places, dates, and organizations into coherent stories — is exactly what this platform is designed to enable.

Most of what you’re describing maps cleanly onto features we have in various stages of development. The key pieces that don’t exist yet:

  1. Organization profiles (new entity type alongside persons)
  2. Structured confidence/certainty tags on claims
  3. Inline research workspaces extending the dossier system
  4. User-contributed timeline events from the review flow

These are all great additions to the roadmap. Welcome to the community, and keep exploring — there’s a lot here to dig into!

4 Likes
3

This is fabulous. Thanks for the detailed response. What a tool. I was a mid-level trial attorney and used to piece together stories from massive data dumps by the government. I’d review emails, files, publicly-available information, swipe card data, cell records, wiretaps, metadata, you name it, then would flesh out topics/events, people, entities.

Before I came across this site, I had arbitrarily picked an event (Robin Hood fundraiser in May 2015 where Epstein bought a table for 10 “girls”) and entity (Robin Hood Foundation) and was working through identifying the narrative, who participated in planning and may have additional information, who was involved in the organization as well as follow-up questions regarding its legitimacy, etc. I was using a word doc with an outline and TOC to include the features or fields I suggested, since these help establish a strategic roadmap for building out a case. I may be stating the obvious with all of this, but I figured I’d add as much detail as possible in case this kind of experience is useful. Wish I had this tool back then! Would definitely want such a thing in the future for my own use.

2 Likes
4

Hay,

have you been able to find anything on “Adam Gurgly” yet? @PsychSupport shared the below document and we found that name on page 33. But I’m unable to find anything on here or on the epsteinexposed.com side, and only one random email on jmail.

I’ll take any knowledge you got! Have nice day :smiling_face_with_sunglasses: