Which individual depositions in the Giuffre v. Maxwell unsealing included direct testimony naming other figures and what did those testimonies say?
Executive summary
The unsealed Giuffre v. Maxwell discovery produced several individual depositions that directly named other public figures: Virginia (Roberts) Giuffre’s deposition named multiple alleged recipients of Epstein-trafficked sex (including Les Wexner, Tom Pritzker, Bill Richardson, Glenn Dubin and Marvin Minsky, and referred to an “unnamed prince” and other powerful men), Johanna Sjoberg’s deposition described contact by Prince Andrew and recounted encounters with public figures such as David Copperfield, and Ghislaine Maxwell’s deposition was questioned about directing sex with figures including Glenn Dubin; the records make allegations but do not equate names with criminal convictions and some named people have denied the claims [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. Virginia Giuffre’s deposition: named alleged recipients and redacted high‑profile labels
The deposition of Virginia Giuffre unsealed as part of the docket contains explicit allegations that she was trafficked to have sex with several powerful men, naming Les Wexner as “one of the powerful business executives” and listing Tom Pritzker, Bill Richardson, Glenn Dubin and the late Marvin Minsky among those she said she was directed to see; portions of her testimony also allege Maxwell directed her to have sex with an “unnamed prince,” the “owner of a large hotel chain,” and an additional name that remains redacted in the released pages [1] [2] [3].
2. Johanna Sjoberg’s deposition: firsthand recollection about Prince Andrew and social encounters
Johanna Sjoberg’s unsealed transcript includes direct testimony about an incident with Prince Andrew in which she said he touched her breast in a joking manner while photos were taken, and Sjoberg also recounted social encounters—such as dining with magician David Copperfield at Epstein’s home and being on flights connected to public figures—that place her squarely in Epstein’s social orbit without alleging criminal conduct by every named person [3] [6].
3. Ghislaine Maxwell’s deposition: questioned about instructing sex with named associates
Maxwell’s April 2016 videotaped deposition, partially unsealed, shows she was directly asked whether she instructed Giuffre to have sex with specific men, including Glenn Dubin; those questioning passages are part of the record that prosecutors and journalists have scrutinized and that helped fuel scrutiny of which associates were present in the Epstein network [7] [4].
4. Jeffrey Epstein’s deposition and other transcripts: invocation, context and limits
An unsealed excerpt of Epstein’s deposition is notable mainly for his frequent assertion of the Fifth Amendment in other contexts and for corroborating the existence of a wide social network; the release includes many names and flight/log references but does not uniformly show eyewitness testimony of sex acts by every named person and some portions remain redacted or ambiguous about whether contact was sexual or merely social [8] [3].
5. How to read the names: denials, settled suits, and the court’s framing
News coverage and the court itself caution that appearance in the discovery does not equal culpability—several named figures have publicly and vigorously denied allegations, some matters were litigated or settled (Prince Andrew later settled with Giuffre), and the Second Circuit and district court decisions emphasized public access while also recognizing the potential for misinterpretation when snippets are released out of context; courts ordered unsealing but the documents often reflect attorneys’ questions, hearsay, or redactions rather than definitive judicial findings [5] [9] [10].
6. The unresolved margins: redactions, unnamed placeholders and what the records do not prove
The unsealed set still contains redacted names and placeholders such as “unnamed prince” or “owner of a large hotel chain,” and reporting repeatedly highlights that the documents are discovery materials—statements, questions and allegations—so absent corroborating evidence or criminal charges in most cases the transcripts are best read as leads and testimonial claims rather than final adjudications; journalists and courts have warned about drawing far‑reaching conclusions from isolated lines in deposition transcripts [3] [9] [4].