The interesting thing to me about this particular file is how precious little detail it has, from someone doing intake at the FBI National Threat Operation Center.

Looking carefully, all the redactions are either in the first paragraph and directly related to the identity of the caller or later the specific names of individuals, going by context.

But there is no instance where a place name could be inferred by context. That's weird.

First, the top of the report lists the specific charge to which this report is attached: 50D-NY-3027571. This is one of the child sex trafficking charges brought by the feds in 2019 in New York. (EFTA01660622, see first page) What that means is that when this call was taken, even though Epstein was already dead, there were still open and active investigations going on, and the FBI intake person attached this tip to one of them. It wasn't just random information.

Also, in this report, the golf course is always referred to in the singular: THE course, THE hole, buried THERE. It's not a selection of properties the caller is naming, just one.

Yet in 2021 -- the date of this tip -- the orange chancre already had multiple golf courses in the US, plus around the world, but in this report there is nothing beyond "Donald Trump Golf Course" in terms of location. All his US golf courses have informal names, usually the town or city: Bedminster, Palm Beach, etc. but these are very pointedly not used.

In every other respect the caller was quite specific, even giving the number of bodies and naming the 19th hole on the golf course, but somehow the FBI couldn't record which one it was. All of that detail -- gone. No place name for the parties, no place name for the golf course where three bodies are buried, no place names for any of it.

How do you get that level of detail but totally miss the place name of the golf course, in 2021, for an investigation that involves what had already become a matter of international interest?

I know I just wrote a wall of text, but these are the little details that stick out to me, and I have found that when something like that does, even though it's minor, it points to something larger.

In this case, I genuinely believe from the cleanness of the text and the oddness of some of the language used that this isn't the original report: that some low level supervisor saw what came in, consulted with higher-ups, then quietly rewrote this and filed the rewrite. Go back and read it. See if it doesn't hit you the same way.