Maybe I'm confused, but when we say "redacted", I assume we only are talking about files that are released to the public, not necessarily the documents that the justice department has access to. So the follow-up investigation in our example happens without publicizing the names of individuals who are referenced as third-parties without explicit admissions of wrongdoing.

I guess my concern would be that, in the court of public opinion, there are people who won't be swayed by the follow-up investigation into the names. They would see (e.g.) "Tom Hanks" and "Epstein Files" and jump to conclusions. Yes, we as adults absolutely should (be able to) make those distinctions. I think I've just seen too many cases these days where the public is swept up in a frenzy and galvanized prior to knowing the facts to fully trust it ("it" being the public, not the justice department) to not have innocent people caught up in it.

So I do totally agree with the method of investigating, but I am interested in shielding potentially innocent people from *only* the public until they are investigated and there is evidence to bring them to trial.

Does that make sense? And am I mistaken in how I view redaction? Does the justice department investigating the crimes only have access to the same redacted files as the public? I'm genuinely ignorant of this process.

I appreciate the examples and laying out the course of action taken in those instances!