Skip to main content
Search
< All Topics
Print

Anna Hanks and the Epstein Records: Flight Log, Civil Discovery, and Redacted Emails

Updated
ByEpsteinWiki
Views22

The records directly name Anna Hanks in a 2002 flight log and a 2020 civil discovery request. A separate 2009 email chain concerns a redacted correspondent who signs as Anna and is described in reporting as a former Miss South Carolina USA 2003 titleholder. Public pageant records identify Anna Hanks as that titleholder, making the match significant. The released email pages do not show the correspondent’s full name, so they do not independently authenticate her identity.

Snapshot

Name in the flight record: Anna Hanks.

Name in the civil discovery request: “Anna Hanks (a/k/a Anna Hewitt).” This is the wording used in a party’s request, not a court finding about a legal name or identity.

Flight record: One leg dated October 21, 2002, listed as flight 1602, from TIST, St. Thomas, to PBI, Palm Beach, on Epstein aircraft N909JE.

Aircraft: The flight index identifies N909JE as a Gulfstream G1159B. The handwritten log itself records the aircraft registration and flight details.

Separate correspondence: DOJ released a fragmented, redacted May 2009 email exchange between Jeffrey Epstein and a correspondent who signs as Anna. FITSNews reports that earlier copies showed a footer identifying the correspondent as Miss South Carolina USA 2003. Public pageant records identify Anna Hanks as the 2003 titleholder. The full name remains redacted in the email records cited here.

Civil case: Juliette Bryant’s suit against the co executors of Epstein’s estate included a May 2020 request for documents relating to Teala Davies, Chauntae Davies, and Anna Hanks, also identified there as Anna Hewitt.

Central evidentiary limit: The flight entry documents a recorded passenger listing for one leg. The discovery request documents that records were sought. The redacted emails document a conversation with an unnamed correspondent, as described in reporting. These records do not establish criminal conduct or knowledge of Epstein’s crimes by Anna Hanks.

Key takeaway: The 2002 flight listing and 2020 discovery request name Anna Hanks directly. The 2009 emails appear consistent with the public record of Hanks’s pageant title, but the released email pages do not identify the sender by full name. That distinction must remain visible.

Evidence Appearances

The name appears in three separate documentary threads. They have different evidentiary status and should not be blended into one continuous narrative.

  • October 21, 2002 flight log: “ANNA HANKS” is written in the remarks for flight 1602 from TIST to PBI. The entry also includes the name “JULIETTE BRYANT” and initials.
  • May 2009 email records: Several DOJ files contain portions of messages between Epstein and a redacted correspondent who signs as Anna. FITSNews reports that a prior version of the released material carried a footer identifying the sender as Miss South Carolina USA 2003. The current records cited here do not show the sender’s full name.
  • May 2020 discovery request: Request for Production No. 51 in Juliette Bryant’s civil case asks for documents relating to “Anna Hanks (a/k/a Anna Hewitt),” along with Teala Davies and Chauntae Davies.

A name appearing in more than one record does not by itself establish that every record concerns the same event or relationship. In particular, the May 2009 email sender’s redacted identity should not be treated as conclusively established by the flight log or discovery request.

The October 21, 2002 Flight Log Entry

The handwritten pilot log filed as an exhibit in Giuffre v. Maxwell records flight 1602 on October 21, 2002. The entry identifies aircraft N909JE and the route TIST to PBI. The court filed version appears in Giuffre v. Maxwell, Document 21, Attachment 2, at PDF page 51. The corresponding handwritten log is also available as Government Exhibit 662 RR, EFTA02846460.

The remarks on the entry read “JE, SK, AM, ANNA HANKS, JULIETTE BRYANT.” The handwritten line gives the initials JE, SK, and AM rather than full names for those entries. Structured indexes interpret the initials as Jeffrey Epstein, Sarah Kellen, and Andrea Mitrovich. Those expansions are index identifications and should not be presented as full names written on that line.

The court filed copy and the official Maxwell exhibit use different PDF organization. The date, aircraft registration, flight number, and route provide the reliable way to match the entry across copies. The Epstein Flight Logs Explorer is a research index, not a second independent witness to the flight.

The leg is recorded from St. Thomas to Palm Beach. It does not state that the aircraft departed from Little Saint James, that Anna Hanks visited that property, or what happened at either airport or during the flight. It does not establish why she traveled, whether each listed person boarded, or what any listed person knew about Epstein’s criminal conduct.

The official Government Exhibit 662 RR evidence page explains the exhibit and its limitations. A handwritten pilot log is not a complete passenger manifest. A logged passenger entry is evidence of what the record lists, not proof of the purpose or circumstances of a trip.

The Redacted May 2009 Email Chain

The DOJ release contains multiple pages from an email exchange between Epstein and a correspondent whose name and email address are redacted in the released copies. The correspondent signs messages as Anna. FITSNews published a report on February 12, 2026 based on the DOJ files and stated that earlier versions of some pages included a footer identifying the correspondent as “Miss South Carolina USA 2003.” FITSNews also reported that later versions appeared with additional redactions and that the release was fragmented.

The report describes messages beginning on May 14, 2009. The correspondent wrote that she was in New York and had been thinking about Epstein. In subsequent messages, she described being married and living in Greenville, South Carolina, discussed her family, and sent photographs. Personal details about children are not repeated here because they are not needed to describe the evidentiary significance of the exchange.

In messages dated May 15, the correspondent asked Epstein whether he could connect her with Lapo Elkann. FITSNews reports that Epstein agreed to contact Elkann on her behalf. The same report describes Epstein asking whether she had a friend for him. The correspondent replied that she did not know of anyone available. These messages document what the participants wrote, as reproduced and summarized by the outlet. They do not establish that a friend was recruited, that a meeting occurred, or that the correspondent procured anyone for Epstein.

The report also describes a later message in which the correspondent said she had walked past Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse and seen “JE” outside. That statement does not establish that she entered the townhouse, saw its interior, or knew what occurred there.

The relevant DOJ evidence identifiers identified in the records and related reporting include EFTA02684365, EFTA00774957, EFTA00663803, EFTA02009231, EFTA01827285, EFTA01829321, EFTA00749648, EFTA02442503, and EFTA02442626. These are fragmented records and should be checked individually for page sequence, redactions, and duplication. The DOJ archive has removed and reissued some materials with different identifiers and redactions, according to FITSNews. A source link to one page does not establish that it contains the complete exchange.

What the Email Identity Evidence Supports

FITSNews describes the correspondent as a former Miss South Carolina USA titleholder and says earlier versions of the records showed the title “Miss South Carolina USA 2003.” The public Miss South Carolina USA title history lists Anna Hanks as the 2003 titleholder. The Miss USA 2003 cast listing also identifies Anna Hanks as Miss South Carolina USA.

The title match makes Anna Hanks a plausible identification for the redacted correspondent. It does not turn the released redacted email into a direct, unredacted identification. FITSNews does not name the correspondent in its article. The May 2020 discovery request supplies a separate documentary reference to “Anna Hanks (a/k/a Anna Hewitt),” but it does not identify the sender of the email chain.

FITSNews further reports that an attorney for the person the outlet contacted described the client as one of Epstein’s victims and asked the outlet not to make further contact. The outlet did not publish the person’s name. That reported statement must not be attributed to Anna Hanks as a fact because the outlet withheld the person’s identity. Nor should the redacted email chain be used to identify a survivor without an authenticated, public source.

Epstein’s June 2008 Florida conviction and sentence provide relevant context for the date of the emails. The Florida registry record lists his conviction date as June 30, 2008, for procuring a person under 18 for prostitution. The DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility report reviews the Florida prosecution and its aftermath. Epstein’s conviction does not establish what the correspondent knew in May 2009.

The May 2020 Civil Discovery Request

In Bryant v. Indyke, Document 27, Attachment 5 contains Juliette Bryant’s Request for Production No. 51. The request seeks documents relating to Teala Davies, Chauntae Davies, or “Anna Hanks (a/k/a Anna Hewitt).”

The co executors objected to the request on grounds including attorney client privilege, work product protection, relevance, proportionality, breadth, burden, and whether requested records were in their possession, custody, or control. These are litigation objections. They do not establish that responsive records existed, that records were produced, or that the requested people had any particular relationship with Epstein.

The same attachment contains Request No. 52, a separate, broader request for records concerning Epstein’s travel with or to meet Maxwell, Kellen, Groff, or other women. The separate request does not state that Anna Hanks was included in that travel request. Its proximity to Request No. 51 does not establish a role for her or connect her to each other named person.

The wording “a/k/a Anna Hewitt” is the requesting party’s identification. It is not a judicial ruling that the two names belong to one person. The document also does not explain why the request was made or what responsive records, if any, were obtained.

Names in the Records

The names below are included because they appear in the flight log, the court filing, or reporting about the redacted email records. Their inclusion does not imply misconduct or knowledge of Epstein’s crimes.

  • Anna Hanks: Written in the October 21, 2002 flight log remarks and named in Request No. 51.
  • Anna Hewitt: Described as an alternative name for Anna Hanks in Request No. 51. The filing does not adjudicate the identity.
  • Juliette Bryant: Written in the same flight log remarks as Anna Hanks and the plaintiff in the 2020 estate litigation.
  • Jeffrey Epstein: Identified by the initials JE in the handwritten flight log. His name appears in the related court and email records.
  • Sarah Kellen: The flight log uses the initials SK. A structured index expands the initials to Sarah Kellen. Request No. 52 separately names Kellen.
  • Andrea Mitrovich: The flight log uses the initials AM. A structured index expands the initials to Andrea Mitrovich. The handwritten entry itself gives initials.
  • Teala Davies: Named in Request No. 51.
  • Chauntae Davies: Named in Request No. 51.
  • Ghislaine Maxwell: Named as Maxwell in the separate Request No. 52.
  • Lesley Groff: Named as Groff in the separate Request No. 52.
  • Lapo Elkann: Named in FITSNews’s account of the redacted email exchange as the person the correspondent asked Epstein to contact. His name is not part of the flight log entry or Request No. 51.

Timeline

  • 2002: The handwritten pilot log lists Anna Hanks in the remarks for one October 21 flight leg from St. Thomas to Palm Beach.
  • 2003: Public pageant records identify Anna Hanks as Miss South Carolina USA 2003. The title is relevant because FITSNews reports that an earlier version of the May 2009 email record included that title in the correspondent’s footer.
  • June 30, 2008: Epstein pleaded guilty in Florida and was convicted of procuring a person under 18 for prostitution.
  • May 14 and 15, 2009: The redacted DOJ email chain described by FITSNews records correspondence between Epstein and a sender who signs as Anna.
  • May 7, 2020: Document 27 in Bryant v. Indyke was filed. Attachment 5 includes Request No. 51 naming Anna Hanks and Anna Hewitt.
  • February 12, 2026: FITSNews published its report on the redacted May 2009 email chain.

The timeline does not establish that the 2002 flight, 2009 emails, and 2020 discovery request describe one continuous relationship. The email sender’s identity remains redacted in the cited released pages.

What the Records Establish and What Remains Unknown

The original flight log records Anna Hanks by name for one flight leg on October 21, 2002. The name appears in a handwritten pilot log, with route and aircraft information.

A 2020 civil discovery request names “Anna Hanks (a/k/a Anna Hewitt)” as one of three people about whom the plaintiff sought documents. The estate’s objections do not prove whether the requested records existed or were produced.

The released 2009 emails show a redacted correspondent signing as Anna. FITSNews reports that earlier versions displayed the Miss South Carolina USA 2003 title and describes the content of the messages. Public pageant records identify Anna Hanks as that titleholder. Taken together, these facts support a plausible identity match. They do not provide an unredacted name in the email record itself.

The records reviewed here do not establish why Anna Hanks was on the 2002 flight, whether she traveled on other Epstein aircraft, what happened during the flight, or what she knew about Epstein’s crimes. The discovery request does not state that she was accused of wrongdoing. The redacted correspondence does not establish that the sender committed a crime or recruited anyone. The attorney’s reported statement about a client cannot be assigned to a named person whose identity the outlet withheld.

Key Takeaways

  • The handwritten log directly lists Anna Hanks on one recorded October 21, 2002 flight leg from St. Thomas to Palm Beach.
  • The 2020 discovery request names Anna Hanks and gives Anna Hewitt as an alternative name, but that wording is a litigant’s request rather than a court finding.
  • A redacted 2009 email correspondent signs as Anna. FITSNews reports that earlier records displayed the title Miss South Carolina USA 2003, and public pageant records identify Anna Hanks as that titleholder.
  • The pageant title match makes the connection plausible, but the released email pages cited here do not show the sender’s full name.
  • Neither the flight log, discovery request, nor email exchange establishes criminal conduct or knowledge of Epstein’s crimes by Anna Hanks.
  • A flight entry from St. Thomas to Palm Beach does not establish a visit to Little Saint James.

Questions Requiring Additional Evidence

  • Is there an authenticated, lawfully public copy of the 2009 email chain that identifies the sender by name?
  • Which DOJ identifiers contain the earliest and latest pages of the exchange, and which are duplicate or reissued copies?
  • Did the footer identifying the sender as Miss South Carolina USA 2003 appear in an earlier official release, and can that copy be preserved with its provenance?
  • What responsive records, if any, were produced after Request for Production No. 51?
  • Does another primary record independently corroborate the 2002 flight entry or identify the people represented by the initials JE, SK, and AM?
  • Are there additional records bearing the name Anna Hanks or Anna Hewitt in other document categories, including calendars, correspondence, travel records, or court filings?

Related EpsteinWiki Pages

Source List

Posted
ByEpsteinWiki
Tags:
Previous Andrea Sterling
Next Annie Farmer
Table of Contents