EFTA01612671: Redacted iMessage Exchange About a GQ Lingerie Shoot, Travel, and Lesley
Snapshot
EFTA01612671 begins a 12 page iMessage export containing photographs, social media screenshots, and a conversation dated July 3 through July 8, 2017. The evidence range continues through EFTA01612682.
The exchange centers on a female model who is deciding whether to participate in a proposed GQ lingerie photograph with another woman. She objects to nudity, asks whether the other model can perform the nude portion, and says she will participate only in lingerie. The other correspondent discourages the project as cheap and potentially harmful to future employment. The model initially declines, later accepts after the terms are changed, and reports that the completed shoot was professional and quick.
The same conversation discusses possible travel from Tel Aviv to New York, a future visit, scheduling through a person identified only as “Lesley,” and Paris disruption associated with Donald Trump’s forthcoming July 2017 visit. It ends with a sexual remark from one correspondent and a requested photograph.
The official PDF redacts both message participants. One embedded screenshot on EFTA01612674 visibly contains the search text “deimante guobyte” and a caption naming Deimante Guobyte. That is a significant identification lead, but the page does not expressly state that Guobyte is one of the correspondents. The document also does not display Jeffrey Epstein’s name in the message header or body. Those identities require corroboration from native device records, extraction reports, contact databases, or related files.
Key Takeaways
- The file preserves a six day conversation dated July 3 through July 8, 2017.
- The model clearly states that she does not want to perform a nude shoot and proposes a compromise in which the other woman would handle that portion.
- The second correspondent calls the concept distasteful and warns that cheap lingerie imagery could remain available when the model seeks a serious job.
- The model says she initially refused the assignment, then accepted only after receiving assurances that she would be properly covered and appear in one image rather than two.
- The model reports that her agency considered the GQ opportunity valuable exposure and a major step in her career.
- The exchange shows the second correspondent acting as an adviser whose approval mattered to the model, while also engaging in personal and sexual communication.
- The model discusses leaving Tel Aviv early, flying on July 16, and arranging details through “Lesley.” The file does not provide Lesley’s surname.
- A screenshot directly displays the name Deimante Guobyte, but the official export does not explicitly identify either participant as Guobyte.
- The phrase about Paris and Trump is chronologically consistent with Donald Trump’s July 13 and July 14, 2017 visit to Paris, although the message was written more than a week before the visit.
- No message in this file describes a payment, an age, sexual abuse, trafficking, coercion by force, or a crime. Its investigative value lies in relationship mapping, travel coordination, model industry access, consent boundaries, and identification of the person called Lesley.
Document Profile Chart
| Field | Documented information |
|---|---|
| First evidence page | EFTA01612671 |
| Final evidence page | EFTA01612682 |
| Total length | 12 pages |
| Platform | iMessage |
| Displayed timezone | UTC plus 0000 |
| Conversation dates | July 3 through July 8, 2017 |
| Named people in visible content | Deimante Guobyte, Donald Trump, and Lesley |
| Named publication | GQ |
| Named brand | Christina Leonor |
| Mentioned locations | Paris, New York, and Tel Aviv |
| Participant names | Redacted in the official PDF |
| Export source | Not identified on the visible pages |
| Attachments | Modeling photographs, social media screenshots, and one personal photograph |
Evidence Page Chart
| Evidence page | Date or time shown | Principal content |
|---|---|---|
| EFTA01612671 | July 3, 2017 at 8:15 p.m. | A participant says she has news to discuss and sends a partially redacted modeling photograph |
| EFTA01612672 | Image attachment | Two additional partially redacted modeling photographs |
| EFTA01612673 | Image attachment | Two more partially redacted photographs, including lingerie or mesh styling |
| EFTA01612674 | Embedded screenshot shows 9:25 p.m. | A search or social result containing the visible text “deimante guobyte” and “Deimante Guobyte sahilde” |
| EFTA01612675 | Embedded screenshot shows 9:27 p.m. | Christina Leonor Instagram profile describing Swedish and Italian made sustainable lingerie |
| EFTA01612676 | Embedded screenshot shows 9:28 p.m. | Christina Leonor lingerie photograph with portions redacted |
| EFTA01612677 | July 3, 2017 from 8:28 p.m. through 10:35 p.m. | The model proposes a compromise, refuses nudity, and receives a negative assessment of the concept |
| EFTA01612678 | July 3 through July 5, 2017 | Agreement to refuse if no compromise, career advice, initial refusal, and discussion of Paris, Trump, New York, and the weekend |
| EFTA01612679 | July 5 and July 6, 2017 | Continued visit planning and discussion of weekends versus weekdays |
| EFTA01612680 | July 6 and July 7, 2017 | Tel Aviv travel options, possible July 16 flight, coordination through Lesley, and the decision to accept the GQ assignment |
| EFTA01612681 | July 7 and July 8, 2017 | Shoot timing, report that it went well, and a sexual remark from the other correspondent |
| EFTA01612682 | July 8, 2017 from 8:02 p.m. through 8:04 p.m. | Request for a photograph, response that the model is not home, personal photograph from that morning, and thanks |
Participants and Redactions
The export uses two message colors and two profile icons, but the identifying names and addresses at the top of the first page are covered by black redaction boxes. Additional black boxes obscure parts of the photographs and several message header labels.
For clarity, this article refers to the person discussing the modeling assignment as the model and the other person as the second correspondent. Those labels describe their roles within this conversation. They do not establish their legal identities.
The visible evidence supports a strong inference that the model is an adult professional model with agency representation. She discusses a GQ assignment, says her agency believes it will provide major exposure, and describes travel between Tel Aviv and New York. The file does not display her age, date of birth, agency name, contract, compensation, or employment record.
The second correspondent appears to have enough personal influence that the model seeks advice about the shoot and asks what the person would like her to do about a visit. The second correspondent also appears to have access to someone named Lesley who may assist with scheduling. These facts establish influence and coordination, but they do not by themselves establish employment, financial control, coercion, or criminal conduct.
July 3, 2017: Photographs and the Proposed Shoot
EFTA01612671 opens with the model saying she has news that she would like to discuss and asking the other person to say when free. The message is followed by a series of modeling images across EFTA01612671, EFTA01612672, and EFTA01612673. Large black rectangles obscure faces, breasts, genital areas, captions, or other information.
EFTA01612674 shows another screenshot of a partially redacted female image. The top search field visibly reads “deimante guobyte.” Text under the image reads “Deimante Guobyte sahilde,” a phrase that appears to identify Guobyte and describe her at the beach. This is the only page in the 12 page range that visibly supplies a full personal name connected to the model imagery.
EFTA01612675 displays the Instagram profile for Christina Leonor. The profile describes the business as a lingerie clothing brand, states that it is Swedish and Italian made, uses sustainable production language, and promotes worldwide shipping. EFTA01612676 shows an individual Christina Leonor post featuring a woman in lingerie. The image has been partially obscured by black boxes.
EFTA01612677 returns to the iMessage conversation. The model sends another photograph and says she will ask for a compromise because two women are involved. She proposes that the other woman perform the nude shot while she does only the lingerie portion. The second correspondent responds that the concept does not appear tasteful.
The model’s language documents a specific boundary. She does not merely express uncertainty about styling. She distinguishes nudity from lingerie and proposes a concrete alternative that would allow her to participate without appearing nude.
July 3 and July 4: Refusal, Career Advice, and Approval
On EFTA01612678, the model agrees with the negative assessment and says that she will decline if the organizers will not compromise. The next morning, the second correspondent argues that there is little benefit in producing cheap lingerie imagery that could remain available when the model later seeks a real job.
The model replies that she told the organizers she would not do it. The second correspondent answers, “Good.”
This short exchange shows that the second correspondent was not encouraging the model to accept the nude proposal. Within this particular conversation, the person supported her refusal and framed the advice as protection of her future professional reputation.
That fact should not be expanded beyond the evidence. The file does not reveal whether the correspondent had a financial interest in the model, controlled her work, regularly advised her career, or objected for protective, possessive, reputational, or other reasons.
July 5 and July 6: Paris, New York, Tel Aviv, and Scheduling
The conversation shifts from modeling work to travel and a possible visit. On EFTA01612678, the model asks about plans for the weekend. The second correspondent says Paris is a mess because of Trump’s visit and will probably travel to New York on Friday.
Donald Trump arrived in Paris on July 13, 2017, and attended Bastille Day events on July 14. The July 5 message therefore appears to discuss preparations or anticipated disruption before that official visit, not a visit already underway. The reference provides a useful chronological cross check, but it does not identify either correspondent.
The model asks whether the second correspondent would prefer her to come to New York for the weekend and spend it together. She asks what the person would like and mentions that she has another suggestion. Later she says she is going to sleep and asks again what the person wants to do that weekend.
On EFTA01612679, the second correspondent says that availability is a problem. The model expresses disappointment, asks to schedule another time, and is told, “I always want to see you.” She says the feeling is mutual and asks whether weekends or weekdays are easier.
EFTA01612680 continues the planning. The model says she will be in Tel Aviv until July 16 but can leave earlier if that is more convenient. She also offers to fly on July 16 or at any time after that. The messages establish travel flexibility and a desire to accommodate the other person’s schedule. They do not establish that any proposed trip occurred.
The Reference to Lesley
On EFTA01612680, the model says she does not want to send too many messages because she knows the correspondent is busy. She then asks whether she should organize with “Leslie” and immediately corrects the spelling to “Lesley.” The second correspondent replies that she is never a bother and should not worry.
The spelling correction is potentially important because Jeffrey Epstein’s longtime assistant Lesley Groff used that spelling. However, this file gives no surname, contact information, title, or other identifier. It would be premature to state as fact that the message refers to Groff.
Investigators can test the lead by comparing the date with Groff’s emails, calendars, travel arrangements, telephone records, and other message exports. A matching itinerary or instruction involving the same model, Tel Aviv, New York, or July 16 would provide stronger identification evidence.
July 7: The Revised GQ Assignment
Later on EFTA01612680, the second correspondent asks what the model decided about GQ. The model says she chose to participate because the organizers were nice about the issue and responded to her concerns.
She explains that she now understands she will be properly covered, will not show anything, and will appear in one picture rather than two. She says she feels comfortable with the revised arrangement and asks the second correspondent for an opinion. She adds that her agency considers the project excellent exposure and a major step in her modeling career.
The sequence documents a changed decision after changed terms. It also records the model’s own stated standard for consent: proper coverage, no exposed nudity, and a reduced number of photographs. The file does not include the assignment agreement, model release, call sheet, agency email, photographer’s name, fee, publication date, or final image.
The second correspondent asks when the shoot will occur. The model answers that it is scheduled for the next day.
July 8: Completion, Sexual Remark, and Requested Photograph
On EFTA01612681, the second correspondent asks how the shoot went. The model says it went well, describes the production as professional and quick, and says the bodysuit looked very nice on her.
After the model asks how the other person is doing, the second correspondent answers, “Horny.” The model responds with surprise and a playful emoji. This is the only plainly sexual written statement visible in the conversation.
EFTA01612682 shows the second correspondent asking for a photograph. The model says she has not been home, then sends a personal image that she says was taken earlier that morning. The image appears to show an adult woman taking a mirror photograph in a red garment. Her face is obscured. The second correspondent replies with thanks.
The exchange documents sexualized communication between the correspondents, but it does not establish the model’s age, the legal status of the relationship, a payment for the image, a threat, or force. Any broader conclusion requires evidence outside this file.
Deimante Guobyte Identification Lead
The full name Deimante Guobyte appears directly inside the screenshot on EFTA01612674. Public reporting and a December 2016 GQ profile identify Deimante Guobyte as a Lithuanian model. GQ’s profile also establishes that she was already featured by the publication months before this July 2017 exchange.
Those facts make Guobyte a reasonable identification lead for the woman depicted or discussed. They do not conclusively prove that she authored the messages. The screenshot could have been shared as a reference, could depict another model, or could have been sent by someone discussing Guobyte.
The strongest verification would come from an unredacted native message database showing the Apple account, telephone number, contact record, attachment ownership, and message direction. Agency booking records, GQ production files, Christina Leonor campaign records, or the final published image could provide independent corroboration.
EpsteinWiki should therefore distinguish three propositions:
| Proposition | Evidence status |
|---|---|
| The file contains the name Deimante Guobyte | Established by EFTA01612674 |
| The file concerns a female model considering a GQ lingerie shoot | Established by the conversation |
| Deimante Guobyte is one of the two redacted correspondents | Plausible identification that is not proven by the official PDF alone |
Relationship and Power Analysis
The model repeatedly seeks the second correspondent’s preferences and approval. She asks whether she should accept the shoot, whether she should come to New York, whether a weekend or weekday is easier, whether she should leave Tel Aviv early, and whether she should coordinate through Lesley.
The second correspondent provides career advice, approves the initial refusal, controls personal availability, appears connected to a scheduling intermediary, asks about the completed shoot, makes a sexual comment, and requests a photograph. This pattern suggests a relationship that blends professional guidance, travel coordination, emotional intimacy, and sexual interest.
The file does not show whether that influence was formal or informal. It does not identify a contract, salary, gift, travel payment, housing arrangement, or agency relationship. It also does not show that the model was unable to refuse. In fact, the visible messages document her negotiating boundaries with the proposed shoot and ultimately reporting that those boundaries were accepted.
The investigative question is not whether the exchange alone proves coercion. It does not. The question is whether the same relationship pattern appears across other Epstein communications with models, assistants, recruiters, or young women, and whether travel, money, or career opportunities were used elsewhere to create dependency or access.
Investigative Significance
Model Industry Access
The conversation connects a redacted correspondent to a working model, a model agency, GQ, and the Christina Leonor lingerie brand. This provides specific entities and records that could be subpoenaed, requested, or compared with other evidence.
Consent and Boundary Negotiation
The model’s refusal of nudity and later acceptance after modified terms create an unusually clear written record of a professional boundary. Production records could show who proposed the original concept, who changed it, and whether the final publication honored the agreement.
Travel Coordination
The references to Paris, New York, Tel Aviv, July 16, and Lesley provide date and location points that can be checked against flight logs, calendars, passport records, hotel records, and assistant communications.
Contact Identification
The screenshot naming Deimante Guobyte and the corrected spelling of Lesley are concrete leads. Neither should be treated as a completed identification without corroboration.
Communication Pattern
The exchange shows a progression from professional advice to travel planning, reassurance, sexual language, and a requested personal photograph. Comparing this progression with other message threads may reveal a recurring method of relationship development.
Limits of the File
The file is a short excerpt without native metadata, surrounding conversation history, contact identifiers, or investigative explanation. It should be used as a lead and relationship record, not as standalone proof of criminal conduct.
What the File Establishes
- A 12 page iMessage export exists in the released EFTA evidence.
- The visible conversation occurred from July 3 through July 8, 2017, according to the export.
- A female model discussed a proposed GQ shoot involving lingerie and possible nudity.
- She did not want to perform the nude portion and proposed that the other woman do it.
- She initially refused when the terms were unacceptable.
- She later agreed after being assured that she would remain covered and appear in only one photograph.
- She said her agency considered the assignment valuable exposure.
- She discussed travel involving Paris, New York, and Tel Aviv.
- She offered to travel on or before July 16 and asked whether to coordinate with Lesley.
- The file contains Christina Leonor social media screenshots.
- The file contains the visible name Deimante Guobyte.
- The exchange ends with a sexual remark and a requested personal photograph.
What the File Does Not Establish
- It does not visibly identify either message participant.
- It does not state that Jeffrey Epstein authored or received the messages.
- It does not prove that Deimante Guobyte was one of the correspondents.
- It does not identify Lesley by surname.
- It does not provide the model’s age.
- It does not document a payment, contract, gift, or funded trip.
- It does not prove that any discussed trip occurred.
- It does not identify the second female model, photographer, agency, editor, or production company.
- It does not contain the final GQ photograph or publication citation.
- It does not show that the model was forced to accept the assignment.
- It does not describe sexual abuse, trafficking, or any other crime.
- It does not reveal how the messages were acquired, which device produced them, or whether the export is complete.
Questions for Further Investigation
- Which device, account, or forensic extraction produced EFTA01612671 through EFTA01612682?
- Who are the two participants hidden by the header redactions?
- Does the native extraction preserve telephone numbers, Apple account identifiers, contact names, database row numbers, or attachment hashes?
- Why does EFTA01612674 contain a search and caption naming Deimante Guobyte?
- Was Guobyte one of the correspondents, the woman in the attached photographs, or simply the subject of a shared search result?
- Which GQ edition, editor, photographer, and production company planned the July 8, 2017 shoot?
- Was the shoot ultimately published, and did the final image use Christina Leonor lingerie?
- Which model agency represented the woman, and does it retain the booking agreement or call sheet?
- Who proposed nudity, who approved the compromise, and what written consent or model release was signed?
- Who was the second woman involved in the proposed photograph?
- Does “Lesley” refer to Lesley Groff or another person?
- Do calendars or assistant emails show an attempted meeting in New York or travel from Tel Aviv around July 16, 2017?
- Do flight records, passport records, hotel records, or financial records show that the proposed travel occurred?
- Was the second correspondent in Paris before Donald Trump’s July 13 arrival or planning to leave because of anticipated security disruption?
- Do other EFTA message threads show the same correspondent advising models about jobs and arranging visits through Lesley?
- Are the original attachments available without editorial redactions, and do they retain metadata identifying the sender, device, creation date, or image source?
Related EpsteinWiki Pages
- Jeffrey Edward Epstein
- Lesley Groff
- Epstein Modeling Network
- Epstein Travel Records
- Epstein Digital Evidence Index
- GQ
- Deimante Guobyte
- Christina Leonor
Sources
- EFTA01612671 through EFTA01612682, complete 12 page iMessage export
- United States Department of Justice source PDF, EFTA01612671
- GQ profile of Deimante Guobyte, published December 12, 2016
- GQ 2017 Instagram model gallery, which includes Deimante Guobyte in its earlier featured model group
- Christina Leonor designer profile, independent background on the lingerie brand visible in the evidence
- Archived White House account of Trump’s second day in Paris, July 14, 2017