Who appears on flight logs, visitor logs, and phone records tied to Little Saint James?

1. What the released logs actually are — and what they aren’t

The Justice Department’s “first phase” release in February 2025 included flight logs, a redacted contact book and an “evidence list” that referenced an “LSJ logbook” (Little Saint James), while later releases and committee disclosures added more flight manifests, phone message logs and other materials ^{[1] [5] [2]}. The documents are primarily travel manifests, address/phone directories and seized evidence inventories; they are not court findings establishing guilt for every name that appears ^{[1] [6]}. Journalists and data firms have supplemented those records with location‑tracking data and mapping projects, but that adds inference rather than legal proof ^[3].

2. Who appears on the flight logs and contact books

Multiple mainstream reports list many high‑profile names appearing in flight manifests or Epstein’s contact directories: Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, Prince Andrew and entertainers such as Kevin Spacey and Naomi Campbell are among those long reported in flight logs and contact lists that have circulated in litigation and media reporting ^{[2] [4]}. News outlets and aggregated releases also include less famous names — masseuses, staff, business associates and acquaintances — underscoring that the directories mix household staff and social connections with prominent figures ^{[2] [7]}.

3. What data‑broker and investigative reconstructions show

Investigations by data firms and outlets such as WIRED used location‑data broker records to map device coordinates and infer movements to and from Little Saint James, producing thousands of coordinates and linking devices to as many as 166 inferred home or work locations for visitors ^[3]. Those reconstructions show a “regular flow” of traffic, and can pinpoint routes from marinas or airports to Epstein’s dock, but they rely on commercial location datasets and inference rather than subpoenaed manifests ^{[3] [8]}.

4. Limits of interpretation — names ≠ guilt

Multiple reporting threads and experts emphasize that appearing in a flight log, contact book or device‑location list does not equal participation in crimes. Released documents often predate criminal allegations or lack context about the purpose of a trip; several outlets note the materials in early batches were already publicly circulating and did not by themselves reveal new criminal conduct ^{[9] [7]}. Investigative journalists such as Julie K. Brown have warned that the idea of a neat “client list” is a red herring and that Epstein’s phone directories included everyone from gardeners to barbers as well as famous people ^[7].

5. Disputed and unanswered items in the record

Some specific allegations have been contested or remain unproven in the documents: for example, claims that Bill Clinton visited Little Saint James have been disputed by searches of Secret Service records and by interpretations of the flight logs ^[4]. The DOJ and later congressional releases included redactions and withheld material, and the public batches have been criticized as partial or repetitive of older releases, meaning gaps remain in the public record ^{[1] [10]}.

6. Why the public and investigators keep pressing for more

Pressure to release fuller files stems from the volume of evidence seized (the DOJ reported hundreds of gigabytes and thousands of pages across investigations) and longstanding public skepticism about whether all investigative material has been shared; Congress and litigants have since pushed for broader disclosure while officials have reserved the right to redact to protect victims and active probes ^{[11] [6] [10]}. Proponents argue fuller records could clarify who visited and in what context; critics warn raw lists will fuel speculation without prosecutorial conclusions ^{[10] [7]}.

7. Practical takeaway for readers

Available sources show flight logs, contact books and device‑tracking datasets name a mix of celebrities, politicians, business figures, staff and service providers connected to Little Saint James ^{[2] [3]}. However, the documents released so far are records of travel, contacts or inferred movements — not adjudications — and journalists and authorities caution against equating appearance on a list with culpability without corroborating evidence ^{[7] [1]}. For any particular name, consult the primary release (DOJ/committee archives or document collections cited in reporting) and look for corroborating investigative reporting or legal findings before drawing conclusions ^{[1] [12]}.