Ramsey Elkholy and Jeffrey Epstein: The Arrangement Records
Snapshot
- Elkholy’s October 2009 correspondence describes proposed introductions, a possible casting and an apartment offer alongside explicitly sexual descriptions of women. The stated ages in that exchange are 19 and 23. The messages record the men’s plans and representations, not the women’s consent to sexual contact
- A December 2010 follow-up goes beyond a proposed appointment. Elkholy described a meeting the previous night and reported that the woman afterward questioned Epstein’s intentions and the professional explanation. Her concerns reach the record through Elkholy’s account
- The original-date July 31, 2011 email asks Epstein to get a woman’s clothes off. A materially different version appears in a May 2014 message from Epstein’s address to itself. The versions must be distinguished before quoting or attributing the stronger later language
- The September 2014 office correspondence shows Elkholy agreeing to bring a woman, trying to bring another and receiving a last-minute change of venue. Other follow-up messages support some completed meetings; a schedule alone does not establish attendance
- The Brazilian business proposals link investment ideas to access to models and possible international travel. The proposed budgets are not evidence of money being transferred or of an agency or contest being acquired
- Elkholy’s March 2026 response to the BBC denied awareness of abuse and expressed regret. The accessible records reviewed through October 1, 2026 document repeated involvement in introductions and planning, but do not establish every proposed encounter, a payment for recruiting women or a judicial finding that Elkholy knowingly participated in Epstein’s abuse
Evidence comparison chart
| Record group | What it supports | What remains unproved |
|---|---|---|
| October 2009 introductions | Elkholy’s descriptions, approaches through other people, housing and casting proposals | Completion of every proposed introduction, occupancy or sexual encounter |
| December 2010 follow-up | A reported completed meeting and the woman’s questions as relayed by Elkholy | Her independent account, the entire conversation or a completed modeling job |
| July 2011 original-date email | An explicit request about removing a woman’s clothes | Completion of that request or authenticity of additions in a later version |
| September 2014 appointments | A time, expected companions and revised meeting location | Attendance by every expected person or a sexual purpose for the salon visit |
| October 2016 investment discussion | Detailed proposed budgets, access to models and travel possibilities | Funding, ownership, a completed contest or a completed trip |
| March 2018 approach | A plan to let Epstein request a woman’s number while Elkholy stepped away | Whether the maneuver occurred or what the woman agreed to |
What the correspondence establishes
Epstein’s August 10, 2009 message asked where Elkholy was now that Epstein was a free man. The later May 2011 chain records Elkholy saying that a woman knew nothing about Epstein having gone away. These are relevant to knowledge of Epstein’s absence and circumstances. They do not, by themselves, establish how much Elkholy knew about particular offenses or later abuse.
The federal prosecution announced in July 2019 alleged that Epstein sexually exploited minors. Its allegations should not be assigned automatically to every person in his correspondence. Elkholy’s record requires examination of his own words, actions and the responses to them.
The material here is more substantial than a contact-book entry. Elkholy repeatedly proposed women for Epstein to meet, discussed reasons they might accept an invitation, described their circumstances, coordinated with the office and sought professional or personal favors in return. Some messages express sexual objectives directly. Others concern ordinary modeling opportunities. Keeping both kinds of records visible makes the account more accurate.
The emails also contain repeated forwards and quoted chains. Ten copies of a message are not ten introductions. An attachment label does not prove that the pictured person traveled. A third party’s name in a proposal does not prove that person agreed to participate. Women whose identities are redacted remain unnamed here, and different accounts are not combined merely because they mention the same city, nationality or profession.
Housing and casting in October 2009
The October 18 through 22 chain describes several possible approaches. Elkholy discussed arranging contact through a woman and her boyfriend, giving the woman’s age as 19. He also described two other women as 23. For one, who was giving up her New York apartment, he suggested accommodation as a reason to remain available. For the other, whom he knew less well, he proposed a casting.
Epstein asked whether the woman needing accommodation wanted to stay in one of his apartments until Saturday. Elkholy replied that he was unsure how to present the offer unless she first said she needed somewhere to stay. This was a conditional approach to a housing problem, not a record that she accepted an apartment. The redactions also prevent safely assigning every pronoun in the multi-person discussion to a particular woman.
The October 24 and 25 follow-up reports that two women had met and that one now wanted to meet Epstein after hearing favorable things about him. Elkholy described her as a prospective gift following Epstein’s time away and sent images. He separately suggested a casting for another woman and discussed working around a boyfriend’s presence. The report of the women’s earlier meeting is Elkholy’s; neither woman supplies her own account in this chain.
The October 27 exchange adds professional contacts, a private-plane proposal and a housing deadline. Elkholy wanted a model seen by Elite and raised whether she could stay longer if accommodation were available. Epstein explained that he had asked “jean luc” about taking the woman on a private plane and that this particular request had nothing to do with modeling. That is Epstein reporting what he asked another man to do. It is not a flight log or confirmation of travel.
The October 28 reply supplies an outcome the earlier proposals lack: Elkholy said the woman would move in with a friend and withdrew the immediate request. He characterized introductions as favors within a reciprocal friendship and offered to arrange further meetings. The message supports his expressed expectation of reciprocal help, while the apartment proposal in that exchange was no longer needed.
Career opportunities and age-based selection
The November 3, 2009 agency discussion shows Elkholy seeking Epstein’s help after a model’s difficulties with her agency. Elkholy reported a forthcoming Elite appointment and asked whether Epstein could provide an additional push through Eddie Trump. Epstein offered help while acknowledging the limits of pressuring an agency to take someone. The chain does not prove that the suggested intervention happened or produced a contract.
The December 3 message is more revealing about how an invitation could be framed. Asked whether a woman was in New York, Elkholy said he needed a pitch and asked whether he could mention Limited Brands and Epstein’s connection to “Ed.” The email documents a contemplated professional inducement. It does not show an authorized casting call from Limited Brands or an undertaking by anyone at the company.
The January 12, 2010 roster review describes two clients as too young for what Elkholy had in mind, without stating their ages. He also ruled out a 19-year-old because of her religious outlook and proposed two college graduates in their early twenties, while repeatedly observing that they were around 23 or 24. These are Elkholy’s assessments of suitability. The unspecified younger clients cannot be declared minors from that adjective alone.
The September 2010 showroom request provides a useful distinction. Elkholy described a 26-year-old woman as a good showroom model and asked whether Vera Wang’s team could consider her. He said he had not previously thought of introducing her to Epstein. Epstein said he would call. The record supports an ordinary work-related referral request, without establishing the outcome. A professional favor in one chain should not erase sexual language in another, and sexual language elsewhere should not turn every work request into a sexual arrangement.
Travel proposals and adult referrals in 2010 and 2011
The June 13, 2010 chain concerns a Brazilian woman Elkholy described as 21. He said she was flying to New York and discussed arranging for her to see Epstein around her return flight. Epstein offered Elkholy a ride from Palm Beach to New York and back. Elkholy declined because he had his car and suggested asking the woman to extend her stay. A proposal to change travel is not a reissued ticket.
The fuller June correspondence records further discussion of an airline-ticket change. The amounts and responsibilities in it are addressed below. A December 2013 recollection separately refers to a Brazilian woman having seen Epstein in West Palm Beach a couple of years earlier. That is a reported visit in a different place. Similar descriptors do not establish the women’s identity or prove the June New York appointment occurred.
The July 3, 2010 email proposes an introduction to an 18-year-old Russian college student seeking opportunities. The January 6, 2011 message describes an 18-year-old Czech woman and includes attachment references. These are two distinct adult-age descriptions. Neither document alone proves an eventual meeting, trip or sexual encounter.
The January and February 2011 chain includes Elkholy proposing to bring two women staying at his place, described as Hungarian and American. Discussion of whom to invite is not confirmation that both attended. Their ages are not established in that passage.
A meeting followed by questions in December 2010
The December 17 and 18 chain moves from asking about a 9 p.m. visit to discussion of the previous night. Elkholy told Epstein that the woman had asked him in the car about Victoria’s Secret and Epstein’s intentions. He said he reassured her that Epstein was being friendly and thought Epstein should discuss her career. He also reported trouble with a man who had been left in the car.
Later that day, Elkholy said he was receiving no response from the woman. He thought a concrete meeting with someone at Victoria’s Secret would help establish the visit’s legitimacy and protect the possibility of representing her. Epstein replied briefly.
This is contemporaneous follow-up evidence that a meeting had occurred and that the professional explanation mattered afterward. The woman’s questions are relayed by the man who helped arrange the visit. The chain supplies neither an independent statement from her nor proof of a subsequent Victoria’s Secret appointment. It also does not describe a sexual assault at that meeting. Those limits should remain visible alongside the reported doubts.
A May 2011 visit and proposed visa help
The May 25 and 26 exchange begins with Elkholy proposing that Epstein see a woman he already knew from an earlier period. They discussed a time that evening. Before the proposed meeting, Elkholy said she did not know about Epstein having gone away.
The later messages are retrospective. Elkholy thanked Epstein for his time and said the woman was impressed. Epstein asked what came next. Elkholy proposed finding an agency that would sponsor a visa so she could remain, and Epstein requested her full name to pass onward.
The thanks support a completed visit more strongly than a calendar entry alone. The visa discussion remains prospective: no application, agency sponsorship agreement or immigration decision appears in this chain. Elkholy’s statement about what the woman knew is his representation to Epstein, not an independent finding about her knowledge.
Housing pressure and lingerie requests in summer 2011
The June 23 correspondence describes a woman staying with Elkholy. He said he was working on her and characterized her as relatively conservative, while suggesting she might accept lingerie modeling. That is his account of her outlook and possible agreement, not her own consent statement.
The July 4 and 5 exchange connects housing to the men’s discussion of her behavior. Elkholy complained that she missed her boyfriend and said he could not simply make her leave because she had objected when he did so before. Epstein recommended moving her into a model apartment and saying another woman was coming. Elkholy agreed. The record documents that advice; it does not establish that she was evicted or relocated.
The July 12 messages discuss finding a time for the woman to see Epstein. Elkholy wanted a lingerie show and complained about her resistance to professional shows. Epstein described her as too old and too idealistic without giving an age. A neighboring paragraph about a different woman cannot supply the missing age.
The July 21 email says the woman would be alone in New York for a week and needed money. Elkholy described telling her not to expect something for nothing. His July 24 account says she had been upset by Epstein, had lost money on her trip and needed cash. He portrayed lingerie posing as a step he was trying to encourage and claimed she would agree if Epstein asked. Her financial situation, feelings and willingness are all being described by Elkholy.
The July 26 New York evening exchange, dated early July 27 in UTC, records Elkholy asking whether Epstein was getting any benefit from the woman being alone. Epstein answered “zero.” Elkholy then suggested lingerie-related approaches involving fashion names and said he had prepared her. The messages support analysis of pressure and a proposed use of professional opportunities. They do not establish a concluded exchange of money for sex or that the woman accepted the men’s intended terms.
The July 31 email and its different 2014 version
The July 31, 2011 message attributed to Elkholy is present as a standalone released email, not only as a later quotation. It asks Epstein to “get this girls clothes off.” Epstein’s same-day reply quotes that wording, and Elkholy’s August 2 reply repeats the chain while discussing travel.
The May 20, 2014 message has Epstein’s email address in both the sender and recipient fields. Under the old quoted-message attribution to Elkholy, it instead says “just try her in bed” and includes other sexual and age-related additions absent from the original-date copies examined. The fact that the old attribution remains above the paragraph does not make those additions a verified verbatim Elkholy statement from 2011.
A separate May 20 forward preserves the earlier wording. Its top-level recipient is unclear in the released image, so it cannot safely be described as another message to Epstein himself.
| Record date | Visible correspondence | Textual significance |
|---|---|---|
| July 31, 2011 | Elkholy to Epstein | The direct original-date record uses the clothes-removal request |
| July 31 and August 2, 2011 | Epstein’s reply and Elkholy’s later reply | The quoted chain retains that wording |
| May 20, 2014 | Epstein forward; top-level recipient unclear | Preserves the original-date wording |
| May 20, 2014 | Epstein’s address to the same address | Carries a different sexual request and additional assertions |
The discrepancy is demonstrable from the PDF images. The records reviewed do not establish who physically changed the text, why, or whether another unexamined message explains it. Calling the later version an authenticated original quotation, or declaring a particular person proved to have forged it, would each exceed the available evidence.
The original-date wording is itself serious. Recognizing a documentary discrepancy does not remove the request Elkholy is recorded making. It does require precision about which words appear when, in whose message and with what evidentiary weight.
What a forwarded message from a woman actually says
Elkholy’s August 5, 2011 forward supplies a different kind of source: a woman’s own words as quoted inside an email he sent to Epstein. She expressed distress about her relationship, the lack of ordinary dating gestures and her impending return home. The context concerns her boyfriend. It is not a complaint that Epstein had failed to pay her.
Elkholy speculated that Epstein had influenced her thinking. Epstein’s response suggested replying that his earlier advice had been right and that she should have listened. Elkholy’s August 6 message then credited Jeffrey’s advice in the same chain. That copy’s recipient is redacted, so it does not independently establish everyone who received the reply.
The forward preserves an account of distress and shows the men discussing how to respond to it. It is still a quoted message within their correspondence rather than an independently authenticated interview. A reference to a 20-year-old in her email concerns someone else and must not become the writer’s age. The document does not describe a sexual encounter with Epstein.
Office appointments and a change of venue
The November 2013 chain shows Elkholy proposing to visit with two friends, changing plans because one was working and subsequently asking about sending one woman at a particular time. The scheduling is concrete, but the chain supplies no retrospective confirmation that both proposed visitors attended.
The September 8, 2014 scheduling correspondence has Elkholy agreeing to arrive at 4:30. Groff’s office update relays that time to Epstein. These messages were preparations. Epstein’s later note that evening, saying it was nice seeing Elkholy and asking about his friend coming the next day, adds retrospective support for a completed meeting with Elkholy.
The September 9 instructions then record Elkholy saying he would accompany the woman and try to bring another model, described as a Russian painter. The planned time moved from 4:30 to 4:45. The office’s final instruction redirected him and the women from the house to the Frédéric Fekkai salon, where Epstein was said to be waiting.
The message identifies a venue; it does not establish that Fekkai personally arranged the meeting or knew its purpose. Elkholy’s May 2015 reference to a painter Epstein had met at a salon supplies a later recollection, but neither document proves every person listed in the September plan attended.
Paris and the proposed use of David Blaine’s name
The January 24 through 26, 2014 correspondence shows Epstein asking Elkholy about women in Paris ahead of a planned trip. Elkholy discussed models’ locations and work schedules. Epstein said David Blaine would also be there and suggested a dinner.
Elkholy reported that mentioning Blaine had obtained a response. He proposed that Blaine contact the woman directly, mention knowing Elkholy and invite a group of four out. He wanted the gathering to begin at Epstein’s home so the women would understand Epstein’s position as host.
The correspondents are Epstein and Elkholy. Blaine is the subject of their plan. The chain does not include his agreement, an invitation from him to the women or evidence that the dinner occurred. The women’s ages are unstated.
Epstein’s separate January 24 message to Blaine anticipated seeing him in Paris. His January 29 message then said illness required delaying the trip. Another message that day said he had not left, and his January 30 reply to David Stern said he remained in New York. Blaine’s February 3 response indicated that he was no longer in Paris. None confirms a later rescheduled dinner.
Blaine’s spokesperson denied involvement.
Personal favors and sexual objectives
Elkholy’s May 16, 2015 message asked Epstein for help getting the attention of a painter to whom Elkholy was attracted. He said Epstein had met her at a beauty salon and suggested an art-world introduction or a visit to Epstein’s collection. This describes a proposed professional opportunity serving Elkholy’s personal pursuit. His reference supports a prior salon meeting with a painter, but does not identify every attendee or settle the date of that meeting.
The June 3 follow-up says Elkholy had attended an exhibition with the artist, whom he described as 30, but had become disillusioned with the prospect. The same email thread discusses a different woman and a test shoot; the separate age answers must not be combined. It records Elkholy’s assessment of his own pursuit, not the artist’s account or a completed sexual encounter.
The March 2016 request is explicitly reciprocal. Elkholy wanted Epstein to invite a woman over and facilitate an introduction to him because approaching her directly could affect his relationship with his former partner. He offered to reciprocate with time and effort, tentatively suggesting a European scouting trip for Epstein. The email documents an offer, not a completed scouting trip or evidence that the woman agreed.
Brazilian modeling businesses as proposed sources of access
The July 14, 2016 email makes Elkholy’s personal purpose explicit. He asked whether a Victoria’s Secret contact or photographer could provide a modeling-related reason for a Brazilian woman to come to New York, said the opportunity need not produce further work and stated his aim of getting her into his bed. The record demonstrates the requested pretext and his stated objective. It does not show the woman traveling, a photographer accepting or sex occurring.
The August 7 magazine proposal suggested jointly buying a Brazilian publication and sending cover castings through New York. Elkholy estimated 20 to 30 prospective cover models a month. The September 10 and 11 discussion then raised stakes in Joy or Way and a national modeling competition. He presented less experienced models as a reason the contest might interest Epstein. Those comparative descriptions do not establish participants’ ages.
The October 2 projections estimated a nine-month contest across 30 to 40 cities, with approximately 200,000 applicants narrowing through selection stages. Elkholy proposed access to participants and potential travel to the United States, Paris or the Caribbean. These were his forecast and pitch, not verified participation counts or passenger records.
The same chain discussed a possible Ford stake and obtaining financial information under a nondisclosure agreement. Epstein told Elkholy he could sign the agreement and get the figures. This does not mean Epstein signed an NDA, that one was executed or that an acquisition followed. The replies are dated October 2, the same date as the proposal.
The November 28 message proposed connecting Epstein with Joy’s owners and described a plan for Eastern European satellite agencies that could place models in New York and Paris. The sexualized benefit Elkholy privately suggested to Epstein cannot automatically be attributed to the agency owners or to every professional named in the chain.
The December 8 correspondence records Epstein advising against the proposed United States magazine investment and Elkholy discussing a cheaper Brazilian alternative in explicitly sexual terms. The January 19, 2017 follow-up says Elkholy had walked away from the United States transaction, while describing unresolved Brazilian negotiations.
The August 13, 2017 answer is more definite about the magazine: asked whether he bought it, Elkholy said no. Instead, he claimed he could pay a local publisher a few thousand to have a woman photographed. The preceding day’s message said he had sent a woman to Brazil for a magazine story. These are reported arrangements and a claimed payment practice. They are not receipts and do not show that Epstein supplied the money or that the publisher knew Elkholy’s private intentions.
Money and material support
| Record | Amount or support discussed | What the record establishes |
|---|---|---|
| June 15, 2010 | A replacement airline ticket, no price stated | Elkholy said he would buy another ticket because the existing one could not be changed; no purchase receipt |
| October 2, 2016 | About US$500,000 contest cost; proposed US$250,000 investor contribution; about US$1 million for a possible Ford interest | Preliminary estimates and proposed funding, not transfers |
| January 19, 2017 | Legal expenses and a possible reimbursement request | Discussion of recovering expenses from the counterparties; no reimbursement documented |
| August 13, 2017 | A few thousand to a publisher, currency unspecified | Elkholy’s claimed way of obtaining shoots after saying he had not bought the magazine |
The October 2009 favors message describes reciprocal assistance rather than a stated per-person fee. Other records contain proposed housing, introductions to business contacts and offers of personal help. Those benefits are relevant even when no cash changes hands, but their value cannot be calculated from the correspondence.
The January 2011 commission dispute concerns Elkholy’s representation of a model and another person’s claimed share of commissions. Epstein’s advice on a proposed termination message places him in the discussion. Neither record establishes that Epstein paid a recruitment commission to Elkholy. The accusations made in that private dispute are not findings about the woman or the other person.
No transfer from Epstein to Elkholy was established by the documents reviewed for this article. That is a limit of the evidence located, not proof that no payment or other benefit ever existed.
The discreet approach in March 2018
The March 1, 2018 email follows an agreement about Sunday. Elkholy suggested avoiding mention of another person and stepping away to the bathroom so Epstein could ask the woman for her number. He explained that she might be more open if she regarded the situation as discreet and did not feel self-conscious around him.
The March 6 reply develops the approach. Asked whether a woman was free that day, Elkholy said he did not know and suggested direct email or text contact. He reasoned that asking himself might make it seem arranged and that she could be more receptive if she did not see him as involved.
These are direct statements of an intended method for reducing a woman’s awareness of Elkholy’s intermediary role. They do not document whether the bathroom maneuver occurred, whether a number was exchanged or whether a later meeting took place. Redaction and the absence of numerical ages also prevent identifying this person with a woman from an earlier Czech-model reference.
Travel and visa questions continued in 2019
The January 25 and April 6, 2019 chain records Elkholy saying a woman would be in London and suggesting Epstein could bring her elsewhere. Epstein asked whether she preferred the United States or Paris.
In April, Elkholy asked about a Russian woman obtaining a United States visa and discussed the practical differences between applying in different places. Epstein’s further reply asked about her résumé or an application in Dubai. These are immigration and travel discussions close to the end of Epstein’s life. They contain no issued visa, passenger manifest, completed flight or demonstrated purpose for a sexual encounter.
The fact that January messages remain quoted in April does not by itself establish that every reference concerns the same woman. Neither names nor personal details need to be reconstructed to describe the proposed assistance.
Ages and the limits of identification
| People described in the record | Stated age information | Evidentiary limit |
|---|---|---|
| October 2009 discussions | 19 for one woman; 23 for two others | Adult ages as represented by Elkholy; redactions complicate pronoun matching |
| January 2010 roster | One 19-year-old; others around 23 or 24; two described only as young | The unnamed younger pair have no numerical ages |
| June 2010 Brazilian referral | 21 | An adult at the stated age |
| July 2010 student and January 2011 profile | 18 in each record | Two separate adult-age descriptions, not one person |
| Summer 2011 pressure sequence | No established numerical age for the principal woman in the cited original | Nearby ages concern other women; later altered assertions cannot settle her age |
| Paris, Brazil proposals and March 2018 | No numerical ages established in these passages | Model, girl, young and fresh face do not independently establish minority |
The cited records identify several adults and leave other ages unresolved. No specific introduction of a person proved to be under 18 is established here. That does not establish the ages of everyone Elkholy ever introduced, and adulthood does not rule out coercion or exploitation. Consent to modeling, accepting housing or meeting someone is not consent to sexual activity.
Reported experience and Elkholy’s responses
The Post couldn’t verify a woman’s WSJ-reported allegation of sexual exploitation by Epstein after Elkholy’s introduction. This press-reported account must remain separate from the unnamed women in the emails. The records discussed above do not justify identifying her with any of them.
Digital Music News’s February 2026 report reproduces an earlier response attributed to lawyer Bruce Rosen: Elkholy denied wrongdoing and awareness of exploitation, said he had not understood Epstein’s predatory behavior and regretted contact pursued while impressed by his connections. This is the publication’s account of the response.
The March 16, 2026 counsel letter disputed implications that Elkholy procured, recruited or facilitated sexual exploitation. His lawyers denied knowing participation in criminal or morally reprehensible conduct and asserted he had not been charged or implicated in the Epstein investigation. They demanded corrections and preservation of records for possible litigation. These are counsel’s advocacy assertions at that date, not a court’s findings or a filed lawsuit.
The BBC interview published March 28 records Elkholy regretting his language and association while denying knowledge that Epstein was abusing women. He said he was outside the inner circle and characterized their contact as ten to twelve meetings over ten years. He also said he had the woman’s permission to send the email discussed by the BBC and hoped an introduction of an 18-year-old would lead to modeling help. His permission claim is not independent evidence of consent to any sexual activity, and the interview does not resolve the different email versions.
Elkholy denied wrongdoing and payment.
Public legal status as of October 1 2026
The August 31, 2026 Congressional Record records Representative Thomas Massie naming Elkholy among people he urged to be investigated and prosecuted. Massie’s characterization is his own. A member’s floor statement is not an indictment, criminal complaint, finding of guilt or confirmation that prosecutors opened a case.
No Epstein-related charge or judicial finding against Elkholy was identified in the sources reviewed for this article as of October 1, 2026. That is a bounded review finding, not a guarantee about every jurisdiction or sealed matter. The published denials, correspondence and calls for investigation should each be described according to what they are.
Key takeaways
- Elkholy’s correspondence records active proposals and arrangements for introductions, including sexualized assessments, professional pitches and attempts to influence how women understood the encounters
- Some follow-ups support completed meetings. Others document cancellation, nonresponse, declined proposals or abandoned investment plans. A plan and its outcome need separate treatment
- Several women are expressly described as adults. Many others have no established age in the relevant passage. Ages and accounts should not be transferred across redactions
- The July 2011 request survives in an original-date email. Its materially different 2014 reproduction requires explicit source criticism
- Financial vulnerability and housing appear in the men’s discussions, but the reviewed records do not establish a recruitment payment from Epstein to Elkholy
- Named companies, photographers and celebrities are sometimes proposed as sources of credibility or opportunity. Being mentioned does not prove they participated or knew the men’s intentions
- Elkholy’s denials must accompany the evidence. Neither those denials nor association alone resolves what he knew or what occurred in every encounter
Open questions
- Which proposed meetings, casting visits, ticket changes and accommodation arrangements were completed, and what independent records document the outcomes?
- What did each woman understand about an invitation, and what was she told about Epstein’s background and the actual professional opportunity?
- Are there original mailbox records or other reliable copies that explain the differences between the July 2011 email and its May 2014 reproduction?
- Did any agency, magazine, contest or photographer act on the proposals, and what did the relevant professionals know about their purpose?
- Did money, commission income, travel costs or other material benefits pass between Elkholy and Epstein in connection with introductions?
- What additional firsthand accounts or adjudicated evidence, if any, bear on the men’s knowledge and on the women’s experiences?
These questions can be pursued without exposing protected identities or treating an unanswered question as a finding of wrongdoing.
Chronological receipt index
- August 10, 2009: Epstein contacts Elkholy after describing himself as free
- October 18 through 28, 2009: introductions, casting and housing are discussed; the later response withdraws the immediate housing request
- November 3 and December 3, 2009: agency help is sought; a later pitch raises Limited Brands
- January 12, 2010: Elkholy reviews possible company by age, religion and agency affiliation
- June 13 through 15, 2010: a woman described as 21 is discussed for a New York visit and replacement ticket
- July 3, 2010: an 18-year-old student is proposed for an introduction
- September 15 and 16, 2010: Elkholy seeks showroom work for a woman described as 26
- December 17 and 18, 2010: a reported visit is followed by questions about intentions and career help
- January 6 and February 5, 2011: a separate 18-year-old profile is sent; a later chain discusses bringing two women staying with Elkholy
- May 25 and 26, 2011: thanks after a visit lead to discussion of visa sponsorship
- June through July 2011: housing and lingerie are discussed; July 21 and July 24 messages emphasize money and isolation
- July 31, 2011: the original-date clothes-removal request is sent; subsequent replies retain its wording
- August 5 and 6, 2011: a woman’s relationship distress is forwarded; the men discuss a reply
- November and December 2013: friends’ visits are proposed; a later message recalls an earlier West Palm visit
- January 24 through 30, 2014: the Paris dinner strategy is proposed; Epstein subsequently says his trip is delayed
- May 20, 2014: a different reproduction of the July 2011 paragraph appears in a message from Epstein’s address to itself
- September 8 and 9, 2014: a retrospective meeting note precedes the next day’s salon redirection
- May and June 2015: Elkholy seeks art-world help for a personal pursuit; a later email describes an exhibition outing
- March and July 2016: reciprocal personal favors are proposed; the July message states a sexual aim for a modeling-related invitation
- August through December 2016: magazine and agency proposals progress to a quantified contest pitch
- January and August 2017: Elkholy reports abandoning one deal and denies buying the magazine
- March 1 and 6, 2018: an approach is discussed; the later message suggests avoiding an overt intermediary role
- January and April 2019: international travel and visa possibilities remain under discussion
- March 16, 2026: attorneys issue a denial and pre-litigation demand
- August 31, 2026: Massie calls for investigation and prosecution in a House-floor statement
Sources
- EFTA00738396: August 10, 2009, Epstein message about being free
- EFTA00771852: October 18 through 22, 2009, introductions, ages, casting and housing discussion
- EFTA00772061: October 24 and 25, 2009, reported intermediary meeting and proposed introductions
- EFTA01820943: October 24 through 27, 2009, agency contacts, proposed private-plane travel and accommodation
- EFTA00767872: October 28, 2009, housing request withdrawn and introductions characterized as favors
- EFTA00768118: November 3, 2009, agency difficulties and request for help with Elite
- EFTA00767322: December 3, 2009, proposed Limited Brands pitch
- EFTA00764757: January 12, 2010, ages and suitability discussed in a client roster
- EFTA00747505: June 13, 2010, woman described as 21 and proposed New York travel
- EFTA00747542: June 13, 2010, plane offer to Elkholy and proposed change to a woman’s return flight
- EFTA00735534: June 15, 2010, proposed June 17 appointment and promise to buy a replacement ticket
- EFTA00744124: July 3, 2010, proposed introduction to an 18-year-old student
- EFTA00756968: September 15 and 16, 2010, showroom-work request for a 26-year-old woman
- EFTA01830375: December 17 and 18, 2010, post-visit discussion of intentions and modeling help
- EFTA01155997: January 6, 2011, profile of an 18-year-old Czech woman
- EFTA00902140: January 7 and 8, 2011, Epstein’s advice on terminating a representation relationship
- EFTA01832212: January 10, 2011, representation-termination letter and commission dispute
- EFTA00904341: January and February 2011 chain, including a proposed visit with two women
- EFTA01788024: May 25 and 26, 2011, visit, subsequent thanks and possible visa sponsorship
- EFTA01863939: June 23, 2011, housing and Elkholy’s descriptions of possible lingerie modeling
- EFTA00914590: July 4 and 5, 2011, housing advice and response
- EFTA01860040: July 12, 2011, possible meeting times and requested lingerie show
- EFTA00916016: July 21, 2011, isolation, financial need and Elkholy’s reported persuasion
- EFTA00640433: July 24, 2011, Elkholy’s account of distress, money and possible lingerie posing
- EFTA00915467: July 26 New York evening and July 27 UTC, lingerie suggestions and Epstein’s reply
- EFTA00916323: July 31, 2011, direct email attributed to Elkholy with the clothes-removal request
- EFTA01858405: July 31, 2011, Epstein reply preserving the same wording
- EFTA02036953: August 2, 2011, Elkholy reply quoting the earlier chain
- EFTA01991493: August 5, 2011, a woman’s relationship message forwarded to Epstein
- EFTA00917076: August 5, 2011, Epstein’s advice about replying to the woman
- EFTA00917128: August 6, 2011, Elkholy reply in the relationship-discussion chain
- EFTA00670085: November 5 through 7, 2013, proposed visits and rescheduling
- EFTA00978058: December 1 New York time and December 2 UTC, recollection of a West Palm visit and further professional-introduction proposals
- EFTA01936481: January 24 through 26, 2014, Paris model dinner and proposed use of Blaine’s name
- EFTA01940250: January 24, 2014, Epstein anticipates seeing Blaine in Paris
- EFTA00982484: January 29, 2014, Epstein reports illness and postponement
- EFTA00982529: January 29, 2014, Epstein says he has not left
- EFTA00982039: January 30, 2014, Epstein says he remains in New York
- EFTA01792925: February 3, 2014, Blaine response about Paris
- EFTA01925875: May 20, 2014, forward preserving the 2011 wording with unclear top-level recipient
- EFTA00990313: May 20, 2014, different version in an Epstein-address-to-itself message
- EFTA00363175: September 8, 2014, office scheduling and Elkholy’s agreement
- EFTA02588653: September 8, 2014, Groff’s update of the planned appointment
- EFTA00996732: September 8, 2014, Epstein’s retrospective meeting note
- EFTA02096844: September 9, 2014, expected companions, revised time and salon redirection
- EFTA02361985: May 16, 2015, request for art-world help in a personal pursuit
- EFTA02369553: June 3, 2015, exhibition follow-up and separate test-shoot discussion
- EFTA02349540: March 2016, request for a personal introduction and offer of reciprocal scouting
- EFTA01784995: July 14, 2016, modeling-related invitation tied to Elkholy’s stated sexual objective
- EFTA00698203: August 7, 2016, magazine purchase and New York casting proposal
- EFTA00818528: September 10 and 11, 2016, Joy, Way and national-contest proposals
- EFTA00816365: October 2, 2016, contest budgets, proposed travel, agency investments and NDA discussion
- EFTA01741814: November 28, 2016, suggested agency-owner meeting and satellite agencies
- EFTA01059853: December 8, 2016, magazine investment discussion and advice against it
- EFTA01056249: January 19, 2017, abandoned United States transaction and reimbursement discussion
- EFTA00676962: August 12 and 13, 2017, reported Brazil story, no purchase and claimed publisher payments
- EFTA00870994: March 1, 2018, proposed discreet contact-number exchange
- EFTA00865688: March 6, 2018, direct-contact advice to avoid appearing as intermediary
- EFTA02634843: January 25 and April 6, 2019, international travel and visa questions
- EFTA01033484: April 6, 2019, further visa discussion
- United States Attorney’s Office announcement: July 8, 2019, federal charges against Epstein
- Digital Music News: February 10, 2026, including the response attributed to Bruce Rosen
- March 16, 2026 counsel letter: Aidala, Bertuna & Kamins letter published by Digital Music News
- BBC report carried by AOL: Abdirahim Saeed and Ben King, March 28, 2026
- The Washington Post: Amy Brittain, June 8, 2026
- Congressional Record: August 31, 2026, House page H5349
- The Butterfly Bureau’s congressional coverage: discovery lead checked against the official Congressional Record
- Epstein Data’s document index: discovery aid; factual claims in this article are checked against the individual released records above