Government Exhibit 662 RR Jeffrey Epstein Flight Logs in United States v Maxwell
Snapshot
Government Exhibit 662 RR is the 118 page flight log exhibit publicly released from United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, case number S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN). The exhibit consists primarily of scanned pilot log pages. It is not a conventional airline passenger manifest, a complete list of every person who traveled with Jeffrey Epstein, or a self proving list of criminal participants.
The first page contains entries dated in 1991. The final page contains late 2005 entries followed by visible January 2006 entries. This corrects a recurring error created by secondary digital spreadsheets that begin in November 1995. Those spreadsheets may reproduce part of the record, but they do not define the beginning of the court exhibit.
The exhibit records aircraft, departure and arrival codes, flight numbers, landings, pilot certifications, and remarks. Passenger names, initials, staff names, operational notes, and redactions appear unevenly in the remarks column. A name appearing there does not prove misconduct, knowledge, purpose, or even that every planned passenger completed the recorded leg.
Snapshot Chart
| Field | Verified finding |
|---|---|
| Court case | United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell |
| Case number on exhibit | S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) |
| Exhibit label | Government Exhibit 662 RR |
| Public file length | 118 pages |
| Earliest visible year | 1991 |
| Latest visible entries | January 2006 |
| Primary record type | Handwritten pilot flight logs |
| Passenger information | Names, initials, group descriptions, unknown notations, and redactions in remarks |
| Official host | United States Department of Justice |
| Central limitation | A log entry does not establish misconduct or knowledge |
What Is Government Exhibit 662 RR
The exhibit is a compiled set of aviation records marked for the prosecution in the Maxwell criminal case. The yellow exhibit sticker on the first page identifies it as Government Exhibit 662 RR and reproduces the case number. The first page also bears the notation that it was publicly released in U.S. v. Maxwell.
The word government in the exhibit label identifies the party that offered or marked the exhibit. It does not mean the federal government created the underlying handwritten records. The pages themselves were generated over many years as aviation records and were later assembled, scanned, labeled, and released as a court exhibit.
The public PDF does not explain the meaning of the suffix RR. Researchers should reproduce the label exactly and should not invent an expansion for those letters without a transcript or docket source that defines them.
Exhibit Identity Chart
| Element | What the exhibit shows | What researchers should not assume |
|---|---|---|
| Government Exhibit | The prosecution exhibit designation | That the government wrote every entry |
| 662 | The exhibit number | The number of flights, passengers, or pages |
| RR | Part of the exhibit label | A meaning not defined on the face of the PDF |
| S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) | The criminal case identifier shown on the sticker | A separate flight record number |
| Publicly released notation | The copy was released from the Maxwell matter | That every related aviation record was released |
Court Context
The Southern District of New York states that Maxwell was found guilty on December 29, 2021, after a one month jury trial. The court sentenced her in June 2022. Government Exhibit 662 RR belongs to that criminal case record.
The exhibit is relevant because the charged conduct included travel and activity across multiple locations. Flight records can help establish chronology, movement, opportunity, association, and the sequence of events. They become stronger when compared with testimony, calendars, address records, financial documents, photographs, communications, and other independently authenticated evidence.
The exhibit stamp alone does not answer every evidentiary question. The PDF does not contain the trial transcript identifying the sponsoring witness, the complete foundation testimony, objections, limiting instructions, or the court’s precise ruling about each possible use. Researchers making legal claims about admission, authentication, or hearsay should cite the relevant transcript or docket entry in addition to the exhibit.
Court Record Chart
| Question | What this PDF establishes | What requires another source |
|---|---|---|
| Which case | United States v. Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) | Nothing further for basic identification |
| Exhibit designation | Government Exhibit 662 RR | Meaning of the RR suffix |
| Public release | The copy bears a public release notation and is hosted by DOJ | Complete release history and every prior sealing decision |
| Underlying content | Scanned pilot log pages | Full chain of custody before trial |
| Trial use | It was designated as a government exhibit | Exact foundation testimony, objections, and ruling |
| Meaning of an entry | A notation appears on a particular page | The purpose of travel or knowledge of other conduct |
What the 118 Pages Contain
The pages use pilot log forms rather than a modern passenger database. Most pages contain repeated columns for date, aircraft make and model, aircraft identification mark, departure, arrival, miles, flight number, remarks, landings, aircraft category totals, and pilot certification. The layout changes slightly across years and aircraft.
The remarks column carries much of the information that attracts public attention. It can contain names, initials, descriptions such as female or passenger, crew references, training notes, maintenance activity, simulator entries, and operational comments. Some rows identify no passenger. Some later entries contain black redactions. None of these formats should be silently converted into a confirmed identity.
The pilot signature and certification line are part of the log form. Page totals and cumulative totals also appear. These features show that the records served an aviation record keeping purpose. The passenger references were not written as a public facing guest list.
Page Anatomy Chart
| Field | Typical content | Research caution |
|---|---|---|
| Date | Day, month, and year markers | Year placement can be faint or carried across rows |
| Aircraft make and model | Aircraft type or repeated quotation marks | Repeated marks refer back to earlier entries |
| Identification mark | Tail number or repeated notation | Handwriting can make letters and numbers ambiguous |
| From and to | Airport codes or route segments | A code can be misread and must be checked against context |
| Flight number | Sequential or operational numbering | It is not a passenger count |
| Remarks | Names, initials, crew, training, maintenance, or other notes | It is not a standardized passenger manifest |
| Number of landings | Landing counts | It does not show who disembarked |
| Aircraft category | Operational time categories | It is not evidence about passenger status |
| Pilot signature | Certification by the person completing the page | Signature identification should be verified from the original page and testimony |
The Exhibit Is a Flight Log, Not a Conventional Passenger Manifest
Calling every page a passenger manifest creates avoidable errors. A conventional manifest is designed to identify the people assigned to a particular trip. Government Exhibit 662 RR is primarily a pilot log. Passenger references appear within an operational remarks field and are not consistently formatted from row to row.
A blank remarks field does not prove that the aircraft carried no passengers. A group label does not identify every person in the group. Initials do not establish a unique identity. A person’s name on one leg does not establish that the person remained aboard on later legs. A listed route also does not prove that a passenger visited every nearby property or participated in events at the destination.
Flight Log and Manifest Comparison
| Feature | Pilot flight log | Conventional passenger manifest |
|---|---|---|
| Primary purpose | Record aircraft operation and pilot activity | Record people assigned to a flight |
| Core fields | Aircraft, route, flight number, landings, remarks, signature | Passenger name, itinerary, status, and identifying details |
| Passenger completeness | Variable | Intended to be systematic |
| Names | Often in a remarks field | Usually in a dedicated passenger field |
| Crew and maintenance | May appear beside passenger references | Usually separated from passengers |
| Evidentiary use | Movement, chronology, operation, and contextual association | Passenger assignment and travel context |
| Main risk | Treating an informal remark as a complete manifest | Treating assignment as proof of completed travel |
Corrected Date Range
The exhibit begins in 1991. This is visible on the first page, which includes an April 1991 year marker and additional entries that continue through the year. The exhibit therefore predates the November 1995 starting point found in a widely circulated digital spreadsheet.
The later pages continue through 2005, and the final page includes visible January 2006 entries. The safest description of the exhibit is that it contains records from 1991 through January 2006. This does not mean every flight during that period appears, that the pages are continuous without gaps, or that all related aircraft records are included.
Visual Coverage Checkpoints
| PDF page | Visible period | What the page demonstrates |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1991 | The court exhibit does not begin in 1995 |
| 40 | 1996 | Later log format with routes and passenger references in remarks |
| 60 | 1998 | Continued use of handwritten names, initials, and route codes |
| 80 | 2001 | Multiple aircraft and operational entries can share a page |
| 100 | 2003 | The exhibit continues into the early 2000s |
| 118 | Late 2005 and January 2006 | The public exhibit extends beyond calendar year 2005 and contains redactions |
The 1995 Spreadsheet Error
One secondary digital file begins on November 17, 1995. That starting date belongs to that particular spreadsheet, not to Government Exhibit 662 RR. Treating it as the start of the court exhibit erases years of earlier records.
Ellie Leonard’s review of Emmy Tayler specifically distinguishes the digital copy beginning in November 1995 from handwritten records beginning in 1991. Leonard’s separate discussion of DOJ flight log transcription mistakes also shows why researchers must compare searchable text with the page image.
The error matters because a truncated transcription can distort route counts, first appearance dates, aircraft histories, and passenger timelines. A searchable spreadsheet is a research aid. It should never silently replace the underlying exhibit.
Version Comparison Chart
| Version | Starting point | Strength | Limitation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Government Exhibit 662 RR | 1991 | Primary court exhibit with page images | Handwriting, redactions, and no built in index |
| Anonymous secondary spreadsheet | November 1995 | Searchable rows | Omits the early exhibit years and is not a court certified transcription |
| DOJ OCR text layer | Attempts to cover the complete PDF | Supports keyword searching | Handwriting produces severe recognition errors |
| Epstein Data Flight Index | Cross source coverage | Useful for routes, dates, labels, and comparison | It is broader than Exhibit 662 RR and is not a page faithful transcription |
| Independent researcher transcriptions | Varies by project | Human review can catch OCR errors | Methods, coverage, and uncertainty markings vary |
Relationship to the Two Companion Articles
The exhibit article, the records article, and the passenger index answer different questions. Combining them into one page would make the court artifact difficult to distinguish from later databases and researcher compilations.
Three Article Structure
| Article | Primary question | Main content |
|---|---|---|
| Government Exhibit 662 RR | What is the court exhibit itself | Identity, structure, date range, court context, fields, provenance, and limitations |
| Epstein Flight Logs Records Aircraft Routes and Chronology | What trips and routes are indexed across sources | 2,162 flight log or manifest entries from 1991 through 2005 in the corrected cross source index |
| Epstein Flight Logs Passenger and Name Index | Which labels appear in the corrected index | 937 displayed names, initials, group descriptions, unknown entries, staff labels, and notations |
The figures 2,162 and 937 belong to the corrected cross source index used for the companion articles. They are not official counts printed on Government Exhibit 662 RR. The exhibit has 118 pages, with multiple handwritten rows on most pages.
How to Read a Flight Log Row
Researchers should read each row as a connected unit. Begin with the date and year marker. Confirm the aircraft identification mark. Read the origin and destination codes. Then examine the remarks column and landing fields. Repeated quotation marks usually carry information down from the preceding row, so a cropped row can lose essential context.
Names should be transcribed exactly as written or marked as uncertain. Initials should remain initials unless another independent record establishes the identity. Airport codes should be checked against aviation references and the surrounding itinerary. A correction should preserve both the original reading and the reason for the revision.
Recommended Citation Format
Use this structure when citing an entry:
United States v. Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN), Government Exhibit 662 RR, PDF page [page number], entry dated [date], route [origin] to [destination], displayed remark [exact text or uncertainty notation].
If the statement depends on testimony about the log, add the trial transcript date and page. If the statement depends on a corrected airport code or identity, cite the corroborating source separately.
Transcription and Translation Risks
The exhibit is written largely in English, but reading the pages is a transcription problem rather than a language translation problem. Poor contrast, faint pencil, overwriting, quotation marks, compressed initials, photocopy artifacts, and handwriting can all alter a digital transcription.
OCR is especially unreliable on these pages. It can turn tail numbers into different aircraft, convert airport codes into ordinary words, merge two names, split one name, or invent characters from lines and marks. A searchable OCR hit should be treated as a pointer to a page, not as proof of the underlying text.
Error Risk Chart
| Risk | Common failure | Required check |
|---|---|---|
| Tail number | Letter or digit substitution | Compare with the image and adjacent rows |
| Airport code | Misread handwritten letter | Compare with route logic and aviation references |
| Name | Misspelling or merged names | Preserve the image reading and uncertainty |
| Initials | Expanded into an unsupported identity | Keep initials unless independently corroborated |
| Ditto marks | Missing inherited aircraft or route context | Read the rows immediately above |
| Redaction | Guessing the hidden identity | Do not reverse engineer the protected text |
| Date | Wrong year carried across pages | Inspect the year marker and neighboring entries |
| OCR absence | Assuming no match means no entry | Review the page image manually |
Provenance and Chain of Custody
The official public source is the Department of Justice exhibit page, which links to the 118 page PDF. The PDF metadata identifies the Department of Justice as author of the release file and ABBYY FineReader as the producer. Its 2025 creation and modification dates describe the digital release file, not the dates when the flights occurred.
The exhibit sticker and public release notation connect the PDF to the Maxwell case. The handwritten forms, signatures, repeated page totals, and chronological progression provide internal context. A complete chain of custody analysis would still require the trial transcript, production history, custodial testimony, and any docket materials describing how the records were obtained and authenticated.
Provenance Chart
| Layer | Evidence available | Remaining question |
|---|---|---|
| Original aviation record | Handwritten log form, operational fields, signature, totals | Who maintained each original book and where it was stored |
| Litigation copy | Government exhibit label and case number | Complete pretrial production and exhibit history |
| Public court copy | Publicly released notation | Whether every version and attachment was released |
| DOJ digital file | Official hosting, 118 pages, searchable text layer | OCR accuracy and scan processing history |
| Research transcription | Searchable names, routes, and dates | Method, corrections, version control, and uncertainty notation |
What the Exhibit Can Establish
When read carefully, the exhibit can support a finding that an aircraft log contains a particular dated route and a particular handwritten remark. Repeated entries can help reconstruct aircraft movement, recurring travel patterns, the sequence of locations, and the appearance of names or initials over time.
The exhibit can also guide corroboration. A recorded route can be compared with calendars, photographs, customs records, hotel records, vehicle records, communications, testimony, and property activity. Matching independent sources can strengthen a chronology.
Supported Uses Chart
| Supported use | Necessary wording |
|---|---|
| Route appears in the log | The log records the aircraft from one code to another on the stated date |
| Name appears in remarks | The displayed name or initials appear in the remarks column |
| Aircraft appears repeatedly | The same displayed identification mark appears across multiple entries |
| Chronology comparison | The entry is consistent or inconsistent with another dated source |
| Investigative lead | The entry identifies a date, route, aircraft, or label requiring corroboration |
What the Exhibit Does Not Prove
The exhibit does not prove that every listed person boarded, completed the flight, knew every other person aboard, visited a particular property, or knew about criminal conduct. It does not establish the purpose of travel unless another reliable source supplies that context.
It also does not prove that blank rows carried no passengers, that an abbreviated name has only one possible identity, that a redaction can be reconstructed, or that every relevant flight is included. A single row should not be treated as a complete social relationship.
Proof Boundary Chart
| Documented fact | Unsupported leap |
|---|---|
| A name or initials appear in a remark | The person committed or knew about a crime |
| A route is recorded | Every listed person visited a particular property |
| A person appears on one leg | The person traveled on every connected leg |
| Two names appear together | The people had a continuing relationship |
| An aircraft landed near a destination | A passenger attended a specific event |
| A row contains no passenger name | The aircraft carried no passengers |
| A later page contains a redaction | The hidden identity can be inferred responsibly |
Sleuth and Independent Reporting
Independent researchers have made the exhibit easier to search, compare, and audit. Their work is most useful when it links directly to the original page and preserves uncertainty.
Ellie Leonard’s flight log reporting identifies the early chronology and distinguishes the limited digital spreadsheet from the handwritten records. Her reporting on transcription mistakes demonstrates why names, airport codes, and tail numbers require image review.
R Howard Stone’s Epstein Data Flight Index provides the cross source structure used in the companion route and passenger articles. It is a research index, not a replacement for Government Exhibit 662 RR.
American Freakshow’s Trump and Epstein timeline places reported aircraft travel within a broader sourced chronology. Lisa Tait’s investigation of Epstein’s wealth and network supplies financial and relationship context that must remain separate from what a flight row alone proves. Butterfly Bureau preserves survivor centered investigation and connects aviation evidence with other documentary records.
Independent Research Chart
| Researcher or project | Useful contribution | Verification still required |
|---|---|---|
| Ellie Leonard | Early chronology and transcription error analysis | Compare each disputed reading with the exhibit image |
| R Howard Stone and Epstein Data | Cross source flight index and structured search | Identify the source category and return to the original page |
| American Freakshow | Broader dated chronology | Separate corroborated context from the log entry itself |
| Lisa Tait and Jeffrey Epstein Focus | Financial and relationship research | Do not use financial context to overstate a flight record |
| Butterfly Bureau | Survivor centered investigation and evidence connections | Cite the underlying exhibit and corroborating record |
Survivor Safety and Privacy Review
Flight records can contain victims, survivors, employees, relatives, medical personnel, witnesses, and uninvolved travelers. Public availability does not remove the duty to use names responsibly.
Do not identify a protected survivor by comparing redacted and unredacted copies. Do not publish a minor’s name, private address, medical information, contact information, or identifying travel pattern merely to complete a passenger list. Do not convert initials into an identity without reliable public corroboration and a clear public interest.
Survivor testimony can explain why a route matters, but that testimony should be cited with care and without unnecessary identifying detail. The goal is to preserve evidence while preventing renewed harm.
Fact Check
| Claim | Status | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Government Exhibit 662 RR is 118 pages | Verified | Official DOJ PDF page count |
| The exhibit begins in 1991 | Verified | The first page displays the 1991 year marker |
| The exhibit ends in calendar year 2005 | False | The final page contains visible January 2006 entries |
| The exhibit is a conventional passenger manifest | False | It is primarily a pilot flight log with names in remarks |
| The exhibit number 662 is the number of flights | False | It is the court exhibit designation |
| RR has a defined meaning on the face of the PDF | Not established | The public copy does not define the suffix |
| The 2025 PDF metadata dates are flight dates | False | They describe the digital release file |
| Every person named in a row completed that flight | Not established | The log does not consistently record boarding or completion status |
| A listed name proves criminal conduct | False | The entry records a displayed notation, not culpability |
| A blank passenger remark proves an empty cabin | False | The remarks field is not a complete standardized manifest |
| The 2,162 indexed entries equal the rows in Exhibit 662 RR | False | The companion index combines records classified as flight logs or manifests across sources |
| OCR provides an exact transcription | False | Handwriting and scan quality produce recognition errors |
| Redacted identities should be inferred from surrounding entries | False | Protected information should not be reverse engineered |
Why This Exhibit Matters
Government Exhibit 662 RR is one of the central primary sources for reconstructing Epstein related aviation activity. It preserves years of aircraft movement and handwritten remarks in a form tied to the Maxwell criminal case. Its value comes from the dated operational record and its ability to be compared with independent evidence.
Its limits are equally important. The exhibit is not a client list, a complete manifest, a verdict about every named person, or a substitute for testimony and corroboration. Responsible research keeps the page image, the transcription, and the interpretation separate.
The correction to the date range is not cosmetic. Beginning the record in 1995 removes four years of aviation history and can change first appearance dates, route patterns, aircraft timelines, and network analysis. The exhibit itself must remain the controlling source for claims about what Government Exhibit 662 RR contains.
Questions Still Unanswered
- Which trial transcript pages describe the complete foundation and authentication for Government Exhibit 662 RR?
- What does the RR suffix mean in the court’s exhibit management system?
- Were additional pages, logbooks, manifests, dispatch sheets, or aircraft records produced but not included in this exhibit?
- Who maintained custody of each original logbook before it entered litigation?
- Are higher resolution color scans available for faint or disputed entries?
- Which entries have conflicting readings across human transcriptions?
- Which airport codes remain uncertain after comparison with route context and aviation records?
- Which names or initials can be responsibly corroborated through independent public evidence?
- Which rows describe planned travel rather than completed aircraft movement?
- Which entries involve maintenance, training, simulator activity, or repositioning rather than passenger travel?
- Why were particular entries redacted, and what legal standard governed those redactions?
- Do customs, immigration, airport, fuel, dispatch, and financial records confirm or contradict particular international routes?
- Are records from other aircraft or charter operators absent from the exhibit?
- Can a version controlled public transcription preserve every page, row, uncertainty marker, and correction without exposing protected survivor identities?
Related EpsteinWiki Pages
- Flight Logs and Manifests
- Epstein Flight Logs Records Aircraft Routes and Chronology
- Epstein Flight Logs Passenger and Name Index
- Jeffrey Epstein Aircraft Network
- Gulfstream Aerospace
- Teterboro Airport
- Palm Beach International Airport
- Little Saint James
- Zorro Ranch
- Ghislaine Maxwell
- Larry Visoski
- David Rodgers
- Evidence Analysis
- Chain of Custody Evidence
- Survivor Safety and Privacy
Source List
Primary Evidence
- Department of Justice Government Exhibit 662 RR PDF
- Department of Justice exhibit landing page
- Southern District of New York Maxwell sentencing release