Bill Richardson and Jeffrey Epstein: The Arrangement Records

UpdatedSeptember 30, 2026

ByEpsteinWiki

Snapshot

Virginia Giuffre’s January 2016 testimony alleges that Epstein directed sexual encounters with Bill Richardson. She described more than two episodes, estimated her age at 17 or 18, and immediately qualified whether she could be certain she was underage
Her May 2016 testimony identifies Maxwell’s instruction to give Richardson a massage and New Mexico as the destination. Giuffre explained that massage meant sexual activity. She could not provide dates or remember where the instruction was given
The January 2011 helicopter planning and original flight log document a different category of evidence: transportation involving Richardson, Brian Condit, Epstein and other passengers. The log does not assign every passenger to every stop or establish sexual conduct
A September 2013 email proposes introducing a woman to Richardson at an Epstein meeting. A reply reports a plan to attend. A later, apparently related cancellation has redacted names, so the visible records do not conclusively connect every step or establish a completed introduction
Richardson denied Giuffre’s allegation and ever meeting her. His lawyers later presented additional denials. Prosecutors’ 2019 correspondence disputes the breadth of a public statement about his investigative status. The records checked here establish neither a judgment resolving the allegation nor a formal exoneration

Evidence comparison chart

Record	What it supports	What remains unestablished
January 2016 deposition	Giuffre’s repeated allegation and qualified age estimate	Exact dates, count and confirmed minor status for an episode
May 2016 deposition	Alleged sexual instruction and New Mexico destination	A particular room, dated trip, payment or independent witness
Morrison’s ranch testimony	A firsthand sighting of Richardson at Ranch Central	Knowledge of sexual conduct or the private dinner
January 2011 transport plan	Intended Necker to St. Thomas transfer	Sexual purpose or Richardson traveling every aircraft leg
May 2012 schedules	Richardson lunch and a women’s gathering for a restaurant tour	An introduction, participant ages or sexual activity
September 2013 introduction chain	An invitation and reported intention to attend	Completed introduction or definitive identity continuity with the later cancellation
September 2016 report	Epstein’s account of an evening with Richardson	A woman, massage or sexual arrangement connected to that evening
August 2019 prosecutor email	Correction of the claimed investigative status	A charging decision or finding on the alleged events
May 2021 counsel presentation	Detailed denials offered on Richardson’s behalf	Sworn Richardson testimony or a government clearance

Scope and identification

EpsteinWiki’s Bill Richardson profile provides the broader political and biographical record. This article follows the evidence about arrangements involving women and girls: who allegedly gave an instruction, whom it concerned, where someone was supposed to go, what travel or scheduling survives, and what participants and investigators said afterward.

The United States House biography identifies Richardson as the former New Mexico congressman, United Nations ambassador, energy secretary and governor. He died on September 1, 2023. A record naming only Bill is not enough to identify him. Nor can a reference to New Mexico, a political donation or a dinner invitation establish a sexual arrangement.

The central allegation is Virginia Giuffre’s account of being directed to have sexual contact with Richardson. Other sources concern a ranch visit, shared transportation, schedules, denials and prosecutors’ handling of the allegation. They have different evidentiary value. An allegation made under oath remains an allegation unless independently established; a travel record can corroborate travel without corroborating sexual conduct.

This review covers accessible records located and checked through October 1, 2026. It does not claim that every document in the release has been reviewed. Page numbers refer to PDF pages unless printed transcript pages are also specified. Publicly named witnesses are distinguished from redacted people, whose identities and private contact details are not reconstructed.

Giuffre’s January 2016 allegation and age qualification

Giuffre’s January 16, 2016 deposition, page 19, printed transcript page 18, names Bill Richardson in response to a question about people to whom she said she was sexually trafficked. Taken in Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell’s Florida defamation case against Alan Dershowitz, the transcript was later filed in Giuffre v. Maxwell. Asked about witnesses, Giuffre identified Epstein’s instruction and said there were no others. This was her allegation about her own experience.

The followup questions on page 21, printed transcript page 20, make two points that must remain together. Giuffre estimated more than two episodes and an age of approximately 17 or 18. When asked whether she was sure any occurred while she was underage, she said she could not be certain and was giving an approximation.

The passage supports a repeated allegation with an uncertain age range. It does not establish a particular date, a precise count or that every alleged episode involved a minor. The New Mexico and New York answer at the top of transcript page 18 continues questioning about another man. It cannot supply Richardson’s locations.

The May deposition identifies an instruction and a destination

The publicly unsealed May 3, 2016 exhibit, pages 9 and 10, printed transcript pages 200 and 201, records Giuffre confirming that Maxwell told her to give Richardson a massage. In the surrounding answers, Giuffre explained that massage was the term Epstein and Maxwell used for sexual activity. Reading the word as ordinary therapeutic work would remove the meaning she expressly assigned to it.

Asked when the instruction was given, Giuffre could not provide dates. Asked where she was when Maxwell spoke, she could not remember. She did identify New Mexico as the place to which she was sent and could not say where she had been sent from. The destination is part of her testimony; it is not an inference from Richardson’s political office.

The fuller transcript, pages 51 and 52, printed transcript pages 193 through 200, preserves her insistence that both Epstein and Maxwell directed her. Some names are redacted in that production. The public court exhibit supplies Richardson’s name without reconstructing a concealed identity.

The identified passage does not name a room or provide a Richardson specific flight, booking, payment or account of what was said afterward. It should not be expanded into a documented appointment at a particular building simply because Epstein owned Zorro Ranch.

The FBI disclosure and what can be independently checked

Giuffre’s answer about the FBI, page 72, printed transcript page 71, is explicit: she said she had given investigators Bill Richardson’s name. The preceding questions concern her recollection of a 2011 FBI meeting. That establishes what she testified she had reported. It does not, by itself, identify the precise date of the disclosure, the questions investigators asked or the action they took.

The 2011 interview report and the 2019 interview report contain redactions affecting names. The accessible copies checked here do not provide a visible Richardson passage that independently verifies the details of that disclosure. A redacted line is not a basis for inserting his name, and an inability to read a name is not proof that investigators never received it.

Sjoberg’s tentative dinner recollection and Ransome’s separate answer

Johanna Sjoberg’s May 18, 2016 deposition, compilation page 276, printed transcript page 110, contains a limited recollection about Richardson. Sjoberg thought he was expected for dinner when she was in New Mexico. She was unsure whether she met him and believed that he and Maxwell dined separately from her.

Her answer does not identify a sexual instruction, a massage or an encounter with Giuffre. Its uncertainty also matters: it should not become a definite claim that Sjoberg watched Richardson and Maxwell dine together. The transcript does not explain the basis of her belief.

Sarah Ransome’s February 17, 2017 deposition, compilation page 1324, printed transcript page 309, gives a different witness’s answer. In questioning about being lent to Epstein’s friends and associates for sex at his townhouse, she denied that Richardson was one of the people to whom she had been lent.

Ransome was answering about herself. Her denial is not Giuffre retracting her account and does not settle what Giuffre alleged. The two witnesses must remain distinct.

Maxwell’s defense disclosure and Epstein’s response under oath

Maxwell’s June 17, 2016 witness disclosure, compilation page 936, entry 58, lists Richardson as someone who might know about what her lawyers characterized as false claims against Maxwell and others. This is the defense’s description of a possible witness. It is not testimony by Richardson or a finding that Giuffre’s account was false.

Epstein’s September 9, 2016 deposition, compilation page 936, printed transcript page 217, records a direct question about whether he and Maxwell sent Giuffre to Richardson for sex. Epstein invoked the Fifth Amendment. He supplied no factual answer to that question. The question’s premise and his refusal to answer should not be rewritten as an admission that the alleged arrangement occurred.

Morrison’s ranch sighting and the limits of his knowledge

Larry Morrison’s October 6, 2009 deposition, pages 44 and 45, printed transcript pages 167 through 171, places Richardson at Ranch Central, the staff area of Zorro Ranch. Morrison recalled seeing him while someone was preparing to escort him to the main house for what Morrison understood to be dinner or a meeting. He recalled one encounter with Richardson and placed it before he stopped flying for Epstein in February 2007.

Morrison did not attend the dinner, identify the other guests or know what Richardson and Epstein discussed. Asked specifically whether he knew of Richardson being involved with girls brought to the house, he said he did not. He also acknowledged that his position away from the main house limited what he could know. This is firsthand evidence of a sighting, combined with an expressly limited account of the occasion.

The condensed transcript places four pages on each PDF sheet. Its nearby discussion of girls visiting Epstein belongs to different questions. It should not be read across the columns as testimony that girls were brought to Richardson. Morrison neither corroborated Giuffre’s alleged encounters nor established that they could not have occurred.

The January 2011 helicopter arrangement

The December 27, 2010 request, page 1, comes from Richardson’s scheduling official Janis Hartley and is forwarded by Lesley Groff. Hartley says Richardson and Epstein had spoken and Epstein agreed to fly Richardson and Brian Condit from Necker Island to St. Thomas on January 7. She asks whether the plan remains possible.

The December 28 continuation, page 1, specifies an 11 a.m. airport deadline. Epstein asks for Richardson to call and forwards the timing to his pilot. Groff’s January 2 followup, page 1, still asks whether the transfer has been approved and identifies helicopter N722JE.

The January 6 operational plan, page 1, separates the passengers’ proposed movements from the aircraft’s longer itinerary. The pilot plans to collect Epstein from Little St. James, clear British customs and reach Necker. Richardson and Condit are then to travel directly from Necker to St. Thomas, with the crew handling a separate customs stop beforehand.

The original January 7 flight log, House Oversight page 008162, lists JE, Governor Richardson, Brian Condit and three redacted passenger entries. It is a Shmitka Air operational sheet for N722JE with several stops and a single passenger list. It supports recorded shared travel but does not assign each passenger to each leg. Copying every name onto every stop would improperly turn the aircraft’s itinerary into each person’s itinerary.

CBS reported three fellow passengers were classified as alleged victims; Condit denied visiting Epstein’s island. The original log itself supplies no ages or victim classifications. It records no sexual purpose or conduct, and does not establish a connection to Giuffre’s earlier allegation.

The commission’s New Mexico flight tally

The New Mexico commission’s flight analysis, pages 62 and 63, counts Richardson on five flights within its Albuquerque and Santa Fe dataset. It warns that the logs may be incomplete or inaccurate and that additional evidence is needed to establish whether a passenger visited Zorro Ranch.

That number is the commission’s tally; the five underlying Richardson entries were not independently reconstructed for this article. The count should not become five verified ranch visits, five sexual encounters or evidence that Giuffre accompanied him. Neither a flight compilation nor the original helicopter sheet supplies the missing dates and circumstances of her alleged encounters.

The May 2012 lunch and the restaurant tour

The May 8, 2012 planning exchange, page 1, places a noon lunch with Richardson beside a proposed visit to Tim Zagat at the Google building. Lesley Groff asks whether a 1:30 arrival leaves enough time for both the lunch and a restaurant tour, explaining that Zagat wants Epstein and the girls to sample the restaurants. Epstein agrees to the timing, and Groff says she will confirm and ask the women.

The May 9 timing discussion, page 1, says Richardson is coming for lunch at noon and asks when the girls should gather at the house. Epstein chooses 12:30. One participant has school until that time and might leave early. Neither the word girls nor attendance at school establishes that any participant was a minor.

The fuller May 9 schedule, page 1, and the May 10 daily schedule, page 1, repeat the lunch, gathering and tour. The group was scheduled at the house half an hour after the lunch was due to start. The lunch location and end time are not explicitly stated, so an overlap remains an inference. The messages do not say Richardson requested an introduction.

The chain supplies a concrete stated purpose for the participants’ planned movements: the restaurant tour. It does not document sexual instructions, an introduction to Richardson, payments for sexual activity or a completed encounter with him.

The March 2013 lunch service request

Groff’s March 19, 2013 message, page 1, asks two recipients to arrive at 1 p.m. to serve a 1:30 lunch that includes Richardson. She attributes the request to Epstein. The acknowledgment chain, page 1, records one recipient acknowledging the request.

The context is serving a meal. The messages do not describe sexual service, give the recipients’ ages or record payment. That acknowledgment supports a plan to help with lunch; it does not independently establish that the lunch or any later interaction occurred.

The September 2013 proposal to introduce a woman

The September 23, 2013 email chain, page 1, contains an actual introduction proposal. A correspondent offers to join Epstein’s meetings the following afternoon as his assistant. Groff lists a 3 p.m. appointment with Governor Richardson and other appointments. Epstein replies that she can stop by to meet Bill Richardson at 3 if she wants.

The next morning’s reply, page 1, reports that she will come at 3 p.m. and quotes the invitation and schedule beneath it. The sender is redacted and speaks about her in the third person. This is a reported plan to attend rather than her own visible acceptance. The messages do not establish her age, employment terms, payment or a sexual purpose. They also do not show Richardson requesting the introduction or replying to it.

A later September 24 exchange, page 1, reports that a woman probably cannot reach the house until 3:30 and asks whether she should skip the visit. Epstein answers, “skip.” The quoted schedule still lists a 3 p.m. Richardson meeting with a redacted person sitting in.

The matching date, time and meeting make this an apparently related cancellation. The names in the later exchange are redacted, however, so the visible chain does not conclusively establish that it concerns the same woman. The responsible endpoint is a documented proposal and reported acceptance, followed by an apparently related instruction not to attend. No completed introduction or sexual encounter is established by these messages.

Epstein’s report of an evening with Richardson

Epstein’s September 20, 2016 email, page 1, reports to Kathy Ruemmler that he spent the evening with Bill Richardson discussing elephant conservation. The header uses the early hours of September 20, while Ruemmler’s reply, page 1, quotes it as a September 19 evening message.

This is Epstein’s contemporaneous report of completed contact, rather than only a scheduled appointment. Ruemmler responds about the conservation topic. Neither message identifies a woman introduced to Richardson, a massage or a sexual arrangement. The exchange supports continued social contact without resolving the separate allegations.

Richardson’s public denial

The Associated Press’s January 4, 2024 account reports that Richardson rejected Giuffre’s claims as fabricated and that his spokesperson had denied in 2019 that he ever met her. These denials directly address the allegation and must accompany it.

The denial does not depend on whether Richardson knew Epstein socially or visited a property. The disputed issue is whether the alleged sexual encounters occurred and were directed by Epstein or Maxwell. Evidence of political contact or shared travel cannot resolve that issue by itself.

What prosecutors actually said in August 2019

The August 18, 2019 call note, page 1, records a short conversation between a federal prosecutor and Jeffrey Brown, Richardson’s lawyer. It refers to the newly released testimony and discusses Richardson’s possible status as a witness, subject or target. The prosecutor recorded that the office did not then intend to subpoena or request an interview with him, while saying that an attorney’s account of his relevant knowledge would be useful.

Richardson’s August 21 public statement, pages 1 and 2, went further. It said Brown had been told Richardson was neither a target, subject nor witness, and presented Brown’s inference that prosecutors did not believe Richardson participated in or witnessed Epstein’s alleged criminal activity.

The prosecutor’s written correction, page 1, disputed that interpretation. The prosecutor accepted that no response was being sought from Richardson at that time, but said it was inaccurate to infer that he fell outside all three categories. The email distinguished a reasonable inference that he was not then considered a witness or target from a claim that he had no investigative status at all. It also said the office would likely answer questions about the broader claim by describing the investigation as ongoing.

This exchange records a disagreement about the meaning of a prosecutorial conversation. It does not announce a charge, establish Richardson’s guilt or certify his innocence. The decision not to seek an interview at that stage is not a factual adjudication of Giuffre’s account.

The May 2021 presentation by Richardson’s lawyers

The May 13, 2021 videoconference note, page 1, lists Richardson’s lawyers Steven Cozen, Stephen Miller and Barry Boss with federal prosecutors. It records counsel’s denials that Richardson attended Epstein or Maxwell parties, discussed massages with them, received massages from anyone connected to them, or met women through them. Counsel also denied travel on Epstein’s private airplane and described limited campaign contact.

The lawyers presented results from a privately arranged March 2021 polygraph concerning alleged intimate or sexual contact. The note reports favorable results as part of their presentation and records their request to describe Richardson as neither a subject nor a target and as someone prosecutors did not intend to call as a witness.

The document is a prosecutor’s summary of counsel’s presentation. It is not a transcript of Richardson testifying under oath, and the listed participants do not establish that he personally attended the call. The reported test results are material offered in support of his denial, not a judicial resolution of the allegation. No resulting government clearance is recorded on the page.

The New Mexico inquiry and the public legal status

The August 5, 2026 New Mexico interim report, page 76, summarizes a witness’s allegation of being trafficked to New Mexico for sex with Richardson. Its disclaimer on page 5 expressly says the allegations and information are not findings. The report therefore adds an official review and a source trail, rather than a verdict on Richardson.

New Mexico’s Department of Justice announcement, also dated August 5, describes a continuing criminal investigation of alleged crimes at Zorro Ranch and a lawsuit seeking additional federal records. The state says missing access impairs its ability to identify witnesses and corroborate evidence. Those are the state’s claims in an ongoing records dispute.

No public Epstein related criminal charge against Richardson or judgment resolving Giuffre’s allegation was identified in the sources checked for this article. Richardson died in 2023. The continuing inquiry into conduct at the ranch should not be presented as a prosecution of him or as a finding that he committed the alleged acts.

Ages, completion and the missing connection

The records leave several different questions open:

Giuffre estimated 17 or 18 and expressly qualified her certainty about being underage. Her wider history cannot establish an exact age for a particular Richardson episode
The three redacted passengers on the 2011 helicopter log have no ages stated on that sheet
The women in the 2012 tour planning and the correspondent in the 2013 introduction chain have no verified numerical ages in the cited emails. School attendance and the label girls do not resolve that question
A plan, an acknowledgment and an operational record establish different things. The 2013 attendance confirmation is not proof of arrival; the later cancellation is only apparently connected to the same woman
No reviewed contemporaneous message expressly arranges a Richardson sexual encounter, sets a sexual payment or reports an encounter’s sexual outcome. That is a limit of the located evidence, not proof that no such event occurred

Giuffre’s testimony remains the direct allegation of an arrangement for sex. Travel, calendars and social correspondence provide context and specific logistical facts, but the necessary connection between those records and her alleged encounters has not been established.

Chronology chart

Date of record or event	Arrangement, testimony or response	Evidentiary limit
Before February 2007, recalled in October 2009	Morrison sees Richardson at Ranch Central before an expected dinner or meeting	He does not attend or know of sexual conduct
December 27, 2010 through January 6, 2011	Staff and pilot coordinate a Necker to St. Thomas transfer	Proposed routing, not a sexual arrangement
January 7, 2011	Original helicopter sheet lists Richardson, Condit, JE and three redacted passengers	One passenger list covers several stops
May 8 through 10, 2012	Lunch and women’s restaurant tour are coordinated	Possible overlap, no documented sexual purpose
March 19, 2013	Groff requests help serving a Richardson lunch	Meal service planning and acknowledgments
September 23 and 24, 2013	Proposed introduction, attendance confirmation and apparently related cancellation	No confirmed completed introduction
January 16, 2016	Giuffre gives count, estimated age and FBI disclosure testimony	Uncertain dates and age qualification remain
May 3 and May 18, 2016	Giuffre identifies New Mexico; Sjoberg separately recalls a possible dinner	Different witnesses and different propositions
June 17 and September 9, 2016	Maxwell’s defense lists Richardson; Epstein later invokes the Fifth	Neither is Richardson’s account of an encounter
September 19, 2016	Epstein reports spending the evening with Richardson	Conservation discussion; no sexual details
February 17, 2017	Ransome denies being lent to Richardson herself	Does not resolve Giuffre’s separate allegation
August 2019	Lawyers and prosecutors discuss Richardson’s status	Public clearance language is disputed
May 13, 2021	Counsel presents further denials and polygraph material	Advocacy evidence, no adjudication
September 1, 2023	Richardson dies	Allegation remains unresolved in the located public record
August 5, 2026	New Mexico publishes an interim review	No final commission finding on Richardson

Key takeaways

Giuffre named Richardson in sworn testimony and attributed the alleged arrangements to Epstein and Maxwell
Her count and age were estimates. The explicit uncertainty about whether she was underage must remain visible
New Mexico is an identified destination in her testimony; an exact property, date and payment are not supplied by that passage
The original 2011 helicopter log must be read with its single passenger list and multiple stops, rather than as separate passenger manifests
The 2013 email proposal is a genuine introduction record. The later apparent cancellation and missing completion evidence materially limit its meaning
Richardson’s denials, other witnesses’ limited answers and prosecutors’ status discussion are part of the record. None independently adjudicates Giuffre’s allegation

Open questions

Can dated travel, appointments or another firsthand account independently establish the circumstances of any alleged Richardson encounter?
Can Giuffre’s age at each alleged episode be established without substituting her general abuse timeline for missing dates?
What accessible records clarify what investigators were told about Richardson in 2011 and what they did with that information?
Can further public correspondence establish whether the September 2013 attendance confirmation and cancellation concern the same woman, or whether an introduction later occurred?
Which underlying flight entries support the commission’s five flight tally, and what can their original passenger and routing information establish?
Will additional records from the New Mexico inquiry provide independent evidence of an arrangement, or clarify the limits of the existing accounts?

Chronological receipt index

October 6, 2009: Morrison deposition, pages 44 and 45, transcript pages 167 through 171. Ranch sighting and express limits of knowledge.
December 27, 2010: airport transfer request, page 1. Hartley asks about the agreed Necker to St. Thomas plan.
December 28, 2010: timing continuation, page 1. Airport deadline and Epstein’s forwarding to the pilot.
January 2, 2011: approval followup, page 1. Groff asks for confirmation and identifies N722JE.
January 6, 2011: pilot’s plan, page 1. Passenger transfer distinguished from other aircraft movements.
January 7, 2011: original helicopter sheet, House Oversight page 008162. Single passenger list and several stops.
March 17, 2011: redacted FBI interview record, 12 pages. Reviewed as background; no visible Richardson passage identified.
May 8, 2012: restaurant tour timing, page 1. Richardson lunch and Zagat tour discussed together.
May 9, 2012: gathering time chosen, page 1. Epstein selects 12:30 for the tour group.
May 9 and 10, 2012: schedules, page 1; the daily list, page 1, repeats the plans.
March 19, 2013: lunch service, page 1; one recipient’s acknowledgment, page 1, follows.
September 23, 2013: introduction proposed, page 1. Complete substantive chain includes the correspondent’s assistant offer.
September 24, 2013: attendance confirmation, pages 1 and 2. Reply quotes the introduction proposal.
September 24, 2013: apparently related cancellation, page 1. Later arrival request and skip response; identity continuity remains qualified.
January 16, 2016: Giuffre deposition, pages 19, 21 and 72, transcript pages 18, 20 and 71. Allegation, age qualification and reported FBI disclosure.
May 3, 2016: Giuffre deposition excerpt, pages 9 and 10, transcript pages 200 and 201; fuller context, pages 51 and 52.
May 18, 2016: Sjoberg deposition, compilation page 276, transcript page 110. Tentative dinner recollection.
June 17, 2016: Maxwell defense disclosure, compilation page 936, entry 58. Potential witness designation.
September 9, 2016: Epstein deposition, compilation page 936, transcript page 217. Fifth Amendment response.
September 19 and 20, 2016: evening report and reply, page 1; Ruemmler’s reply, page 1, preserves the local evening timestamp.
February 17, 2017: Ransome deposition, compilation page 1324, transcript page 309. Answer about her own experience.
August 18, 2019: prosecutor’s call note, page 1. Conversation with Richardson’s counsel.
August 21, 2019: public statement and internal discussion, pages 1 and 2; the prosecutor’s written correction, page 1, rejects the broader status inference.
September 9, 2019: redacted FBI interview record, 8 pages, drafted December 3. No visible Richardson passage identified in the checked copy.
May 13, 2021: counsel presentation, page 1. Denials and privately arranged polygraph material.
September 1, 2023: Richardson’s death, official House biographical record.
January 4, 2024: Associated Press account, reports Richardson’s denial and his spokesperson’s 2019 statement that he had never met Giuffre.
August 5, 2026: New Mexico interim report, pages 5, 62, 63 and 76. Disclaimer, attributed flight tally and allegation summary.
August 5, 2026: New Mexico records lawsuit, official announcement describing the continuing ranch investigation and request for federal records.

Sources

Tags:

Political Network