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.
Which prosecution witnesses described visitors to Little Saint James during the Maxwell trial?
Executive summary
Court testimony in Ghislaine Maxwell’s 2021–2022 federal trial included several prosecution witnesses who described travel to or events on Jeffrey Epstein’s Little Saint James island; prominent among them was Epstein’s longtime pilot, David Rodgers/Chan? (reported as Mr. Visoski in multiple pieces) whose testimony detailed flights and transfers to the island, and other witnesses and exhibits (flight logs, employees, victims’ statements) were also used to show who came and went [1] [2] [3]. Available sources repeatedly note that flight logs and multiple witnesses — including staff and accusers — were introduced at trial to document visitors to Little Saint James [3] [4] [5].
1. Courtroom testimony that directly described island visitors — pilots and crew
Prosecutors relied heavily on testimony from Epstein’s pilots and crew to map how guests reached Little Saint James. The Independent reported that the pilot (named in its coverage as Mr Visoski) testified about regular flights to the island, use of Epstein’s jets and helicopters and transfers through St. Thomas, and explicitly identified that passengers included powerful figures who traveled on those flights [1] [6]. Those aviation witnesses provided logistical detail the prosecution used to imply who was transported to Epstein’s properties, including Little Saint James [1] [2].
2. Victim and survivor testimony describing who they saw on the island
Prosecution exhibits and accusers’ statements were central to describing visitors. Reporting notes Virginia Giuffre and other accusers said they were taken to Little Saint James and described encounters there; prosecutors used their accounts — alongside other evidence — to portray Maxwell’s and Epstein’s pattern of inviting and hosting guests on the island [5] [7]. The government’s sentencing memo and court filings incorporated victims’ travel-to-island allegations in detailing events [7].
3. Flight logs, data and exhibits used to identify visitors
Beyond live witnesses, the prosecution introduced flight logs, bank records and other exhibits to show the movement of people to Epstein’s properties. Fact-checking pieces emphasize that “details of Epstein’s network came out at trial in numerous ways, through multiple witnesses and exhibits, including flight logs and bank records,” and that almost nothing was sealed — meaning lists of visitors were part of the public record the prosecution used [3] [8] [9]. Independent and Wired reporting later dug into data and location records that corroborate patterns of visits to Little Saint James [4] [5].
4. Staff and former employees who described island life and guests
News coverage cites testimony from former employees and attendants who described the regular presence of women and guests on the island, the transfer routines (boat, helicopter) from St. Thomas, and the island’s facilities; those witness accounts helped prosecutors depict the island as a venue where Epstein entertained visitors of various backgrounds [5] [1]. The Independent summarized staff descriptions — “always women” and routine ferrying of guests — used in trial reporting [5].
5. What the reporting does not uniformly provide — names vs. patterns
While reporting documents that pilots, staff, accusers and documentary exhibits were used to describe visitors [1] [5] [3], available sources here do not provide a single, complete list in-court of every named visitor or assert that the prosecution definitively identified specific celebrities or politicians as island guests at trial; many articles note flight-log releases and public data—but emphasize patterns and corroborating testimony rather than a courtroom roll call of famous names [3] [4]. Headline aggregates claim lists of “2,000 names” in unvetted reposts, but mainstream trial coverage stressed that the government relied on witnesses and exhibits to show travel and events rather than presenting an exhaustive celebrity guest list in open court [10] [3].
6. Conflicting narratives, misinformation risk, and why it matters
News organizations and fact-checkers warned of persistent misinformation after the trial: some online claims about sealed lists or deals protecting contacts were debunked, and outlets stressed that most exhibits were public and that the prosecution’s proofs came from multiple witness types and documents [3] [8] [9]. At the same time, data-leak investigations (e.g., the WIRED piece on Near Intelligence) later mapped device-tracked movements to the island, underlining how non-court sources can amplify or complicate claims about who visited [4]. Readers should therefore weigh courtroom witness types (pilots, staff, accusers) and documentary exhibits as the sources that prosecutors used, while being cautious about viral lists or assertions not tied to trial evidence [3] [4].
Limitations: reporting cited here confirms that pilots (Mr Visoski reported), staff, accusers and documentary evidence were prosecution sources for describing island visitors [1] [5] [3] [2], but the sources provided do not contain a single definitive, court-presented list naming every visitor or naming each famous person alleged to have been on Little Saint James [3] [4].