Which other high-profile figures visited Little Saint James and how were those visits documented?
Executive summary
Public reporting and released data show that many high‑profile people—politicians, business leaders, scientists, celebrities and a royal—appear in travel logs, leaked location data, court papers and media reconstructions tied to visits to Little Saint James (also called Epstein Island) [1] [2] [3]. Documentation ranges from flight logs and marina movement data to eyewitness testimony, employee recollections, civil‑case filings and curated lists; in many cases presence on or near the island is recorded but allegations of wrongdoing are separate and contested in the public record [2] [4] [5].
1. What names appear most often — and how reporting frames those appearances
News outlets and compilations frequently name figures such as Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew, Donald Trump, Jes Staley and a range of celebrities and scientists as having been connected to Epstein’s operations or island guest lists [6] [1] [3]. Coverage typically distinguishes between being recorded on a passenger/guest log or being photographed/seen on the island and being accused of criminal conduct; for example, Prince Andrew has been the subject of civil claims tied to the island that he denies, and those claims were resolved by a settlement that “accepted no liability,” a detail reported by the BBC [1]. Other outlets emphasize that appearance on lists does not, by itself, equal culpability [5].
2. Documentary sources investigators and journalists have used
Investigations rely on several discrete documentary streams: airline/flight logs for Epstein’s private planes (often cited as the “Lolita Express”), guest lists and deposition excerpts from litigation, civil complaints and victims’ testimony, and digital location data that tracked movements from hotels and marinas to the island [2] [5] [4]. Wired reported mapping visitors using coordinates and location‑data records from a broker that traced people from the Ritz‑Carlton to a specific dock used to reach Epstein’s property [2]. News organizations cross‑check these types of records with witness statements and court filings [5].
3. Eyewitness and employee testimony: what it adds and its limits
Former island employees and attendees have been sources for media reconstructions and documentary evidence—examples include Steve Skully’s statements identifying Prince Andrew and recollections of social events such as barbecues with visiting scientists like Stephen Hawking [3]. Employee testimony can supply context on who was seen on premises and on island routines, but such recollections are subject to dispute, memory limits, and legal challenge; reporting commonly notes those constraints [3].
4. Leaks, data brokers and modern tracking — a new evidentiary layer
In 2024 WIRED detailed how a data broker’s location coordinates produced a near‑continuous trace of visitors moving from St. Thomas sites to the island, revealing routes and timestamps that supplement flight logs and lists [2]. That kind of commercial location data has raised ethical and legal questions about precision and how the data was compiled, but journalists have used it to corroborate other records [2].
5. Public lists and aggregators — useful but not definitive
Websites and projects compiling “Epstein lists” aggregate names from disparate sources (flight manifests, court filings, media reports) and are helpful for mapping networks, but they often include disclaimers that presence on a log does not equal involvement in criminal acts [4] [5]. Newsweek and other outlets have warned that social media lists can spread unvetted claims, so mainstream reporting tends to differentiate documented travel entries from unproven allegations [5].
6. Disputed claims, denials, and legal resolutions to note
Several high‑profile individuals named in reporting have publicly denied wrongdoing or disputed being on the island; legal outcomes vary. The BBC noted Prince Andrew’s settlement with Virginia Giuffre and that the settlement “accepted no liability” while he denied the claims [1]. Reporting stresses that allegations in civil suits and mentions in logs require independent corroboration before criminal conclusions are drawn [1] [5].
7. What reporting does not settle — outstanding gaps and caution
Available sources show documentation of movement and appearances (flight logs, location data, eyewitness accounts, civil filings) but do not uniformly establish criminal conduct for all named visitors; that distinction is central in media accounts and in legal documents [2] [5] [3]. Some modern releases (videos, photo archives cited by some outlets) have been published since closures of earlier investigations, but available sources do not fully reconcile every name or explain every visit [7] [2].
8. Takeaway for readers
The public record documents that many well‑known people traveled to or were associated with Epstein’s properties; the strongest corroboration comes where multiple types of evidence — flight logs, location data, employee testimony and court papers — align [2] [5]. Where reporting simply repeats names from lists without supporting records, mainstream outlets urge caution; follow‑up reporting and official disclosures (flight manifests, unsealed files) remain the key sources for strengthening or refuting individual claims [5] [2].