EFTA00159180: David Rodgers FBI Interview, Flight Records and Passenger Identity Corrections
Primary source: Read the 17-page FBI interview of David Rodgers (EFTA00159180).
Supporting exhibit shown below: Government Exhibit 662-RR aviation flight logs (EFTA02846460, 118 pages).
Snapshot
| Field | Finding |
|---|---|
| Evidence ID | EFTA00159180 |
| Document | Seventeen page FBI FD 302 interview summary of pilot David Rodgers |
| Recorded interview | February 2020 |
| Reported employment start | 1991 |
| Main issues | Logbook custody, aircraft chronology, initials, manifest procedures and specific flights |
| Crucial correction | Rodgers said AP meant Adam Perry, not Prince Andrew |
| Other primary source | original aviation log exhibit |
Two letters in a pilot’s handwriting can transform a flight log into a false accusation. In a 2020 FBI interview, longtime Epstein pilot David Rodgers explained why the initials AP should not automatically be attributed to Prince Andrew. The same 17 page record describes nearly three decades of aircraft operations, the origins of the passenger ledger, and the gaps investigators must understand before building an accurate Epstein flight history.
Key Takeaways
- The interview, draft and entry dates are separate record events.
- Rodgers distinguishes his personal logbook from the company’s broader manifest records.
- His selected flight review is not an exhaustive account of every aircraft journey.
The AP Correction: Adam Perry, Not Prince Andrew
The opening page of the 17 page FD 302 records Rodgers explaining the meaning of the initials AP. He said that AP in his records meant Adam Perry, while he wrote out Prince Andrew when referring to that passenger. Rodgers described reflecting on the question before explaining it to investigators. This is a rare instance where a person who produced the source record later explained an ambiguity that online researchers could otherwise misread.
The evidentiary impact is direct: a search tool that labels an AP flight as a Prince Andrew flight without checking the primary record and the pilot’s explanation may create an unsupported assertion. The interview does not imply that Prince Andrew never flew on Epstein aircraft. It explains what one recurring set of initials represented in Rodgers’s own log.
How the Aviation Operation Began
Rodgers said he was introduced to Epstein through a connection in the aviation operations of Les Wexner and met Epstein in 1991. He described flying to inspect an aircraft before purchase. According to the FD 302, he identified July 26, 1991 as his first flight for Epstein, based on having checked his logs.
The report provides an aircraft timeline: an early Hawker, a Gulfstream acquired in the 1990s, a light twin used for occasional flights, a Boeing 727 entering service in 2001, and later Gulfstream aircraft. That chronology matters because a manifest cannot be associated with an aircraft Epstein did not yet operate, and corporate tail numbers and registrations changed over time.
What Rodgers Said About Passenger Manifests
In the middle pages of EFTA00159180, Rodgers described how he recorded names and how the crew found out who would travel. Maxwell or office staff often relayed schedules, sometimes shortly before departure. He said pilots occasionally learned names from luggage or other communications and that international travel required passenger nationality and identification information. Some earlier forms were faxed to customs and not retained by the pilot.
Rodgers acknowledged using labels such as one female when he did not know a passenger’s name and said he might learn the full identity on an international return leg. This provides a concrete explanation for why the original ledger contains unidentified passengers. Researchers cannot responsibly identify such a person from the appearance of another name elsewhere on a journey.
The interview also says that the first appearance of a name in a log was not necessarily that person’s first time flying. The archive is an incomplete record of movements, not a full account of every association with Epstein.
Record Custody and the Missing Logs Problem
Rodgers distinguished his own logbook from company passenger manifests. He described keeping originals until approximately 2004 and later having them collected by attorney Jack Goldberger during the federal investigation period. He also explained that another pilot kept manifests for flights he did not operate and that his own absences for training or personal circumstances created gaps in his personal records.
That testimony matters for provenance and completeness. A research database built from one pilot’s surviving log cannot be presented as the exhaustive flight activity of every Epstein aircraft. To verify a specific missing period, investigators would need company manifests, crew records, airport movement data, international customs documents, and the provenance of the disclosed scans.
May 1996: The European Journey
Rodgers described a May 2, 1996 flight to Dublin, identifying a passenger as Elizabeth Johnson of Johnson and Johnson. He then described movement from Dublin to Waterford on May 3, onward to Paris, Geneva, Shannon and finally Teterboro on May 6. He recalled Pamela Johanaoff among the overseas travelers, while acknowledging that he did not personally know her.
This chain is not one flight. It is a sequence of legs, each needing its own manifest. The pilot’s account gives a chronological framework, but it does not establish that every initial passenger traveled on all six segments. Companion names should be taken from the specific source page for each leg and compared with the original logs.
Why the Interview Cannot Be Treated as a Verdict
An FD 302 summarizes what the interviewee said and what agents recorded. It is not a transcript certified line by line by the witness, nor is every statement an independently established historical finding. Rodgers offered direct recollections, explanations of professional practice and at times assumptions about passengers and destinations. Those different forms of knowledge should remain distinguishable.
A source can be highly informative while still requiring corroboration. The responsible use of this interview is to identify what Rodgers knew from direct operations, what he inferred and where he acknowledged uncertainty. It should never be used to assert criminal wrongdoing by a named traveler simply because a passenger was in the log.
Interview, Draft and Entry Dates
The FD 302 cover page identifies February 7, 2020 as the interview date, February 13 as the draft date and April 23 as the entry date. The interview took place in New York with prosecutors, an agent and Rodgers’ attorney present. The later entry date must not be described as a second interview.
Guide to All Seventeen Pages
| PDF pages | Subject | How to use the evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 1 to 2 | AP correction, hiring and aircraft history | Keep the witness’s identification separate from a compiler’s interpretation of initials |
| 3 to 4 | Aircraft interiors, logs, manifests and custody | Distinguish his personal logbook from company manifests and flights he did not fly |
| 5 to 6 | Scheduling and passenger identification | Names learned from others and domestic versus international identity procedures limit a log’s precision |
| 7 to 14 | Selected historical flight review | These are selected flights reviewed in interview, not every flight in the logbook |
| 14 to 15 | Stopping passenger names, demotion and legal contacts | Preserve his explanation and chronology without treating it as a finding of motive by investigators |
| 16 to 17 | Observation limits, employment and post arrest aircraft movements | Distinguish direct observation from information supplied by another crew member or manager |
What the Interview Adds to a Flight Search
The witness says his personal logbook covered flights he actually flew, while company manifests covered a broader operation. He describes other pilots, training periods and time away. An absent name or flight in his book therefore does not establish that no aircraft movement occurred.
His explanation of stopping passenger names in February 2007 is attributed to him. His statements about who advised him and why are not independently established intent findings. The interview also records that no one told him not to say something when questioned by law enforcement, which belongs alongside the account of counsel and recordkeeping advice.
Epstein Data Wiki’s Rodgers profile was checked for additional source leads. Its broader employment analysis and the February 2020 FD 302 are different sources. This article’s factual assertions about the interview remain tied to the primary pages.
Questions and Unresolved Issues
- Which online databases still expand AP incorrectly, and what corrections are necessary?
- Where are the complete original company manifests for flights Rodgers did not personally operate?
- Which of the international customs records mentioned in the interview remain available?
- Can the attorney’s receipt of logbooks be corroborated by chain of custody records?
- What source pages individually identify passengers on each leg of the 1996 European journey?
- How many flight days remain missing from the combined primary record?
Related EpsteinWiki Articles
- David Rodgers: Pilot, Flight Logs and Disputed Passenger Records provides the person focused context for this primary interview.
- Flights and Travel Research Tools outlines the technical verification process.
- JFlights and JMail compares indexed travel resources.
Sources
- Full 17 page FBI FD 302 interview record.
- Government Exhibit 662 RR, aviation flight logs.
- Page by page searchable transcription of the interview, to be checked against the original document.
- Document extraction and publication history.