Aside from prince Andrew, have any of the abuse survivors testify about other men who abused them
Executive summary
Survivors connected to Jeffrey Epstein have, in multiple public filings and testimony, alleged that he trafficked them to other powerful men beyond Prince Andrew, naming figures including former politicians and businessmen; those claims appear in court papers, news reports and reporting on the Maxwell trial [1] [2] [3]. At the same time, official notes—such as recent DOJ remarks highlighted by the BBC—have said they are not aware of other men identified in the files, and some key defenses and legal settlements complicate what assertions mean in court or criminal terms [4] [5] [6].
1. What survivors have specifically alleged about other men
Virginia Roberts Giuffre, the most prominent survivor to pursue litigation publicly, has asserted in filings and interviews that she was “lent out” by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell to multiple powerful men and has named, among others, former New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, former U.S. senator George Mitchell, lawyer Alan Dershowitz, French modeling scout Jean-Luc Brunel, and financier Glenn Dubin—allegations summarised in multiple outlets including CBC and OPB reporting on the settlement and discovery materials [1] [2].
2. Trial testimony and survivor accounts beyond Giuffre
The month-long Ghislaine Maxwell trial included testimony from four women describing abuse by Epstein over the period 1994–2004, and broader reporting and documentaries have woven survivors’ accounts that describe Maxwell’s alleged role in recruiting girls into Epstein’s orbit and in arranging encounters with other men [3] [7]. Media reports and declassified statements have also recorded other women making allegations that implicate additional men or describe patterns of multiple abusers, though reporting varies on names and corroboration [8] [7].
3. The DOJ’s position and limits of available files
Despite survivors’ statements and press calls for transparency, reporting on recently released or reviewed material shows the Department of Justice has told journalists it is not aware of other men identified as abusers in the files it has released—an absence that survivors and advocates have called “heart‑wrenching” and have urged the government to remedy by releasing all legally required documents [4]. That DOJ remark reflects what prosecutors have said publicly about their current holdings, but it does not negate the existence of the allegations made in civil suits, depositions and trial testimony [4] [3].
4. Legal outcomes, settlements and competing claims
Where civil settlements occurred—most notably Prince Andrew’s settlement with Giuffre—those resolutions included acknowledgements of harm in statements and donations but were not criminal findings and explicitly did not constitute admissions of criminal liability in prior Epstein or Maxwell settlements; reporting repeatedly notes settlements are legally distinct from criminal convictions and that Maxwell’s convictions related to trafficking were reached at trial [6] [5] [3]. Maxwell, for example, denies some recruitment allegations in certain filings and depositions, underscoring contested versions of events even as juries convicted her on multiple counts [5] [3].
5. Why the picture remains incomplete and contested
The public record assembled by news organisations and court documents shows survivors have named other men or described being trafficked to multiple powerful figures, but official prosecutorial statements and the legal status of settlements, denials by defendants and the piecemeal release of files mean there is not a single, undisputed catalog of additional abusers in the public record; reporting signals both the existence of multiple survivor allegations [1] [2] and the DOJ’s statement of limited identification in its files [4]. Sources provided do not exhaustively list every survivor’s testimony across all proceedings, and they leave open legitimate questions about which allegations have corroborating evidence, which remain civil claims, and which have been or could be pursued criminally [3] [9].