What primary documents, videos, or eyewitness accounts support Katie Johnson's claims?

1. The actual court filing — a civil complaint that was filed then dropped

The core primary document repeatedly referenced is the anonymous civil complaint filed in June 2016 (and refiled in October 2016) by a plaintiff using the name Katie Johnson or “Jane Doe,” alleging assaults in 1994; that filing was later dismissed or withdrawn in November 2016, so it never reached trial or produced court findings on the merits ^{[1] [2]}. Reporting stresses the file exists as a court filing but emphasizes that the allegations it contains were never proven in court and that the case was dropped without a public explanation ^{[2] [3]}.

2. Media interviews and contemporaneous press mentions — partial, second‑hand firsthand accounts

Journalists reported that “Katie Johnson” — identified also as Jane Doe in filings — gave at least one interview to the Daily Mail in which she described the alleged events and said she later recognized Trump on television; news outlets note she was expected at a 2016 press conference but did not appear because her attorney said she’d received threats ^{[1] [3]}. These interviews and press conference plans are primary insofar as they record what the plaintiff said publicly, but they do not substitute for corroboration or court adjudication ^{[3] [1]}.

3. Attorneys’ statements and filings — procedural primary materials, not adjudication

Lawyers’ filings and public statements are part of the documentary trail: plaintiff counsel filed and later dismissed the complaint, and attorneys for Trump publicly denied the allegations (Alan Garten called them “categorically untrue”) ^[3]. These are primary source statements about process and position, but they reflect opposing legal postures rather than independent proof ^{[3] [2]}.

4. No trial testimony, conviction, or settlement records found in reporting

Multiple outlets and fact‑check discussions emphasize that there was no trial and no public settlement; the case was dropped and did not produce evidentiary findings—reporters explicitly note “the allegations were never proven or disproven in court” and that claims of a later settlement are false ^{[2] [3]}. Thus, there is no primary court judgment, settlement agreement, or trial transcript available in the supplied reporting ^[2].

5. What is and isn’t corroborating evidence in available sources

Available reporting documents the complaint, a Daily Mail interview, attorneys’ public statements, and procedural court activity (filing, refiling, dismissal) — those are the principal primary or near‑primary sources cited in the coverage ^{[1] [3] [2]}. However, reporting also highlights a “lack of evidence” beyond the filing and notes hoax suspicions and the absence of corroborating witnesses or forensic records in the public record ^{[4] [2]}.

6. How the story has resurfaced and why context matters

Coverage notes the name resurfaces whenever Epstein‑related documents are released or when social platforms amplify old filings; some opinionated threads frame renewed exposure as partisan or conspiratorial, while fact‑checkers caution that resurfacing filings do not equal verified proof ^{[2] [4]}. The reporting therefore separates the existence of an allegation from verification: the document exists, but it never produced court‑level resolution ^{[2] [4]}.

7. Limitations of available reporting and unanswered questions

Available sources do not include trial transcripts, police reports proving the events, verified eyewitness depositions, or a released settlement agreement; they explicitly say the allegations were not proven or disproven in court and that no payment evidence has emerged ^{[2] [3]}. If you are seeking videos, documented eyewitness depositions, or judicial findings that corroborate the claims beyond the civil complaint and contemporaneous interviews, those items are not found in the current reporting ^{[2] [1]}.

Summary takeaway: The principal primary materials supporting Katie Johnson’s public allegations are the 2016 complaint (filed and later dropped), a media interview attributed to the plaintiff, and lawyers’ public statements; these exist in the record cited by journalists, but the case never produced courtroom findings or other corroborating documentary proof in the sources reviewed ^{[1] [3] [2]}.