Skip to main content
Search
< All Topics
Print

Jeffrey Epstein’s May 1, 2011 Dinner: Guests, Flight Arrangements and Evidence

Updated
ByEpsteinWiki
Views22

Snapshot

Field Details
Event Dinner arranged for Sunday, May 1, 2011 at Epstein’s Manhattan residence.
Place and planned time 9 East 71st Street, New York. Direct confirmations predominantly specify 6:30 p.m.; a day-of itinerary gives a 6:30–8:30 visiting window.
Evidence types Invitations, confirmations, household instructions, itineraries and travel correspondence.
Key records EFTA02189891, April 29 confirmation list; EFTA02189908, later itinerary; EFTA02190014, household preparations.
Attendance limit Invitations and planned numbers do not constitute a complete final attendance roll. Tom Pritzker’s explicit decline is preserved.
Scope A reconstruction of one dinner, not proof of criminal knowledge or participation by an invited or attending person.

The records of Jeffrey Epstein’s May 1, 2011 dinner distinguish invitations, confirmations and travel arrangements from confirmed attendance. This reconstruction draws on an 88-page evidence report and the primary records cited below. A social invitation, correspondence or attendance does not by itself establish knowledge of or participation in criminal conduct.

Overview

Jeffrey Epstein’s May 1, 2011 dinner at 9 East 71st Street in New York was organized through personal invitations, assistants’ confirmations, travel coordination and household instructions. The correspondence identifies Woody Allen and Soon-Yi Previn, Stephen Kosslyn, Katherine and Alexandra Keating, Sultan bin Sulayem and his wife, and a scheduled guest spelled “Korina” among the expected company. Karina Shuliak personally accepted a 6:30 invitation in a separate named exchange. Tom Pritzker was invited but declined.

The records document concrete preparations: a buffet, discussion of ordering from Scalinatella, flowers, a check of alcohol supplies, dietary preferences and a subsequent shopping response. Kosslyn reported changing his flight to reach JFK at 5:25 p.m. Sultan sent a same-evening message saying they were on their way. These details establish active organization and intended participation. They do not provide a complete final attendance roll, a final menu or a record of the dinner conversation.

The central distinction is between a plan and its completion. The April 29 list of six confirmations, an instruction to prepare for eight and a later itinerary including Sultan and his wife describe different stages. They must not be combined into an invented final guest count. Nor should an unspecified place be assigned to Ghislaine Maxwell, or a nearby appointment turned into dinner attendance.

Records: EFTA02189891; EFTA02189908; EFTA00530239; EFTA00691177.

Key Takeaways

  • Correspondence documents an actively organized May 1 dinner, including a buffet, flowers, alcohol supplies and travel arrangements.
  • Confirmations changed over time. A six-person list, preparation for eight and later guest entries describe different stages rather than one settled attendance total.
  • Tom Pritzker declined; Sultan later sent an en-route message; Kosslyn reported adjusting his flight.
  • The final attendance roll, completed purchases and conversation remain incompletely documented.

Date, Place and Timing

The dinner was scheduled for Sunday, May 1, 2011, at Epstein’s Manhattan residence, 9 East 71st Street. Direct assistant and guest confirmations predominantly use 6:30 p.m. A day-of itinerary describes a buffet and an open visiting window from 6:30 to 8:30. Some personal correspondence says seven. The page image of EFTA01733746 reads 6:30 p.m.; the 5:30 rendering in one transcription is an OCR error. The directly confirmed 6:30 time is the strongest basis for describing the planned arrival time, while the discrepancies remain part of the record.

The household buffet message carries April 27 at 21:55:46 +0000 in Date-format copies, equivalent to 5:55:46 p.m. in New York. Not every displayed email time has an offset. A Sent-format time without a timezone should not automatically be converted or treated as local. Similarly, Pritzker’s initial invitation pairs May 1 with Monday even though May 1 was Sunday; later correspondence explicitly identifies Sunday.

Records: EFTA02189985; EFTA02189822; EFTA02189908; EFTA02190014; EFTA01733746; EFTA01867346.

The buffet email and its duplicate copies

The April 27 household email specifies buffet service, proposes Scalinatella, asks for dining-room flowers and requests a check of wine and alcohol. Rosalyn Fontanilla and “Jojo(luciano) Fontanilla” are visible recipients. The sender’s name is redacted. Identifying a household role does not justify filling that redaction with a guessed name.

The supplied screenshot corresponds to a message preserved in EFTA02190014 and overlapping copies EFTA00434367, EFTA00561720 and EFTA02325390. Header formatting varies. The cropped screenshot cannot be assigned one unique Bates number from the available evidence. The copies are one communication family, not four independent witnesses. An instruction to buy flowers or consider a restaurant is also not proof that the purchase or order was completed.

Records: EFTA02190014; EFTA00434367; EFTA00561720; EFTA02325390.

Allen and Previn confirmations

An April 22 exchange with Melissa Tomjanovich records an affirmative response to an availability request concerning Allen and Previn. The April 27 follow-up seeks a 6:30 arrival and receives a reply. A subsequent household chain explicitly reports the pair confirmed for that time.

This supports describing Allen and Previn as confirmed expected guests. The retrieved correspondence is not a witnessed arrival record. Broader accounts of Allen’s relationship with Epstein concern a longer period and cannot establish the subjects discussed at this particular meal.

Records: EFTA02189249; EFTA02189985; EFTA02190084.

Katherine and Alexandra Keating

The April 25–28 invitation chain begins with Epstein asking Katherine Keating for Andre’s telephone number and whether to invite him. Katherine supplied the number and encouraged the invitation. The correspondence then addresses the company for the dinner, including Epstein’s remark about Allen liking attractive women. Katherine proposed bringing her 25-year-old sister Alexandra; Epstein agreed, and Katherine later said Alexandra would come.

On April 28, Epstein communicated an early-seven time and described a plan to go to Vera Wang’s apartment afterward. Katherine’s April 29 confirmation instead says that she and Alexandra would be there at 6:30. The difference is preserved rather than used to invent a second dinner. It records confirmation of intention, not observed arrival.

The name Andre appears in invitation discussion. Some reporting identifies him as André Balazs, but the dinner correspondence does not supply a final attendance confirmation. A separate Monday breakfast plan must not be counted as Sunday dinner attendance.

Records: EFTA01868979; EFTA02189822; EFTA00587232.

Karina Shuliak and the spelling Korina

Epstein’s April 25 email addressed to Karina Shuliak refers to the following Sunday, May 1, and asks whether she has changed her mind about the Allen dinner. An overlapping chain records an enthusiastic acceptance by a redacted correspondent and confirms that the event would be at his home. The redacted copy cannot identify its correspondent by itself.

The stronger record is EFTA00530239, the April 29 named exchange. Shuliak accepts 6:30 and says she already confirmed with a caller whose name is redacted. Epstein tells her to wear a blue dress, then specifies one previously worn at his house. He describes Sultan, Katherine Keating and Kosslyn as expected company and proposes the Vera Wang gathering afterward. A separate staff message with subject Karin reports a 6:30 confirmation, although the body redacts the caller’s name.

The schedule spelling “Korina” and Shuliak’s named confirmation strongly suggest the same guest, but the report found no explicit statement equating the spellings. Counting Karina and Korina as two separate attendees would therefore overstate the evidence. The acceptance supports a confirmed invitee, not a documented arrival.

Records: EFTA00526412; EFTA01866831; EFTA00530239; EFTA00677329; EFTA02189891.

Pritzker was invited and declined

Epstein’s initial April 25 invitation names May 1 but mistakenly calls it Monday. The April 28 follow-up explicitly refers to Sunday and Allen. In his conditional response, Pritzker says he is trying to move another commitment and estimates a 40 percent chance of attending. His April 30 reply says he cannot manage Sunday with Allen. He belongs in the declined-invitation category.

Epstein’s subsequent reply uses an ambiguous pronoun after Pritzker mentions Gates in Omaha. The pronoun does not establish an additional guest. It does not override the separate scheduling of the May 2 Gates dinner. EFTA01778203 overlaps the reply preserved in EFTA00626352 and should not be counted as a second independent invitation.

Records: EFTA01867346; EFTA01867423; EFTA00653270; EFTA00691177; EFTA00626352; EFTA01778203.

Sultan moved from tentative to confirmed

The April 29 interim update marks Sultan tentative. Groff’s correspondence says he needed to check reservations and asked whether he could leave by eight. She explained the buffet format allowed people to come and go. A permission chain then clarifies that his wife could come and that a Monday breakfast was acceptable.

Sultan’s personal reply confirms that he and his wife would attend Sunday at 6:30. A May 1 reconfirmation repeats the time and address. These later records supersede the early tentative status; repeating only the tentative calendar wording would omit material evidence.

The May 1 chain quotes a 6:43 p.m. message saying they were on their way. A later reply assumes they are already there and reassures him that Epstein is pleased to see him. The journey message is stronger evidence of intended participation than an invitation alone. The reply remains an assumption rather than a witnessed entry confirmation. Neither supplies a complete arrival register.

Records: EFTA02189891; EFTA01778353; EFTA00910602; EFTA01777537; EFTA02189307; EFTA02189072; EFTA02190018.

Kosslyn’s flight change and airport coordination

Kosslyn initially had a flight scheduled to land at 9:15 p.m., too late for dinner. An April 24 staff update reports that he would try to move it earlier. An April 25 household update says he would join the Allen dinner. The seven-page EFTA02189914 chain contains Kosslyn’s own report that he changed the flight and would arrive at JFK at 5:25. That quoted April 25 message continues across pages 6 and 7.

The chain also discusses his hotel, finding a cake, changing a Monday breakfast arrangement and a possible Tuesday lunch. An April 27 follow-up says he would travel directly from the airport and asks how to notify the household after landing. Staff warn that 6:30 could be tight and supply contact options because mobile reception could be unreliable. Overlapping replies preserve the same coordination rather than independent trips.

Kosslyn’s April 27 reference to being in an airport on his way to Boulder describes a different stage of travel. It is not a May 1 landing confirmation. The dinner chain contains no airline, flight number, ticket, private-aircraft manifest or proof the proposed arrival occurred. The report also notes a header extraction discrepancy: the original top header reads Tuesday, April 26, while one extraction renders April 28. The flight-change statement is the quoted April 25 email, not the top forwarding date.

An April 1 exchange in EFTA00436049 and EFTA02190832 says Epstein would probably return from the island to New York on May 1. The plan is expressly uncertain. These overlapping records do not establish a completed flight, passengers or aircraft. Their references to Paris concern April 1, not a demonstrated May 1 Paris itinerary.

Records: EFTA00434831; EFTA00434840; EFTA00434839; EFTA02190029; EFTA02189914; EFTA02189904; EFTA02189910; EFTA02189838; EFTA00436049; EFTA02190832.

Food drink flowers and staffing

The food-preference chain combines confirmation of Allen and Previn’s time with a request for simple food, without red meat or heavy sauces. The April 28 menu discussion asks whether Scalinatella would repeat an earlier meal. Sarah K recalls sushi and suggests Scalinatella may have been served on an earlier visit. These recollections inform planning; they do not identify the final May 1 dishes.

An April 29 alcohol response quotes the request to check supplies for eight dinner guests and reports sending Jojo to obtain scotch whisky, vodka, red wine and white wine. It mentions purchased glasses and juice pitchers. This is a reported procurement action tied to the dinner. It does not show which drinks were served, consumed or paid for in a final bill.

Earlier household correspondence asks what dinner would be and receives a reply that the writer does not yet know. EFTA02189586 and EFTA02189608 continue that uncertainty. A head-count question precedes the six-confirmed update. No final itemized Scalinatella order, catering receipt, florist receipt or final total is established in the report. Dishes from another Allen dinner must not be imported into this one.

The April 26 staffing exchange asks Groff to work for a few hours on Sunday and mentions the dinner along with separate appointments. The other appointment names do not become dinner guests. No staff attendance sheet or payroll record was retrieved.

The subject Dinner Sunday night was reused for unrelated household matters. EFTA02189695 forwards the dinner chain but asks Emad Hanna to watch for lamps expected the following week. A May 2 reply reports delivery and possible assembly assistance; EFTA02189233 acknowledges it. These messages do not establish that the lamps were ordered for or used at the dinner.

Records: EFTA02190084; EFTA02189735; EFTA02322684; EFTA00434346; EFTA00434348; EFTA02189586; EFTA02189608; EFTA00561735; EFTA00434537; EFTA02189695; EFTA02189166; EFTA02189233.

The Dubins and Peggy Siegal

The interim guest list says Glenn and Celina Dubin might stop by. On May 1, Groff reports that Eva could not predict the family’s evening because Glenn was accompanying his father during a medical evacuation to New York. The report identifies received metadata consistent with 18:20 UTC, or 2:20 p.m. New York time; the displayed 6:20 should not automatically be read as local evening. That distinction matters to the message’s anticipated 3 p.m. landing.

The itinerary sent to Eva describes buffet service and the 6:30–8:30 visiting window and includes Sultan and his wife in the anticipated company. Receiving details is not proof Eva attended. No final arrival confirmation for Glenn, Celina or Eva was located in the report.

An April 29 exchange records an inquiry from Peggy Siegal’s office about Sunday dinner. Epstein asked that she communicate directly with him and said he did not want her staff involved. This documents an inquiry and control of communication. It does not establish that Siegal organized or attended the dinner, or knew its conversation.

Records: EFTA02189891; EFTA02340812; EFTA02189908; EFTA01790590.

Attendance assessment

Confirmed expected guests: Allen and Previn through assistant correspondence; Katherine and Alexandra Keating through Katherine’s confirmation; Kosslyn through his acceptance and travel arrangements; Shuliak through her named acceptance; Sultan and his wife through his own confirmation. The evidence for these categories is intention, not a witnessed final roll.

Additional journey evidence: Sultan’s same-evening message says they were on their way. Kosslyn reports a changed flight and planned airport-to-house transfer, not completed landing.

Unresolved identity: “Korina” is among six reported confirmations. Her likely connection to Karina Shuliak is not explicitly resolved in the schedule. Do not count both names as distinct people.

Possible visitors or inquiries: Glenn and Celina were possible visitors; Eva requested the itinerary; Andre was discussed for invitation; Peggy Siegal’s office asked for details. None of these records alone establishes arrival.

Declined: Tom Pritzker’s April 30 reply declines the Sunday engagement.

Not established as dinner guests: Maxwell is not affirmatively identified by a located invitation or confirmation. Howard Lutnick’s 5 p.m. appointment is separately scheduled. Gates, Summers and Staley belong to the separate May 2 dinner. An inferred empty seat, a nearby appointment or another day’s event cannot establish attendance.

Records: EFTA02189891; EFTA00530239; EFTA02190018; EFTA00691177; EFTA01868626; EFTA02189429; EFTA02379401.

Onward events and the undocumented conversation

The correspondence proposes going to Vera Wang’s apartment after dinner. Groff’s April 27 message to Stephanie says Epstein would miss the L’Amour Fou screening but wished to stop at the afterparty. Her April 28 message reports an RSVP for Wang’s 8:30 buffet and says he would not be eating there. This establishes an intended onward visit, not who arrived at the afterparty.

A Vogue event initially mentioned in household logistics was corrected to Monday, May 2. The Gates, Summers and Staley dinner is also separately scheduled for May 2. The ambiguous Pritzker reply must be preserved as ambiguous rather than used to merge the events.

The Cannes correspondence with Dite Anata refers to Allen coming for dinner and later discusses festival access. An April 23 message to Katherine anticipates a probing exchange with Allen without naming its subject. These documents show film access, company and introductions in surrounding correspondence. No located record supplies the dinner’s actual substantive agenda, a recording or a detailed eyewitness conversation account. Inferring an intelligence, trafficking, scientific or investment agenda from the professions of expected guests would exceed the evidence.

Records: EFTA00434364; EFTA00434401; EFTA02189746; EFTA02189813; EFTA00910622; EFTA00911160; EFTA01865765.

Chronology

April 1: an uncertain island-to-New York return plan mentions May 1. April 22: Allen and Previn’s availability is accepted through Tomjanovich. April 23–25: Kosslyn’s invitation and flight problem develop; the Keating invitation chain and Shuliak invitation follow. April 26: Sunday staffing is discussed. April 27: buffet, restaurant, flowers and alcohol instructions circulate alongside Allen timing and airport coordination. April 28: menu preferences and onward-event plans are discussed. April 29: Keating and Shuliak confirmations, Sultan’s changing status and alcohol procurement are recorded. April 30: Pritzker declines. May 1: Sultan reconfirms and reports travelling toward the dinner; Eva receives the itinerary amid uncertainty about the Dubins’ evening. This chronology tracks communications, not a minute-by-minute attendance log.

Published reporting and responses

The report identifies direct invitation coverage in ABC’s January 31, 2026 live blog and Brad Ryan’s related ABC article. Will Jackson’s live-blog entries discuss the sisters’ invitation and relay Katherine Keating’s response. As summarized in the supplied report, Keating described career-related contact, denied knowledge of Epstein’s criminal conduct and said persistent contact led her to disengage. Her statement about an earlier Andrew-arranged event is not an eyewitness account of this May dinner.

The report also identifies The Australian’s January 31 article, whose full body was paywalled; EL PAÍS’s Spanish investigation of March 15 and English edition of April 18; Michael Rothfeld’s February 7 New York Times Lutnick report; and Jessica Gardner’s January 31 Australian Financial Review article. It treats the English EL PAÍS edition as the same investigation, not independent corroboration. The Koziol Age/Sydney Morning Herald item was located through an indexed reproduction, with no recovered original URL, so it remains a bibliographic lead. Kait Justice’s February 6 Substack article is contextual Keating reporting concerning a June 13 email, not proof of May 1 attendance.

Descriptions of Glenn Dubin as a guest require qualification against the tentative wording and day-of family message. Speculation about Maxwell filling an eighth place does not establish attendance. A shopping count is not a guest roll. The record should preserve both the reporting and the stronger limits of the underlying correspondence.

Search scope duplicates and verification limits

The supplied report records eleven searches against a public full-text mirror on November 9, 2026. Its three broad runs returned 152 page records for the April 2011 Sunday-dinner query, 146 for Scalinatella, and 829 for Woody with May and 2011. Across all eleven queries the ledger accounts for 1,129 distinct document/page pairs after merging repeated hits. These are search hits, not 1,129 dinner documents, people or independent emails. Most ledger entries are explicitly screened as other dates or topics and contribute no event-specific claim.

The report records a pagination problem: an offset request repeated results, so the researcher used the table endpoint for the Scalinatella set. The final 79 Woody results used a limited display length; eighteen long records received targeted context checks rather than full-original review. Capped queries were discovery tools, not a basis for claiming complete coverage. This article preserves those boundaries and does not claim to have independently rerun the report’s searches.

The report says fifteen listed original records were visually checked, with other sources reviewed through available transcriptions. That is the report’s stated review level, not a claim that every original was visually rechecked for this article. Independent spot-checks during adaptation are described below. OCR, repeated quoted messages, redacted names and header inconsistencies remain potential sources of error.

The buffet copies form one communication family. The seven-page Kosslyn chain and overlapping follow-ups describe one travel arrangement, not multiple flights. Shuliak’s later acceptance adds evidence beyond the earlier invitation. Sultan’s later personal confirmation supersedes his tentative status. The two island-return records describe an uncertain plan, not independent completed flights. No inference of criminal conduct is drawn from these logistics.

Epstein Forums was checked for a relevant public transcription. Its publicly accessible page displayed no forums, and targeted searches did not verify a relevant author or thread. No specific forum transcription is credited or relied upon here. This is an access limitation, not proof that no such research exists.

Independent checks for this adaptation

Scan checks, November 10, 2026: Downloaded mirror PDFs were rendered and inspected. EFTA01733746, page 1 clearly schedules dinner at 6:30, resolving the 5:30 OCR discrepancy. EFTA02189914, page 1 reads Tuesday, April 26, 2011, 4:13:11 p.m.; pages 6–7 contain Kosslyn’s quoted April 25 flight-change message and planned 5:25 JFK arrival. EFTA02190018, page 1 visibly preserves Sultan’s May 1, 6:43 p.m. en-route message. EFTA02190014, page 1 confirms the buffet, Scalinatella, flowers and alcohol instructions. Its Sent header displays April 27, 9:55:46 p.m. without an offset; that display alone does not establish local time. These checks corroborate the specified pages, not a complete attendance roll or every source in the register.

The readable version of EFTA00530239 was checked against the description of Shuliak’s acceptance, and an alternate OCR version of EFTA00691177 against Pritzker’s decline. The rendered epstein-data pages for EFTA02190018, EFTA02189914 and EFTA02190014 were also read. They support the en-route message, Kosslyn’s planned JFK arrival and the buffet preparation instructions respectively. Those initial checks were transcription-level; the dated follow-up above and below identifies the subsequent page-image comparisons. Automated interpretation attached by an unrelated third-party index was not used as evidence.

The primary-document image checks cover the specific pages identified here, not every citation in the report. Other passages rely on transcriptions or the report’s descriptions, and unresolved OCR and exact-time discrepancies remain unverified. The 88-page report supplies the broader narrative and search ledger.

Further scan checks, November 10, 2026: Page 1 of EFTA00691177 confirms Pritzker’s April 30 decline. Page 1 of EFTA02189891 confirms the April 29 six-person list, Sultan’s tentative status and the possibility that Glenn and Celina might stop by. Page 1 of EFTA02189908 confirms the later eight-name itinerary, buffet and 6:30–8:30 visiting window. Its “Guests arrive” line is a schedule instruction, not a retrospective attendance log.

Questions That Remain

Who physically arrived and when did they leave? Does an explicit record equate Karina Shuliak with the schedule’s Korina? Did any Dubin family member attend? Was a final invitation issued to Andre or Peggy Siegal? Which airline and flight carried Kosslyn, and did it arrive as planned? What food and drinks were actually served, by which vendor and at what cost? Was the flower request fulfilled? What did the guests discuss? Which guests, if any, continued to Vera Wang’s event?

The report locates no closed attendance list, final restaurant invoice, florist receipt, ticket or manifest resolving the flight, or verified conversation transcript. Those are gaps in the located evidence, not proof that such records never existed. The strongest conclusion is an actively organized dinner with confirmed plans and operational preparations, while its final attendance and conversation remain incompletely documented.

Conclusion

The correspondence establishes detailed planning and several confirmations for the May 1 dinner. It does not resolve every guest’s physical attendance or reconstruct the evening’s conversation. The account therefore preserves declines, tentative plans and documentary gaps alongside confirmed preparations.

Questions and Answers

Does the article establish a final guest count?

No. The lists and itineraries capture changing plans, not a complete retrospective attendance record.

Did Tom Pritzker attend this dinner?

The reviewed correspondence contains his April 30 decline. His invitation cannot be treated as attendance.

What would settle the remaining attendance and travel questions?

A closed attendance record, contemporaneous arrival evidence, flight tickets or manifests, and relevant receipts could test the plans. The reviewed report does not locate a complete set of those records.

Sources: Document Register and Reading Links

This register preserves the report’s document-level citations. Original-release links and independent mirrors are separate reading routes to the same records. A mirror is not a new witness. An entry here does not imply its original scan was independently inspected during this adaptation.

Related EpsteinWiki coverage

The existing Le Monde and Woody Allen investigation entry concerns the wider relationship. The Pritzker arrangement records, Dubin arrangement records and Jojo Fontanilla household entry provide broader context. This article remains focused on one dinner and does not import allegations or attendance findings from other events.

Posted
ByEpsteinWiki
Tags:
Previous Jeffrey Epstein’s Conferences and Gatherings: A Master Evidence Index
Next Jeffrey Epstein’s Planned 2014 Deception Seminar: Purpose, Participants, and Cancellation
Table of Contents