Dana Hammond
Snapshot
| Field | Record |
|---|---|
| Name | Dana Hammond |
| Primary sources | July 2009 email; Rodriguez deposition excerpt; 1991 flight-log page |
| Finding | Specific documentary appearance requiring contextual interpretation |
| Evidentiary caution | Named appearance does not establish unlawful conduct |
Dana Hammond’s name appears in two distinctly different sources: a 2009 email describing a social gathering in Saint Tropez, and court testimony describing a former household employer in Palm Beach. The value of these sources is not the gossip surrounding a wealthy social network. It is the opportunity to compare an informal correspondent’s remarks with sworn testimony about employment and identity.
Key Takeaways
- Rodriguez’s testimony identifies separate periods of employment by Epstein and Dana Aimes Hammond.
- The deposition occurred in 2009; the reproduced filing was entered in 2015.
- The 1991 handwritten passenger entry says Dana and does not independently supply the Hammond surname.
Explanation of the Evidence
EFTA01817256: What the Record Shows
EFTA01817256 is the original archive reference for this item.
A July 25, 2009 email from Epstein to Peggy Siegal quotes her message from earlier that day. Siegal says she went to an open market with Dana Hammond and gives personal opinions about the visit. The chain establishes what Siegal wrote and that Epstein replied; it does not independently verify her characterizations or establish that he attended. Irrelevant remarks about other people should not be repeated as findings.
EFTA02846460: What the Record Shows
EFTA02846460 is the original archive reference for this item.
Page 2 of this flight-log collection records Dana, without a surname, on the July 31 and August 6, 1991 Columbus-to-Teterboro entries. Page 2 of EFTA02826077 reproduces the same underlying log page. These are two released copies of one record, not independent identity confirmation. Neither page supplies Hammond as Dana’s surname or identifies this passenger as pilot Bill Hammond.
How These Records Fit the Wider Investigation
The docket exhibit reproduces Alfredo Rodriguez’s July 29, 2009 deposition. The excerpt was entered on January 21, 2015 as Document 291-18 in Doe v. United States, No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM; the deposition itself was taken in civil actions against Epstein. Rodriguez described working for Epstein from September 2004 and for Dana Aimes Hammond during 2005 to 2006. This is sworn testimony about his employment history, not a judicial finding against Hammond or proof that she participated in Epstein’s offenses.
The sequence of employers is the documented connection: Rodriguez expressly said the jobs were at different times. His testimony does not establish a shared business operation, coordinated conduct or overlapping employment. Separate employers, time periods and roles should remain separate facts.
The Actual Deposition and Its Date
The reproduced deposition excerpt contains transcript pages 10 through 13 of Alfredo Rodriguez’s July 29, 2009 deposition. It was filed in Doe v. United States on January 21, 2015. The filing date and testimony date are different.
Rodriguez says he began working for Epstein in September 2004 and worked for Dana Aimes Hammond from 2005 to 2006. When asked whether the employers overlapped, he says they were at different times. His spelling of Dana and use of Aimes supply a more specific identity clue than a surname alone. The testimony does not accuse Hammond of coordinating with Epstein or participating in abuse.
The Early Aircraft Entries Do Not Spell Out Hammond
The inspected July and August 1991 log page names Dana on the July 31 Columbus to Teterboro line and on the August 6 line on the same route. Modern indexes expand those entries to Dana Hammond, but the handwritten remarks on the inspected page do not supply that surname. This article therefore reports Dana as the original reading and Hammond as the compiler’s attribution.
This discrepancy prevents a definitive claim that the 1991 passenger is the later household employer. The same principle separates the passenger Dana from pilot William Hammond, whose role is separately documented elsewhere in the case file.
Later Communications Add Distinct Evidence
Epstein’s July 24, 2009 email asks Peggy Siegal to relay a message to Dana Hammond about people in Saint Tropez. A separate July 25 reply chain preserves Siegal’s account of an open-market visit with Hammond and Epstein’s reply. These records establish the messages and their dates; they do not prove that the July 25 message answered the July 24 email or that Epstein attended the visit.
Page 13 of a message export displays a February 23, 2019 message referring to sending an unspecified item with Dana Hammond the previous week. The same text and timestamp appear twice on that page; those duplicate entries should not be counted as two independently corroborating communications. The excerpt does not identify the item, independently establish a completed delivery, or support an inference about trafficking.
Questions and Unresolved Issues
- Can contemporary payroll or employment records corroborate the dates described in the deposition?
- Does the Dana Aimes Hammond identification match the individual described in the 2009 email?
- Are any flight record Hammond entries actually about Dana, rather than pilot Bill Hammond?
- Was the social event described in the 2009 email independently documented?
- Which assertions are sworn statements and which are a correspondent’s personal opinions?
Related EpsteinWiki Articles
- Teresa Helm illustrates the distinction between survivor statements and independent corroboration.
- Flights and Travel Research Tools explains how name collisions can corrupt passenger analysis.
Sources
- EFTA01817256. July 25, 2009 reply chain: Siegal’s account of a visit with Dana Hammond and Epstein’s reply.
- EFTA02846460, page 2. July 31 and August 6, 1991 entries name Dana without Hammond; compare the same log page in EFTA02826077, page 2. Neither copy independently establishes the passenger’s surname.