The aide told Epstein that he planned to hide them in tissue boxes at the house.
The emails were among millions of documents released by the US Department of Justice (DoJ) last month.
In an email on 5 February 2014, Epstein instructed the associate: "Let's get three motion detected hidden cameras, that record, thanks." (sic)
Five hours later, he received a reply: "Jeffrey, I already two purchased the Motion sensor camera from the Spy Store in fort Lauderdale yesterday, I charged them last night and figuring our (sic) how to work them as we speak … I'm installing them into Kleenex boxes now."
The Sky News Data & Forensics team has been reviewing more than a thousand fragmented videos released by the DoJ.
Many of them appear to have been filmed in Epstein's office at his Florida home.
One surveillance video we found shows a man, who appears to be Epstein, speaking to women in that room.
Another shows a woman kneeling next to him.
Sky News is unable to confirm when the footage on the office cameras was filmed.
We know from police documents that victims feared they were being secretly recorded.
These newly uncovered emails and images analysed by Sky News suggest that was indeed the case.
US attorney general accused of 'lacking empathy'
It comes after Donald Trump's attorney general Pam Bondi clashed repeatedly with critics during a lengthy committee hearing earlier this week.
On Wednesday, Ms Bondi gave her first sworn testimony since the release of the Epstein files, which at times descended into a shouting match with Democrats.
Epstein survivors later accused her of lacking empathy and humanity, while critics claimed that because not all documents have been released, and many have been heavily redacted, some powerful figures are still being protected.
Read more from Sky News:
FBI releases new details about suspect in disappearance of US TV host's mother
Donald Trump agrees to end ICE operation in Minnesota
Ms Bondi - who as head of the DoJ is ultimately in charge of the files' release - defended the way the process had been handled and said she was "deeply sorry for what any victim has been through, especially as a result of that monster".
However, the US attorney general refused to take personal responsibility for initial failures to hide the names of some victims in the files and said staff had done their best under pressure.
Without naming the part-owner, a statement insisting they "remain deeply committed" to "equality, diversity and inclusion" was effectively a public rebuke.
Remember, Sir Jim only owns just under 30% of the club, despite the investment gaining control of football operations two years ago and the INEOS billionaire becoming the face of decision-making.
The majority owners are still the six Glazer siblings, whose grandparents were Lithuanian Jewish immigrants to the United States.
We haven't heard from them directly, but the statement issued on the club website is as close as we can get to detecting their view of Sir Jim's complaint in a Sky News interview that "the UK has been colonised by immigrants".
United highlighted how Manchester is a city "anyone can call home", extolling how the club boasts a "diverse group of players, staff and global community of supporters".
Sir Jim's own apology statement made no mention of diversity and inclusion.
Only 20 words were spent apologising - "I am sorry that my choice of language has offended some people in the UK and Europe and caused concern" - another 90 words were used to reassert the need for curbs on immigration.
That is a concern shared by three leading parties - Reform, Labour and the Conservatives - but it is demonising immigrants, claiming they have colonised the country, that has proved so inflammatory.
We don't know if Manchester mayor Andy Burnham has accepted Sir Jim's apology - and how it impacts their work on the Old Trafford redevelopment project - but the day began with him denouncing "portraying those who come here as a hostile invading force".
Sir Jim could yet face an FA charge for bringing the game into disrepute as the governing body looks into his outburst and whether the language was discriminatory.
While the bulk of the interview focused on business and economic interests, Sir Jim did bring it back to his football role when expressing concerns about the levels of immigration.
"I've been very unpopular at Manchester United because we've made lots of changes," he said, adding: "You've got all the same issues with the country. If you really want to deal with the major issues of immigration."
Piara Powar, executive director of the FARE network, told Sky News that Sir Jim's language risks "escalating hate".
The leading football anti-racism activist told Sky News: "He's now using his platform as a co-owner of Manchester United to put that out there, and that's a very dangerous precedent.
"So if the FA don't look at it very seriously... that then leads us into a dangerous road with owners using the purchase of football clubs as a political platform."
And what about the fans, particularly those from diverse communities, who can fear discrimination still at matches?
Manchester United Muslim Supporters' Club chair Asif Mahmud is concerned about those threatening minority communities now feeling more empowered.
He asked: "Will comments like what Sir Jim has said give power and strength to those who feel we don't belong here?"
For Preetam Singh of the Stretford Sikhs fans' group, Sir Jim still has more work to do demonstrating any contrition.
He said: "It was a very half-hearted apology, more of a justification of what he said yesterday. So I would expect, and I would hope, he and the club would maybe come out and make a statement with a proper apology."
Read more from Sky News:
Parents speak as ex-nursery worker jailed for sex abuse
Brain chips reach 'tipping point', says leading scientist
Fans are still waiting. And this goes beyond reputational damage for Manchester United.
It is about how welcome players, wider staff and fans from all backgrounds feel at the club now, knowing the true views of a leader inside Old Trafford can seem so dehumanising.
The BNP's media unit said in a social media post that it had secured enough seats in parliament to govern on its own.
Final results have not yet been confirmed by the Election Commission, although several local media outlets have reported the party's win.
The BNP is headed by Tarique Rahman, its prime ministerial candidate, who returned to Bangladesh in December after 17 years in self-exile in London.
The 60-year-old is the son of former prime minister Khaleda Zia, who died in December.
The vote took place on Thursday amid tight security and concerns of democratic backsliding and rising political violence.
A clear outcome in the vote is widely seen as crucial for restoring political stability in the Muslim-majority country of 175 million people.
The bloody student-led revolt of July 2024, which the UN estimates resulted in the deaths of 1,400 people, led to the downfall of prime minister Sheikh Hasina, sending her to exile in India.
An interim government led by Muhammad Yunus, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, has been in place since Hasina's ousting.
This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.
Please refresh the page for the fullest version.
You can receive breaking news alerts on a smartphone or tablet via the Sky News app. You can also follow us on WhatsApp and subscribe to our YouTube channel to keep up with the latest news.
The FBI also shared new identifying details about a possible suspect seen in images and video the bureau previously released showing a masked individual on the porch of the 84-year-old's home in Tucson, Arizona, shortly before she went missing in the early hours of 1 February.
In a statement, FBI Phoenix described the person as "male, approximately 5ft 9in-5ft 10in tall, with an average build" and said he can be seen wearing "a black, 25-liter 'Ozark Trail Hiker Pack' backpack" in the footage shared by law enforcement.
Read more:
Nancy Guthrie: What we know so far
The FBI also said it is increasing its reward up to $100,000 (£73,400) for information leading to the location of Ms Guthrie, who police believe was taken against her will.
The reward, which was previously up to $50,000 (£36,700), also applies to information that leads to the arrest and conviction of anyone involved in her disappearance.
Over 13,000 tips from the public have been received since 1 February, according to the FBI.
Earlier this week, a man was detained for questioning in the investigation and released without charge, authorities said.
Speaking to reporters following his release, Carlos Palazuelos, who had been detained during a traffic stop, said he was innocent and did not know who Savannah Guthrie was.
Police said Nancy Guthrie has difficulty walking, has a pacemaker, and requires daily medication for a heart condition.
On Thursday, Savannah Guthrie, who co-hosts the Today show, posted on social media a home video montage of her mother with the caption: "Our lovely mom. We will never give up on her. Thank you for your prayers and hope".
Read more from Sky News:
Donald Trump agrees to end ICE operation in Minnesota
Katie Holmes pays tribute to Dawson's Creek co-star
The Guthrie family previously said they were willing to pay for their mother's return after an apparent ransom note asked for $6m (£4.4m) by last Monday.
The FBI said on Monday it was not aware of ongoing communication between Nancy Guthrie's family and the suspected kidnappers.
You can expect to hear multiple declarations from European leaders, including Sir Keir Starmer, about their respective plans to ramp up spending on defence and security at a major security conference in Munich over the next three days.
But the key indicator to track is evidence of the rhetoric becoming cold, hard fighting reality.
It is certainly what the United States will be looking for - a form of scrutiny that became clear at a separate meeting of defence ministers from the NATO alliance in Brussels on Thursday.
Elbridge Colby, the US under secretary of war policy - a deputy to Pete Hegseth who chose to miss the gathering in what some insiders saw as a signal of the US reducing the priority it places on its NATO membership, though others denied this was the case - delivered a striking speech to allies.
He said Europe must take the lead in defending itself, but - in words that will come as some relief to his counterparts - stressed that the US was not abandoning NATO.
"The world that shaped the habits, assumptions, and force posture of NATO during the so-called 'unipolar moment' following the Cold War no longer exists," Mr Colby said.
"Power politics has returned, and military force is again being employed at a large scale."
The Trump administration official said his message was about giving a reality check to his partners, about the need to turn a pledge made at a major NATO summit last year to increase total defence and security spending to 5% of GDP into viable military capability.
"For Europe, it means moving beyond inputs and intentions toward outputs and capabilities," Mr Colby said.
"Defence spending levels matter, and there is no substitute for it. But what matters at the end of the day is what those resources produce: ready forces, usable munitions, resilient logistics, and integrated command structures that work at scale under stress.
"It means prioritising war-fighting effectiveness over bureaucratic and regulatory stasis. It means making hard choices about force structure, readiness, stockpiles, and industrial capacity that reflect the realities of modern conflict rather than peacetime politics."
These words should be triggering alarm bells in London and other - in particular Western - European capitals that have for too long relied on spin over substance when it comes to talking about defence.
The spending pledge last year comprises a commitment to increase spending on core defence to 3.5% of GDP by 2035, up from a target of 2%, with an additional 1.5% of GDP to be spent on an ill-defined bucket of wider security measures.
Donald Trump applauded the move, which he rightly received credit for forcing through. However, the US president talks as though those levels of defence spending have already been met.
In reality, many allies are planning to take advantage of the full ten-year timespan to reach the target - including the UK, even though it is a leading member of the alliance and a key partner of the United States.
Mr Starmer's government is only planning to inch up core defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by next year, lift it to 3% by the next parliament, and only reach the full 5% by 2035.
Defence sources say this is far too slow given the scale of the challenge to rebuild the UK's armed forces as well as wider national resilience.
It is also, as Mr Colby said, not just about how much money a country spends but what the cash is spent on and whether input translates to credible military output.
Again, on that point, the UK is seen to be falling short.
Read more from Sky News:
Parents speak as ex-nursery worker jailed for sex abuse
Do latest AI resignations mean the world is in 'peril'?
A plan for defence investment - due to be published last year - is yet to be revealed amid reports of a £28bn hole in the budget over the next four years.
At a press conference following the NATO conference, I asked John Healey, the defence secretary, if the UK was failing to meet the moment.
He strongly pushed back on this suggestion. "The UK has always met its commitments to funding NATO," he said.
"The UK is putting more money into defence this year than it has done for 15 years - £270bn in this parliament alone. This is the largest increase since the end of the Cold War."
But given that defence spending across NATO was repeatedly cut following the collapse of the Soviet Union, this is perhaps not the best measure to judge whether what is being spent now is actually enough. And many believe that it is not.