Exhibit 6: Deposition Transcript Excerpts Referencing Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Third Parties

UpdatedSeptember 9, 2026

ByEpsteinWiki

Snapshot

Exhibit: Exhibit 6

Document type: Selected excerpts from a confidential civil deposition transcript

Deponent: Johanna Sjoberg, as independently confirmed by the matching public court record and reporting

Deposition date: May 18, 2016

Time shown on caption page: 9:04 a.m.

Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

Case: Virginia L. Giuffre v. Ghislaine Maxwell

Case number: 15-CV-07433-RWS

Deposition location: Boies Schiller & Flexner, 401 Las Olas Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida

Court reporter: Kelli Ann Willis

House Oversight range: HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014286 through HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014290

Transcript pages reproduced: Pages 38, 39, and 76

People expressly named: Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, David Copperfield, and Frederic Fekkai

Business expressly named: Victoria’s Secret

Key evidence: Sjoberg testified that she observed David Copperfield as a friend of Epstein and recalled Copperfield asking whether she knew that girls were being paid to find other girls. She said he gave no specifics and did not say they were teenagers. She also testified that she heard Epstein ask someone by telephone to find girls for Frederic Fekkai in Hawaii. A separate excerpt records testimony about Epstein taking her to Victoria’s Secret and directing her to travel quickly to New York City.

Critical limitation: The excerpts do not establish that Copperfield or Fekkai participated in abuse, requested minors, or knew the ages of anyone recruited. They also do not establish that Maxwell arranged the New York trip. Several questions begin or end outside the released pages.

Identifier Correction

The requested range is sometimes described informally as EFTA 014286 through 014290. The released pages themselves are stamped HOUSE OVERSIGHT 014286 through HOUSE OVERSIGHT 014290, and the corresponding evidence links use the HOUSE_OVERSIGHT identifier.

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014286 through HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014290 should therefore be used when citing this specific exhibit.

The separate identifier EFTA00014286 points to an unrelated 2019 email about a forfeiture question. It should not be cited as Exhibit 6.

Document Identification

The first page is a cover marked “EXHIBIT 6.” The second page is the caption for a confidential deposition taken by counsel for Virginia Giuffre in her defamation action against Ghislaine Maxwell. The remaining three images reproduce transcript pages 38, 39, and 76.

The deponent’s name is not visible in the OCR transcription of the caption page. The date, testimony, case caption, and page content match the publicly identified May 18, 2016 deposition of survivor Johanna Sjoberg. Public reporting on the unsealed Giuffre v. Maxwell records attributes the same Copperfield testimony to Sjoberg.

Identifying Sjoberg here does not rely on reconstructing hidden characters from a redaction. It relies on the already public court record and independent reporting. Her testimony should still be treated with survivor centered care and without adding private identifying information unrelated to the evidence.

Structure of Exhibit 6

Exhibit 6 is not a continuous five page section of a deposition. It consists of:

An exhibit cover.
The deposition caption page.
Transcript page 38.
Transcript page 39.
Transcript page 76.

Pages 38 and 39 are consecutive. Page 76 comes from a later part of the deposition. Pages 40 through 75 are not included.

Page 38 begins in the middle of testimony about an unidentified female and whether a school she attended could have been a high school. Page 39 ends as counsel begins asking whether Sjoberg had ever been propositioned by anyone. Page 76 begins with the end of an answer about “flying over” an unidentified place and ends immediately after Epstein allegedly instructed Sjoberg to retrieve her passport.

Missing context must not be reconstructed as fact.

Litigation Context

Virginia Giuffre filed the underlying federal defamation action after Maxwell publicly disputed Giuffre’s allegations concerning Epstein’s abuse and trafficking operation. The case was filed in the Southern District of New York in 2015 and assigned case number 15-CV-07433-RWS.

Discovery in the case produced depositions from Giuffre, Maxwell, Sjoberg, Epstein, and other witnesses. The parties settled the litigation in 2017. Years of litigation over public access followed, ultimately resulting in the release of substantial portions of the record.

The fact that testimony became public does not mean every statement was accepted as true by a judge or jury. A deposition preserves sworn answers, objections, memory limitations, and attorney questions. Its evidentiary weight depends on the particular statement and any corroboration.

Testimony About the Dinner

Transcript page 38 opens during questioning about an unidentified female whom someone had described as the daughter of a friend. Counsel asked whether the school associated with that female could have been a high school. Sjoberg answered yes.

The excerpt does not identify the female, the school, the speaker who described her, her age, or the location of the dinner. Acknowledging that a school could have been a high school is not the same as confirming that the person was a minor.

Counsel then asked what occurred at the dinner. Sjoberg answered that David Copperfield performed magic tricks.

Because the preceding transcript page is missing, Exhibit 6 alone does not provide the full guest list, date, location, or circumstances of the dinner.

David Copperfield and Epstein

Counsel asked whether Sjoberg observed David Copperfield to be a friend of Jeffrey Epstein. Sjoberg answered yes.

This establishes Sjoberg’s observation and understanding of their relationship. It does not independently define the closeness, duration, or nature of the friendship.

Counsel then asked whether Copperfield had discussed Epstein’s involvement with young girls. Sjoberg testified that Copperfield asked whether she knew girls were being paid to find other girls.

That testimony is significant because it describes Copperfield raising the alleged referral system with a person inside Epstein’s circle. The wording indicates awareness of a report or concern that girls received money for recruiting others.

Sjoberg was then asked whether Copperfield gave any specifics. She answered no. When asked whether he said the girls were teenagers, she again answered that he did not.

Maxwell’s attorney objected that the question was leading and called for hearsay. The excerpt contains no ruling on the objection.

The careful conclusion is that Sjoberg recalled Copperfield asking about paid recruitment. She did not testify in these pages that he specified minors, participated in recruitment, requested anyone, witnessed abuse, or engaged in sexual misconduct.

Evidentiary Limits Concerning David Copperfield

The Copperfield testimony has frequently been stripped of its limiting answers. Exhibit 6 contains both the notable statement and the limits Sjoberg supplied.

The record supports saying:

Sjoberg observed Copperfield as a friend of Epstein.
She recalled Copperfield asking whether she knew girls were paid to find other girls.
She said Copperfield did not provide specifics.
She said he did not state that the girls were teenagers.

The record does not support saying:

Copperfield recruited girls for Epstein.
Copperfield requested minors.
Copperfield knew the recruited people were minors.
Copperfield participated in Epstein’s sexual abuse.
Sjoberg accused Copperfield of misconduct in this excerpt.

Later public responses attributed to Copperfield’s attorneys stated that he had heard a rumor about girls being paid to bring other girls to Epstein’s residence and denied knowledge of Epstein’s crimes. That response provides context, but it does not alter what Sjoberg said under oath.

Frederic Fekkai Telephone Statement

Transcript page 39 turns to Frederic Fekkai. Counsel asked whether Sjoberg had heard Epstein discussing Fekkai on the telephone. Sjoberg answered yes.

She testified that she heard Epstein call someone and say that Fekkai was in Hawaii, followed by a request to find girls for him.

Sjoberg said she was massaging Epstein at the time. When asked about her reaction, she explained that she tried to remain without visible reaction throughout the five years referenced in her testimony.

This is testimony about a statement Sjoberg attributed to Epstein. It does not establish who was on the other end of the call, whether the person complied, whether anyone was found, what Epstein meant by “girls,” or whether Fekkai knew about the call.

Most importantly, Exhibit 6 does not show that Fekkai asked Epstein to find anyone. It does not establish that Fekkai sought minors, received an introduction, met anyone through the call, or participated in abuse.

Evidentiary Limits Concerning Frederic Fekkai

The Fekkai passage is evidence that Sjoberg recalled Epstein invoking Fekkai’s name while asking an unidentified person to locate girls in Hawaii. It is not direct testimony from Fekkai and does not reveal his knowledge or intent.

The excerpt provides no date for the telephone call. It contains no telephone records, message slips, travel records, corroborating witness, or testimony from the recipient. It does not identify the ages of the people Epstein sought.

The distinction matters because Epstein could make statements about third parties without their knowledge or authorization. His statement is relevant to investigating his conduct, but it cannot automatically be treated as an admission by the person he named.

Victoria’s Secret Fitting Room Testimony

Counsel next asked whether Epstein ever took Sjoberg shopping. She answered yes and described a visit to Victoria’s Secret.

Sjoberg testified that she believed Epstein selected the items and entered the fitting room with her. She described his presence there as very odd.

According to Sjoberg, Epstein joked that he had previously been in the fitting room with another girl who said something like “Dad.” She said that was all she recalled.

The excerpt does not identify the other person, her age, the store location, the date, or whether the quoted remark was literal, joking, or accurately recounted by Epstein. It also does not establish that Victoria’s Secret personnel knew about or facilitated any misconduct.

The business name identifies the setting described by Sjoberg. It does not create organizational culpability.

Sjoberg’s Description of Emotional Survival

When asked how she reacted to Epstein’s alleged telephone request concerning Fekkai, Sjoberg said she tried to remain reactionless throughout the five years.

That answer is important survivor testimony. Emotional neutrality during abuse or exploitation can be a method of enduring threatening or coercive circumstances. A flat reaction should not be read as approval, indifference, or proof that an event was harmless.

The excerpt does not ask Sjoberg to provide a clinical explanation for this response. Any trauma interpretation should therefore remain general and should not diagnose her from a transcript fragment.

Page 76 and the New York Travel Request

Transcript page 76 is separate from the Copperfield and Fekkai discussion. It begins in the middle of another exchange.

Sjoberg testified that she did not know who called her roommate. Counsel referred to the period before a trip to New York and asked whether she had discussed the particulars of her massages with Epstein with Ghislaine Maxwell. After an objection by Ms. McCawley, Sjoberg answered no.

Sjoberg also testified that no one had previously mentioned the idea of traveling to her. She said she called Epstein immediately after the unidentified call to her roommate. According to Sjoberg, Epstein told her he wanted to take her to New York City and asked whether she could come quickly.

Sjoberg said that when she arrived at the house, Epstein asked whether she had her passport. When she said no, he told her to retrieve it.

The excerpt ends there. It does not explain why a passport was requested for a trip described as travel to New York City, what happened next, whether the planned itinerary included another country, or whether the trip occurred as described.

What the Maxwell Reference Establishes

Maxwell is referenced on page 76 in a question asked by her own attorney. Counsel asked whether Sjoberg recalled discussing details of her massages with Epstein with Maxwell before the trip. Sjoberg answered no.

That answer establishes only that Sjoberg did not recall such a pretrip discussion. It does not establish that Maxwell had no knowledge from another source, that Maxwell did not participate in later events, or that other conversations never occurred.

It also does not establish that Maxwell made the telephone call to Sjoberg’s roommate. Sjoberg expressly said she did not know who called.

The exhibit therefore contains a Maxwell related denial of a specific conversation, not a broad exoneration or accusation.

Evidentiary Value

Exhibit 6 is valuable because it preserves several distinct strands of sworn testimony:

Sjoberg’s observation that Copperfield appeared to be Epstein’s friend.
Her recollection that Copperfield asked about girls being paid to recruit other girls.
Her limiting testimony that Copperfield supplied no specifics and did not say the recruits were teenagers.
Her recollection that Epstein invoked Fekkai’s name while asking someone to find girls in Hawaii.
Her account of Epstein entering a Victoria’s Secret fitting room with her.
Her description of attempting to remain reactionless over a five year period.
Her testimony that she did not discuss massage particulars with Maxwell before the trip referenced on page 76.
Her account of Epstein directing her to travel quickly to New York City and retrieve her passport.

The exhibit is best used as a lead and corroboration map. Each strand should be compared with telephone records, travel records, message books, calendars, other testimony, and the complete deposition.

Evidentiary Limits

The released range does not include:

Transcript page 37, which would explain the opening dinner testimony.
Transcript page 40, which would show the answer to the unfinished proposition question.
Transcript pages 40 through 75.
Transcript page 75, which would explain the phrase “just flying over it.”
Transcript page 77, which would continue the passport and travel testimony.
Any exhibits shown to Sjoberg during these questions.
Testimony from Copperfield, Fekkai, the unidentified caller, or the roommate.
Telephone, travel, store, or passport records corroborating the described events.
Judicial rulings resolving the objections shown in the transcript.
A finding that any third party named in the questions committed misconduct.

Page by Page Guide

Bates page	Content
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014286	Exhibit 6 cover page
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014287	Giuffre v. Maxwell caption, case number, deposition date, location, confidentiality marking, and reporter information
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014288	Transcript page 38, including dinner testimony and questions concerning David Copperfield and paid recruitment
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014289	Transcript page 39, including the alleged Fekkai telephone statement and Victoria’s Secret fitting room testimony
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014290	Transcript page 76, including the unknown call to Sjoberg’s roommate, the question about Maxwell, and Epstein’s New York travel and passport instructions

What the Record Establishes

The released pages establish that:

Exhibit 6 comes from Giuffre v. Maxwell, case 15-CV-07433-RWS.
The deposition was taken in Fort Lauderdale on May 18, 2016.
The testimony matches the publicly identified deposition of Johanna Sjoberg.
Sjoberg testified that she observed Copperfield to be a friend of Epstein.
She recalled Copperfield asking whether she knew girls were paid to find other girls.
She said Copperfield gave no specifics and did not say they were teenagers.
She testified that she heard Epstein ask someone to find girls for Fekkai in Hawaii.
She described Epstein taking her to Victoria’s Secret and entering the fitting room.
She answered no when asked whether she discussed massage particulars with Maxwell before the referenced trip.
She testified that Epstein asked her to travel quickly to New York City and retrieve her passport.

What the Record Does Not Establish

The released pages do not establish that:

Copperfield recruited anyone for Epstein.
Copperfield knew the recruitment involved minors.
Copperfield participated in abuse or trafficking.
Fekkai asked Epstein to find girls for him.
Fekkai knew about the telephone statement attributed to Epstein.
Any person located through the alleged request was a minor.
Victoria’s Secret or its employees knew about misconduct.
Maxwell called Sjoberg’s roommate or arranged the New York trip.
The request for a passport proves international travel.
Every question or statement in the deposition was admitted at trial or accepted as true by a court.

Fact Check

Claim: The evidence range is EFTA00014286 through EFTA00014290

False. Those identifiers belong to a different document series. Exhibit 6 is stamped HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014286 through HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014290.

Claim: The deponent was Johanna Sjoberg

Corroborated. The name is not legible in the released caption image, but the date, case, transcript pages, and distinctive Copperfield testimony match the publicly identified Sjoberg deposition.

Claim: Copperfield told Sjoberg that minors were being paid to recruit other minors

False. Sjoberg testified that Copperfield asked about girls being paid to find other girls. She expressly said he supplied no specifics and did not say they were teenagers.

Claim: Sjoberg accused Copperfield of participating in Epstein’s abuse

False. No such accusation appears in these pages.

Claim: Epstein asked someone to find girls for Fekkai

Verified as Sjoberg’s testimony. She attributed that telephone statement to Epstein. The excerpt does not independently prove that the request was fulfilled or authorized by Fekkai.

Claim: Fekkai requested minors from Epstein

Not established. The pages contain no statement by Fekkai and do not identify the ages of anyone allegedly sought.

Claim: Maxwell arranged the call or New York trip

Not established. Sjoberg said she did not know who called her roommate. She answered no when asked whether she discussed massage particulars with Maxwell before the trip.

Claim: Exhibit 6 is a continuous transcript excerpt

False. It includes pages 38, 39, and 76, with a 36 page gap.

Questions Still Unanswered

What appears on transcript pages 37, 40, 75, and 77?
When and where did the dinner involving Copperfield occur?
Who was the unidentified female connected to the school question?
What was the source of Copperfield’s apparent knowledge about paid recruitment?
Did Copperfield report his concern to anyone at the time?
Who received Epstein’s alleged telephone request concerning Fekkai?
Did telephone or travel records corroborate that call?
Was Fekkai aware that Epstein had used his name during the call?
Who called Sjoberg’s roommate before the proposed trip?
Why did Epstein request a passport for travel described as a trip to New York City?
Did the itinerary include an international destination?
For what filing or proceeding was this excerpt designated Exhibit 6?

Related EpsteinWiki Pages

Johanna Sjoberg
Virginia Giuffre v. Ghislaine Maxwell
Jeffrey Epstein
Ghislaine Noelle Marion Maxwell
David Copperfield
Frederic Fekkai
Victoria’s Secret
Epstein Recruitment and Referral System
Deposition Transcript Index
Exhibits Index
House Oversight Committee Epstein Records
Survivor Interview and Testimony Standards

Source List

PostedDecember 17, 2025