Ritz Carlton St. Thomas
Snapshot
| Field | Documented information |
|---|---|
| Property | The Ritz-Carlton, St. Thomas |
| Public business address | 6900 Great Bay, St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands |
| Property type | Commercial oceanfront hotel and conference venue |
| Documented Epstein connections | Scientific meetings, group accommodation, guest reservations and payment administration |
| 2006 event | Confronting Gravity, March 16 to 21; contemporary reporting places its opening reception at the hotel |
| 2011 event | Mindshift; hotel planning dates January 7 to 11, with a January 7 schedule covering activities through January 10 |
| Mindshift client named in hotel papers | J. Epstein Virgin Islands Foundation, Inc. |
| 2014 reservation case | Three rooms arranged for Thorbjørn Jagland’s party, with check-in planned for April 15 and departure April 18 |
| Outcome of that St. Thomas plan | Cancelled; subsequent correspondence documents refund handling |
| Financial distinction | Preliminary quotations, deposits, paid reservations and refunds describe different stages |
| Ownership distinction | Booking or financing hotel services does not establish ownership of the resort |
| Separate property | Little Saint James, Epstein’s private island, had a different function and history |
| Last checked | October 8, 2026 |
The Ritz-Carlton, St. Thomas appears in Epstein’s records as a hotel used for conference planning and guest accommodation. Its significance lies in the practical infrastructure around his activities: room blocks, event arrangements, staff instructions, payment decisions and the movement of guests between commercial accommodation and other locations. The records identify a customer relationship with a functioning resort. They do not establish that Epstein owned it.
The 2014 Jagland booking correspondence also illustrates why a reservation must be followed to its conclusion. Epstein’s office arranged rooms and payments, but the St. Thomas visit was cancelled. The hotel later reported a credit-card refund and discussed returning the portion paid by check. An account that stops at the booking would leave the reader with a materially misleading impression.
Two conference histories require similar care. Confronting Gravity took place in 2006; Mindshift was a separate event in January 2011. Their hotel activities and island excursions should be distinguished, and neither an invitation nor a schedule establishes every participant’s actual movements.
Important Points
- The Ritz-Carlton was a commercial venue providing accommodation and event services. The documents examined here do not identify it as an Epstein-owned property.
- Contemporary reporting places the opening reception for Confronting Gravity at the hotel in March 2006. Academic records independently identify the workshop’s March 16 to 21 dates.
- Mindshift’s September 2010 hotel papers name the J. Epstein Virgin Islands Foundation as the proposed client. The surviving contract copy is unsigned and contains inconsistent figures and dates.
- A December 2010 participant information email centers Mindshift’s meetings on the Ritz-Carlton. A later January 7 schedule changes some activities and separately lists an island lunch.
- The early February 2014 quotation of $34,281.27 for three rooms covered an April 11 to 22 proposal. It is not the final bill for the shorter reservation subsequently arranged.
- March 2014 messages record three rooms, payment through Epstein’s card and a foundation check, and planned hotel dates of April 15 to 18.
- April 11 correspondence records cancellation of Jagland’s ticket and the St. Thomas portion of the family’s itinerary. Subsequent hotel messages corroborate cancellation and refund administration.
- The April 24 hotel accounting email reports a card refund and says that $3,152.70 paid by check would require a separate check refund. It does not establish when that second refund was received or cleared.
- Hotel employees, meeting organizers and conference guests are not implicated in criminal conduct merely because they provided services, attended an event or appeared in correspondence.
Evidence Appearances
| Record | Date or period | What it establishes | Important limit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confronting Gravity report | March 17, 2006 | Contemporary account of the opening reception at the Ritz-Carlton and foundation support | Does not track every participant or every session |
| Tanmay Vachaspati’s academic CV | Entry for March 16 to 21, 2006 | Workshop dates and his role as co-organizer | Academic event record, not a guest register |
| EFTA00724344 | September 30, 2010 | Proposed Mindshift group-sales terms naming the foundation as client | Unsigned copy with internal inconsistencies |
| EFTA00780122 | September and October 2010 chain | Contract circulation, requests for approval and Epstein’s instruction to wait | A pending decision, not proof of execution |
| EFTA00709064 | December 22, 2010 | Participant instructions identifying the hotel, meetings and planned island excursions | Advance itinerary later revised |
| EFTA01112185 | December 31, 2010 and January 4, 2011 | Hotel prepayment invoice and foundation check-detail entry | Estimated event charges, not a reconciled final bill |
| EFTA01779543 | January 7, 2011 | Later Mindshift schedule separating hotel sessions from an island lunch | Schedule rather than attendance certification |
| EFTA00374480 | February 18, 2014 | Ritz and Westin availability and prices for Jagland’s proposed trip | Initial quotation for an earlier date range |
| EFTA01933076 | March 11, 2014 | Epstein selects the Ritz ocean-view option | Selection instruction rather than completed stay |
| EFTA02112143 | March 11, 2014 | Card availability and Kahn’s question about foundation payment | A question does not establish final accounting treatment |
| EFTA01934030 | March 11, 2014 | De Jongh reports three reservations and split payment arrangements | Must be read with later cancellation records |
| EFTA00373181 | March 12, 2014 | Planned check-in April 15 and check-out April 18 | Reservation dates, not occupancy dates |
| EFTA00371551 | April 8, 2014 | Jagland raises payment; Epstein describes the trip as his treat | Intention before cancellation |
| EFTA02108994 | April 11, 2014 | Cancellation of Jagland’s ticket and removal of his wife’s St. Thomas leg | Other travel arrangements remained distinct |
| EFTA02108119 | April 11, 2014 chain | Internal explanation that the family’s island and St. Thomas portion was cancelled | Does not independently verify the remaining Florida stay |
| EFTA01928716 | March 21 and April 14, 2014 chain | Paid reservation, cancellation, credit proposal and refund approval | No complete bank settlement record |
| EFTA02106813 | April 24 and 25, 2014 | Hotel reports card refund and $3,152.70 check-paid portion to return | Actual receipt and clearing of the check refund unverified |
The Hotel and the Island Are Separate Locations
The hotel’s official property page identifies its address as 6900 Great Bay on the eastern side of St. Thomas. The same address appears in the 2010 group-sales papers and in the hotel accounting signature on the 2014 refund correspondence. Those independent contexts establish which Ritz-Carlton property the records concern.
Little Saint James was a separate island. The distinction is visible within the conference paperwork itself: a meeting at the hotel, transport away from it and a lunch on the island are separately scheduled activities. Treating the resort and the island as one location erases precisely the movements the records can help reconstruct.
The commercial hotel also differs from Epstein’s Red Hook financial and administrative premises. Staff working on an itinerary could correspond from an office, reserve rooms at the hotel and arrange an island excursion without any of those places sharing ownership or serving the same purpose.
A property’s evidentiary role therefore depends on the transaction. The Ritz records are useful for determining what services were requested, who coordinated them, how payment was proposed and whether the plans changed. They do not supply a general ownership history of Epstein’s Virgin Islands holdings.
Confronting Gravity in March 2006
Contemporary Source reporting on March 17, 2006 places the opening reception for Confronting Gravity at the Ritz-Carlton on the preceding Thursday. It identifies Stephen Hawking, Gerard ’t Hooft, David Gross and Frank Wilczek among those present and reports that Epstein’s Virgin Islands foundation helped finance the six-day meeting. This is a contemporaneous account of an actual event, rather than a later reconstruction based only on an invitation.
Co-organizer Tanmay Vachaspati’s Arizona State University CV gives March 16 to 21, 2006 as the workshop dates. The Dutch Research School of Theoretical Physics’ 2006 annual report, on printed page 87, independently records ’t Hooft’s March 20 lecture at the St. Thomas workshop. These academic records corroborate the meeting and its timing without functioning as hotel occupancy records.
Lawrence Krauss’s July 2006 Edge discussion describes organizing the small St. Thomas conference around fundamental physics and cosmology. Edge’s introduction separately describes a trip to Epstein’s nearby private island. The distinction supports a geographically precise account: the scientific meeting and an island visit were related activities, but the sources do not justify relocating the entire conference to Little Saint James.
The presence of distinguished scientists is relevant to the history of Epstein’s scientific patronage and the kind of event the hotel accommodated. It supplies no basis for alleging that a participant committed or knew about sexual offenses. A photograph or name in a conference account must be assessed for what it actually records.
Mindshift Planning in 2010
The September 30, 2010 group-sales document identifies Mindshift and names J. Epstein Virgin Islands Foundation, Inc. as the client. It gives January 7 to 11, 2011 as the program period and anticipates 32 attendees. Island Meetings & Incentives appears as the coordinating agency.
The room table proposes 16 ocean-view rooms for each of four nights at a base rate of $599. The document also addresses food and beverage service, reservations, deposits, room attrition and function space. These terms demonstrate the hotel’s proposed commercial role in accommodating a foundation-associated gathering.
The copy requires caution. Its prose refers to 48 room-nights, while its four-night table and later calculation use 64. Some payment deadlines fall in 2011 despite the 2010 planning process; the resort-fee figures also differ between a concession and a calculation. The signature section is uncompleted. It would therefore be inaccurate to present every printed term as a consistent, fully executed final agreement.
The accompanying October email chain reinforces that distinction. De Jongh summarized the proposed numbers for Darren Indyke and Epstein, including $45,114.88 for rooms and an initial deposit of $12,814.61. She asked whether the hotel contract could be signed. Epstein first requested the participant list and then told her to wait; she asked whether an extension was needed to retain the rooms.
Those messages establish active review and a decision still pending at that point. They do not prove that the deposit was paid on its proposed due date or that the unsigned copy was the contract ultimately accepted. Later event instructions provide stronger evidence of how the hotel was expected to be used, but they cannot retrospectively cure every inconsistency in the earlier document.
Later financial documentation in EFTA01112185 moves beyond the early unsigned proposal. The hotel’s December 31, 2010 invoice 601 lists $68,734.18 in estimated charges, $12,894.73 in deposits received and a remaining prepayment of $55,839.45. It separately itemizes room and tax, resort fees, estimated food and beverage service, and $8,800 for the Presidential Suite.
The accompanying foundation check-detail report records a January 4, 2011 payment entry of $55,839.45 to Island Meetings & Incentives, allocated to Mind Shift Conference hotel costs. In the attached December 31 email, de Jongh instructed that the check go to the meeting organizer, which would pay the Ritz. The organizer expressly said its own charges and fees were excluded from the invoice.
This is stronger payment evidence than the September offer, but it remains pre-event documentation. The invoice itself labels its charges estimated. The foundation ledger records the disbursement entry; it is not a bank statement independently proving clearance or a reconciled account of the conference’s final cost. The earlier $45,114.88 room estimate and the later $68,734.18 total also cover different categories and should not be added together as separate full payments.
The Mindshift Itineraries and Their Changes
Al Seckel’s December 22, 2010 information email directed participants to the Ritz-Carlton and said that the meetings and much of the surrounding activity would center there. It described an opening reception with Epstein on January 7 and distinguished invited conference participants from accompanying spouses and companions.
The email also described island excursions as separate activities. Its initial plan included visits to Little Saint James on Saturday and Monday. That advance schedule should not be treated as the last word on the program.
De Jongh’s January 7, 2011 schedule sets out a hotel reception and dinner that evening, followed by meetings in the hotel’s Presidential Suite on January 8, 9 and 10. It separately lists a Saturday boat transfer and lunch on Little Saint James. Monday’s program instead contains hotel meetings and lunch, followed by dinner elsewhere.
The change is substantive. Repeating the December itinerary alone would give the wrong impression of Monday’s final scheduled location. The January document is later and more specific, but remains a schedule: it establishes the intended program, not a signed attendance record for every session or excursion.
The record also distinguishes lodging dates from meeting dates. A hotel block ending January 11 can coexist with a schedule of activities through January 10. There is no need to manufacture a contradiction or a fourth day of conference sessions to reconcile them.
Taken together, the papers explain the resort’s practical importance: it supplied the proposed room block, reception setting and meeting space around which an event was organized. The foundation’s identification as client is evidence of the proposed financial arrangement, not proof of who ultimately bore every cost or how every charge was recorded.
Jagland’s Proposed Visit and the Initial Quote
Groff’s February 18, 2014 email, headed “Jagland to Island,” considered April 11 to 22. She reported three available Ritz rooms with king beds, ocean views and balconies. The quoted total, including tax and resort fee, was $11,427.09 per room and $34,281.27 for three rooms. A three-night deposit and cancellation conditions were noted.
The same message compared availability at the Westin on St. John and asked Epstein whether he wanted reservations made. This is a hotel-shopping stage in a changing trip plan. The three-room total cannot properly be treated as a completed payment, the value of an actual stay or the final amount for the shorter booking that followed.
The March 11 room-choice exchange reported that the Westin lacked availability for April 15 to 18. De Jongh gave Ritz resort-view and ocean-view options, plus a Sugar Bay alternative. Epstein chose the ocean-view Ritz rooms.
The March 12 confirmation exchange explicitly specifies arrival on April 15 and departure on April 18. It is the clearest cited record of the later reservation dates. The progression from February’s broad proposed visit to March’s three-night hotel plan is essential to interpreting both dates and amounts.
Who Arranged and Paid for the Rooms
De Jongh’s March 11 message reports that three reservations had been made. She said she had supplied Epstein’s credit card for two rooms and would deliver a JEVIF check for the third. She initially described one king room and two doubles; Epstein replied requesting two kings.
The parallel payment discussion involving Richard Kahn shows another layer of administration. De Jongh said corporate cards were unavailable following the closing of JPMorgan accounts. Kahn asked whether the booking was for the foundation and suggested that Epstein’s American Express card might provide better rates or benefits. His question should be preserved as a question, rather than recast as a determination that all charges were a foundation expense.
The March 21 exchange preserved in EFTA01928716 moves the evidence beyond a proposed payment method. De Jongh described the rooms as fully paid by card and check. A hotel employee supplied three confirmation numbers and specifically identified one reservation as paid in full, while describing the card as attached to the other two. The later refund correspondence supplies additional confirmation that payments had been processed.
Jagland’s April 8 message thanked Groff for the tickets and said he would discuss payment with Epstein. In the same chain, Epstein directed that the trip be described as his treat for the family and proposed a return flight on his aircraft. These are important statements of intention, but the cancellation records prevent treating the planned St. Thomas itinerary as completed.
Cancellation and Refunds
The April 11 exchange in EFTA02108994 records Jagland referring to the developing Ukraine crisis and asking about cancellation. The response says his ticket had been cancelled and that his wife’s itinerary remained except for the St. Thomas leg. The related internal message in EFTA02108119 likewise says the island and St. Thomas portion had been cancelled while describing a separate Florida plan for other family members.
De Jongh’s April 14 hotel correspondence independently confirms the cancellation. She explained that Jagland could not come because of negotiations concerning Ukraine and Putin and asked whether Epstein’s payment could become a credit for future guests. That explanation is her account in the message; it need not be expanded into an independent account of diplomatic events.
The hotel offered to retain the credit only until May 31, 2014, after which a refund would be necessary without another reservation. Epstein replied that a full refund was acceptable. These messages document a change in the use of funds, rather than evidence that unused rooms had secretly been occupied.
The April 24 accounting email, forwarded to Kahn on April 25, gives the most concrete outcome. The hotel’s accounting manager said a receipt for the credit-card refund was attached. She identified $3,152.70 as the amount originally paid by check and asked for the name and address needed to issue a check refund.
The distinction between the two refund channels matters. The email reports that the card refund had been processed sufficiently for a receipt to exist. It describes the check refund as still requiring arrangements. The attachment and a bank record showing the check clearing are not included in the cited three-page chain. Accordingly, neither an exact combined refunded total nor final receipt of every dollar should be invented.
These later records change the meaning of the earlier booking. They substantiate a real reservation and payment process while contradicting an inference that this particular St. Thomas stay occurred. The resort’s appearance in the archive is therefore an administrative fact with a documented cancellation, rather than proof of Jagland visiting the hotel or Little Saint James on those dates.
The Wider Jagland Investigation
Økokrim’s February 5, 2026 announcement opened an investigation into Jagland on suspicion of aggravated corruption and said it would examine whether gifts, travel and loans had been received in connection with his positions. That is a broader inquiry than this one cancelled hotel reservation.
September 10 reporting by Aftenposten and NTB stated that the investigation remained ongoing and that Jagland denied criminal guilt. It described his status as “siktet,” a formal status during Norwegian criminal investigation. An investigation or allegation is not a conviction.
The existence of that inquiry does not establish criminal wrongdoing by the Ritz-Carlton, its employees or every intermediary in the booking. Equally, the cancellation of this particular trip does not resolve every other issue in the investigation. Both conclusions require keeping the evidence within its actual scope.
Chronology
| Date | Event | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| March 16 to 21, 2006 | Confronting Gravity workshop in St. Thomas; opening reception at the Ritz-Carlton | Academic CV and contemporary Source reporting |
| September 30, 2010 | Mindshift group-sales papers prepared | EFTA00724344 |
| October 12 and 13, 2010 | Foundation staff seek approval; Epstein requests information and tells them to wait | EFTA00780122 |
| December 22, 2010 | Advance instructions identify hotel meetings and planned island excursions | EFTA00709064 |
| December 31, 2010 and January 4, 2011 | Hotel prepayment invoice and matching foundation payment entry | EFTA01112185 |
| January 7, 2011 | Later schedule issued, covering hotel activities through January 10 and a Saturday island lunch | EFTA01779543 |
| February 18, 2014 | Initial quote for Jagland’s proposed April 11 to 22 visit | EFTA00374480 |
| March 11, 2014 | Ritz ocean-view option chosen; three reservations and split payment arrangements reported | EFTA01933076; EFTA01934030 |
| March 12, 2014 | Planned hotel dates confirmed as April 15 to 18 | EFTA00373181 |
| March 21, 2014 | Payment and confirmation correspondence | EFTA01928716 |
| April 8, 2014 | Payment discussion and Epstein’s offer to treat the family | EFTA00371551 |
| April 11, 2014 | Jagland’s ticket and the St. Thomas portion cancelled | EFTA02108994; EFTA02108119 |
| April 14, 2014 | Hotel credit discussed; Epstein accepts full refund | EFTA01928716 |
| April 24 and 25, 2014 | Card refund reported; check refund arrangements requested and forwarded to Kahn | EFTA02106813 |
| February 5, 2026 | Økokrim announces a broader Jagland investigation | Official announcement |
| September 10, 2026 | Reporting confirms continuing investigation and denial of guilt | Aftenposten and NTB |
What the Records Establish and Leave Open
The strongest evidence identifies a commercial hotel providing or proposing services around Epstein-associated events and guests. Conference papers show venue planning; actual contemporary reporting supports the 2006 reception; booking and accounting correspondence reconstruct the 2014 cancellation. These are distinct kinds of evidence with different strengths.
- The cited papers do not establish Epstein’s ownership of the hotel or control of its management.
- The unsigned Mindshift agreement cannot establish every final contract term, the settled event cost or actual room occupancy.
- A schedule or invitation cannot prove that every named invitee attended every session or island activity.
- The Jagland records support cancellation of the April 2014 St. Thomas plan; they should not be used as evidence that the planned hotel stay happened.
- The refund chain does not independently establish receipt or clearing of the proposed check refund.
- The records reviewed here are a documented selection, not a claim to have examined every hotel reference in the released archive.
The resort’s historical importance is clearest when these distinctions are maintained. It was part of the accommodation and meeting infrastructure that Epstein’s office could arrange, and its business correspondence preserves both the plans and the occasions when those plans changed.
Related Articles
- Jeffrey Epstein
- Little Saint James
- 6100 Red Hook Quarter: Jeffrey Epstein’s St. Thomas Financial and Administrative Hub
- 358 El Brillo Way: Jeffrey Epstein’s Palm Beach Mansion
- Financial Trust / Southern Trust Records
Sources
- Ritz-Carlton official property page: hotel identity and public address.
- Source, March 17, 2006: contemporary opening-reception account.
- Tanmay Vachaspati’s Arizona State University CV: Confronting Gravity dates and co-organizing role.
- Dutch Research School of Theoretical Physics, Annual Report 2006: printed page 87, ’t Hooft’s workshop contribution.
- Lawrence Krauss’s Edge discussion, July 2006: participant account and separate island-excursion context.
- EFTA00724344: unsigned Mindshift group-sales papers. Original PDF mirror.
- EFTA00780122: Mindshift approval correspondence. Original PDF mirror.
- EFTA00709064: December participant instructions. Original PDF mirror.
- EFTA01112185: hotel invoice, foundation check-detail report and payment routing. Original PDF mirror.
- EFTA01779543: January 7 Mindshift schedule. Original PDF mirror.
- EFTA00374480: initial Jagland hotel quotation. Original PDF mirror.
- EFTA01933076: Ritz ocean-view selection. Original PDF mirror.
- EFTA02112143: card and foundation-payment discussion. Original PDF mirror.
- EFTA01934030: three-room reservation and split payment. Original PDF mirror.
- EFTA00373181: confirmation of planned hotel dates. Original PDF mirror.
- EFTA00371551: April 8 payment and travel discussion. Original PDF mirror.
- EFTA02108994: April 11 cancellation exchange. Original PDF mirror.
- EFTA02108119: internal confirmation of the cancelled St. Thomas and island portion. Original PDF mirror.
- EFTA01928716: payment, cancellation and proposed credit or refund. Original PDF mirror.
- EFTA02106813: reported card refund and proposed check refund. Original PDF mirror.
- Økokrim, February 5, 2026: official investigation announcement.
- Aftenposten and NTB, September 10, 2026: continuing inquiry and denial of criminal guilt.