What concerns me isnāt speculation about the worst-case scenario, itās the repeated failure of institutions to act when credible warning signs were already present. In rare and extreme cases like Epsteinās, there were more than enough indicators to justify deeper, independent investigation: prior convictions, patterns of abuse, institutional knowledge going back years, unusual financial and logistical activity, and systemic protection rather than scrutiny.
The issue isnāt that the public lacks perfect evidence, itās that investigative thresholds were applied asymmetrically depending on power. We were asked to trust a legal system that was quietly being bent, delayed, or selectively enforced by the very institutions demanding that trust. Victims were exposed while influential figures were shielded, and redactions prioritised reputational protection over safeguarding.
Iām not arguing that unproven claims should be treated as established fact. I am arguing that, ethically and professionally, these signals were more than sufficient to warrant proper, transparent investigation and that failure to pursue them represents an institutional risk in itself. When systems default to legal minimalism rather than moral responsibility, they donāt preserve justice; they erode it.
This is less about any single crime and more about a pattern of institutional self-protection that overrides accountability, creates psychological harm, and undermines public trust. We donāt need to assume the worst to recognise that safeguards failed, and that failure alone is unacceptable and demands immediate corrective action to restore accountability, transparency, and public trust.
What must happen next is clear:
Independent, conflict-free inquiries must be established with full investigatory powers and no institutional ties to prior decisions. Redaction policies must be reviewed and publicly justified, with default protection afforded to victims rather than to those in positions of power. Prosecutorial discretion in cases involving systemic abuse must be subject to external oversight, and failures in safeguarding must carry professional consequences, not quiet closure.
Survivor protection and anonymity must be strengthened, whistleblower safeguards expanded, and investigative thresholds recalibrated so that patterns of risk, not just isolated proof, trigger action. Transparency must be the rule, not the exception, and institutional accountability must extend beyond individual offenders to the systems that enabled them.
Reform is not optional. When public trust is broken at this scale, restoring it requires visible, enforceable change, not reassurance, delay, or selective disclosure.
Additionally, the public response of individuals named in or connected to the files must itself be treated as relevant context. In situations involving serious allegations and institutional failure, a professional, ethically grounded response would centre on transparency, cooperation, and empathy toward victims.
When individuals respond instead with hostility, deflection, personal attacks, or attempts to discredit the process rather than engage with it constructively, this does not prove guilt, but it does raise legitimate concerns. Such behaviour may reasonably indicate a perceived personal or reputational risk and therefore meets the threshold for further independent review.
In high-risk safeguarding contexts, behavioural responses that seek to distract from scrutiny or undermine accountability should not be dismissed as irrelevant. On the contrary, they are recognised in clinical, legal, and investigative practice as potential indicators warranting closer examination, particularly where power, influence, and prior institutional protection are already present.
For this reason, anyone named in the files who is unable or unwilling to engage with the matter in a professional, transparent, and victim-centred manner should be subject to appropriate investigation. This is not a presumption of guilt, but a necessary safeguard to ensure that accountability is applied consistently and that no individual is exempt from scrutiny by virtue of status or influence.
