How to Verify Claims Using the DugganUSA API
- Patrick Duggan
- Feb 28
- 7 min read
# How to Verify Claims Using the DugganUSA API
*Reporter Primer #2 — A practical guide for journalists fact-checking Epstein-related claims against the government record.*
Why Verification Matters Now
Social media has become the primary distribution channel for Epstein-related claims. Some of these claims are documented in the government record. Some are fabricated. Some are partially true but stripped of the context that changes their meaning entirely.
The problem for reporters is straightforward: when someone claims a name appears in the Epstein files, how do you check? When a viral post says a person was "on the flight logs," how do you verify that before publishing — or before deciding not to publish?
The DugganUSA Epstein Files Index makes 398,525 government-released documents searchable. It does not tell you what those documents mean. It tells you what the documents say. That distinction is the foundation of responsible verification.
This guide walks through five common verification patterns, explains what the results can and cannot tell you, and identifies the traps that have led other reporters into corrections.
Getting Started
**Web search**: Go to [epstein.dugganusa.com](https://epstein.dugganusa.com). Type a name. Results come back from 398,525 documents — 12 DOJ datasets, 50 court cases from archive.org, FOIA releases from 4 federal agencies — in under 2 seconds.
That is enough for most verification tasks. You do not need the API to check whether a name appears in the corpus.
**API access**: For structured queries, filtering, and integration into your own research workflow, register for a free API key at [analytics.dugganusa.com/stix/register](https://analytics.dugganusa.com/stix/register). API queries use a standard HTTP request with your key in the Authorization header.
**Example API query:**
> GET https://analytics.dugganusa.com/api/v1/search?q=Leon Black&filter=_index=epstein_files
> Authorization: Bearer [your-key]
**Example web search**: Just type "Leon Black" into the search box at epstein.dugganusa.com. Same data, no API key needed.
For background on what the corpus contains and its boundaries, see [Reporter Primer #1: What the Epstein Corpus Actually Contains](https://www.dugganusa.com/post/reporter-primer-what-the-epstein-corpus-actually-contains).
Five Verification Patterns
1. "Was [person] on the flight logs?"
This is the most common claim that circulates on social media. The search is simple — type the name and look for results from flight-related documents. But the interpretation requires care.
**What to search:**
> Search: "Alan Dershowitz" at epstein.dugganusa.com
**What to understand about the results:**
The flight logs in the corpus are handwritten pilot logbooks, not airline-grade passenger manifests. Names are often abbreviated ("AD" for a name), misspelled, or partially legible. The OCR processing that makes them searchable introduces additional transcription uncertainty.
A name appearing in a flight log document means the name appears in the document. It does not mean the person flew on the aircraft. It does not mean they flew with Epstein specifically. Context within the document matters: Was the name a listed passenger? A noted destination contact? A margin annotation added later?
**Rule of thumb:** Report that "the name appears in flight manifest documents released by the DOJ," not that the person "was on Epstein's plane." The first is verifiable. The second is an inference that may or may not be supported by the full document context.
2. "Is [person] named in the court documents?"
The corpus includes deposition transcripts, FBI 302 interview summaries, case filings, motions, exhibits, and judicial orders. A name appearing in these documents could mean many things.
**What to search:**
> Search: "Bill Richardson" at epstein.dugganusa.com
> For API: filter=dataset=archive_org to limit results to court records specifically
**What to understand about the results:**
People are named in court documents for many reasons:
- As defendants or subjects of investigation
- As witnesses providing testimony
- As attorneys representing parties
- As incidental mentions in someone else's testimony
- As government officials referenced in procedural filings
- As victims (sometimes redacted, sometimes not)
Being named in a document is not the same as being accused. Read the document. Note the context in which the name appears. A person named 50 times as a witness for the prosecution is not in the same position as a person named 3 times in a victim's deposition.
3. "How many times does [name/entity] appear?"
Hit counts are useful as a rough measure of documentary presence but dangerous as a measure of significance.
**What to search:**
> Search: "Les Wexner" at epstein.dugganusa.com — note the total results count
**What to understand about the results:**
A name appearing 200 times might belong to a victim who gave extensive testimony. It might be an attorney whose name appears on every filing. It might be an investigator referenced in dozens of FBI 302s. It might be a person of significant interest to the investigation.
The number alone does not tell you which. You need to read a representative sample of the actual documents to understand why the count is what it is. High frequency can indicate significance, but it can also indicate a procedural role.
**How to use hit counts responsibly:** Report them as "appears in X documents in the DOJ-released Epstein files" and contextualize by explaining the types of documents where the name appears. Do not use raw counts as a ranking of guilt or involvement.
4. "Are there financial connections?"
The DugganUSA index cross-references Epstein documents against 2,016,524 ICIJ offshore entities from the Panama Papers and Pandora Papers, plus 3,339,267 relationship edges mapping corporate ownership networks.
**What to search:**
> Search: "Gratitude America" at epstein.dugganusa.com
> Then search the same entity name on the ICIJ index for offshore connections
**What to understand about the results:**
A shared offshore structure between an Epstein-linked entity and another person or company is a data point. It is not proof of wrongdoing. Offshore structures are legal. Thousands of legitimate businesses use them. The question is whether the specific structure, in combination with other evidence, supports the claim being made.
Financial records in the Epstein corpus include bank statements, wire transfers, property records, and corporate filings. Cross-referencing these against ICIJ data can surface connections that are not visible in either dataset alone. But a connection is a lead, not a conclusion.
5. "What did [person] say under oath?"
Deposition transcripts are sworn testimony. They are among the most powerful documents in the corpus because they carry legal weight — the person was under oath and subject to perjury charges.
**What to search:**
> Search: "Q. Did you ever" at epstein.dugganusa.com to find deposition question-and-answer patterns
> Refine with a specific name to find testimony mentioning that person
**What to understand about the results:**
When quoting deposition testimony, always include:
- The document ID (EFTA number if available) so the quote can be verified
- The identity of the person being deposed (not just the person being discussed)
- Whether the testimony was given in the Giuffre v. Maxwell civil case, the Maxwell criminal trial, or another proceeding
- Whether the answer was actually given, or whether the question was objected to and never answered
Decontextualized deposition quotes are one of the most common sources of misinformation about the Epstein case. A question asked is not an answer given. An allegation made in testimony is not a proven fact. Quote accurately, cite the document, and let the reader assess.
What the API Can and Cannot Tell You
**It can:**
- Confirm whether a name appears in government-released documents
- Show the surrounding text context for each match
- Provide document IDs for citation and reproducibility
- Cross-reference names against offshore entity databases and federal court records
- Filter results by dataset, document type, and date
**It cannot:**
- Tell you what redacted text says
- Prove guilt or innocence
- Confirm the identity of abbreviated or misspelled names in handwritten documents
- Replace investigative journalism, interviews, or original reporting
- Tell you why a name appears — only that it does
The index is a starting point. It tells you whether a claim has documentary support in the government record. What that support means requires the judgment, sourcing, and contextual knowledge that only a reporter can provide.
Common Traps to Avoid
**Name collisions.** Common names appear in the corpus for different people. "John Smith" might return results for an attorney, a witness, and an unrelated person mentioned in a financial document. Verify which individual the results refer to before reporting.
**Decontextualized deposition quotes.** A question asked by an attorney does not mean the answer confirmed the premise. Attorneys ask leading questions strategically. Read the full exchange, not just the inflammatory question.
**Treating an index hit as an accusation.** Appearing in a document is not the same as being implicated. Attorneys appear in court documents. Investigators appear in FBI 302s. Witnesses appear in depositions. Context determines meaning.
**Conflating Maxwell trial exhibits with Epstein investigation documents.** The Ghislaine Maxwell criminal trial (S.D.N.Y.) and the original Epstein investigations produced different document sets with different legal contexts. Exhibits admitted in the Maxwell trial went through an evidentiary process. Other documents in the corpus did not. The evidentiary standard matters for reporting.
**Assuming completeness.** The index contains what the government released. There are documents the government has not released, proceedings that remain sealed, and redactions that obscure potentially significant information. The absence of a name from the index does not mean the person is not relevant — it means their name does not appear in the released documents.
How to Cite Your Findings
When you reference DugganUSA data in published reporting, proper citation helps your readers verify your work and helps other journalists build on it.
**Inline citation:**
> ...according to a search of DOJ-released Epstein documents indexed by DugganUSA (epstein.dugganusa.com)...
**With document ID:**
> ...the name appears in document EFTA01519675 of the DugganUSA Epstein Files Index (epstein.dugganusa.com)...
**API citation:**
> Data retrieved from DugganUSA API (analytics.dugganusa.com), query: "Les Wexner," February 28, 2026.
For complete citation formats including APA, Chicago, MLA, and BibTeX, see the full citation guide: [How to Cite DugganUSA](https://www.dugganusa.com/post/how-to-cite-dugganusa).
The Standard
We built this index because government-released documents should be searchable by the public, not locked in scattered PDFs across federal archives. We maintain it because journalists and researchers use it daily. We document its limitations because pretending a tool is perfect makes it less useful, not more.
We cap all claims at 95%. We guarantee 5% error exists. OCR is imperfect. Handwriting recognition is imperfect. Our indexing is imperfect. If you find an error, tell us. We fix it.
The documents are the government's own words. We make them findable. What you do with them is journalism.
*398,525 documents. Searchable. Citable. Free to search at [epstein.dugganusa.com](https://epstein.dugganusa.com).*
*DugganUSA LLC -- protect. publish. amplify.*
*For full corpus details: [Reporter Primer #1: What the Corpus Contains](https://www.dugganusa.com/post/reporter-primer-what-the-epstein-corpus-actually-contains)*
*For citation formats: [How to Cite DugganUSA](https://www.dugganusa.com/post/how-to-cite-dugganusa)*
*Her name was Renee Nicole Good.*
*His name was Alex Jeffery Pretti.*