Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Who are the key names from Jeffrey Epstein's flight logs to his island?
Executive summary
The recently released flight logs tied to Jeffrey Epstein list many well‑known names who rode on his planes but do not, by themselves, prove wrongdoing; entries include figures such as Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, Prince Andrew, Ghislaine Maxwell and others according to published logs and reporting [1] [2] [3]. Available sources do not provide an authoritative, unambiguous list limited to “who went to Epstein’s island”; the logs show passengers and destinations but often use initials, shorthand or redactions and have been interpreted differently across outlets [4] [5] [6].
1. Flight logs: what they are and what they show
The documents now public are pilot logbooks and passenger manifests that chronicle flights on Epstein’s aircraft over years; they record dates, tail numbers (notably N908JE), departure/arrival codes and passenger names or initials, and were entered into evidence during legal proceedings such as the Maxwell trial [4] [5] [2]. LawAndCrime notes the logs contain detailed passenger lists and destination notes that were used as evidence at Ghislaine Maxwell’s trial, while the archived PDFs contain the raw entries that researchers have combed through [2] [4].
2. High‑profile names that appear repeatedly in reporting
Multiple mainstream outlets and document collections show recurring high‑profile names in the logs: Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, Prince Andrew and Ghislaine Maxwell appear in the released records or in earlier unsealed sets cited by press [1] [2] [3]. Reporting also points to other notable passengers such as Naomi Campbell, Kevin Spacey and Chris Tucker on specific flights referenced in the Palm Beach Post coverage, and the Independent and other outlets list figures tied to the broader Epstein files [1] [7].
3. Names that appear but require context — presence ≠ culpability
Journalists and officials emphasize that a name in a flight log does not equal participation in crimes: entries sometimes reflect brief rides, social calls, or staff — and pilots’ testimony acknowledged using generic labels (“one female”) when names weren’t provided, complicating straightforward attribution [2] [4]. The Daily Mail and other outlets explicitly caution that “a mere appearance in a flight log does not imply complicity,” underscoring the limits of what these records prove on their own [8].
4. Discrepancies, redactions and interpretive disputes
The released collections are partial and at times redacted; some documents from court cases were previously unsealed while later releases by government agencies filled in more material, producing overlapping but not identical datasets [6] [5]. Analysts have noted variations between earlier leaks and the comprehensive PDFs archived online, meaning lists assembled by different outlets can disagree or include names that others do not [4] [5].
5. Notable examples cited in trial reporting
Specific episodes cited at Maxwell’s trial bring sharper detail: LawAndCrime reported Prince Andrew’s appearance in the logs at least twice and cited entries noting meetings with Sarah Ferguson on the ground; the trial record also highlighted appearances by artist and public figures such as violinist Itzhak Perlman, per testimony about flights to events [2]. These trial‑linked references show how logs were used to corroborate witness testimony but do not on their own resolve contested allegations [2].
6. Public lists vs. documentary evidence — caution on listicles
Several outlets and aggregations have published “full lists” or headlines naming dozens of celebrities; some of those compilations (Scribd, Daily Mail, local summaries) draw from the same primary PDFs but may lack the surrounding legal context or notation about redactions and shorthand [9] [8]. Readers should treat such lists as starting points for verification in the underlying logs rather than definitive proof of activity at Little St. James or other properties [9] [8].
7. What the released logs do not answer
Available sources do not mention a single, uncontested roster of everyone who visited Epstein’s island; they also do not by themselves determine criminal conduct for the majority of listed passengers — many entries lack detail about whether travel included stops at private islands, how long individuals stayed, or the nature of their interactions [4] [5]. Court testimony and investigative reporting add context, but the logs remain one piece of a larger evidentiary puzzle [2].
Conclusion
The flight logs are an important primary source that confirm many prominent individuals rode Epstein’s planes, but interpreting those entries requires care: the logs often use initials or shorthand, have redactions or inconsistencies across releases, and do not on their own establish guilt. Readers should consult the underlying PDFs and trial exhibits for specifics and treat media lists as provisional summaries grounded in the cited documents [4] [5] [2].