Kelly Bovino Umekubo: Epstein Trust Beneficiary, Associate, Flight Passenger, and Missing Maxwell Defense Witness
Snapshot
| Category | Details |
|---|---|
| Full name | Kelly Bovino |
| Married name | Kelly Bovino Umekubo |
| Documented professions | Model, actress, and representative of The Story Project |
| Epstein relationship | Long term personal associate and correspondent |
| Estate planning role | Original sole beneficiary of The Jeffrey E. Epstein 2001 Trust Two |
| Aviation evidence | At least three documented flight segments between 2001 and 2003 |
| Public events | Edge Billionaires Dinner in 2002 and Edge Science Dinner in 2003 |
| Maxwell trial role | Subpoenaed material defense witness who did not testify |
| Survivor related evidence | Identified in civil discovery as a person who might possess information about Epstein and Maxwell |
| Known relatives in the record | Beth Ann Bovino |
| Primary unresolved issue | Why Epstein once designated her to receive all of Trust Two |
Kelly Bovino, later known as Kelly Bovino Umekubo, was not a peripheral name that appeared once in Jeffrey Epstein’s records. The released corpus documents a relationship spanning years and touching nearly every major category of Epstein evidence: estate planning, private aviation, elite social events, personal correspondence, gifts or financial assistance, shipping records, civil discovery, and the 2021 criminal trial of Ghislaine Maxwell.
The single most consequential document is Epstein’s original 2001 Trust Two. It named Kelly Bovino as the sole beneficiary if Epstein died while the provision remained effective. Later amendments removed her, and there is no evidence that she received a distribution. Even so, the original designation shows extraordinary trust and financial significance.
Bovino also appeared on Epstein aircraft manifests, attended Edge events populated by technology and media leaders, and remained in personal email contact with Epstein through 2018. During Maxwell’s trial, the defense said Bovino could contradict testimony about sexualized group massages involving Epstein and Maxwell. After Bovino did not comply with a subpoena, Judge Alison Nathan authorized a warrant to bring her before the court. The defense did not ultimately present her testimony.
The released evidence does not establish that Bovino committed a crime, recruited victims, participated in abuse, or received money from Epstein’s trust. It does establish that she occupied an unusually close and potentially knowledgeable position within his social network.
Who Is Kelly Bovino?
Public records and the released Epstein files identify Kelly Bovino as a model who later used the surname Umekubo. Archival entertainment databases credit a Kelly Bovino with minor acting roles in The Good Bad Guy and Cool Crime during the late 1990s. Epstein related records identify her as a former model associated with a major modeling agency and place her in California for much of the documented period.
Edge Foundation event materials identify her with an organization called The Story Project. The surviving Edge page does not explain her role, the organization’s funding, or whether it had any formal relationship with Epstein. Different modern groups now use similar names, so current organizations should not be assumed to be the same entity.
Records use several versions of her name:
- Kelly Bovino
- Kelly Umekubo
- Kelly Bovino Umekubo
- K. Bovino
- U. Umekubo on some shipping signatures or transcriptions
These variants can cause database searches to undercount her appearances. Some public databases incorrectly report that she appears in no emails or flight logs. Primary records and contemporary flight log transcriptions contradict those summaries.
Kelly Bovino and Beth Ann Bovino Are Different People
Kelly Bovino should not be confused with her sister, economist Beth Ann Bovino. Both women appear in Epstein related records, but their roles are different.
Kelly appears as a trust beneficiary, aircraft passenger, correspondent, social attendee, and proposed Maxwell defense witness. Beth Ann appears in messages forwarded by Kelly and in later contact with Epstein. In 2013, Kelly sent Epstein a release announcing Beth Ann’s promotion at Standard and Poor’s and credited Epstein’s generosity with helping make the achievement possible.
That email raises a legitimate question about what assistance Epstein provided. The surviving message does not state whether the assistance was money, an introduction, education support, career advice, or something else. It should not be characterized more specifically without additional records.
In 2014, Epstein requested Beth Ann’s contact information. Another message records Epstein saying he had breakfast with Beth and enjoyed it. These exchanges show that Kelly connected a family member to Epstein and that the relationship extended beyond Kelly alone.
Primary records: EFTA02574026, EFTA01978589, EFTA02588182
Epstein’s 2001 Trust Two
Kelly Bovino as the Original Sole Beneficiary
The Jeffrey E. Epstein 2001 Trust Two was executed on November 8, 2001. Its original beneficiary schedule designated Kelly Bovino to receive 100 percent of the trust property if she survived Epstein and the trust remained in force.
The document used direct language: “KELLY BOVINO 100%.”
This was not a small bequest or one name among many. Bovino was the sole original beneficiary. The initial trustees were Epstein and attorney Jeffrey A. Schantz.
The trust document does not explain why Epstein selected her. It does not identify the nature or value of the assets held by Trust Two at that moment. It also does not describe Bovino as an employee, romantic partner, family member, or business partner. The absence of an explanation makes the designation one of the most important unresolved facts in her file.
Primary record: EFTA01266334
Removal From the Beneficiary Schedule
A second amendment dated January 13, 2004 replaced the prior distribution provisions. Kelly Bovino no longer appeared as a beneficiary. The revised schedule named or referenced other people, including Jean Luc Brunel, Lesley Groff, Luciano Fontanillo, and Rosalyn Fontanillo. Some names remained redacted in released copies.
A third amendment dated December 3, 2004 changed the distribution plan again. Bovino did not reappear.
The amendments prove that Epstein removed her from the operative beneficiary schedule. They do not reveal whether the change followed a personal rupture, marriage, tax planning, asset restructuring, or another event.
Primary records: EFTA01266346, EFTA01266350
Revocation of Trust Two
Epstein revoked and terminated Trust Two on October 4, 2012. The revocation directed remaining property back to Epstein. Later trust materials identified Darren Indyke and Andrew Farkas in trustee roles. Jes Staley appeared in amendment material but did not execute the document.
No released record reviewed for this article shows that Bovino received any trust distribution. Naming her as beneficiary created a potential future interest. It did not itself transfer the trust property to her.
Primary record: EFTA01266357
Why the Trust Designation Matters
Estate planning can reveal relationships that ordinary contact records cannot. People often reserve major testamentary gifts for relatives, partners, trusted employees, or people toward whom they feel a strong obligation.
Epstein’s decision to make Bovino the sole beneficiary suggests exceptional personal importance in November 2001. It does not prove a sexual relationship, employment relationship, or criminal partnership. The trust contains no such explanation.
The timing is notable. Flight records place Bovino on Epstein’s aircraft in April 2001, months before the trust was signed. By early 2002, she appeared with Epstein at the Edge Billionaires Dinner. The trust therefore sits within a documented period of travel and elite social access.
The most defensible conclusion is that Bovino held a position of unusual trust and importance. The precise nature of that position remains unknown.
Documented Flights on Epstein Aircraft
Available flight log transcriptions identify Bovino on at least three flight segments.
April 29, 2001: Santa Fe to Van Nuys
A manifest dated April 29, 2001 records Epstein, Kelly Bovino, and another passenger or abbreviated passenger entry traveling from Santa Fe, New Mexico, to Van Nuys, California. The route is consistent with travel from the region of Epstein’s Zorro Ranch to Southern California.
An April 27 entry records Epstein and the initials “BK” traveling from Teterboro to Santa Fe. The initials may relate to Bovino, but that identification is not certain enough to treat as a confirmed separate segment.
February 23, 2002: Monterey to Van Nuys
After the 2002 Edge Billionaires Dinner in Monterey, a manifest records Epstein, Sarah Kellen, Kelly Bovino, Nina Zagat, Tim Zagat, Richard Cook, and several additional passengers traveling to Van Nuys.
The event page independently identifies Bovino at the dinner. The flight and event records therefore corroborate one another.
April 24, 2003: Santa Barbara to Van Nuys
A later manifest records Bovino on a Santa Barbara to Van Nuys segment with Epstein, Sarah Kellen, Chauntae Davies, a passenger identified as Diane, and Emmy Tayler. The corresponding travel appears to have followed movement through New Mexico and Southern California.
What the Flights Establish
The manifests establish travel on Epstein controlled aircraft. They do not establish misconduct during a flight or at any destination. None of these three confirmed segments is an island flight. No passenger should be presumed to have witnessed or participated in a crime merely because a name appears on a manifest.
The flights are still important because they show that Bovino’s access was personal and logistical, not merely a name in correspondence.
Edge Billionaires Dinner in 2002
Edge Foundation records identify Kelly Bovino at the February 2002 Billionaires Dinner in Monterey, California. The archived page labels her as affiliated with The Story Project.
The Edge events brought together prominent figures from technology, science, publishing, finance, and media. Epstein attended multiple Edge gatherings and used the environment to deepen relationships with intellectual and business elites.
The flight manifest from February 23 places Bovino and Epstein on the same Monterey to Van Nuys trip after the event. Nina and Tim Zagat were also listed. This combination of event photography or rosters and aviation records provides stronger evidence than either source alone.
Edge archive entry for Kelly Bovino
Edge Science Dinner in 2003
Edge’s archive also identifies Bovino at the 2003 Science Dinner. Photographic captions place her near John Brockman and in an image with Eric Schmidt. Other attendees included Jeff Bezos, Sergey Brin, Larry Page, Daniel Dennett, Steven Pinker, Marvin Minsky, Stewart Brand, and numerous technology and media leaders.
Her presence does not imply wrongdoing by her or by anyone photographed nearby. It does show that Bovino occupied the same elite convening space Epstein cultivated.
Some online posts describe Bovino as Epstein’s trafficker based largely on images from this event and later allegations. The event photograph does not prove that claim. It documents attendance and proximity only.
Edge archive for the 2003 Science Dinner
Personal Correspondence From 2011 Through 2018
The released corpus contains direct email exchanges between Kelly Umekubo and Epstein across approximately seven years. The messages are informal, familiar, and personal.
Photographs in January 2011
Kelly sent Epstein messages titled “My 1st” and “My 2nd” with photographs attached. Epstein responded positively. The released text does not adequately describe the images, so their subject should not be assumed.
Primary records: EFTA01798163, EFTA01798194, EFTA00679581
Birthday Message and Melvin Dresher Memorabilia
In another January 2011 email, Kelly wished Epstein a happy birthday. She mentioned a sale involving items from the former home of mathematician Melvin Dresher and said it was good to hear Epstein sounding happy.
The tone suggests an established personal relationship. The reference to Dresher also fits Epstein’s long standing interest in mathematics, game theory, scientists, and scientific memorabilia.
Primary record: EFTA02025181
Beth Ann Bovino Messages
In August 2013, Kelly forwarded news of Beth Ann Bovino’s promotion and credited Epstein’s generosity with helping make it possible. Epstein responded briefly and positively.
In 2014, Epstein sought Beth Ann’s contact information and a family photograph. A later email reported that he had breakfast with Beth.
Primary records: EFTA02574026, EFTA00967879, EFTA01978589, EFTA01980304, EFTA00627132, EFTA02588182
Disney World Photographs in 2018
The latest identified correspondence occurred in October 2018. Kelly sent or discussed Disney World photographs and made a self conscious comment about her appearance. Epstein asked when the photographs were taken.
This exchange matters primarily for chronology. It shows that communication continued roughly seventeen years after the original trust and more than a decade after Epstein’s Florida investigation became public.
Primary records: EFTA02619353, EFTA02619042, EFTA02619196, EFTA02619202
Shipping Records and California Addresses
FedEx records and civil discovery materials connect Bovino to repeated deliveries from Epstein related addresses and offices between approximately 2000 and 2005.
Addresses appearing in the released material include:
- 120 Hart Avenue in Santa Monica, California
- 16694 Via La Costa in Pacific Palisades, California
Some delivery records bear signatures transcribed as K. Bovino or U. Umekubo. The records document an ongoing flow of packages. They do not consistently identify the contents, purpose, or value of each shipment.
Repeated deliveries support the conclusion that Bovino was an active contact. They do not, without package contents, establish employment or criminal activity.
Primary records: EFTA00218105, EFTA01317297, EFTA00219348, EFTA00219626, EFTA00218975
Contact Book Evidence and Conflicting Indexes
Searchable reproductions of Epstein contact books contain conflicting claims about Bovino. One reproduction lists Kelly Bovino with a Santa Monica address. Community researchers have also identified her as an emergency contact associated with Linda Stone in one version of the book.
Other modern databases say she was not listed at all. These contradictions may result from different books, redacted and unredacted editions, OCR errors, surname changes, or database matching failures.
The safest conclusion is that at least one reproduced contact book contains a Kelly Bovino entry consistent with the Santa Monica address found in shipping records. Researchers should consult the original page image before relying on a page number or an inferred relationship to another contact.
Contact book presence establishes that Epstein retained contact information. It does not prove the nature of a relationship or any misconduct.
Virginia Giuffre’s Civil Discovery Disclosure
In a March 2016 Rule 26 disclosure from Giuffre v. Maxwell, Virginia Giuffre identified Kelly Bovino among people who might possess information about Maxwell and Epstein’s alleged sexual trafficking conduct and interactions with minors.
The disclosure is important but must be described precisely. A witness disclosure identifies someone who may have relevant knowledge. It is not itself sworn testimony that the person committed abuse.
Some online posts convert the disclosure into a direct accusation that Bovino was a trafficker or abuser. The quoted discovery language does not, by itself, support that stronger claim.
Primary record: EFTA01182998
Doe v. Indyke and Kahn Interrogatory Evidence
In civil discovery connected to Doe v. Indyke and Kahn, a plaintiff stated that she believed she had communicated with Kelly Bovino Umekubo concerning Jeffrey Epstein.
The record supports a potential line of communication between Bovino and a person bringing claims connected to Epstein’s network. The available excerpt does not establish the content, date, or outcome of the communication.
This evidence deserves follow up because it could clarify whether Bovino communicated with young women, employees, survivors, or other associates. It does not establish that any such communication was improper.
Primary record: DOJ OGR 00015259
Why Maxwell’s Defense Wanted Kelly Bovino
During Ghislaine Maxwell’s 2021 criminal trial, the defense identified Bovino as a material witness. Attorney Laura Menninger said Bovino possessed relevant and exculpatory testimony.
The defense wanted to challenge testimony from the survivor identified at trial as Jane. Jane had described sexualized massage encounters involving Epstein and Maxwell and had referenced a woman named Kelly. Maxwell’s attorneys argued that Bovino could contradict important portions of that account.
This was a defense representation about expected testimony. Because Bovino did not take the stand, the jury never heard her account and prosecutors never cross examined her. Her anticipated testimony cannot be treated as a proven fact.
Primary records: DOJ OGR 00011197, DOJ OGR 00011203, DOJ OGR 00011363
The Subpoena and Arrest Warrant Dispute
Service of the Subpoena
The defense reported that Bovino was served with a trial subpoena on November 30, 2021. Counsel said she did not respond to repeated efforts to contact her and did not appear as commanded.
Defense Request for Compulsory Appearance
On December 17, 2021, Maxwell’s lawyers asked Judge Alison Nathan to authorize Bovino’s arrest as a material witness. They relied on federal statutes intended to secure the attendance of a witness whose presence cannot practicably be obtained by subpoena.
Government Opposition
Prosecutors opposed the request. They argued that the subpoena contained a timing defect because its appearance date preceded service. The government also disputed the defense claim that Bovino’s testimony was vital.
Court Authorization
Judge Nathan signed an order authorizing the United States Marshals Service to take Bovino into custody and bring her before the court. This was a compulsory witness order, not an accusation that Bovino participated in Epstein’s crimes.
No Trial Testimony
The defense did not ultimately present Bovino as a witness. Contemporary reporting indicated that Maxwell’s lawyers abandoned the effort to call her. The public record reviewed here does not show that Marshals arrested or transported her.
This outcome corrects a common overstatement. A court authorized a warrant, but available evidence does not show that it was executed.
Primary records: DOJ OGR 00011205, DOJ OGR 00011253, DOJ OGR 00011300, DOJ OGR 00016730
What Her Silence Did and Did Not Mean
Refusing or failing to respond to a subpoena can have many explanations, including fear, legal advice, family concerns, distrust of the parties, scheduling disputes, or a desire to avoid public exposure. The released documents do not explain Bovino’s motive.
Her nonappearance did not prove Maxwell’s defense theory. It also did not prove the prosecution’s account. It left potentially important evidence untested.
For investigators, the central issue is not speculation about motive. It is the information gap created when a person who occupied a close position in Epstein’s network did not testify under oath.
Documented Timeline
| Date | Event | Evidence value |
|---|---|---|
| April 29, 2001 | Bovino appears on a Santa Fe to Van Nuys flight | Confirms personal travel access |
| November 8, 2001 | Epstein names Bovino sole beneficiary of Trust Two | Strong evidence of exceptional personal importance |
| February 2002 | Bovino attends Edge Billionaires Dinner | Confirms access to Epstein’s elite social environment |
| February 23, 2002 | Bovino flies from Monterey to Van Nuys with Epstein and others | Corroborates event attendance and travel |
| 2003 | Bovino appears at Edge Science Dinner | Places her among Epstein connected science and technology networks |
| April 24, 2003 | Bovino appears on Santa Barbara to Van Nuys flight | Further confirms recurring aircraft access |
| January 13, 2004 | Trust amendment removes Bovino as beneficiary | Ends her original position in the operative schedule |
| December 3, 2004 | Later amendment again excludes Bovino | Confirms removal remained effective |
| 2000 through 2005 | Shipping records show repeated California deliveries | Evidence of continuing contact and logistics |
| January 2011 | Personal photograph and birthday emails | Direct personal correspondence |
| October 4, 2012 | Epstein revokes Trust Two | Terminates the trust structure |
| August 2013 | Kelly credits Epstein’s generosity in connection with Beth Ann | Suggests assistance of an unspecified kind |
| 2014 | Epstein seeks Beth Ann’s contact and later reports breakfast | Shows network extension through Kelly’s family |
| March 2016 | Giuffre disclosure identifies Bovino as a potential information source | Supports possible knowledge, not guilt |
| October 2018 | Disney World correspondence | Confirms contact continued through 2018 |
| November 30, 2021 | Maxwell defense serves Bovino with subpoena | Begins trial witness dispute |
| December 17, 2021 | Court authorizes witness arrest warrant | Confirms noncompliance and defense interest |
| December 2021 | Defense proceeds without Bovino’s testimony | Leaves anticipated evidence untested |
What the Evidence Establishes
- Kelly Bovino and Kelly Umekubo are the same person in the released record.
- Epstein named her the sole original beneficiary of his 2001 Trust Two.
- Later amendments removed her, and no reviewed record proves she received a distribution.
- She traveled on Epstein aircraft on at least three documented segments.
- She attended Edge gatherings in 2002 and 2003.
- She maintained direct personal correspondence with Epstein from at least 2011 through 2018.
- She connected her sister Beth Ann Bovino to Epstein.
- Epstein or his offices sent repeated packages to addresses associated with her.
- Virginia Giuffre identified her as someone who might possess relevant information.
- Maxwell’s lawyers considered her a material defense witness.
- She did not comply with the defense subpoena, and the court authorized a warrant to compel her appearance.
- She did not testify before the jury.
What the Evidence Does Not Establish
- It does not establish that Bovino sexually abused or trafficked anyone.
- It does not establish that she recruited girls or women for Epstein.
- It does not establish that she witnessed abuse at Zorro Ranch or elsewhere.
- It does not prove that she received assets from Trust Two.
- It does not explain why Epstein originally selected her as sole beneficiary.
- It does not identify the full nature of Epstein’s generosity toward Beth Ann Bovino.
- It does not establish misconduct on any documented flight.
- It does not show that Bovino traveled to Little Saint James on the three confirmed flight segments.
- It does not establish what she would have said under oath at Maxwell’s trial.
- It does not prove the witness warrant was executed.
- It does not justify treating every person photographed with her at Edge as connected to Epstein’s crimes.
Investigative Assessment
Kelly Bovino belongs in the category of significant Epstein associates whose documented importance exceeds their public profile. The trust alone warrants close examination. A sole beneficiary designation is a stronger indicator of personal importance than a telephone number or dinner invitation.
The other evidence reinforces that conclusion. Bovino traveled with Epstein, attended events in his intellectual network, received repeated shipments, exchanged personal messages for years, and facilitated contact with a family member. Her association continued after Epstein’s Florida conviction became public.
Her potential knowledge also became relevant in two different legal settings. Giuffre’s civil disclosure identified her as a possible source of information. Maxwell’s defense separately claimed she could provide exculpatory testimony concerning Jane’s account. Those positions were not identical, but both treated Bovino as someone who may have known material facts.
The greatest evidentiary gap is that no public sworn testimony from Bovino resolves the competing claims. Her failure to appear deprived prosecutors, defense lawyers, survivors, and the public of an opportunity to hear and test her account.
Calling Bovino a convicted offender, proven recruiter, or proven co conspirator would exceed the evidence. Calling her a minor or incidental contact would also misrepresent the record.
Primary Evidence Index
Trust Records
- EFTA01266334: original Trust Two naming Bovino as sole beneficiary
- EFTA01266346: second amendment removing Bovino
- EFTA01266350: third amendment
- EFTA01266357: 2012 revocation
Maxwell Trial Records
- DOJ OGR 00011197: defense motion seeking a witness warrant
- DOJ OGR 00011203: Laura Menninger affidavit
- DOJ OGR 00011205: court order authorizing warrant
- DOJ OGR 00011253: filing concerning Jane’s statements
- DOJ OGR 00011300: government opposition
- DOJ OGR 00011363: defense filing concerning Kelly
- DOJ OGR 00016730: trial transcript discussion
Civil Discovery and Research Records
- EFTA01182998: Giuffre disclosure
- DOJ OGR 00015259: interrogatory response concerning communication with Bovino
- EFTA00155971: open source investigative summary
Correspondence
- EFTA02025181: birthday and memorabilia email
- EFTA02574026: Beth Ann promotion and generosity reference
- EFTA01978589: request for Beth Ann’s contact information
- EFTA02588182: breakfast with Beth Ann
- EFTA02619202: 2018 Disney World exchange
Sources
- EpsteinWiki, Kelly Bovino Umekubo
- R. Howard Stone Epstein Research Repository
- Edge, Kelly Bovino at the 2002 Billionaires Dinner
- Edge Science Dinner 2003
- CourtListener, United States v. Maxwell docket
- Factba.se, motion concerning Kelly Bovino
- Epstein Archive, Maxwell defense filing
- Epstein’s Black Book flight manifest page
- IMDb, Kelly Bovino credits
Questions That Remain
- When and how did Kelly Bovino first meet Jeffrey Epstein?
- Why did Epstein designate her as the sole beneficiary of Trust Two in November 2001?
- What assets were held in Trust Two when Bovino was the beneficiary?
- Did Bovino know about the beneficiary designation at the time?
- What caused Epstein to remove her in January 2004?
- Did she ever receive money, property, gifts, loans, tuition, housing, or other support outside Trust Two?
- What did The Story Project do, and what was Bovino’s role?
- Did Epstein fund, advise, or otherwise support The Story Project?
- What occurred during Bovino’s visits to New Mexico and her flights with Epstein?
- Did she visit Zorro Ranch, Epstein’s Manhattan residence, Palm Beach home, Paris apartment, or Little Saint James?
- What was contained in the repeated packages sent to her California addresses?
- What assistance did Epstein provide that Kelly connected to Beth Ann Bovino’s career advancement?
- What did Bovino know about Epstein’s treatment of girls and young women before and after his 2008 conviction?
- What communications did Bovino have with Virginia Giuffre or other survivors?
- What testimony did Maxwell’s defense expect Bovino to give about Jane?
- Had Bovino previously spoken with defense investigators, prosecutors, or the FBI?
- Why did she stop responding after being served with the trial subpoena?
- Did the United States Marshals Service attempt to execute the warrant?
- Did Bovino retain counsel during the subpoena dispute?
- Why did Maxwell’s defense abandon the attempt to present her testimony?
- What additional records exist under the surname Umekubo that name based searches have missed?
- Are there more flight segments recorded only by initials or handwriting variations?
- What was Bovino’s relationship with Sarah Kellen, Emmy Tayler, Chauntae Davies, and other passengers on the documented flights?
- Does the original contact book page clarify her relationship to Linda Stone or Jes Staley, or are those database associations incorrect?
- Will Bovino provide a public or sworn account of her relationship with Epstein and Maxwell?