The Epstein files are filled with emails containing dozens of news articles. So it’s not a big surprise that the word Gizmodo appeared 35 times in a search of the US Department of Justice’s archive of documents about the late sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. But an email about a Gizmodo article really caught our eye.

Searching for files, Gizmodo sometimes appears in round-ups of news for services such as the dead social media site Google+, while people send specific articles to Epstein that may be of interest. In the case of the latter, an article jumped out at us, and we were very surprised why the name of the person who sent this article to Epstein was redacted.

On April 21, 2015, a person sent Epstein an email which includes a link to Gizmodo’s article titled “Now You Can Download Your Google History—Or Better Yet, Delete It.” The person who sent the email redacted their name, suggesting it may be a victim. But there are several other instances in the newly released files that suggest DOJ people redacted more than the names of victims as required by law.

The gist of the Gizmodo article from 2015 is that there are a lot of things in your Google search history that you don’t want others to access, especially as a journalist. The author of that article, Sean Hollister, noted that someone would know the sensitive stories he was working on and the exact addresses. Searches for pornography are another element, and that is clearly where our mind was at the beginning when we saw this article on the Epstein files. And frankly, it’s scary to think what Epstein’s Google searches might reveal.

The Epstein files include chats in which Epstein appears to have received photos from an 18th birthday party; This includes invisible attachments where people send photos and short messages that simply say “age 10“and”age 11“; this includes emails that say things like “the best part of my day, my nephew.” It’s chilling to say the least.

But we don’t know the names of the people who sent these emails. It’s possible that they themselves were the victims, but we just don’t know. And we have no idea if we will ever learn about the accomplices in a way that will bring justice.

Another Gizmodo example of the Epstein files is a discussions about the possible initiation of a case against us for reporting the claims of sexual harassment made against theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss. Looks like Epstein advises Krauss on what to do about the claims, and a lawsuit against Gizmodo was never filed. Krauss told the New York Times that the accusations were against him lies.

Members of Congress will begin having some access to the unredacted files this week. And we would appreciate it if someone with views of the most sensitive files could just let us know if the people being redacted are victims or potential partners. There are more than 3 million pages that have recently been released, and journalists are still exploring them all. But there are about 3 million additional pages that have not yet been released, according to Associated Press.

We learned a fair amount about the disgusting ways that Epstein would chat with people and announce more serious crimes in his emails. But the only real consequences for powerful people seem to be in Europe. And lawmakers are expected to use their access to flag anything suspicious about the redactions.

Ghislaine Maxwell, the only person convicted of crimes related to Epstein’s sex trafficking, was called to testify before the House oversight committee on Monday, but she invoked the Fifth Amendment and did not answer any questions. His lawyer said he would be happy to chat under one condition: “Ms. is ready. Maxwell to speak fully and honestly if President Trump grants clemency.”