Which high-profile individuals have been named in court filings or depositions regarding visits to Epstein's island?
Executive summary
Court filings, depositions and released documents have named or mentioned a range of high‑profile visitors in connection with Jeffrey Epstein’s properties; reporting and unsealed documents list figures including Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew and several celebrities and academics, while other named individuals appear in flight logs, depositions or witness testimony [1] [2] [3]. Congressional releases of island photos and related materials have renewed scrutiny but do not by themselves prove criminal conduct by every person whose name appears in records [4] [5].
1. Names that appear in court filings, depositions and unsealed documents
Court materials and unsealed files compiled and reported by major outlets list a range of public figures: former President Bill Clinton is named repeatedly in reporting and flight‑log related materials and was referenced in witness statements, Prince Andrew has long been linked in documents and reporting, and court records and reporting also cite celebrities and academics such as Kevin Spacey, Naomi Campbell, Chris Tucker, Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss among those listed as visitors or mentioned in files [1] [3] [2]. Time’s review of unsealed court documents specifically notes mentions of figures and that some depositions — for example a 2016 deposition of a witness, Johanna Sjoberg — reference “politicians and figureheads” in connection with Epstein’s activities [2].
2. What the records actually show — and what they do not
The presence of a name in flight logs, a security record, an email or a deposition does not equate to an allegation of criminal conduct in every instance; many media outlets and the court releases emphasize that being listed as a visitor or mentioned in documents is not the same as being accused of wrongdoing [2]. Some witnesses asserted visits by public figures; others — including Maxwell and Epstein in certain court filings — disputed claims that specific people had been on the island, and outlets note contested or redacted material throughout the disclosures [1] [2].
3. Flight logs, photos and congressional releases: new visibility, familiar limits
Recent House Oversight Committee releases of hundreds of island images and videos have increased public visibility into Little St. James but the images themselves contain no people and do not by themselves identify or incriminate visitors; committee releases are part of a larger document trove sourced from US Virgin Islands authorities and financial subpoenas, and the committee’s rollout has been criticized by opposing lawmakers as selective [4] [5]. Reporting around these releases highlights that investigators also obtained emails and bank records in related litigation, but the materials remain heavily redacted in many cases [6] [5].
4. Disputes and denials recorded in filings and reporting
Several high‑profile figures who have been named in documents or press reporting have publicly denied wrongdoing or disputed that they visited the island; some disputes are reflected directly in filings where Maxwell or Epstein’s teams contested particular assertions [1]. The Department of Justice memo referenced in broader reporting states it “found no credible evidence” that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals — a statutory and investigative conclusion cited in subsequent public debates over the files [6].
5. Reporting vs. legal conclusions: why both matter
Journalistic reconstructions (flight logs, witness accounts, subpoenaed emails) have been the primary public window into who may have visited Epstein properties; outlets such as Time, the BBC and others aggregated names from court documents and depositions but also cautioned that many mentions are descriptive, disputed or lack independent corroboration [2] [1]. Legal settlements — for example the US Virgin Islands’ settlement with Epstein’s estate — and civil litigation produced documents, but settlements and releases do not equate to criminal convictions of third parties named in the files [4].
6. Implicit agendas and the politics of release
Sources note that timing and selection of released materials have political consequences: Democrats on the House Oversight Committee framed the December photo and video dump as transparency tied to an ongoing investigation and public pressure, while critics argued the releases were partial and potentially timed for political effect as litigation and DOJ deadlines loom [4] [5]. Media stories vary in emphasis between catalogue‑style lists of names and cautionary notes about what the records actually prove [2].
Limitations: available sources used here are the compiled media and committee releases in the search results; they do not provide a single definitive, fully unredacted “visitor list.” Specific allegations, denials or legal outcomes for many individuals are described in reporting but not settled in the public record cited above [2] [1] [4].