Celina Midelfart

The released records connect Midelfart’s name with Epstein’s travel and office records, and with disputed descriptions of their relationship. The original flight-log exhibit and December 16 trial transcript need to be read alongside her December 9, 2021 denial. This account distinguishes what a document displays, what a witness or correspondent claimed, and what Midelfart said herself.

---

Key Takeaways

• Some original flight entries visibly name Midelfart or a surname variant. Other indexed matches are redacted, first-name-only or repositioning entries and cannot be treated as confirmed travel by her.
• A November 2002 invoice records an envelope addressed to Midelfart at Midelfart Holding. It does not disclose its contents or establish her personal receipt.
• Espinosa and Eva Andersson Dubin described a relationship in testimony. Their accounts have specific observational and memory limits.
• Midelfart denied the romantic and close-relationship descriptions. Her December 9 response preceded the later December 16 and 17 testimony.
• Epstein’s 2015 emails contain his own claims about Midelfart and Donald Trump. Repeated email copies and a recipient’s reaction do not independently verify those claims.

---

Professional identity

SEA1 Offshore’s official board biography identifies Midelfart as a Norwegian businesswoman and investor, the owner and executive chairman of Midelfart Capital AS, and a member of SEA1’s board. It lists education at the Stern School of Business and London School of Economics.

The identity connection is broader than a matching first name: the historical courier entry names Celina Midelfart and Midelfart Holding, while the published responses identify the Norwegian businesswoman answering the Epstein reporting. Bare references to “Celina” or “Selena” elsewhere in the archive are not automatically assigned to her.

---

Her public response and its timing

In Nettavisen’s December 9, 2021 account of her response to VG, Midelfart denied having dated Epstein or had a romantic or close relationship with him. She described an acquaintance circle around Donald Trump and an investment-advice introduction. The article also repeated her earlier account that she had no contact with Epstein after 1996 or 1997. These are her statements, not independent verification of the financial arrangement she described.

Dagbladet’s republication of her email to Se og Hør gives further context. She said a Norwegian financial adviser had recommended Epstein for a short investment arrangement. She described a widely reproduced photograph as taken at a charity tennis event at Mar-a-Lago, which she attended as Trump’s guest, and rejected the suggestion that it proved closeness. She also said she had never met Maxwell and had not been contacted by the FBI. These remarks describe her position in December 2021.

The date matters. Her December 9 denial followed reporting about pilot David Rodgers’s December 8 testimony. It cannot be described as a response to Espinosa’s December 16 evidence, Dubin’s December 17 evidence, the December 20 closing argument, or later releases of the emails discussed below. No later direct response addressing those particular released documents was verified in the targeted searches used for this account.

---

The flight logs: visible names and unresolved index matches

The flight-index search for Midelfart supplied 18 leads in 1996 and 1997. That is a database count, not a verified count of flights by her. Each lead was compared with the redacted 118-page Government Exhibit 662 RR. The table preserves the difference between a visible name, a partial label and a row that does not visibly establish the indexed identity.

Within these 18 leads, seven rows display a first name and surname variant, two display a surname without a visible attached first name, one displays only a first name, and eight do not visibly identify the subject. These categories describe the scan, not a definitive lifetime travel count. Additional first-name-like entries on exhibit pages 42 and 51 were not attributed to Midelfart.

Airport codes are transcribed from the records rather than expanded into a claim about a visit to a particular house or property. A flight to an airport does not establish what happened afterward. Repositioning notes, redactions and abbreviated names are not filled in from a database’s proposed passenger list.

---

The November 2002 courier entry

The FedEx invoice bundle (PDF p. 32) includes a November 11, 2002 invoice with a November 1 pickup. The relevant entry names Celina Midelfart and Midelfart Holding as recipient and identifies Cecilia Steen and Jeffrey E. Epstein on the sender side. It describes an envelope and records delivery on November 4. The invoice is a contemporaneous administrative record, separate from the later relationship testimony.

The entry does not disclose the envelope’s contents. Its delivery notation is not a personal acknowledgment from Midelfart; a different signatory is recorded. It therefore does not establish a meeting, a payment, a romantic relationship or personal contact after 1997. It should not be used by itself to declare her later statement false. Private addresses, tracking identifiers and the delivery signatory’s name are omitted here.

---

What the Maxwell trial witnesses said

These passages come from United States v. Maxwell, the prosecution of Ghislaine Maxwell. The hearing dates in December 2021 are distinct from the transcripts’ August 10, 2022 filing dates. A witness answer, a lawyer’s question, an objection ruling and a closing argument have different evidentiary roles.

December 8: the pilot passage and its naming limit

In the December 8 transcript, Docket 755, defense counsel questioned government witness David Rodgers about two Teterboro-to-Palm Beach entries dated August 18 and September 12, 1996. Rodgers confirmed the entries and answered yes to a question about a romantic relationship. The transcript calls the passenger “Selena” without a surname, at printed pages 1940–1941, PDF pages 229–230. The later press reporting identified Midelfart, and she responded to that reporting. The transcript’s first-name wording is retained here rather than silently converted into a full-name identification.

December 16: Cimberly Espinosa’s office account

In Espinosa’s defense testimony (PDF p. 76–78), printed pages 2371–2373, she named Midelfart among visitors to Epstein’s office and recalled being asked to send her flowers, including an orchid. She described an impression that they were a couple, near the beginning of her employment. She did not supply a firmly established relationship timeline.

Espinosa also said she rarely observed guests with Epstein once they entered his office and the door closed. A speculation objection to the relationship-impression question was overruled; that ruling allowed the answer, but did not establish its truth. On cross-examination, printed page 2387, PDF page 92, she confirmed that her work was at the Madison Avenue office, not Epstein’s homes. Her account should not be expanded into observations of events at those homes.

December 17: Eva Andersson Dubin’s account

The December 17 transcript (PDF p. 120–121), printed pages 2661–2662, records Dubin recognizing Midelfart’s full name. A leading question that proposed a relationship in 1997 was stopped by a sustained objection. In the next exchange, Dubin described Midelfart as an Epstein girlfriend, but said she did not remember the referenced August 20 and 23, 1997 flight. That answer is not firsthand confirmation of a particular flight or its passengers.

Dubin later acknowledged general difficulty remembering events, including events far in the past, at printed pages 2670–2671, PDF pages 129–130. Her relationship description remains attributed testimony. Neither it nor Espinosa’s impression is presented as a judicial finding resolving Midelfart’s denial.

December 20: the defense’s closing argument

In Laura Menninger’s defense summation (PDF p. 141), printed page 2975, counsel named Midelfart while arguing that Epstein kept aspects of his relationships from Maxwell. This repeated a defense theory about Maxwell’s knowledge. It was not a new witness account or independent corroboration. The judge’s instructions at printed pages 3019–3020, PDF pages 185–186, expressly distinguished lawyers’ arguments and questions from evidence.

---

The 2015 and 2016 correspondence

The December 8, 2015 email from Epstein to Landon Thomas Jr. includes a profile URL bearing Midelfart’s name and claims she had been his girlfriend in 1993 before a later connection with Donald Trump. In Thomas’s reply, the earlier message is quoted. The exchange records Epstein making a claim and Thomas reacting to it; it supplies no statement from Midelfart and no independent verification of the claimed history. Her denial of dating Epstein remains material to how the assertion is described.

Later that evening, Epstein’s 22:59:55 UTC message (PDF p. 1) mentioned Midelfart in an exchange about passing material to a political reporter. Thomas’s 23:08:16 UTC reply (PDF p. 1) repeats it and refers to waiting for photographs. These files contain written discussion, not the purported photographs themselves. Redacted contacts are not reconstructed, and no claim is made that Midelfart appeared in any photographs mentioned in the chain.

The March 2016 Barrack correspondence quotes Epstein discussing reporters’ questions about Trump and listing Midelfart among topics. The overlapping two-page email chain (PDF p. 1–2) includes a later reply and repeats the earlier exchange. A correspondent’s mention of questions from reporters establishes neither the truth of an underlying allegation nor a direct communication with Midelfart.

---

Evidence appearances and duplicate copies

---

Coverage and evidentiary limits

The exact-name search returned ten records, and the surname search returned 17, including those ten. An alternative “Middelfart” spelling returned no results. Those searches were used to identify record families, not to prove complete archive coverage. First-name-only matches were not automatically attributed.

The review included the relevant trial passages and surrounding testimony in four complete transcript files; all eight pages of the three EFTA email PDFs; all 13 House email page images, including eight continuation scans (21 email-source pages in total with the EFTA PDFs); and the invoice’s relevant page and context. Both complete 152-page invoice OCR passes were searched, but only five contextual pages were visually checked. The flight exhibit’s 118 pages received contact-sheet screening, followed by detailed review of 12 candidate and nearby pages. Contact-sheet screening is not a full-resolution, line-by-line audit of every name.

The transcript duplicate pairs were compared at their covers and relevant stamped passages. This establishes source-level overlap, not byte-for-byte identity of every hosted file. The identified House email sequences were visually checked through their terminal signature or disclaimer pages. The complete unrelated Brexit compilation was not verified. This is a bounded source review, not a globally exhaustive account of every mention, journey or allegation.

• Witness testimony and Epstein’s descriptions are attributed claims. The article does not resolve the disputed romantic relationship as fact.
• Flight entries do not establish involvement in abuse, and an airport destination does not prove a visit to a particular property.
• The courier invoice does not disclose contents or prove personal receipt. It is not proof of a payment to Midelfart.
• Repeated release copies and quoted email chains are not separate events or independent corroboration.
• No redacted person, first-name-only namesake, private contact or unrelated online speculation is identified as Midelfart.
• The reviewed named trial passages do not accuse her of participating in abuse. This is a statement about those passages, not a claim to have reviewed every allegation or record worldwide.

---

Sources

• SEA1 Offshore board biography: professional identity.
• Nettavisen, December 9, 2021, and Dagbladet’s published response: Midelfart’s denials and her account of the connection.
• Government Exhibit 662 RR: original redacted flight entries, with precise pages in the table above.
• FedEx invoice bundle (PDF p. 32): the November 2002 envelope entry, Bates DOJ-OGR-00015341.
• December 8 trial transcript, Docket 755; December 16 transcript, Docket 761; December 17 transcript, Docket 763; December 20 transcript, Docket 767: testimony, objections, closing argument and jury instructions.
• The House and EFTA emails are individually linked in the evidence table, which distinguishes original messages, quoted chains and duplicate productions.