What new documents would be needed to conclusively prove whether anyone visited Little St. James?

1. A named Little St. James logbook or guest ledger, intact and authenticated

Prosecutors’ evidence indices explicitly list a “Little Saint James logbook,” and such a document would be the most direct contemporaneous record of named arrivals and departures if it contained dates and signatures and its custody could be verified ^{[1] [2]}. The evidentiary value depends on provenance and authentication: a contemporaneous island log, produced under forensic protocols, ties names to dates in a way that newspapers’ rosters or later compilations cannot ^[2].

2. Boat manifests and dock/harbor logs showing named transports to Epstein’s dock

The DOJ index referenced “multiple logs of boat trips to and from the island,” and the reporting notes that visitors were transported from St. Thomas marinas to Epstein’s dock—records that, if preserved and authenticated, would link specific people or vessels to island landings ^{[2] [3]}. Official marina or American Yacht Harbor records, captain’s logs, customs entries, and harbor surveillance with timestamps would provide corroborating movement data ^[3].

3. Flight manifests, private jet logs and helicopter records with passenger names and timestamps

Contemporary reporting documents Epstein’s routine use of private aircraft and helicopters to move guests from Cyril E. King Airport and beyond to the islands ^{[4] [3]}. Authenticated flight manifests, tail‑number logs, and aircrew statements that list passengers and transfer points would supply a chain of transport leading to island arrival, especially when paired with subsequent boat manifests ^{[4] [3]}.

4. Device‑level geolocation data with preserved provenance and forensic metadata

A data broker report exposed coordinates and inferred “common evening/daytime locations” for devices observed on the island, but those findings are inferences drawn from mobile ad‑tech feeds and require forensic validation ^{[3] [5]}. Conclusive proof would require device logs (cell carrier records or device backups) with signed affidavits from custodians, original timestamps, and demonstration that a particular device belonged to the named person at the relevant time—something third‑party ad exchange outputs alone cannot definitively establish ^{[3] [5]}.

5. Photographs, video, and surveillance footage with chain of custody and timestamps

House Oversight and law‑enforcement releases have yielded images of the properties, though not of people, and the FBI’s seized evidence list contains recording devices and storage media ^{[6] [1]}. To conclusively place a named person on the island requires contemporaneous photos or video that are authenticated—file metadata, original camera files, witness statements about when/where the media were taken, and forensic hashes to prove no tampering ^{[1] [6]}.

6. Communications, financial records, and eyewitness affidavits that cross‑corroborate presence

Payments for travel, stay, or services (credit card receipts, wire transfers, crew invoices), contemporaneous messages arranging travel, and sworn eyewitness affidavits from crew, employees, or other visitors can triangulate an individual’s presence when they match dock/flight/device timestamps; the DOJ evidence index lists travel logs and employee lists among seized items that could perform this role ^{[2] [1]}.

7. Independent official records or the absence thereof must be handled transparently

Official records can cut both ways: FOIA requests have produced no Secret Service evidence of certain alleged high‑profile visits, and local police reported having no records of visits to the properties—gaps that mean absence of records is not definitive proof of absence and must be treated as a limitation rather than disproof ^{[7] [4]}. Any conclusive claim must therefore present affirmative documentation, not rely on missing files.

Conclusion: what “conclusive proof” would look like

Conclusive proof requires multiple corroborating contemporaneous records that match on time and identity: an authenticated LSJ logbook entry or boat manifest naming the person, supported by authenticated flight/heli manifests or device geolocation with raw metadata, plus photo/video evidence and corroborating communications or financial records, all with preserved chain of custody as suggested by the DOJ evidence index and the types of media seized ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Inference from commercial geolocation datasets or post‑hoc lists is valuable for investigation but falls short of conclusive documentary proof unless tied to authenticated primary records ^{[3] [5]}.