Which witnesses have testified or recanted about seeing high-profile guests on Little Saint James, and how have their accounts changed?
Executive summary
Multiple accusers and former staff gave sworn statements and depositions alleging that Jeffrey Epstein hosted powerful guests on Little Saint James; those accounts name figures including Prince Andrew, Alan Dershowitz and — in at least one deposition — Bill Clinton, while defendants and allies have disputed or sought to limit those claims and some documentary checks have not corroborated every allegation [1] [2] [3]. Beyond named plaintiffs, airport and operational witnesses described seeing Epstein transport young women, but public releases and FOIA checks have left key details contested and some testimony shifting in emphasis over time [4] [5] [6].
1. Who the accusers said they saw and what they said under oath
Virginia Giuffre, a central accuser, testified in court filings that she encountered Prince Andrew and that he sexually abused her on Little Saint James, an allegation the prince has denied and later settled in civil litigation without admitting liability [1]. In other depositions that surfaced in the unsealed files, accusers and witnesses described “instant sexual entertainment” set‑ups on the island and explicitly named a range of high‑profile associates who socialized with Epstein, with at least one accuser saying Bill Clinton was among men aware of Epstein’s activities [2] [5]. Ghislaine Maxwell’s own testimony acknowledged that Clinton had flown on Epstein’s jet but did not establish how often Clinton visited Little Saint James specifically, and Maxwell’s lawyers disputed claims about certain travel dates [3].
2. High‑profile names, denials and legal maneuvers
Several prominent figures named in reporting and court documents have vigorously denied being on Little Saint James or denied knowledge of criminal activity; Prince Andrew “unequivocally” denied Giuffre’s account, Dershowitz has denied wrongdoing despite being named in some testimony, and Clinton’s spokespersons and later legal checks produced disputes over alleged island visits [1] [2] [3]. Media outlets and lawyers have pointed to the gulf between being named in social circles or on flight logs and being present at alleged crime scenes: being listed in documents does not itself prove misconduct, and some defendants have used travel‑record checks and FOIA requests to contest specific claims about island presence [5] [6].
3. Staff, operational witnesses and third‑party observers
Former employees, household staff and aviation personnel provided depositions and sworn statements that supply much of the island’s operational picture: court filings include testimony from house staff and security employees describing how Epstein moved people and ran the estate, while some air‑traffic controllers and airport workers reported seeing flights and passengers who appeared to be minors or young women arriving with Epstein [5] [4]. Those accounts have been used to corroborate that the island was regularly serviced and that visitors arrived via Epstein’s planes and boats, but they do not by themselves identify every guest or the activities that occurred once visitors were on the island [5] [4].
4. Recantations, contradictions and evidentiary limits in the public record
Publicly available reporting and unsealed files show contradictions and shifts in emphasis — for example, some depositions reference powerful men in ways that later reporting and records checks did not fully corroborate, and lawyers for named figures have disputed dates or the meaning of travel notations [3] [6]. The sources provided do not document formal, widely reported recantations by major accusers that withdraw prior claims of specific guests on Little Saint James; instead, what is visible is a mix of sworn statements, denials from those named, settlements that avoid admissions of liability, and FOIA or documentary checks that fail to confirm every asserted visit [2] [6]. Where assertions could not be corroborated by released documents, reporters and lawyers have highlighted both the limits of the paper trail and the difference between presence on Epstein’s plane versus presence on the island itself [3] [6].
5. Why the evolution of these accounts matters for accountability
The shifting contours of testimony — accusers naming prominent visitors, acquittals and denials from the accused, settlements without admissions, and incomplete corroboration from travel records — shape both public understanding and legal accountability, leaving many high‑profile allegations unresolved in the public record [2] [3] [6]. Investigative revelations from staff depositions and operational witnesses have helped establish a pattern of trafficking and abuse on Little Saint James, but the question of which specific high‑profile guests were present during criminal acts remains disputed and constrained by the limits of unsealed evidence and contested testimony [5] [2].