>>510785895 (OP)It's very simple. You can't just go around saying "This guy, named so and so, is a paedophile." Ok, that would be slander. So, sure, they could name someone, but that would be if they were charging them with a crime. They can't name people if they aren't being charged because these people are innocent until proven guilty and if they aren't even being charged then naming them would simply be slander. Ok, now, you might wonder why don't they charge people? Again, very simple, they can only charge people if there have a reasonable prospect of conviction. So they can't just charge random people on flimsy evidence and call them paedophiles. Ok, great, so now you understand, they aren't naming people because they don't have evidence of a sufficient credibility that they could achieve conviction. Now, you might be asking, aren't there video recordings on various media (DVDs, CD-ROMs, hard drives, USB drives, etc.) that Epstein had in his Manhattan mansion, as well as on his island, that were recovered by law enforcement when these properties were raided. Yes, there absolutely were. Some DVDs and CD-ROMs even had "young [name] + [name]" written on them, according to the DoJ. So, there is evidence there, of some standard, but, unfortunately, it's not of a high enough standard to warrant prosecutions. Also note, the bar has to be especially high here because this was supposedly a blackmail operation, so perpetrators could argue reduced intent due to apparent entrapment. You also have a large number of potentially high profile people involved, so they actually need good evidence to convict everyone, not just one or two. Why not one or two? Because, you go after one guy, he's going to make a big deal about how come you didn't go after everyone else and he's going to get his legal team to request all the videos be brought in as evidence and that's going to blow the whole thing wide open. There are many other possible evidence issues, but those are a couple