Bill Hammond: Epstein Pilot, Employment Records, Payments and FBI Interviews

UpdatedOctober 4, 2026

ByEpsteinWiki

Snapshot

Name: William Hammond, also identified as William Gary Hammond.
Known as: Bill Hammond.
Role: Pilot in Jeffrey Epstein’s aviation operation.
Employment: Hammond told the FBI that he began working for Epstein in January 2005.
Documented activities: Flight assignments, crew scheduling, training arrangements, accommodation and payments.
Investigative significance: His records connect Epstein’s aircraft operations with efforts to obtain information about flights and passengers.
Essential distinction: An employment record, payment, subpoena or interview does not independently establish participation in sexual abuse or trafficking.

The central evidence includes Hammond’s 2006 FBI interview, aviation correspondence and bank records. The Epstein Data profile identifies additional legal records and his fuller name. Epstein Files

Career Before Epstein and Entry Into His Flight Department

In his November 27, 2006 FBI interview, Hammond said he flew for Leslie Wexner and The Limited from 1985 until spring 2004. He then flew executives for the Venetian in Las Vegas. He said that employment ended in December 2004.

According to Hammond, his association with aircraft engineer Larry Morrison and earlier contact with Epstein through Wexner led to his next job.

Hammond described himself as a full time captain employed by Epstein since January 2005. He reported a salary of $150,000 to $155,000 and a $5,000 Christmas bonus. Larry Visoski was chief captain and assigned flights, often with about one day’s notice.

These statements appear in EFTA01246367. They establish Hammond’s account of his employment history. Epstein Files

For related aviation background, see Larry Morrison, Jeffrey Epstein’s Aircraft Maintenance Director and Flight Engineer.

Hammond’s Place Among Epstein’s Pilots

David Rodgers separately identified Hammond as one of Epstein’s full time pilots during an August 2006 FBI interview. Rodgers also named Larry Visoski and described Larry Morrison’s engineering role.

This provides another witness account of Hammond’s place in the flight department. The relevant record is EFTA00159173. Epstein Files

The records require care when describing rank. A pilot could be qualified as a captain while serving as a copilot on a particular assignment. Hammond’s professional title therefore does not establish that he commanded every flight associated with his name.

Later correspondence illustrates this distinction. In a January and February 2019 scheduling exchange, Visoski discussed using Hammond and referred to the need to purchase an airline ticket for a copilot. That email concerns a particular planned assignment. It does not establish Hammond’s position on every flight. EFTA01028720. Epstein Files

The 2006 FBI Interview

The FBI interviewed Hammond in West Palm Beach on November 27, 2006. The report was transcribed on December 1. Attorneys Bruce Lyons and Jack Goldberger attended.

Hammond described rotating responsibility for maintenance logs and passenger manifests, with records sent to the office monthly.

The report records his denial of seeing underage female passengers, using the unusual parenthetical phrase “under twenty.” It also records his acknowledgment that children accompanied by adults flew once or twice.

He described his relationship with Epstein as business only and said he had not visited Epstein’s residences socially.

These are Hammond’s statements, recorded by agents. The report expressly contains no FBI conclusions. EFTA01246367. Epstein Files

The wording matters. A witness’s reported observation should remain attributed to that witness. It cannot establish the ages of all passengers, everything that happened outside the cockpit or the experiences of survivors.

The 2006 Subpoena and Requested Aviation Records

A subpoena dated November 13, 2006 directed Hammond to appear on December 1, 2006.

The document requested records relating to Epstein’s Gulfstream aircraft, registration N909JE, and Boeing aircraft, registration N908JE.

The requested material included:

Flight logs.
Maintenance records.
Passenger manifests.
Employment records.
W2 forms.
Employment correspondence.
Applications and evaluations.

The employment related request extended back to January 1, 2004. That starting date was the scope of the demand. It does not establish that Hammond worked for Epstein throughout that period.

The subpoena appears within EFTA00178386, on the sheet stamped EFTA00178496. An external copy is available in the released document compilation. media-cdn.rollcall.com

This record shows investigators seeking aviation and employment evidence. It does not, by itself, establish what Hammond produced or whether he testified.

For the broader investigation, see Operation Leap Year.

Civil Litigation and the Deposition That Did Not Occur

Survivors’ attorney Paul Cassell identified William Hammond among the Epstein pilots represented by Bruce Reinhart in civil litigation.

Cassell’s correspondence explicitly states that Hammond and Roxburgh were not deposed, while other listed witnesses were.

The relevant material appears in EFTA00068215, which contains a complaint and attached correspondence. The compilation includes a March 3, 2014 letter and later material. Its contents should not all be assigned the date displayed by a document index. Epstein Files

Cassell also raised concerns about Reinhart’s transition from federal prosecution to representing Epstein employees. He alleged that Epstein paid for those representations, directly or indirectly, on information and belief. The correspondence discusses Reinhart’s denial that he learned confidential, nonpublic information about the Epstein matter.

Those allegations and disputed statements concern Reinhart. Their inclusion in a released file does not convert them into findings against Hammond.

The distinction is straightforward:

A deposition notice documents an intended examination.
A subpoena documents a demand.
Scheduling correspondence documents arrangements or difficulties.
A completed transcript documents testimony actually taken.

Cassell’s statement supports the conclusion that Hammond was not deposed in the civil proceedings discussed in that correspondence. It does not prove that he never testified in any other proceeding. Epstein Files

Flight Assignments and Availability in 2015

A January 26, 2015 email discussed Boeing 727 training in Miami involving Visoski, Rodgers and Bill. The correspondence also addressed coordination with Epstein’s travel plans.

The record is EFTA00353611. It places Hammond within operational planning early in 2015. efta.threats.watch

On February 13, 2015, Visoski asked about arranging Bill’s travel from Columbus to Palm Beach if Epstein planned to use the Boeing the following Monday. A reply confirmed use of the Gulfstream instead.

This exchange demonstrates that crew positioning depended on the aircraft selected for a trip. It does not independently establish that the proposed Boeing flight occurred. EFTA01788592. epsteinexposed.com

An April 13, 2015 email adds another detail. While discussing possible travel to Marrakesh, landing permission and aircraft maintenance, Visoski wrote that Hammond was busy opening a shoe store with his brother but remained interested in flying the trip.

That is Visoski’s report of Hammond’s availability and outside activity. The email does not independently verify the store’s ownership or opening. EFTA02383003. Epstein Files

Payments to William Hammond

Released bank records contain checks payable to William Hammond from JEGE, LLC, drawn on Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas.

The extracted text of EFTA01292918 identifies these examples:

Check date	Check number	Amount	Sheet identifier
August 10, 2015	1282	$9,142.05	EFTA01292950
August 10, 2015	1284	$923.40	EFTA01292948
November 9, 2015	1298	$6,186.04	EFTA01292922

For these entries, the extracted numeric amounts agree with the amounts written in words. Epstein Files

These checks provide financial evidence of payments to Hammond. They should not be described as a complete compensation history.

A check amount alone does not establish:

How many flying days it covered.
Whether it included expenses.
Whether it settled more than one invoice.
Which passengers were aboard a flight.
Whether a payment concerned unlawful activity.

The underlying invoices, approvals and accounting entries are necessary to answer those questions.

Crew Accommodation in 2016

A May 18, 2016 email chain shows Visoski arranging accommodation for Hammond before a planned Saturday flight.

Visoski said he had sent Dave home and intended to use Hammond for the assignment. He asked whether an apartment was available for Friday night, when Hammond was expected to arrive at LaGuardia.

A reply confirmed an apartment was available. Visoski also expressed appreciation for Hammond’s assistance and said Hammond enjoyed the apartment and New York.

The evidence is EFTA02051946. Epstein Files

This correspondence documents practical support for a flight crew member. It connects crew selection with commercial travel and overnight accommodation.

It does not establish who else stayed at the apartment, any sexual activity or the presence of minors.

Other Flying Work and the Dubai Assignment

An October 23, 2016 email shows that Hammond was unavailable for a proposed Epstein assignment because he was flying a Boeing Business Jet in Dubai until November 15.

Visoski proposed Chip Picket as another pilot for the trip.

The record is EFTA01739431. Epstein Files

The email demonstrates that Hammond’s availability depended partly on other flying work. It does not identify all the clients or passengers involved in the Dubai assignment.

The same message describes military service and Iraq helicopter missions associated with the proposed replacement pilot. Those details refer to Picket. They should not be transferred to Hammond.

This is a recurring document reading issue: a paragraph mentioning several pilots can contain biographical details about only one of them.

The 2017 Training Budget

A May 25, 2017 email chain documents negotiations for FlightSafety training for Visoski, Rodgers and Hammond.

Richard Kahn reported reducing Hammond’s proposed base package from $64,500 to $62,600. The package combined Gulfstream G550 initial training with Gulfstream GIV recurrent training.

The proposed costs for Hammond were:

Training component	Proposed amount
G550 initial and GIV recurrent package	$62,600
Enhanced navigation and CPDLC training	$7,300
Synthetic vision training	$4,700
Total with listed additions	$74,600

The negotiated base total for all three pilots was $182,600. With the listed additions, the combined figure was $218,600.

Epstein replied “Pay.” Kahn then asked whether that instruction covered the base package or the larger amount including the additions.

Therefore, the correspondence documents negotiated prices and an approval exchange. It does not establish from that reply alone which final amount was paid.

The complete chain is EFTA00661735. Epstein Files

Training Dates and Proposed Paris Travel

A June 8, 2017 email connected training schedules with proposed flight coverage.

Visoski sought approval for:

A Paris assignment involving himself and Bill from July 1 through July 14.
Hammond’s GIV recurrent training in Dallas from June 12 through June 16.
Hammond’s G550 initial training in Wilmington from August 21 through September 13.

The email stated that the G550 dates were subject to availability. Lesley Groff replied that she could add the information to Epstein’s calendar once approval was confirmed.

The record is EFTA00453702. Epstein Files

These are proposed arrangements. The email alone cannot establish that every flight or training session occurred exactly as listed.

The record nevertheless shows the flight department coordinating aircraft qualifications, pilot availability and Epstein’s itinerary together.

Hammond’s Operational Role in 2019

Correspondence dated January 31 and February 1, 2019 shows Hammond still being considered for Epstein’s flight assignments.

Visoski planned to use him for Sunday travel to Palm Beach while giving Rodgers a break after a Paris trip.

Kahn questioned whether using Rodgers would avoid paying Hammond for days when Epstein remained in Florida. Visoski explained that Hammond’s arrangements would avoid an additional paid day after the trip. Kahn accepted the plan.

The exchange appears in EFTA01028720. Epstein Files

This is evidence of active crew scheduling and cost management shortly before the renewed federal investigation became public.

It also demonstrates that discussions of pilot compensation included days without flying. A payment cannot reliably be converted into a flight count without its supporting invoice.

The July 2019 Interview and Subpoena Follow Up

The Epstein Data profile identifies three relevant records:

EFTA01246371, an FBI interview aboard Epstein’s aircraft at Teterboro on July 6, 2019, including service of a subpoena and Hammond’s reported denial of seeing minors.
EFTA00096229, July correspondence concerning requested travel records, possible information about young women or girls, and a potential interview or proffer.
EFTA01246372, government notes concerning a July 30 telephone call with Hammond’s counsel.

These descriptions are attributed to the published profile. Counsel’s account must remain distinct from Hammond’s direct statements and sworn testimony. epstein-data.com

Contemporaneous Forbes reporting on the pilot subpoenas described investigators seeking information from Epstein’s pilots in July 2019. That reporting provides context for the renewed focus on aviation evidence. www.forbes.com

The identified records do not, by themselves, establish that a proposed proffer occurred, that Hammond appeared before a grand jury or that he testified at trial.

How to Read Hammond’s Flight Related Records

Several kinds of documents appear in research about Epstein’s aviation operation. Each answers a different question.

Record type	What it can establish	What it cannot establish alone
Crew scheduling email	A proposed pilot assignment	That the flight occurred
Passenger manifest	Recorded passengers and crew	Conduct during or after travel
Maintenance log	Aircraft activity and maintenance information	A complete passenger list
Pilot invoice	Claimed services and expenses	Criminal knowledge or intent
Bank check	A recorded payment	Its complete purpose without supporting records
Training proposal	Planned qualifications and costs	Completion or final payment
FBI interview report	Statements recorded by agents	An independent finding that every statement is true
Subpoena	Information or appearance demanded	Compliance or completed testimony

A name appearing in a crew section must not be presented as a passenger entry. Likewise, a passenger entry cannot establish participation in abuse.

Search totals also require caution. Repeated email chains, duplicate releases and multiple pages can produce many name matches without representing that many separate flights.

What the Evidence Establishes

The documented record supports several important conclusions.

Hammond worked within Epstein’s aviation operation.
His 2006 account described a professional connection through Wexner and Morrison.
Other pilot testimony corroborated his place in the flight department.
Operational emails show him being considered for assignments in 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2019.
Bank records identify payments from JEGE, LLC to William Hammond.
Training correspondence shows substantial proposed expenditure on his aircraft qualifications.
Accommodation emails show practical arrangements supporting crew assignments.
Investigators sought aviation and employment records relevant to Epstein’s travel.
Cassell’s correspondence states that Hammond was not deposed in the civil proceedings it discusses.

Together, these records make Hammond relevant to understanding how Epstein’s aircraft were staffed, funded and scheduled. Their significance should be explained through the specific evidence, with witness statements and allegations clearly attributed. Epstein Files

Key Takeaways

Employment and culpability are separate questions. The records establish aviation work. That fact alone does not establish participation in abuse.
Interview dates matter. The 2006 interview occurred on November 27, while transcription occurred on December 1.
A scheduled deposition is not completed testimony. Cassell explicitly distinguished Hammond from pilots who were deposed.
Payments require supporting records. Checks cannot independently establish flying days, passengers or the complete purpose of a payment.
Training figures require context. The 2017 correspondence distinguished the base package from additional courses.
Operational plans require confirmation. Proposed routes and training dates should not automatically become completed events.
Statements about passenger ages remain attributed. A pilot’s account does not resolve every passenger’s age or experience.
Evidence quality matters more than search volume. Duplicate documents and repeated email chains can inflate apparent totals.

Sources

PostedOctober 4, 2026