Alan Dershowitz and Jeffrey Epstein: The Arrangement Records

UpdatedSeptember 30, 2026

ByEpsteinWiki

Snapshot

The November 2022 agreed statement is essential: Virginia Giuffre acknowledged possible mistaken identification of Dershowitz, who continued to deny sexual contact; the agreement provided for no payment
The dismissal with prejudice ended their litigation without a trial determining the alleged encounters
Giuffre’s earlier sworn records preserve historical allegations about Epstein’s properties, massage calls and transport. They must be read with that later qualification
Staff interview records distinguish professional massages from sexual conduct. A separate account disputes whether Dershowitz’s family accompanied him, without alleging that the massage was sexual
The July 2025 FBI assessment says Dershowitz was not an investigative subject and that investigators uncovered no evidence of his involvement in abusing minors
Other released interviews describe introductions, a lawyer meeting and discussions afterward. Their evidentiary value depends on exactly what the witnesses said and what they did not claim to see

Evidence comparison chart

Record	What it contributes	Important limit
2022 agreed statement	Qualified identification and continued denial	Neither an admission that the accusation was knowingly false nor a trial verdict
2015 declaration	Historical alleged locations and ages	Giuffre later acknowledged possible mistaken identity
2016 depositions	Historical account of instructions and logistics	Uncertain chronology and no independently documented bargain
Ransome’s 2017 deposition	Separate adult allegation involving an introduction and one encounter	Categorically denied; her invented tape claim is a serious credibility problem
Alessi’s clarifying affidavit	Guest massage account with express limits	No observed impropriety; his beliefs about ages were not verification
Sjoberg’s deposition	Denial of meeting Dershowitz or the limousine encounter	Limited to her own knowledge and participation
2011 house proposal	Epstein’s message about unnamed girls and a Florida pickup	Ages, purpose, recipients’ identities and completion unspecified
2019 professional massage account	An employee’s recollection of a massage	Expressly distinguished from sexualized massages
2019 family presence account	Witness disputes a reported public account	No sexual contact alleged in the passage
2020 lawyer meeting account	Alleged instruction to meet Dershowitz and later disclosure	No dated booking or underlying communication
2021 airplane reference	Indirect reference to a massage raised in a deposition	The original sentence does not clearly affirm its premise
2025 FBI summary	Recorded investigative assessment concerning minors	An internal assessment, not an adjudication or complete source inventory

Scope and identification

The primary court record requires a precise starting point. Alan Dershowitz denied Giuffre’s allegations, and their defamation litigation ended after she acknowledged possible mistaken identification. An article about the earlier records cannot treat that outcome as a footnote or revive the old account as settled fact.

This article examines arrangements involving women and girls: alleged introductions and instructions, massage appointments, travel, housing, payments, experiences and subsequent communications. Dershowitz’s legal work appears where it explains access, evidence disputes or communications about those accounts. His wider biography and unrelated clients are outside that scope.

The records describe several different things. Sworn testimony preserves what a person said under oath. An FBI interview summary is an investigator’s account of what a witness said, not a finding that the events occurred. A contemporaneous email may establish a proposal while leaving its purpose and completion unknown. A passenger entry documents travel without identifying a sexual purpose. Repeated productions of one source do not create additional witnesses.

Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse and Little Saint James recur as settings. A person’s presence at either property does not by itself establish participation in abuse.

The accessible sources were checked through October 1, 2026. Private complainants remain unnamed. Ages are described only where the record supports them, and a reference to girls is not automatically classified as a reference to minors. PDF pages and printed transcript pages are identified separately where their numbering differs.

The 2022 resolution comes first

The agreed statement issued in November 2022 materially changes the earlier record. Giuffre acknowledged that she “may have made a mistake in identifying Mr. Dershowitz.” He denied sexual contact, said he believed she had believed her accusation and withdrew his allegations that David Boies participated in extortion and suborning perjury.

The parties resolved their pending litigation with prejudice without payment or other consideration. That explicit provision rules out assuming the resolution necessarily involved money.

The operative dismissal stipulation, filed November 9, 2022 as document 506 in Giuffre v. Dershowitz, dismisses the action with prejudice, provides for no costs or fees and waives appeal rights. The public announcement was November 8; the docket shows that the initial filing required correction because of missing signatures.

The dismissal conclusively ended those claims. It did not follow a trial deciding whether the alleged encounters occurred. Describing it as a judicial finding that Giuffre lied would overstate the record, as would describing her old identification as an unqualified allegation that survived unchanged.

What Giuffre’s historical sworn account alleged

Giuffre’s November 20, 2015 declaration, page 6, paragraphs 21 through 26, alleged at least six encounters beginning when she was about 16 and continuing until she was 19. Her stated age range crossed from minority into adulthood. It does not support saying every alleged encounter occurred while she was a minor.

Her declaration located the first alleged encounter in Epstein’s New York bedroom and named Palm Beach, Zorro Ranch, Little Saint James and an airplane as other settings. It described the New Mexico location as a massage room beside an indoor pool that was being painted. Earlier paragraphs attributed training and instructions to Epstein and Maxwell, including expectations that she report what men wanted afterward.

These passages document her account at the time. They do not independently establish a payment, bargain, blackmail arrangement or instruction exchanged between Epstein and Dershowitz. Her later qualification of the identification applies to the way these historical claims are presented here.

Scheduling and transport in the January deposition

The January 16, 2016 deposition, transcript pages 83 through 90, distinguishes a New York office introduction from the alleged bedroom encounter. Giuffre assumed Epstein brought Dershowitz there. She said Epstein later asked whether he enjoyed it.

Pages 108 and 109 describe a call summoning her from her apartment to Palm Beach. Pages 46 through 50 place her on a New Mexico flight without Dershowitz and leave his overnight stay uncertain.

Pages 110 through 117 add a Massachusetts limousine encounter during travel to his house, explicitly excluding the house itself. She could not name the scheduler. Pages 172 and 173 acknowledge its omission from her earlier affidavit.

Pages 41 through 43 leave the aircraft episode’s date, route and participants’ ages uncertain. PDF page 222 contains signed corrections distinguishing the airplane and limousine. No dated booking appears in those passages.

Instructions, age corrections and what she did not know

The May 3, 2016 deposition, PDF page 51, transcript page 193, distinguishes the first alleged Dershowitz encounter from being sent out to him: Giuffre placed it at Epstein’s New York residence. Her general testimony about instructions and reporting back attributes roles to both Epstein and Maxwell, but does not reproduce a specific message arranging an encounter with Dershowitz.

The same deposition’s age correction, PDF page 9, transcript pages 25 and 26, changes her earlier account of meeting Epstein and Maxwell in 1999 at 15. She said Mar a Lago employment records indicated summer 2000, when she was 16. Earlier date estimates should not be silently combined into an exact chronology.

The four transcript pages on each PDF sheet require care. Neighboring answers concern different men; the general description of Epstein’s system cannot supply missing details about an individual. These are historical allegations later qualified by the 2022 statement, rather than verified appointments or completed transactions.

Sjoberg’s specific denials

Johanna Sjoberg’s May 18, 2016 deposition, transcript pages 110 through 113, supplies an important counterpoint. Sjoberg said she had never met Dershowitz. Asked whether she had sex with him in a limousine with Giuffre and Epstein present, she expressly denied it and said she would remember such an event. She also said she had not seen Giuffre with the men just listed or heard her discuss being with them.

These answers concern Sjoberg’s own knowledge and participation. They cannot determine what happened outside her presence. Nor does the question establish that Sjoberg was in fact the unnamed woman Giuffre described.

The adjacent question asking whether Sjoberg ever gave a massage concerns Donald Trump. It must not be quoted as a Dershowitz massage denial. Her later awareness of Giuffre’s allegation, discussed at transcript page 122, is likewise not firsthand corroboration.

Alessi’s massage testimony and sworn clarification

Juan Alessi’s September 8, 2009 deposition, PDF page 20, transcript pages 73 and 74, describes Dershowitz as a frequent guest, estimating four or five visits a year and stays of two or three days. Alessi said guests could receive massages and that Dershowitz sometimes did. He identified no sexual act, therapist’s age or instruction for sexual activity in that passage.

Alessi’s January 13, 2016 affidavit, pages 3 through 6, materially qualifies how the deposition had been characterized. He recalled at least one massage but could not remember more than one. He did not recall a therapist he thought was under 18, never saw Dershowitz behave improperly and said he never saw Giuffre and Dershowitz at the house together.

He also distinguished guest massage locations from Epstein’s private suite, where he had found sex toys. He said he never found such items in a guest massage room. His statement that he had no reason to doubt Dershowitz’s account of an adult therapist is not a positive identification of that therapist at the particular massage.

The affidavit is a clarification by the same witness. It cannot be counted as another independent account, but omitting it would leave a materially misleading description of his evidence.

Ransome’s separate adult account

Sarah Ransome’s February 17, 2017 deposition, transcript pages 180 through 199, describes three alleged meetings with Dershowitz: a legal discussion introduced by Epstein, a restaurant dinner and one sexual encounter at Epstein’s New York home. She said another woman took her upstairs and was involved in the encounter, with Epstein present at its outset. She described the experience as unwanted, denied penetrative intercourse and could not give an exact date.

Ransome was an adult: transcript pages 267 and 268 place her introduction to Epstein in 2006 at 22. She said she did not see Dershowitz afterward. Her account of a legal discussion does not establish that he accepted her as a client. The testimony also contains a location inconsistency: an initial bathroom answer gives way to a detailed bedroom account.

Dershowitz’s June 21, 2017 response through counsel, PDF page 3, categorically denies ever meeting, contacting or representing Ransome, as well as any sexual encounter. Ransome’s account is separate from Giuffre’s, and Giuffre’s 2022 statement does not decide it. The serious credibility qualifications below are inseparable from a fair presentation of Ransome’s allegation.

Ransome’s withdrawal email and invented tape claim

The October 23, 2016 email, PDF page 6, asks a reporter to withdraw everything Ransome had told her, citing fear of consequences and dissatisfaction with the reporter’s response. This predates the February 2017 deposition. It should not be described as a subsequent withdrawal of that sworn testimony.

The same filed exhibit reproduces an email alleging another woman’s encounters with prominent men and claiming that video copies existed. Those are relayed claims, not Ransome’s firsthand observation of every alleged encounter. PDF pages 8 and 14 repeat the same email page; repetition does not create corroboration.

Connie Bruck’s July 2019 report says Ransome told her she invented the tape claim to attract attention to Epstein and deter harm. This is original reporting of an admission, rather than a released interview transcript. It is a major credibility problem. It does not, by itself, document a withdrawal of Ransome’s separate sworn allegation about her own encounter with Dershowitz.

The record therefore does not support presenting the tapes as verified evidence, treating the lawyer’s accusation of fabrication as a judicial finding, or treating every statement by Ransome as independently established merely because it appears in a court exhibit.

Farmer’s observations and the limits of the early FBI report

Maria Farmer’s April 12, 2019 sworn affidavit, page 2, describes working at Epstein’s New York house in 1996 and seeing girls she believed were under 18 being taken upstairs. She said Dershowitz visited several times and went upstairs when those girls were there. The affidavit does not say she saw him engage in sex, receive a massage, pay a woman or arrange an encounter.

Dershowitz’s December 2019 denial, page 2, disputes the chronology, saying he met Epstein after Farmer’s association ended and did not visit the house during her employment. Farmer’s counsel’s response defends her affidavit’s actual wording. These are contested submissions, not a decision establishing whose chronology was correct.

The September 1996 FBI complaint record, page 2, documents allegations about Epstein, photographs and threats. Farmer’s representatives publicly identify it as her complaint. It does not name Dershowitz. The existence of an early complaint cannot corroborate a specific later allegation that the early record does not contain.

Professional massages and the family presence dispute

The July 12, 2019 proffer report, pages 3, 8 and 9, records an employee’s account of travel with Epstein, including visits to Harvard and meetings with Dershowitz. She also recalled Dershowitz receiving a massage. Crucially, she distinguished massages given to traveling companions from the sexualized massages associated with Epstein’s abuse, describing the former as professional. The report does not date the Dershowitz massage or identify it as sexual.

The September 10, 2019 interview notes, page 1, record a narrower contradiction. The interviewee said she had seen a Twitter statement that Dershowitz was accompanied by his wife and children at Epstein’s home. She recalled meeting him there without his wife or children when he received a massage. The notes do not say she saw sexual contact. The date, therapist and location of that particular massage remain unspecified in the passage.

The nearby discussion of a telephone message referring to a teenage girl concerns a potential meeting with Epstein. Its placement immediately before the Dershowitz paragraph does not identify that girl as Dershowitz’s massage therapist. The record supports a dispute about family presence, not a documented sexual arrangement with a minor.

What the July 2025 FBI assessment actually says

The July 10, 2025 internal FBI assessment, forwarded on July 22, summarizes the two proffers. It says Dershowitz was not considered a subject of that investigation and that the investigation uncovered no evidence suggesting his involvement in the abuse of minors. That is an important recorded investigative assessment and belongs alongside the allegations.

Another version of the email chain, pages 1 and 2, includes a bracketed editorial inference that the second witness’s account meant he had lied on Twitter. The underlying interview supplies the witness’s recollection, rather than an adjudicated finding about a particular public statement. This version also contains an official’s uncertain recollection of Dershowitz’s role on Epstein’s defense team, illustrating that the short internal exchange was not a comprehensive history.

Neither version is a court judgment. Its discussion of two interview reports should not be read as an inventory of every document naming Dershowitz: other released interviews discussed below visibly name him. Equally, those additional mentions must not be converted into evidence of child abuse when the passages do not allege it.

The adult airplane massage reference

The May 18, 2021 FBI interview, page 4, contains an unusually indirect sentence. In discussing Dershowitz’s deposition, the report says that it was said the interviewee had given him a massage on Epstein’s airplane. It then records her feeling that people were trying to frighten her. It does not reproduce the deposition question, identify its speaker or say whether she confirmed the premise. The surrounding chronology describes her as an adult.

The July 24, 2025 internal summary, pages 1, 3 and 4, contains a matching plane massage reference, phrased more definitively as a statement that a woman gave him a massage, adding that she was not a minor. An earlier message in that chain is less certain about age. The comparison matters: the short summary is firmer than the 2021 interview’s phrasing, although the email does not explicitly cite that report.

Neither record specifies sexual contact during this alleged massage. No flight date, passenger manifest, payment or scheduling instruction accompanies the reference. A defensible account preserves both the adult classification in the later summary and the ambiguity of the original sentence, rather than turning it into a detailed firsthand accusation.

A reported instruction to meet Dershowitz as a lawyer

The March 4, 2020 FBI interview, pages 1 and 6, describes a woman’s association with Epstein beginning in 1999. She said Epstein told her to meet Dershowitz as a lawyer, although she did not think she needed one. She recalled discussing her background, did not think she signed anything and said Epstein subsequently confronted her about personal information she believed Dershowitz had passed to him.

This is an alleged introduction and subsequent exchange of information, rather than an allegation of sexual contact with Dershowitz. The report provides no appointment date, engagement letter, signed document or underlying communication between the two men. Her age at this meeting is not established in the visible passage. The identity and private details of the interviewee are unnecessary to describing the evidentiary issue.

Introductions before alleged abuse by Epstein

The August 28, 2019 FBI interview, pages 1 through 3, records a woman’s recollection of being 20 when she was introduced to Epstein through a friend. She said an appointment was arranged, she traveled to his Manhattan home and she briefly spoke with Epstein and a man introduced as a professor, whom the report identifies as Dershowitz. She said Dershowitz then left. Her account of sexual conduct involving Epstein follows that departure.

The witness did not know the professor’s name at the time. The report does not explain the later identification in detail, and it notes that discussions with a friend had helped refresh parts of her memory. It supports a reported social introduction, not a claim that Dershowitz remained for the later encounter or arranged it.

The August 27, 2019 interview, page 4, records another account of Epstein calling a woman over to greet Dershowitz while she was sunbathing topless in Palm Beach. She estimated that she was 18 or 19. She described the men talking about the O. J. Simpson case and expressly said Dershowitz never touched her. The passage attributes the introduction to Epstein without alleging a sexual encounter with Dershowitz.

Maxwell’s accounts of visits and family presence

Maxwell’s July 22, 2016 deposition, PDF pages 43 and 44, transcript pages 164 through 169, recalls an island visit by Dershowitz with his wife and daughter. She could not date it and did not recall him receiving a massage. Her uncertainty about other possible locations should not be converted into confirmed visits.

Her July 24, 2025 Justice Department interview, printed pages 155 through 157, again recalls family presence at the island and a possible Boston visit. She denies observing or hearing of inappropriate conduct by Dershowitz with young women and does not recall a massage.

The later interview was a proffer under the protections explained at its beginning, not testimony tested through trial cross examination. It is Maxwell’s recollection, with acknowledged memory limits. It does not establish that Dershowitz’s family accompanied every visit or decide the separate witnesses’ accounts.

What Epstein answered under oath

Epstein’s March 17, 2010 deposition excerpt, PDF page 3, transcript pages 89 and 90, acknowledges that Dershowitz was both his attorney and his friend. Asked whether they socialized in the presence of females under 18, Epstein invoked constitutional protections instead of answering.

That exchange establishes the question and his refusal to answer it. It does not establish the premise, identify a girl, document a sexual act or amount to a confession by Dershowitz. Nearby questions about other prominent people must also be kept separate from evidence about a particular encounter.

Original flight records and what they can prove

The original pilot log, Government Exhibit 662 RR, PDF page 43, contains three explicit name entries over two days in September 1996. These are original handwritten records, rather than an automatically generated list of people said to have visited the island.

Date	Recorded route	Entry
September 8, 1996	Washington National to Columbus	Flight 887 names Epstein, John Glenn and Alan Dershowitz
September 8, 1996	Columbus to Teterboro	Flight 888 names Epstein and Alan Dershowitz
September 9, 1996	Teterboro to Boston	Flight 889 names Alan Dershowitz

The page records travel. It does not show a woman being arranged for Dershowitz, a sexual purpose or the conduct of anyone after landing. Absence of a family member’s name alone does not prove that every passenger was exhaustively recorded. These entries are examples verified against the original page, not a claim about the total number of Dershowitz flights.

Pilot David Rodgers’s February 2020 FBI interview, pages 4 and 10, separately recalls a Bedford pickup for Dershowitz and a January 1997 flight connected with watching a space shuttle launch. The report explains that Rodgers kept records for flights he personally flew and that other pilots also kept manifests. That limitation matters when interpreting omissions from one pilot’s log.

The April 2011 proposal involving unnamed girls

The April 5, 2011 email, page 1, is a contemporaneous logistics record. Epstein wrote that he had spoken to Dershowitz and that “he is bringing the girls to his house.” He said they could be picked up in Florida that Saturday. Epstein adds that no one will expect the arrangement.

The message naturally links the plan to Dershowitz, but the source is Epstein’s account of a conversation. It contains no reply from Dershowitz. The released page identifies neither the girls nor their ages, gives no address or purpose and records no completed pickup or visit. It does not specify sex, a massage, coercion or payment.

This short message merits inclusion because it directly describes a proposed arrangement. Its missing context is equally important. An unexplained reference to girls cannot establish that minors were involved, and the language about an unexpected destination does not by itself establish concealment of a crime. No linked exchange located in the review resolves those questions.

Questioning and access to travel and photographic evidence

The January 3 and 4, 2015 email chain preserves attorney Jack Scarola’s request for a voluntary recorded deposition of Dershowitz, including travel and photographic records. Dershowitz forwarded the request to Epstein and others. Martin Weinberg said he intended to discourage the testimony because it offered no benefit and could threaten privilege; Epstein agreed.

The subsequent strategy message discusses communicating that Epstein would not consent to voluntary testimony about their relationship, while considering a filing that would put Dershowitz’s denials before the court. These are the lawyers’ strategic positions. The emails do not determine whether those positions were legally correct or prove that Dershowitz never subsequently answered questions under oath.

The February 2015 disagreement over releasing images

The February 9, 2015 exchange, pages 1 and 2, records a disagreement within the defense effort. Dershowitz wanted to challenge the FBI to release images because, he said, he had no sexual contact with the accuser and could not appear in such material. Epstein objected to releasing his own private photographs.

Weinberg reported persuading Dershowitz to remove the proposed demand for government photographs and videos, citing risks to Epstein and their common interest. He also warned that the issue could recur as the litigation progressed. The chain therefore contains both Dershowitz’s express denial and a reported decision to narrow a proposed public challenge.

It establishes coordination and competing interests over evidence access. It does not establish that an incriminating image of Dershowitz existed, that a particular photograph was withheld from a court, or that anyone destroyed evidence. The reported agreement to omit language from a draft is the documented outcome; the chain does not establish the final wording of a published statement.

Legal expense funding and the limits of payment evidence

The February 18, 2015 billing email, page 1, is direct evidence of a requested financial arrangement. Dershowitz asks Epstein to send him the amount of Kendall Coffey’s second bill for the federal case so that he can pay it, referring to the previous bill. Coffey’s earlier message confirms his firm had received payment of its first statement.

The page supplies no amount and no confirmation that the second bill was paid. Its subject is legal expenses. It cannot be characterized as a payment for a woman, a massage or sex.

The March 26, 2019 chain, pages 1 and 2, records Epstein saying Dershowitz was requesting a contribution in connection with a proposed response to The New Yorker. Weinberg discusses the lawyers involved; Epstein sees little benefit. The chain documents continued practical coordination, but contains no confirmed payment. It also does not prove a social visit.

The 2017 misidentification theory and the later settlement

The October 2017 exchange, page 1, shows Epstein suggesting that the accuser might have recalled Harvey Weinstein rather than Dershowitz. Dershowitz asks how such a theory could be proved and whether Weinstein had received massages or visited Epstein’s properties or aircraft. The name of the massage provider is redacted; the apparent letter in the searchable text is not a readable identification in the scan.

No answer to those questions appears in the two page chain. The email establishes that the men discussed an alternative explanation. It does not establish that Weinstein was the person involved, that David Boies fabricated an allegation or that the questioned massage occurred.

The exchange predates the 2022 resolution by five years. The later statement’s possible mistaken identification does not identify Weinstein as an alternative, and the available documents do not establish that this email theory caused the settlement language. Both the speculative theory and the actual agreed statement must retain their separate evidentiary status.

A proposed reward that Maxwell rejected

The complete January 12, 2015 reward exchange shows Epstein suggesting that Maxwell offer a reward for information contradicting the accuser. Maxwell refuses, calling it a bad idea. Epstein replies that he meant it as a joke; Maxwell says jokes are unwelcome in her situation.

Dershowitz is not a correspondent in this chain. It is included because partial versions can misleadingly suggest an implemented program to buy contradictory testimony. The complete exchange documents a proposal and rejection, without a reward payment or implementation. It should not be attributed to Dershowitz or dated to 2011.

What the records establish about money and housing

The lawyer meeting interview describes Epstein providing accommodation and paying the interviewee for massages elsewhere in her account. Those arrangements are attributed to Epstein. They do not establish that Dershowitz paid her, housed her or received sexual services from her.

Giuffre’s historical declaration described an alleged system of favors and obligations, but supplied no receipt for a payment by Dershowitz for an encounter. The later resolution explicitly involved no payment. Legal bills, ordinary household spending and alleged payments for sex require different evidence and cannot be pooled into one category.

The reviewed sources do not supply a verified transaction that can be matched to a particular alleged sexual encounter with Dershowitz. This is a limit of the records examined, not a claim that every record in the wider archive has been searched or that absence of a receipt resolves every allegation.

Access to testimony in 2026

The House Oversight Committee’s July 21, 2026 letter records that Dershowitz initially agreed to a July 20 interview and that his counsel notified the committee on July 15 that he could not then testify on the requested matters. The committee said it had received no explanation, renewed its request for September 2 and raised the possibility of compulsory process.

The letter documents an effort to obtain testimony. It contains no new finding that Dershowitz arranged or participated in abuse. It also does not establish the outcome of the renewed request. A proposed interview should not be described as completed testimony without the transcript or another reliable record of the appearance.

Key takeaways

The Giuffre record must begin with her later possible mistaken identification and Dershowitz’s denial
Historical testimony, an untested allegation, a professional massage and a travel entry are different kinds of evidence
Sworn denials and corrections belong beside the passages they materially qualify
The 2011 house email records a proposed arrangement whose purpose, ages and completion remain unknown
The July 2025 FBI assessment concerning minors matters, but does not turn every separate mention into a resolved factual question
Direct records can establish communications while leaving the underlying sexual allegation unresolved

Open questions

Can dated travel, telephone or appointment records independently establish or rule out any specifically alleged encounter?
What was the purpose of the April 2011 proposed Florida pickup and visit, and did it occur?
Does the original deposition underlying the 2021 airplane massage sentence clarify whether the witness accepted or disputed the premise?
Are there contemporaneous records of the lawyer meeting and the subsequent communication described in the 2020 interview?
What additional testimony or documents resulted from the committee’s renewed 2026 request?

These questions identify missing evidence. They are not findings that misconduct occurred, and they do not undo Giuffre’s 2022 qualification of her identification.

Chronological receipt index

September 1996: FBI complaint record, page 2; no Dershowitz reference in the early complaint.
September 8 and 9, 1996: original flight entries, page 43; three explicit name entries, without a sexual purpose stated.
September 8, 2009: Alessi deposition, page 20, transcript pages 73 and 74; guest visits and massages.
March 17, 2010: Epstein deposition, page 3, transcript pages 89 and 90; friendship acknowledged and question about minors unanswered.
April 5, 2011: proposed house visit and Florida pickup, page 1; unnamed girls, unspecified purpose and completion.
January 3 and 4, 2015: deposition request and response, pages 1 and 2; the later strategy message discusses consent and privilege.
January 12, 2015: rejected reward proposal, pages 1 and 2; Epstein proposes, Maxwell refuses.
February 9, 2015: evidence release disagreement, pages 1 and 2; denial, objection and reported removal of proposed language.
February 18, 2015: legal bill funding request, page 1; second bill requested, first bill payment acknowledged.
November 20, 2015: Giuffre declaration, pages 3, 5 and 6; historical allegations later qualified in 2022.
January 13, 2016: Alessi clarifying affidavit, pages 3 through 6; guest room distinction and limitations on prior testimony.
January 16, 2016: Giuffre deposition, printed transcript pages 41 through 50, 83 through 90, 108 through 117, 172 and 173; PDF page 222 contains relevant corrections.
May 3, 2016: Giuffre deposition, PDF pages 9 and 51; four transcript pages per sheet.
May 18, 2016: Sjoberg deposition, transcript pages 110 through 113; denial of meeting Dershowitz or the limousine encounter.
July 22, 2016: Maxwell deposition, PDF pages 43 and 44, transcript pages 164 through 169; family visit recollection.
October 23, 2016: Ransome withdrawal email, PDF page 6; reporter correspondence predating her sworn deposition.
February 17, 2017: Ransome deposition, transcript pages 180 through 199 and 267 through 268; adult account and limits.
June 21, 2017: Dershowitz counsel’s Ransome response, PDF page 3; categorical denial, with email exhibits attached.
October 10 and 12, 2017: Weinstein theory exchange, page 1; suggestion and unanswered questions.
March 26, 2019: contribution discussion, pages 1 and 2; continued coordination, no confirmed payment.
April 12, 2019: Farmer affidavit, page 2; household observations without a witnessed sexual encounter.
July 12, 2019: employee proffer, pages 3, 8 and 9; travel and professional massage distinction.
July 29, 2019: Ransome tape admission reported, Bruck reports her direct interview with Ransome.
August 27, 2019: Palm Beach introduction interview, page 4; estimated age 18 or 19, no touching by Dershowitz alleged.
August 28, 2019: Manhattan introduction interview, pages 1 through 3; estimated age 20 and stated departure before subsequent conduct.
September 10, 2019: interview notes, page 1; family presence contradiction without an alleged sexual massage.
December 6, 2019: response to Farmer allegation, page 2; Dershowitz’s chronology denial.
December 11, 2019: Farmer counsel’s reply, pages 1 and 2; disputes the characterization of her affidavit.
February 7, 2020: Rodgers interview, pages 4 and 10; pilot record practices and travel recollections.
March 4, 2020: lawyer meeting interview, pages 1 and 6; alleged instruction and subsequent disclosure.
May 18, 2021: airplane massage reference, page 4; indirect deposition reference, without a clear affirmation.
November 8, 2022: agreed statement announced, possible mistaken identification, continued denial and no payment.
November 9, 2022: corrected dismissal stipulation, page 1; dismissal with prejudice and waiver of appeal rights.
July 10, 2025: FBI assessment, page 1, forwarded July 22; another version includes additional commentary.
July 24, 2025: internal summary of airplane massage, pages 1, 3 and 4; adult classification and earlier uncertain wording.
July 24, 2025: Maxwell proffer interview, printed pages 155 through 157; later recollection and denials.
July 21, 2026: House committee request, two page letter documenting the renewed request for testimony.

Sources

Tags:

Legal Network