Instagram’s @shitmodelmgmt Blacklist: What the Reposted List Shows About the Modeling Industry and Epstein

UpdatedSeptember 27, 2026

ByEpsteinWiki

Snapshot

The Tumblr post titled “Instagram’s @shitmodelmgmt Blacklist” preserves a long list of names and social media handles associated with allegations submitted to the modeling industry account @shitmodelmgmt. It is a repost of a list that attracted public attention in 2018. It does not provide individual accounts, supporting documents, dates of alleged incidents, or findings about the people named.

Some names on the repost also appear in records concerning Jeffrey Epstein’s interest in modeling. Those overlaps deserve precise examination. A name on the blacklist is an allegation reported to its curator. A name in an Epstein record has a meaning determined by that particular record. Neither appearance proves that the person participated in Epstein’s abuse.

Key Takeaways

The original blacklist was created after models sent accounts of alleged sexual misconduct and inappropriate behavior to @shitmodelmgmt. Fashionista’s contemporary reporting describes its purpose and how submissions were gathered.
An asterisk on the repost means the curator said a name had been sent at least three times. It is not a finding that three independently verified incidents occurred.
The account’s creator described the entries as allegations. In a PAPER interview, the creator discussed reviewing messages and sometimes requesting screenshots. The published Tumblr list does not show the material behind any particular entry.
Fashionista reported that the curator announced the list’s removal on March 5, 2018, after receiving threats. The linked Tumblr post is a surviving copy, not a live record of the curator’s review process.
Scott Lipps appears on the repost. A 2005 New York Post article preserved in EFTA01334058 reported that Epstein had met him. The file preserves a newspaper report, not a firsthand record of the meeting or evidence of wrongdoing by Lipps.
Bruce Weber appears on the repost. His name also appears in an Epstein email preserved in EFTA00916282. The email lists photographers’ names without explaining why they were listed.

What Is the Tumblr Post?

The Tumblr copy consists largely of names and handles. Its closing note says that asterisks mark names sent to the curator “3+ times.” It links back to another Tumblr account identified as its source. The visible copy does not include the messages that prompted each entry or a reliable history of every addition and edit.

That matters when reading a name. Some entries identify a full name. Others use a first name, a handle, a location, or a brief description. Several lines have inconsistent spelling or formatting. A reader cannot safely resolve every identity from this copy alone. Nor can the copy establish that every allegation involved the same kind of behavior.

The list is best understood as a record of warnings collected and circulated within the modeling community. It is not an investigative case file or a roster of people connected to Epstein.

How the Original Blacklist Developed

Fashionista reported in 2018 that the account’s administrator, who described herself as a model, asked followers to send names of photographers who had behaved sexually inappropriately toward them. The project expanded to include people in other fashion industry roles. The administrator said she received a large volume of messages and wanted models to have information when deciding whom to work with.

In PAPER’s interview with the creator, she explained that submissions reached her directly and described checking some claims through screenshots or follow up questions. Her account of that process does not establish that every entry received the same degree of review. The original list’s introduction, quoted by PAPER, expressly characterized the names as allegations pending proof.

On March 5, 2018, Fashionista updated its report to say the administrator planned to take the list down that night. She said she had received threats against herself and her family. The Tumblr copy therefore preserves information that the curator had chosen to withdraw from the original public location. Its continued availability does not supply the missing submissions or resolve any disputed entry.

What an Asterisk Means

The repost’s own explanation defines an asterisk as a name sent to the curator at least three times. Fashionista also reported the curator’s distinction between names submitted once and names submitted three or more times.

That marker reports the curator’s count of submissions. The repost does not let readers inspect the messages, confirm who sent them, test whether they described separate events, or evaluate responses from the people named. It must not be translated into “three proven victims” or “three confirmed assaults.”

The absence of an asterisk has a limited meaning too. It does not disprove an allegation. It only means the visible copy does not mark that entry as meeting the curator’s stated threshold.

Why the List Matters to Epstein Research

Epstein’s documented interest in modeling agencies makes the industry a relevant area of investigation. Yet the blacklist and the Epstein files were created for different purposes. One records allegations reported to an industry account. The other includes emails, financial records, testimony, legal filings, and material collected from outside publications. Each source must be read on its own terms.

A clear example of the broader agency context is Maritza Vasquez’s sworn statement in EFTA01248647. Vasquez, a former bookkeeper associated with Jean Luc Brunel’s modeling businesses, described agency operations, models’ housing, transportation, visa work, and what she understood about Epstein’s financial involvement. Her statement is testimony that can be examined against other records. It does not verify the @shitmodelmgmt entries.

Ellie Leonard and Carly P Reilly’s investigation of Brunel’s network explores the recruitment and agency records behind that separate line of inquiry. EpsteinWiki’s MC2 Model Management article and Elite Modeling Management article provide further context. None of those sources turns an unsupported blacklist entry into an established Epstein connection.

Scott Lipps: A Reported Meeting in a Newspaper Clipping

The Tumblr copy lists Scott Lipps with an asterisk. It supplies no account of what was alleged about him.

A January 14, 2005 New York Post item preserved in EFTA01334058 reported that Epstein had met Lipps, whom it identified with 1 Management. The same item discussed Epstein’s reported interest in buying modeling businesses. It said talks concerning Karin Models had gone nowhere and reported that IMG representatives denied negotiations described elsewhere in the item.

The distinction between source types is essential. EFTA01334058 establishes that the newspaper item was preserved among released Epstein materials. The assertion about a meeting comes from the newspaper. The clipping does not provide a meeting date, participants’ accounts, a transaction agreement, or evidence that Lipps knew about or participated in Epstein’s abuse. EpsteinWiki’s article on Ali Kavoussi and the modeling agency network discusses the clipping within the wider One Model and Karin context.

Bruce Weber: A Name in an Epstein Email

The Tumblr repost also lists photographer Bruce Weber with an asterisk. The entry contains no underlying submission or description of a particular incident.

In an email dated July 30, 2011, preserved as EFTA00916282, Epstein wrote a short list of photographers’ names that includes Bruce Weber. The visible email does not explain the list’s purpose. It does not show that Weber received the message, spoke to Epstein, worked for him, or knew about his crimes.

The blacklist entry and the email are separate appearances of the same name. They do not corroborate one another’s underlying claims. The email can establish that Epstein wrote the name; it cannot establish why.

Other Names and the Limits of Matching

The repost includes other recognizable fashion industry names. Some also appear in reporting or in the large Epstein document collection. A match is meaningful only after checking identity, the exact document, its date, and the reason the name appears.

For example, the July 2011 email in EFTA00916282 contains several photographer names, including a spelling that appears to refer to Antoine Verglass. The Tumblr copy separately lists Antoine Verglass. The apparent match is a research lead. The brief email does not document contact with him or explain Epstein’s purpose in writing the names.

This is especially important for entries that use only a nickname or handle. Identifying such an entry with a specific person requires evidence beyond a resemblance in names. Repeating the entire blacklist as an Epstein related roster would erase these distinctions and amplify allegations the repost itself does not substantiate.

Evidence Appearances

EFTA01334058 preserves a January 2005 New York Post article reporting that Epstein had met Scott Lipps and discussing Epstein’s reported interest in modeling agencies. It is a newspaper clipping, not a firsthand meeting record.
EFTA00916282 preserves a July 2011 email from Epstein containing a short list of photographer names, including Bruce Weber. It does not state why the names were listed or document contact with the people named.
EFTA01248647 contains Maritza Vasquez’s sworn account concerning Brunel’s modeling businesses and their operations. Her recollections and interpretations should be attributed to her; the statement does not authenticate the blacklist.
EFTA00599855 contains a civil complaint by Brunel and MC2 describing, among other matters, their position on financial dealings connected to Epstein. A party’s claims in litigation are not findings about the blacklist’s entries.

What the Records Establish

The public sources support three distinct conclusions. First, @shitmodelmgmt collected and published allegations sent by models and others, and a Tumblr copy of the names remains available. Second, contemporary reporting documents the curator’s stated purpose, the meaning of the asterisks, and the announced removal of the original list. Third, selected names can be found in separate Epstein related records, but the meaning of each appearance depends on the document.

The sources reviewed here do not establish that Epstein created, used, or knew about the blacklist. They do not establish that every person named had a connection to him. They also do not show that the blacklist allegations were investigated or proven as a group. The documented modeling agency network warrants scrutiny through testimony, financial records, communications, and individual accounts, with each claim tied to its own evidence.

Questions Raised by the Records

Can the original submissions for any specific entry be recovered and evaluated with appropriate protection for the people who submitted them?
Which entries can be identified reliably, given the repost’s inconsistent names and handles?
Are there contemporaneous records beyond the newspaper clipping that establish the date and purpose of the reported Epstein and Lipps meeting?
What was the purpose of Epstein’s July 2011 list of photographers, and is there any separate record of contact with the people it names?
Which claims about modeling agencies are supported by firsthand testimony, contracts, financial records, or communications, and which remain allegations or press reports?

Source List

Tags:

Modeling Network