Are there passenger manifests or flight logs showing Prince Andrew trips to Little St James in 1999–2010?
Executive summary
Contemporaneous flight logs and passenger lists assembled from Jeffrey Epstein’s aircraft records and released in US court proceedings have been reported by multiple outlets as showing Prince Andrew on Epstein flights that went to or from Little St James, notably a February 9, 1999 trip and a May 12, 2000 flight; several news organizations say the logs together indicate the duke flew on Epstein’s jets at least four times [1] [2] [3] [4]. These materials are largely pilot-kept logs and court filings rather than a single, consolidated official civil aviation manifest covering 1999–2010, and reporting shows both confirmed entries and disputes about memory, context and what the records prove [3] [5] [2].
1. What the published flight logs and manifests actually show
Press reporting based on flight logs kept by Epstein’s pilots and filed in US court actions identifies Prince Andrew’s name on multiple Epstein flights, including an entry for a Gulfstream flight tied to Little St James on 9 February 1999 and a separate listing for a flight from Teterboro to Palm Beach on 12 May 2000; outlets summarized these entries as evidence he flew to or from Epstein’s private Caribbean island [2] [1] [6] [7].
2. Where the records came from and how they were released
The records cited by major outlets were not a single government passenger manifest but logs kept by Epstein’s pilots and produced in litigation — notably pages among nearly 2,000 documents released to a US court in a Virginia Roberts Giuffre filing and material later disclosed by investigators — and those pilot logs (for example those attributed to David Rodgers) have been repeatedly relied on by journalists to trace passenger names and routings [3] [5].
3. How many trips and which dates are reported
Multiple news reports summarize the pilot logs as listing Prince Andrew on at least four separate flights on Epstein’s jets, with the February 1999 trip and the May 2000 flight most commonly cited; some outlets portray the records as showing travel “to and from” Little St James, with the 1999 entry specifically linked to transfers via St Thomas and Epstein helicopter shuttles to the island [2] [4] [3].
4. Disputes, caveats and what the logs do not definitively prove
Even with named entries, the logs are subject to interpretation and limitation: they are handwritten pilot records and litigation exhibits rather than an unambiguous government passenger manifest, some pages have been redacted or later struck from public court files as “immaterial” in certain proceedings, and presence on a flight log does not alone establish what occurred on the island; reporting also documents that the prince’s aides have at times said he has “no recollection” of specific flights and that he denies the allegations connected to those trips [1] [3] [2].
5. Official acknowledgement and the public record
Prince Andrew has publicly acknowledged associations with Epstein and conceded he stayed at Epstein’s house in 2010 while denying sexual wrongdoing; press coverage and later document disclosures have repeatedly noted his name in flight-related records released by US courts and investigators, but there is no single unchallenged, government-issued manifest covering 1999–2010 made public that catalogues every trip in that interval [8] [9] [3].
Conclusion: direct answer
Yes — multiple media outlets reporting on flight logs and pilot-kept passenger lists produced in US court filings have identified Prince Andrew as a named passenger on Epstein flights that include journeys to or from Little St James in the 1999–2000 window (notably Feb. 9, 1999 and May 12, 2000), and reporters have summarized the material as showing at least four such flights; however, those findings rest on pilot logs and litigation exhibits rather than a single formal civil aviation passenger manifest spanning 1999–2010, and the logs’ interpretation, completeness and the factual inferences drawn from them remain contested in public reporting [2] [1] [3] [5] [4].