Zorro Ranch: What a Real Re-Examination Would Actually Require-An Even Deeper Dive
*Dan Huffines, when he was serving as a Texas Senator, attending a meeting with Russian lawmakers in Moscow, August, 2018. The family of Huffines owns Zorro Ranch in Sante Fe County in New Mexico.
Author’s Note:
This was written…and intended…to run as a paid-subscriber article. But if you read Part I…yesterday’s no-paywall piece….I wanted you to have the full deep dive too. So whether you’re free or paid, you’re getting the entire article. Enjoy.
Oh, and at the end…I’ve also got a critical BONUS for you.
Zorro Ranch: What a Real Re-Examination Would Actually Require-An Even Deeper Dive
The Jack Hopkins Now Newsletter #780: Monday, February 16th, 2026.
Yesterday we answered one narrow question:
Could evidence still exist?
Today we answer the harder one:
If a lawful, professional re-examination of Zorro Ranch were ever authorized… what would it actually look like?
Not internet excavation.
Not speculative threads.
Not YouTube archaeology.
A real one.
Because here is the truth most people don’t understand:
Large rural properties do not get “cleared.”
They get examined…in layers.
And…if anything serious ever occurred on land like that…the difference between rumor and accountability….would come down to method.
Let’s walk through what that method would require.
I. The Property Itself: Geography Before Allegation
Zorro Ranch is not a suburban home.
It is a vast, rural compound in northern New Mexico…high desert terrain with arroyos…elevation shifts…sparse vegetation…and multiple structures.
Before a single shovel touched dirt, investigators would need:
Full acreage survey mapping
Historical plat records
Drainage and runoff modeling
Soil classification profiles
Construction timelines for each structure
Septic system maps and utility trench records
Why?
Because land is contextual.
If you do not know what “normal” looks like on a property…you cannot detect abnormal.
And abnormal…not rumor…is what drives warrants forward.
II. Remote Sensing: The First Pass
No professional team starts by digging.
They start by scanning.
A lawful re-examination would likely begin with:
1. LiDAR Analysis
LiDAR penetrates vegetation and reconstructs micro-topography. It can reveal:
Depressions consistent with prior excavation
Refilled trenches
Subtle grade changes invisible to the eye
Even decades later…compaction patterns can remain detectable.
2. Historical Satellite Time-Series
Commercial satellite archives go back years.
Investigators would examine:
Vegetation stress anomalies
Sudden clearing events
Temporary soil exposure
Construction staging areas
Shifts in drainage patterns
If earth was disturbed at specific intervals, imagery can reveal it.
Not always.
But often enough.
3. Multispectral Analysis
Different soil compositions reflect light differently.
Refill soil rarely matches untouched substrate perfectly.
That difference can be mapped.
III. Soil and Stratigraphy: Earth’s Memory
If scanning identified anomalies, controlled test grids would follow.
This is not chaotic digging.
This is measured excavation in quadrants, documented centimeter…by centimeter.
Forensic archaeologists would examine:
Stratigraphic layering
Soil compaction differences
Inconsistent fill patterns
Root interruption patterns
Settling or subsidence
Here’s what matters:
Undisturbed soil layers form over time in predictable sequences.
When someone digs and refills…that sequence is broken.
Time does not rebuild it neatly.
Earth remembers disruption.
IV. Arid Climate and Preservation
Northern New Mexico’s dry climate is significant.
Arid conditions can:
Preserve skeletal material longer
Slow microbial breakdown
Maintain soil structure clarity
Limit organic blending compared to humid environments
This does not mean preservation is guaranteed.
It means environmental conditions do not automatically erase everything.
Desert landscapes are often better forensic archives than people assume.
V. Structures: The Overlooked Evidence Reservoir
Most public imagination focuses on fields.
Professionals look at buildings.
A re-examination would evaluate:
Subfloor cavities
Carpet tack strips
Baseboard voids
HVAC returns
Crawlspaces
Slab penetrations
Concrete pours
Concrete is not invisibility.
Fresh slabs poured at specific dates can be correlated with:
Delivery records
Contractor invoices
Permit filings
Utility trenching
Ground-penetrating radar can identify subsurface anomalies beneath slabs.
Core sampling can confirm substrate disruption.
Time does not equal structural amnesia.
VI. Septic Systems and Disposal Infrastructure
Large rural properties rely on septic systems.
Those systems have:
Installation dates
Expansion permits
Pumping logs
Service records
Septic tanks and leach fields can preserve materials.
They can also be examined for anomalies in composition or disturbance.
Again…not speculation.
Method.
VII. Burn Sites and Informal Disposal Areas
Fire leaves signatures.
Even after ash disperses, investigators can detect:
Heat-altered soil
Calcined fragments
Metal distortion
Accelerant residue patterns
Improvised burn pits are rarely perfect erasers.
They are usually messy.
And messy leaves evidence.
VIII. The Documentary Intersection
Here is where cases truly turn:
Land findings alone are not enough.
They must intersect with paper.
A serious review would cross-reference:
Construction permits
Grading contracts
Concrete deliveries
Equipment rentals
Travel logs
Visitor records
Staffing schedules
If earth disturbance coincides with suspicious construction, and construction coincides with specific travel windows, and travel windows align with known timelines of interest…
That convergence becomes probative.
Not rumor.
Pattern.
IX. The Authority Threshold
None of this happens without lawful authority.
To conduct such a review, investigators would need:
Proper warrants
Jurisdictional clarity
Defined scope of search
Credentialed forensic teams
Chain-of-custody protocols
Independent lab validation
Amateur excavation destroys cases.
Spectacle contaminates evidence.
If accountability is the goal…discipline is non-negotiable.
X. What Is Realistic…And What Isn’t
Let’s stay grounded.
More likely to persist:
Stratigraphic disturbance
Compaction anomalies
Structural modification evidence
Documentary corroboration
Skeletal remains if present
Less likely:
Exposed biological fluids outdoors
Surface trace in heavily cleaned areas
Cold does not mean erased.
But it does mean expectations must be professional.
XI. The Psychological Barrier
Here is the uncomfortable truth:
In cases tied to powerful networks, the greatest obstacle is rarely physics.
It is will.
Forensic capacity exists.
Technology exists.
Satellite archives exist.
Contractor records exist.
Soil science exists.
The question is not whether a professional examination could reveal meaningful findings.
The question is whether institutions choose to engage that machinery.
That is a political decision, not a scientific one.
XII. What Accountability Would Actually Look Like
If a serious re-examination were ever authorized, you would see:
A defined investigative mandate
Independent oversight
Sealed warrants
Quiet field teams
No media theatrics
Months of analysis
Forensic reports filed under oath
Not livestreams.
Not rumor loops.
Process.
Slow.
Methodical.
Unemotional.
That’s how real cases move.
XIII. The Calm Bottom Line
Time does not guarantee erasure.
Land does not reset itself politely.
Structures do not forget alterations.
Paper trails do not vaporize.
But evidence only matters when someone with authority decides to look.
And history shows something important:
In major cases, pressure builds slowly… then institutions move all at once.
Not because of frenzy.
Because threshold is reached.
Yesterday we asked:
Could evidence still exist?
Today we answer:
If a lawful, credentialed…fully authorized forensic review were ever conducted… it would not be symbolic.
It would be precise.
And…if anything of consequence ever occurred there…
Precision is what would find it.
#HoldFast
Back soon.
-Jack
Jack Hopkins
Bonus: The Curious Case of the Huffines Purchase-and Why It Warrants Attention
Let me be careful and precise here.
A property sale is not a crime.
A buyer is not automatically suspicious.
And “new owners” are not responsible for whatever happened…or didn’t happen…before they arrived.
But…in cases where a property has global notoriety, where the public interest is plainly legitimate…and where future accountability could depend on access… preservation…and documentation…how a purchase happened is not trivia.
It’s part of the chain.
And…the Huffines acquisition is one of those moves that deserves calm…structured attention…not internet hysteria.
Because the question isn’t, “Are they guilty of something?”
The question is simpler:
What did they buy, what did they know, what changed after they bought it, and what did the transaction effectively do to the evidentiary environment?
That’s a public-interest question.
1) When a Notorious Property Changes Hands, It’s Never “Just” Real Estate
When a normal ranch sells, it’s a private event.
When a property with decades of notoriety sells, the sale becomes…whether anyone likes it or not…an event with second-order consequences:
Access changes
Security changes
Maintenance patterns change
Structures get renovated
Ground gets regraded
Outbuildings get removed
Debris gets hauled
None of that proves anything. But all of it affects one thing that matters:
Preservation.
Not preservation as a museum idea. Preservation as in:
Do potential physical traces get destroyed unintentionally?
Do known anomalies get paved over?
Do archives and records get discarded?
Do contractors unknowingly erase context?
A sale is a pivot point.
It’s a “before” and “after.”
2) The Transaction Itself Can Be an Evidence Event
In serious forensic and investigative contexts, one of the first questions is:
What changed, and when did it change?
Property transfers generate:
Closing documents
Title records
Inspections
Disclosures
Appraisals
Insurance coverage changes
Renovation permits
Contractor bids
Security install records
Utility changes
That paperwork becomes a timestamped reality anchor.
Not because it reveals hidden crimes…but because it reveals:
What was standing at time of purchase
What was modified
What was removed
What areas were graded, filled, or rebuilt
Who was paid, and for what scope
In other words: if the ground and structures “remember,” this is part of the written memory.
3) Why Huffines Specifically Gets People’s Attention
When you have a high-profile property and a buyer with resources, people naturally ask:
Was the purchase opportunistic?
Was it meant to quiet attention?
Was it a “clean-up” move?
Was it a normal private sale that later got sucked into the storm?
None of those questions imply guilt.
But they do create a reasonable basis to watch for one specific thing:
Post-sale alteration velocity.
How fast did changes happen?
How extensive were they?
How much earth was moved?
How many structures were modified?
Because speed and scope matter.
Not morally.
Forensically.
4) The Big Forensic Risk: Well-Meaning Renovation
Here’s the uncomfortable reality:
Most “evidence destruction” in old cases isn’t done by villains.
It’s done by:
Contractors renovating floors
Landscapers regrading drainage
Crews demolishing sheds
Septic service teams replacing lines
Owners cleaning and repainting
Totally normal.
Totally legal.
Potentially devastating for later accountability.
So when a notorious property is acquired, the only truly responsible posture is:
Slow down, document, preserve context…until lawful authorities say otherwise.
That’s not an accusation.
That’s best practice.
5) The Core Public-Interest Questions That Matter
If someone wanted to treat this responsibly (again: without implying wrongdoing), the questions worth asking are:
Were any structures demolished after purchase? When? Under what permits?
Were any areas regraded, filled, or paved? When? With what contractors?
Was there any septic replacement or trench work?
Were any burn pits, trash pits, or dump features cleaned out?
Were any inspections done that documented anomalies?
Were any historic photos taken during purchase/transfer?
Were any security systems added that changed access patterns?
Those questions are about documentation.
Not accusation.
6) Why Paying Attention Matters
Because once land is altered, it’s altered.
Once context is removed, it can’t be perfectly reconstructed.
And in any future lawful re-examination…if one ever occurs…the most valuable thing will be:
A clean, timestamped record of what changed, and when.
So yes: it warrants attention.
Not as a conspiracy.
As stewardship.
If you care about accountability in the real world, you care about:
Chain of custody
Preservation
Documentation
Timelines
Physical context
A sale is a timeline hinge.
And the Huffines purchase…is exactly that: a hinge.
7) The Calm Bottom Line
I’m not asking readers to leap to conclusions.
I’m asking them to adopt the posture serious investigators adopt:
When a property with this level of notoriety changes hands…you watch the transition carefully…not because you’re looking for monsters under the bed…but because transitions are when evidence environments change.
And once changed, they rarely change back.
That’s why it warrants paying attention.
Quietly.
Methodically.
Without hysteria.
Just…with eyes open.
Sources / Further Reading
Department of Justice: DOJ publishes 3.5 million responsive pages (Epstein Files Transparency Act)
New York Magazine (2002): “Jeffrey Epstein: International Moneyman of Mystery”
Texas Tribune: Don Huffines’ family bought Epstein’s New Mexico ranch
The Guardian: Epstein ranch in New Mexico bought by family of ‘Trump Republican’ candidate
Oxford Academic (Forensic Sciences Research): Non-invasive approaches to detect clandestine burials
As a long time Texas voter for decades until recently, the Huffines name waves red flags from its connections to the Gov's personal agenda. If he's part of the Epstein Zorro coffer dam, that adds more weight to protection of a crime scene in my opinion.
Jack, thanks for an excellent analysis! I hope that the New Mexico State Police have already secured the former Epstein ranch! I find it interesting that the Orange Monster “exonerated himself” today! I wonder if the upcoming New Mexico investigation entered into Trump’s proclaimed innocence???