Which high-profile people visited Little Saint James in 2018 and earlier?

1. What the public allegations and mainstream reports actually claim about who visited the island

Reporting across outlets identifies a small set of repeatedly named individuals who are alleged to have been on Little Saint James, notably Prince Andrew and Les Wexner; these names appear in multiple accounts describing visits prior to 2018 ^[1]. The broader narrative includes claims by victims or former associates alleging other prominent figures — for example, Virginia Giuffre’s assertion regarding Bill Clinton — but those contentions lack documentary confirmation in the sources provided and have been expressly denied by some named parties ^[1]. At the same time, press coverage documents appearances of public figures or scientists in photographs linked to Epstein’s properties, such as Stephen Hawking being pictured on the island, which is a different evidentiary category from contemporaneous travel logs or legal filings ^[1]. The reporting thus mixes confirmed contacts, photographic evidence, victim testimony, and denials; only a subset of names is repeatedly corroborated in the materials summarized here.

2. What investigators and prosecutors have documented about visitors through official channels

Official investigative materials and the U.S. Virgin Islands lawsuit against Epstein center on criminal patterns and trafficking allegations rather than exhaustive guest lists, and they document abuse on the island through victim testimony and operational details rather than naming a broad roster of celebrity visitors ^[2]. The civil suit filed by the USVI Attorney General alleges systematic recruitment and trafficking continuing “until 2018,” with descriptions of how Epstein paid for women to visit his estates; the filings emphasize institutional facilitation and financial structures rather than publishing a definitive list of high‑profile guests ^[2]. Prosecutors and civil plaintiffs use witness statements and travel/financial records when available, but the public record contained in these sources does not provide a comprehensive, court‑authenticated passenger manifest for Little Saint James ^[2]. Legal documents focus on victimization and enabling conduct, which is a different evidentiary emphasis than journalists’ efforts to compile names.

3. What the leaked cellphone-location data reporting added — and where it falls short

Investigative reporting based on leaked location data from a data broker revealed device pings that align with travel patterns to Epstein’s island and suggest that nearly 200 mobile devices visited or were proximate to Little Saint James in the years leading up to Epstein’s arrest; the WIRED investigation published in March 2024 mapped origins to 80 U.S. cities and multiple countries ^{[3] [4]}. This dataset provides strong circumstantial evidence that numerous wealthy and influential people passed through transit points connected to Epstein, but the data does not reliably translate device IDs into verified identities without supplemental corroboration; the data broker’s methods and accuracy have been questioned, and the company has faced controversy ^{[3] [4]}. As a result, the leaked mobility data raises legitimate privacy and investigatory concerns and suggests a broader pool of visitors, but it does not by itself establish the identities or intent of named high‑profile individuals.

4. Contradictions, denials, and limits in the public record about specific people

Several high‑profile names have been publicly discussed with varying degrees of confirmation: Prince Andrew is repeatedly reported as having visited Little Saint James, and Les Wexner is also described as having visited at least once in available reporting ^[1]. By contrast, claims that Bill Clinton visited the island rely on witness assertion without corroborating travel manifests in the provided sources, and Clinton has denied those particular allegations ^[1]. Other reports point to photos, plane logs listing passengers, or victims’ recollections that place individuals at Epstein‑associated locations but fall short of independently verified evidence tying them to the island itself ^{[5] [1]}. Divergent agendas — victim advocacy, criminal defense, privacy concerns around leaked data brokers, and media sensationalism — shape how names are amplified or downplayed in different accounts ^{[3] [1]}.

5. The investigatory and evidentiary context that matters for assessing claims

Credible verification of visitors requires triangulation across contemporaneous flight manifests, photographs timestamped and authenticated, witness testimony admitted in court, or other documentary proof; the materials summarized here show a mixture of those elements but lack a single, authoritative public ledger of island visitors ^{[2] [4] [6]}. Civil and criminal actions concentrate on victim narratives and enabling conduct, while leaked commercial location data provides novel leads but also raises legal and ethical questions about provenance and accuracy ^{[2] [3]}. Investigative journalists have used both victim statements and mobility datasets to produce lists or candidate names, but these outputs are probative rather than dispositive absent corroboration from independent, court‑grade evidence ^{[4] [6]}.

6. Bottom line: who is established, who remains alleged, and what next steps matter

From the sources provided, a small set of visitors — such as Prince Andrew and Les Wexner — are repeatedly mentioned as having been on Epstein’s island prior to 2018, while many other high‑profile names remain alleged or unverified in the public record ^[1]. Mobile‑phone location leaks broaden the suspect pool and provide investigatory leads but do not replace documentary proof tying specific individuals to Little Saint James ^{[3] [4]}. The credible path forward requires release and vetting of contemporaneous travel/financial records, authenticated imagery, and court‑admitted testimony; until such corroboration is public or adjudicated, claims about a long list of “high‑profile” visitors should be treated as varying in evidentiary strength, with some names substantiated by multiple sources and others resting on single or disputed accounts ^[2].