Lesley Groff

UpdatedSeptember 1, 2026

ByEpsteinWiki

Snapshot

Lesley Groff was Jeffrey Epstein’s executive secretary from February 2001 until shortly after his July 2019 federal arrest. For more than eighteen years, she managed the calendars, telephone calls, meetings, messages, travel arrangements, guest accommodations, deliveries, and administrative demands that connected Epstein with politicians, financiers, academics, scientists, celebrities, employees, and young women.

Groff’s role was not established through a single address book entry. Her name appears throughout an enormous body of emails, schedules, travel records, financial records, court filings, FBI material, and congressional exhibits. Database totals vary according to how pages and duplicate records are counted, but some indexes contain more than 150,000 references to her.

The records show Groff scheduling massages for Epstein, arranging cash deliveries associated with massages, circulating calendars containing massage appointments, booking travel for women later identified as survivors, coordinating apartments, transmitting photographs of young foreign women, purchasing flights and hotel reservations connected with visa applications, managing information about women travelling to meet Epstein, and performing administrative work during Epstein’s unusually permissive Florida work release.

Groff was one of four women specifically named in Epstein’s 2007 federal non prosecution agreement. The agreement protected Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, Nadia Marcinkova, and Groff from prosecution by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida for potential involvement in the conduct under investigation.

The language did not constitute a conviction or a judicial finding that Groff committed a crime. It did, however, place her within the group federal investigators and prosecutors were examining as potential co conspirators.

Survivors later accused Groff in civil litigation of providing logistical support for Epstein’s abuse. Groff denied the allegations. The claims against her were voluntarily dismissed or discontinued, some because participation in the Epstein Victims’ Compensation Program required survivors to end related litigation against former Epstein employees. Those dismissals did not produce findings that the allegations were true or false.

Groff was never criminally charged. Her attorneys announced in 2021 that federal prosecutors did not intend to prosecute her.

On June 9, 2026, Groff voluntarily appeared for a lengthy transcribed interview before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. She denied knowing about Epstein’s abuse, denied recruiting women or girls, and said Epstein deliberately separated his legitimate affairs from his criminal conduct.

Groff described Epstein as a monster and master manipulator. Members of Congress confronted her with records showing that she scheduled massages, arranged cash payments, coordinated travel and housing for women, transmitted photographs, worked during Epstein’s incarceration, and continued serving him for more than a decade after his sex offense conviction.

Her testimony establishes her account. It does not resolve the central factual question surrounding her role: whether she was an unwitting administrative employee, deliberately compartmentalized herself from obvious warning signs, or understood more about Epstein’s conduct than she has acknowledged.

Identity and Background

Groff was born in Dallas, Texas, in 1966 and grew up in Plano.

During her congressional interview, she said she was raised in a Protestant household and graduated from the University of Texas at Dallas. She moved to New Jersey in 1990, married in 1993, and worked for her first husband’s commercial office supply company.

She later worked in clothing sales at Nordstrom before seeking employment in event planning and administration.

Groff said she placed her résumé on Monster.com and was contacted by a recruiter about a position with the New York Knicks. A snowstorm prevented that interview. The recruiter then asked whether she would consider working as an administrative assistant for a wealthy businessman.

She interviewed with Ghislaine Maxwell and then Epstein at the Helmsley Palace in New York.

Groff was thirty five years old when she began working for Epstein in February 2001.

Hiring by Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein

Groff told Congress that she first met with an assistant, then Maxwell, and finally Epstein.

Maxwell was professional and friendly during the interview, according to Groff. Epstein’s portion lasted approximately ten minutes and was repeatedly interrupted by telephone calls.

Groff was told that the job involved organizing Epstein’s calendar, arranging appointments, handling messages, and managing a constant flow of telephone calls. She accepted the position approximately one week later at an annual salary of $50,000.

The hiring process is important because Maxwell was directly involved in selecting the person who would become Epstein’s principal New York scheduler.

Groff said that after she was hired, she answered to Epstein rather than Maxwell. She characterized her later relationship with Maxwell as purely professional and denied managing Maxwell’s calendar.

That distinction does not erase Maxwell’s role in the original hiring process.

Executive Secretary for Eighteen Years

Groff described her title as executive secretary rather than executive assistant.

She held that position continuously from 2001 through July 2019, apart from maternity leave. From 2001 through 2009, she generally worked from Epstein’s offices at the Helmsley Palace. She later worked from home for significant portions of the week and entered the office more frequently when Epstein was in New York.

Her duties included:

Maintaining Epstein’s calendar.
Answering and connecting telephone calls.
Recording messages.
Scheduling breakfasts, lunches, dinners, and business meetings.
Coordinating household staff around expected guests.
Circulating daily schedules.
Arranging commercial travel when Epstein’s aircraft was unavailable.
Booking travel for Epstein’s guests, employees, and assistants.
Coordinating apartments and hotel accommodations.
Sending gifts, flowers, chocolates, documents, and personal items.
Arranging deliveries through messengers and drivers.
Communicating with American Express Centurion travel personnel.
Coordinating with Epstein’s pilots and travelling assistants.
Scheduling massage appointments.
Relaying Epstein’s instructions to other staff members.

Groff told Congress that Epstein often called at 9 in the morning and dictated between ten and twenty pages of requests, messages, or instructions.

The scale of those responsibilities made Groff one of the principal administrative gateways into Epstein’s world.

“An Extension of His Brain”

A 2005 New York Times profile described the unusually close working relationship between Epstein and Groff.

In the interview, Groff described herself as an extension of Epstein’s brain and said she could anticipate what he was thinking and when she needed to act quickly.

Epstein told the newspaper that Groff was so valuable that he did not want to lose her when she became a mother. He reportedly supplied a Mercedes and paid for a full time nanny so she could continue working.

Members of Congress confronted Groff with that description because it appeared difficult to reconcile with her later insistence that she had remained largely outside Epstein’s personal world.

The statements are not proof that Groff knew about sexual abuse. They do establish that both Epstein and Groff publicly presented her as a trusted employee with unusually detailed knowledge of his routines and priorities.

The Administrative Hub

Groff’s importance is reflected in the scale and diversity of the surviving records.

She communicated with Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, Sarah Kellen, Bella Klein, Richard Kahn, Darren Indyke, Larry Visoski, household employees, travelling assistants, travel agents, university personnel, public figures, business executives, and hundreds of other contacts.

Many messages contain ordinary administrative work. Others touch directly on the infrastructure later associated with Epstein’s abuse.

The evidentiary value comes from separating those categories rather than treating every message as equally incriminating.

A calendar reminder about a conference call is routine. A message arranging a massage, cash delivery, foreign woman’s travel, apartment, or photographic submission requires additional scrutiny because those services overlapped with documented methods Epstein used to maintain access to women and girls.

Scheduling Massages

Groff admitted that she scheduled massages for Epstein.

She told Congress that Epstein provided the names and telephone numbers. She then contacted the individuals and placed the appointments on his calendar.

Groff said the massages occurred primarily at Epstein’s Manhattan residence. She denied meeting the massage providers in person and said they did not visit the Helmsley Palace office.

According to Groff, massage appointments could occur daily, although she did not recall booking multiple massages for the same day.

She viewed the providers as independent contractors and said she did not consider it suspicious that they were contacted through personal telephone numbers rather than a massage business.

Groff denied knowing that any person she scheduled was a minor or that the appointments involved sexual abuse.

The fact that Epstein supplied the names does not eliminate Groff’s logistical role. She made the calls and placed the appointments within a schedule that she managed.

Massage Appointments on Epstein’s Calendars

Groff circulated Epstein’s daily calendar so household employees could prepare for visitors.

During her congressional interview, she acknowledged that massage appointments appeared on calendars she circulated during the earlier part of her employment.

She said massage appointments no longer appeared on those circulated calendars after Epstein’s arrest and conviction.

That answer creates an important evidentiary distinction.

It indicates that Groff understood the scheduling category and knew when it was being formally displayed to staff. It also raises questions about whether massage activity stopped, changed format, moved into less visible communications, or was handled by other employees after the Palm Beach investigation.

The absence of a massage entry from a circulated calendar does not prove the absence of massages.

Cash Payments Connected With Massages

Groff told Congress that Epstein sometimes instructed her to ask the accounting department to place approximately $200 in an envelope.

The envelope could be collected by a driver or messenger and delivered to a massage provider.

She said she never personally handed cash to the women and did not maintain the delivery addresses herself.

Groff believed the money came from a petty cash supply managed by the accounting office. When asked why the women were paid in cash rather than by check, she said she did not know and assumed that was simply how they were paid.

This distinction matters.

Groff denied personally paying massage providers, but she acknowledged initiating administrative steps that caused cash to be packaged and delivered.

The surviving record therefore supports describing her as an intermediary in the payment process, even if she did not physically transfer the money.

The 2005 Palm Beach Investigation

Palm Beach police began investigating Epstein in 2005 after the family of a fourteen year old girl reported that he had sexually abused her.

Groff told Congress that she did not recall the October 2005 search of Epstein’s Palm Beach residence when it occurred. She later learned that police had searched the property and removed materials.

She said she first became aware of the federal investigation when FBI agents came to her home in approximately August 2007.

Groff was served with a subpoena. Afterward, Epstein told her he was being blackmailed.

She said she believed him.

Groff denied knowing about illegal activity before Epstein’s arrest. She also said she did not understand the full nature of his conviction and accepted his explanation that he was the victim of false accusations or financial pressure.

Her continued acceptance of that explanation became a central issue during the congressional interview.

The 2007 Non Prosecution Agreement

Epstein signed a secret federal non prosecution agreement with the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida in September 2007.

The agreement protected Epstein from federal prosecution if he resolved state charges and complied with its conditions. It also stated that the government would not prosecute four specifically named potential co conspirators:

Sarah Kellen.
Adriana Ross.
Lesley Groff.
Nadia Marcinkova.

The agreement also extended protection to unnamed potential co conspirators.

Groff told Congress that she did not negotiate the agreement and did not ask to be included. She described the designation as a scarlet letter.

The phrase potential co conspirator is not a conviction. The agreement did not require Groff to admit guilt, and no court found that she committed the offenses under investigation.

The language nevertheless proves that federal prosecutors were sufficiently concerned about her possible role to include her by name in an immunity provision.

The crime victims litigation challenging the agreement later established that prosecutors concealed the deal from survivors while representing that the federal investigation remained active.

What Immunity Did and Did Not Mean

The non prosecution agreement did not formally declare Groff innocent.

It also did not establish guilt.

Its practical effect was to prevent the Southern District of Florida from bringing federal charges against the named and unnamed potential co conspirators for conduct covered by the agreement.

Groff’s name therefore carries two different legal facts:

She was considered a potential co conspirator during the investigation.
She was never prosecuted or convicted.

Both facts must be reported together.

Calling Groff a convicted accomplice would be false. Describing her as a person specifically named as a potential co conspirator in Epstein’s federal non prosecution agreement is accurate.

Epstein’s Conviction and Groff’s Decision to Stay

Epstein pleaded guilty in Florida state court in 2008 to soliciting prostitution and procuring a person under eighteen for prostitution.

He became a registered sex offender and served approximately thirteen months in the Palm Beach County stockade under an extraordinary work release arrangement.

Groff continued working for him.

During her congressional interview, she said she still believed Epstein’s account that he had been blackmailed or falsely targeted. She said she did not examine the case closely and did not understand the factual foundation of his conviction.

Members of Congress challenged that position because Groff also knew that Epstein was required to register as a sex offender.

She acknowledged placing reminders on his calendar so he would comply with registration requirements when he travelled to Palm Beach.

Congressman Stephen Lynch argued that this knowledge was difficult to reconcile with Groff’s description of her awareness as vague, particularly when she had previously scheduled young women for massages.

Groff maintained that she did not connect the registration requirement with sexual abuse occurring through the massage system.

The Florida Science Foundation and Work Release

Epstein was permitted to leave jail for as many as twelve hours a day, six days each week, supposedly to work from the office of the Florida Science Foundation.

Groff denied helping obtain the work release.

She nevertheless visited the Florida Science Foundation office twice while Epstein was incarcerated. She said she helped coordinate a list of scientists, made telephone calls, scheduled appointments, and ordered office supplies.

Groff recalled arranging or observing visits involving Marvin Minsky and his wife, swimmer Dara Torres, attorneys, pilot Larry Visoski, security personnel, Sarah Kellen, and others.

She said the work helped provide Epstein with a semblance of normality.

Groff denied knowing that women were allegedly brought to Epstein during work release or that sexual activity occurred at the office.

Her administrative activity at the work release site is documented. Knowledge of alleged abuse there remains disputed.

Travel Coordination

Groff regularly coordinated travel.

She booked commercial flights for Epstein when his private aircraft was unavailable. She also booked flights for guests, friends, employees, travelling assistants, and women associated with him.

Groff said Sarah Kellen handled much of the travel before leaving to marry. Groff took on more of that work around 2012 or 2013.

The records show Groff communicating with American Express Centurion travel staff, confirming itineraries, securing hotel reservations, arranging airport transportation, and attempting to control who received travel confirmations.

Some of the women whose travel she handled were later identified as Epstein survivors.

Groff told Congress she did not know they were being abused and believed the women were employees or travelling assistants.

Flights for Women Later Identified as Survivors

At Maxwell’s criminal trial, a survivor testifying under the pseudonym Kate said Groff booked flights for her to Epstein’s properties in New York, Palm Beach, and the United States Virgin Islands.

Groff was not on trial, and the jury did not determine her criminal responsibility.

The testimony nevertheless established that her administrative work intersected directly with the movement of a woman who said Epstein sexually abused her.

Groff acknowledged before Congress that women she understood to be travelling assistants were later identified as survivors.

This is a central distinction in evaluating her role. The travel arrangements are documented. The unresolved issue is what Groff knew about the purpose and conditions of that travel.

Visa Related Travel and Hotel Reservations

Congress questioned Groff about travel arrangements connected with foreign women and visa applications.

Emails marked as a congressional exhibit and preserved in EFTA00501622 through EFTA00501625 concern flights and a hotel reservation for a woman seeking a visa.

Groff acknowledged arranging a ticket and hotel reservation. She said she did not sponsor the visa and did not know the purpose of the woman’s travel.

When asked whether she had facilitated housing for women entering the United States, Groff said it was possible that Epstein directed her to reserve an apartment or hotel.

She denied recruiting, interviewing, selecting, or recommending foreign women for employment or meetings with Epstein.

The records establish administrative assistance. They do not independently establish that Groff knew the travel served trafficking or sexual exploitation.

Foreign Women and Photographs

Members of Congress confronted Groff with 2012 emails involving photographs of women described as nineteen and twenty one years old.

The correspondence included a message from Eastern Europe describing a new woman as sweet and lovely and supplying images from a modelling portfolio.

Groff said she did not remember the exchange. She believed the photographs were probably connected to Epstein’s relationships with model agent Jean Luc Brunel, Faith Kates, Next Model Management, and other figures in the modelling industry.

She acknowledged that the photographs appeared to have been forwarded to Epstein.

Groff said she did not verify the women’s ages and did not recall seeing any resulting modelling contract or employment offer. When questioned about what appeared to be a heavily redacted full body image, she denied remembering nude photographs.

The records do not establish that the women were minors. They show that Groff participated in transmitting photographs of young foreign women to Epstein after his sex offense conviction.

The “Decoy Flight” Question

In EFTA02062951, Groff communicated with American Express Centurion Travel in January 2016 about flights involving Rome, London, and Miami.

Congressional investigators questioned whether one itinerary was a temporary or decoy booking used to satisfy a visa requirement.

Groff denied knowingly arranging a decoy flight. She said she was following instructions and attempting to secure a refundable ticket.

The evidence establishes that Groff booked or held travel connected with visa documentation. It does not establish that she knowingly submitted false information to immigration authorities.

Housing at 301 East 66th Street

Epstein had access to multiple apartments at 301 East 66th Street in Manhattan.

Groff acknowledged reserving apartments for guests at Epstein’s direction. She said the guests included men and women and that she often did not know everyone who stayed there.

When asked whether she arranged housing for young foreign women after Epstein became a registered sex offender, Groff said she had reserved apartments for guests but did not question Epstein about his business.

She estimated that Epstein had access to approximately ten apartments, including spaces previously used as offices.

EpsteinWiki sleuth Ellie Leonard’s investigation, The Mystery of 301 East 66th Street, examines how the building functioned within Epstein’s network.

Groff’s administrative involvement with the apartments is documented. The public evidence does not establish that she knew every guest’s identity or everything occurring inside each unit.

Gifts, Flowers, Chocolates, and Relationship Maintenance

Groff regularly arranged gifts and deliveries for Epstein.

The records include flowers, chocolates, clothing, shoes, books, cards, tickets, transportation, and other items sent to friends, associates, students, and women.

In EFTA00383433, an email chain discussed delivering flowers and chocolates to a young Juilliard student. Groff described the recipient as young and identified her as a musician.

Greg Conners examined this material in Flowers and Candy to Little Girls, arguing that the messages were part of a repeated logistical system rather than isolated personal errands.

Groff’s role was often administrative. Even so, repeated gift delivery helped Epstein cultivate relationships and maintain access to recipients.

The records do not prove that every gift had a sexual purpose. They establish Groff’s role in carrying out Epstein’s relationship management instructions.

Michael Wolff and Reputation Management

Groff’s communications also show her facilitating Epstein’s relationship with journalist Michael Wolff.

Ellie Leonard’s archive of Michael Wolff’s emails with Epstein includes Groff arranging the delivery of shoes, relaying messages, and coordinating opportunities for Wolff to speak or meet with Epstein.

Another Wolff email collection includes Groff helping coordinate a proposed New York magazine photo session.

These exchanges appear ordinary when read individually. Together, they illustrate how Groff helped Epstein maintain relationships with journalists and public figures during the period in which he was attempting to rebuild his reputation.

There is no evidence that Groff controlled Wolff’s reporting or independently directed Epstein’s media strategy.

Meetings With Powerful People

Groff scheduled meetings or telephone calls between Epstein and people from business, politics, academia, science, philanthropy, entertainment, and international affairs.

During her congressional interview, she recalled Epstein speaking with or meeting figures including:

Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, then Prince Andrew.
Donald Trump before his presidency.
George Mitchell.
Bill Richardson.
John Kerry.
Wesley Clark.
Jes Staley.
Leon Black.
Bill Gates.
Marvin Minsky.
Michael Wolff.
Jean Luc Brunel.
Numerous university professors and scientists.

Scheduling contact does not establish wrongdoing by the person scheduled.

The records are important because they reveal Groff as the person who converted Epstein’s elite relationships into actual appointments, telephone connections, meals, visits, and travel logistics.

Andrew Mountbatten Windsor

Groff confirmed that Epstein communicated with Andrew Mountbatten Windsor.

She said that when Andrew was in town, calls or visits could become more frequent. She also described arranging accommodations for police officers accompanying Andrew during his 2010 visit to Epstein’s Manhattan residence.

That visit became controversial because Andrew later presented it as an attempt to end his relationship with Epstein, while records and reporting documented several days of social activity.

Groff denied witnessing sexual misconduct by Andrew and said she had not heard allegations about him during her employment.

Her testimony establishes administrative knowledge of the relationship, not criminal conduct.

Jes Staley

Groff scheduled or handled communications involving former JPMorgan executive Jes Staley.

She told Congress she was not present for meetings between Staley and Epstein, did not overhear their conversations, and might only have exchanged a passing greeting with him.

She said she did not know how frequently Staley visited Epstein’s properties and was unaware of any sexual relationship involving Staley and an Epstein employee.

Those answers describe the limits of her claimed personal knowledge.

They do not erase the separate documentary record of Staley’s extensive communications, visits, and financial relationship with Epstein.

Frederic Fekkai and the Massage Room

Congress presented Groff with EFTA02414378, a November 18, 2010 email stating that hairstylist Frederic Fekkai had asked to use Epstein’s massage room with his own massage provider.

Groff said she did not remember the email or any similar request from Fekkai or another man.

The document establishes that Groff received and relayed the request.

It does not establish that the room was used, that the massage involved sexual activity, or that Fekkai participated in Epstein’s crimes.

The exchange remains noteworthy because it shows Groff managing access to a room closely associated with Epstein’s massage system.

Groff’s Relationship With Ghislaine Maxwell

Groff described her relationship with Maxwell as professional.

Maxwell participated in Groff’s job interview, but Groff said she later worked directly for Epstein and did not manage Maxwell’s schedule.

Groff denied that Maxwell directed her work, recruited women through her, or disclosed sexual conduct.

She also denied believing that Epstein and Maxwell worked for an intelligence service.

Groff said she had no meaningful contact with Maxwell after Epstein’s death.

Maxwell’s conviction establishes Maxwell’s own criminal responsibility. It does not automatically establish Groff’s knowledge or participation.

Groff’s Relationship With Sarah Kellen

Groff and Sarah Kellen occupied different but overlapping administrative roles.

Kellen worked as a travelling assistant and handled significant travel and household logistics before leaving around 2012 or 2013. Groff said she assumed more travel responsibility after Kellen’s departure.

Groff’s 2026 opening statement acknowledged Kellen’s congressional account of being sexually abused by Epstein. Groff said Kellen’s testimony broke her heart.

Groff also cited Kellen as support for her claim that Epstein kept the two women in different compartments and did not disclose abuse to Groff.

Kellen’s status within the record is complex. She has been described as a survivor, employee, scheduler, recruiter, and potential co conspirator. Those categories are not mutually exclusive.

The same care is necessary when assessing Groff.

Arranged Marriages

Congress questioned Groff about marriages Epstein allegedly arranged between women connected with him.

Groff denied knowingly arranging marriages.

She acknowledged an email in which Epstein directed her to have his driver transport two redacted individuals to a marriage office. Groff said she followed the transportation instruction but did not understand the purpose at the time.

She denied supplying false information to support a marriage.

The record establishes logistical assistance connected with at least one marriage appointment. It does not establish that Groff knowingly participated in immigration fraud or a sham marriage.

Concealment and Travel Confirmations

A 2017 email showed Groff expressing concern that information about women flying from Russia to Paris might be distributed to people listed in an American Express email database.

Groff told Congress she feared Epstein’s anger if travel confirmations were accidentally sent to the wrong recipients.

She described Epstein as intensely private and controlling.

Investigators noted that several women were scheduled to arrive in Paris while Epstein was there and asked whether their travel involved sexual activity. Groff said she did not know.

The exchange does not prove that Groff was concealing trafficking. It shows that she understood Epstein wanted information about the women’s travel tightly controlled.

Compensation, Loans, and Benefits

Groff’s financial relationship with Epstein extended beyond her original salary.

During her congressional interview, she confirmed receiving several large transfers from Epstein entity Southern Financial:

$100,000 in February 2016.
$100,000 in January 2017.
Approximately $100,000 in early 2018.
$110,000 in December 2018.

Groff described the transfers as loans connected with a revised compensation arrangement.

She acknowledged that the approximately $410,000 balance had not been repaid before Epstein’s death and was later forgiven.

The payments do not prove that Groff was compensated for criminal conduct. They demonstrate a substantial financial dependency on Epstein and his entities during the final years of her employment.

Earlier reporting also documented the Mercedes and nanny Epstein supplied when Groff became a mother.

The Caterpillar Trust

Congress questioned Groff about Epstein’s 2017 Caterpillar Trust.

A document identified Groff as a trustee. She said she did not expect to receive money for that role and did not know whether the trust remained active.

Groff also said she believed she had once appeared as a possible beneficiary but was removed after Epstein’s 2019 arrest.

Being named as a trustee does not establish criminal participation. It shows that Epstein placed Groff within at least one part of his estate planning structure.

Her claimed lack of detailed knowledge about the trust leaves unanswered questions about what duties she accepted and what information she received.

Legal Fees and Epstein’s Estate

Groff said Epstein or an Epstein funded arrangement paid legal fees connected with investigations during his lifetime.

After Epstein’s death, she received additional legal fee reimbursement through the estate.

Groff also referred to a separate settlement arising from a claim she brought against the estate. She denied holding any continuing interest in the estate or being entitled to further compensation.

The reimbursement of legal fees does not establish guilt. It shows that Epstein’s financial structures continued supporting Groff’s legal response to investigations and litigation.

Jennifer Araoz Litigation

Survivor Jennifer Araoz filed a civil action naming Groff and other Epstein associates.

The complaint alleged that Groff helped provide administrative support that enabled Epstein’s abuse. Groff denied the allegations.

Araoz later discontinued her claims against Groff. Her attorney explained that participation in the Epstein Victims’ Compensation Program required the permanent discontinuance of legal actions against former Epstein employees, including Groff.

Araoz maintained the truth of the allegations in her pleadings.

The dismissal therefore did not constitute a factual finding that Groff had been falsely accused. It also did not establish that the allegations were true.

The case ended without a trial verdict concerning Groff.

Jane Doe 43 Litigation

In Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, a plaintiff sued Epstein, Groff, Sarah Kellen, Ghislaine Maxwell, and another woman.

The complaint contained allegations concerning recruitment, travel, communications, and abuse.

The claims against Groff ended without a trial finding that she committed the alleged conduct.

The docket establishes that Groff was sued. It does not convert the complaint’s allegations into adjudicated facts.

The 2021 Jane Doe Lawsuit

Another anonymous plaintiff alleged that Groff facilitated Epstein’s trafficking and sexual abuse by purchasing tickets, sending money, making appointments, and transmitting communications.

The plaintiff alleged that Epstein abused her at locations including New York, Florida, France, and the United States Virgin Islands between 2017 and 2019.

The plaintiff and Groff jointly agreed to dismiss the claims against Groff in December 2021.

Groff’s attorneys announced at approximately the same time that prosecutors did not intend to charge her.

The voluntary dismissal did not produce a judicial finding on the merits.

Federal Prosecutors and the 2019 Reverse Proffer

After Epstein’s July 2019 arrest, federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York approached Groff’s attorneys.

During her congressional interview, Groff acknowledged that prosecutors supplied a reverse proffer on July 18, 2019 in an effort to secure her cooperation and obtain an explanation of her role.

A reverse proffer generally involves prosecutors presenting information they possess to a person or the person’s attorneys. It does not establish guilt.

Groff later met voluntarily with prosecutors in 2021 and answered questions.

She told Congress that prosecutors deemed her not guilty of being a co conspirator. When asked whether that conclusion was provided in writing, she said prosecutors declined because written declarations of that kind were not something they issued.

That wording requires correction.

Prosecutors decide whether to bring charges. They do not ordinarily issue formal findings of “not guilty.” Only a court or jury can enter a not guilty verdict. The most defensible statement is that prosecutors did not charge Groff and her attorneys were told that charges were not expected.

Resignation in July 2019

Epstein was arrested on July 6, 2019.

Groff resigned approximately one week later. She communicated the resignation through Epstein attorney Darren Indyke rather than speaking directly with Epstein.

She told Congress that she no longer understood what was happening and decided with her family that it was time to leave.

Her employment therefore ended after the federal arrest rather than before it.

Groff said her final communication with Epstein occurred in July 2019 and that she probably last saw him in June.

The 2026 House Oversight Interview

On March 3, 2026, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer sent Groff a formal request for testimony.

Groff appeared voluntarily on June 9, 2026. The committee released her complete transcribed interview on June 23.

The interview lasted for several hours and included questioning from members and staff of both parties.

Groff did not invoke the Fifth Amendment. She answered questions about her employment, massages, cash payments, foreign women, photographs, visas, apartments, travel, prominent contacts, Epstein’s conviction, work release, compensation, trusts, litigation, prosecutors, and other employees.

A congressional interview is not a criminal trial. Groff was not being prosecuted, and the committee did not issue a verdict.

The transcript is nevertheless the most complete public record of Groff explaining her conduct in her own words.

Groff’s Central Defense

Groff’s defense rests on compartmentalization.

She said Epstein maintained two separate worlds:

A legitimate world of business, politics, science, academia, philanthropy, travel, and social relationships.
A concealed world of sexual abuse that he intentionally prevented her from seeing.

Groff said she worked within the first world and was used to support the second without knowing it existed.

She emphasized that she was financially secure, had not been sexually abused by Epstein, and would have had no reason to protect him if she knew the truth.

Those points may explain why Epstein would conceal crimes from her. They do not resolve whether repeated warning signs should have alerted her to the possibility of abuse.

Credibility Questions Raised by Congress

Members of Congress challenged several parts of Groff’s account.

They questioned how an employee who described herself as an extension of Epstein’s brain could remain unaware of:

The ages and identities of massage providers.
Cash payments for massages.
Epstein’s sex offender registration.
The factual basis of his conviction.
Travel by women later identified as survivors.
Visa related trips and accommodations for foreign women.
Apartments used to house women.
Photographs of young foreign women sent to Epstein.
Women arriving in Paris under tightly controlled travel arrangements.
Epstein’s conduct during work release.
The significance of being named in the non prosecution agreement.
The unusual compensation and loans she received.

Groff repeatedly answered that she did not know, did not recall, followed Epstein’s instructions, or considered the activity part of ordinary administrative work.

The transcript records those answers. It does not independently determine whether they were accurate.

Survivors’ Accounts and Groff’s Denials

Several survivors have said Epstein’s abuse depended on an administrative system that arranged appointments, travel, money, access, and secrecy.

Some alleged Groff personally communicated with them or facilitated the logistics surrounding their abuse.

Groff denied knowingly facilitating abuse. She said no woman or girl told her she was being abused and that she never witnessed sexual misconduct.

The records establish substantial logistical overlap between Groff’s work and Epstein’s abuse system. Knowledge and intent remain the contested elements.

A survivor’s allegation should not be dismissed merely because a case ended without trial. Groff should not be described as criminally guilty when no criminal charge or verdict exists.

Both principles can be maintained at the same time.

Harassment and Threats

Groff told Congress that she and her family had experienced severe consequences since Epstein’s 2019 arrest.

She described social isolation, anxiety, sleep disruption, difficulty eating, and threats against her and her family.

Threatening or harassing Groff is not justified by the public record.

Accountability requires document analysis, lawful investigation, careful reporting, and survivor centered advocacy. It does not require vigilantism, doxxing, or threats.

EpsteinWiki Sleuth Analysis

Independent Epstein researchers have examined Groff because her communications expose how Epstein’s daily machinery operated.

Ellie Leonard’s Tuesday Updates on Lesley Groff followed Groff’s congressional appearance and placed her testimony within the wider investigation.

The Panicked Writer’s Predatory Victims: Epstein’s Accomplices examines the difficult overlap between victimization, employment, recruitment, and logistical participation among women in Epstein’s circle.

Ellie Leonard’s The Art of the Sweetheart Deal reviews the immunity language protecting Groff and the other named potential co conspirators.

Her report, Todd Blanche and the 10 Unredacted Files, examines the debate over whether people identified in federal records should be classified as victims, facilitators, alleged co conspirators, or some combination.

Nina Burleigh’s American Freakshow investigation, The French Connection, uses Groff’s scheduling messages to map Epstein’s Paris network.

Greg Conners’ A Second Suicide Leads to Lesley Groff argues that Groff’s communications and financial network deserve further investigation.

Greg Conners’ Flowers and Candy to Little Girls examines Groff’s repeated logistical role in gifts and deliveries involving young recipients.

These reports offer investigative analysis rather than court findings. Their strongest claims should be checked against the direct EFTA records and official transcripts.

What the Evidence Establishes

The available evidence establishes that:

Groff worked for Epstein from February 2001 until July 2019.
Maxwell participated in interviewing Groff for the job.
Groff managed Epstein’s calendar, calls, appointments, messages, travel, guests, and deliveries.
Groff publicly described herself in 2005 as an extension of Epstein’s brain.
Epstein supplied Groff with significant employment benefits.
Groff scheduled massage appointments for Epstein.
Massage appointments appeared on calendars Groff circulated.
Groff sometimes initiated the process by which approximately $200 in cash was delivered to massage providers.
Groff knew Epstein was required to register as a sex offender because she placed reminders on his calendar.
Groff continued working for Epstein after his conviction.
Groff visited and performed administrative work at Epstein’s Florida work release office.
Groff was specifically named as a potential co conspirator in Epstein’s federal non prosecution agreement.
Groff arranged flights for women later identified as survivors.
Groff booked travel and accommodations connected with foreign women and visa applications.
Groff helped reserve apartments at 301 East 66th Street.
Groff transmitted photographs of young foreign women to Epstein.
Groff helped coordinate gifts and deliveries to young women.
Groff arranged meetings and calls involving powerful people.
Groff received approximately $410,000 in loans from an Epstein entity between 2016 and 2018.
Those loans were not repaid and were later forgiven.
Groff was identified as a trustee of the Caterpillar Trust.
Survivors accused Groff of facilitating abuse in civil complaints.
The civil claims against Groff ended without merits verdicts.
Federal prosecutors presented information to Groff’s attorneys through a reverse proffer in 2019.
Groff later met voluntarily with prosecutors.
Federal prosecutors did not criminally charge her.
Groff resigned after Epstein’s July 2019 arrest.
Groff testified voluntarily before Congress in June 2026.
Groff denied knowing about or intentionally assisting Epstein’s abuse.
Congress did not issue a finding that Groff committed a crime.

What the Evidence Does Not Establish

The available evidence does not establish that:

Groff was convicted of an Epstein related offense.
Inclusion in the non prosecution agreement was a guilty verdict.
Every massage Groff scheduled involved sexual activity.
Every massage provider was a minor.
Groff personally recruited every woman whose travel she arranged.
Groff knew every traveller was being abused.
Every foreign woman whose photograph appeared in an email was trafficked.
Every visa related travel reservation was fraudulent.
Every guest housed at 301 East 66th Street was a victim or participant.
Every gift sent through Groff had a sexual purpose.
Groff witnessed Epstein sexually abuse anyone.
A voluntary dismissal proves that a survivor’s allegations were false.
A civil complaint proves criminal guilt.
Prosecutors issued Groff a formal declaration of innocence.
Groff’s statement that prosecutors deemed her not guilty is equivalent to a court verdict.
Groff controlled Epstein’s decisions merely because she administered his calendar.
Groff knew everything discussed during the meetings she scheduled.
Groff knew that Epstein or Maxwell worked for an intelligence service.
Groff’s congressional testimony resolved every contradiction in the documentary record.
The absence of charges establishes that every administrative act was innocent.

Investigative Assessment

Lesley Groff was one of the central administrators of Jeffrey Epstein’s life.

Her role was broader than answering telephones. She transformed Epstein’s instructions into appointments, transportation, accommodations, payments, introductions, deliveries, and access.

The same administrative machinery served both Epstein’s legitimate relationships and activities later connected with sexual abuse. That overlap is why Groff remains an important witness.

The public evidence clearly establishes action. It is less conclusive about knowledge and intent.

Groff scheduled massages, relayed cash payment instructions, booked survivor travel, coordinated housing, transmitted photographs, managed visa related reservations, controlled calendars, and helped Epstein operate during work release. Those are documented acts.

Whether she understood the criminal purpose behind some of those acts is the unresolved question.

Groff’s claim of total compartmentalization is possible in individual instances. It becomes more difficult to evaluate across eighteen years, particularly after the police investigation, federal subpoena, sex offense conviction, registration requirements, and continuing movement of young women through Epstein’s properties and travel system.

No responsible article should declare Groff criminally guilty without a charge and adjudication.

No responsible article should erase her documented logistical role merely because prosecutors declined to charge her.

The most accurate description is that Groff was Epstein’s longtime executive secretary, a named potential co conspirator protected by the 2007 non prosecution agreement, a central administrator whose work repeatedly intersected with Epstein’s abuse infrastructure, and an uncharged witness who denies knowing participation.

Key Takeaways

Groff managed Epstein’s schedule and communications for more than eighteen years.
She began working for him in 2001 after interviews with Maxwell and Epstein.
She scheduled massages and acknowledged helping arrange cash deliveries to massage providers.
She coordinated travel and housing for women later identified as survivors.
She transmitted photographs of young foreign women and arranged visa related travel.
She continued working for Epstein after his conviction and sex offender registration.
She performed administrative work at Epstein’s Florida work release office.
She was specifically named as a potential co conspirator in the federal non prosecution agreement.
She was never criminally charged or convicted.
Civil claims against her ended without trial findings.
She received approximately $410,000 in loans from an Epstein entity, which were later forgiven.
She was named as a trustee of the Caterpillar Trust.
She resigned after Epstein’s July 2019 arrest.
She cooperated with federal prosecutors and testified voluntarily before Congress.
Her central defense is that Epstein deliberately concealed his criminal life from her.
The documentary record establishes substantial logistical involvement but does not conclusively establish criminal knowledge or intent.
Her 2026 House transcript should be compared directly with the emails and exhibits discussed during questioning.
Threats and harassment are never an acceptable substitute for lawful investigation.

Primary Court and Government Sources

Primary Epstein Data Evidence

EFTA00501622 begins the congressional exhibit concerning flights and hotel arrangements associated with a woman’s visa application.
EFTA02062951 contains a January 2016 travel email involving Rome, London, Miami, and reservations discussed during Groff’s congressional interview.
EFTA02414378 contains Groff’s November 2010 email concerning Frederic Fekkai’s request to use Epstein’s massage room.
EFTA00383433 contains the email chain concerning flowers and chocolates for a young Juilliard musician.
EFTA02180273 contains a Groff email within Epstein’s medical and scheduling records.
EFTA00442040 contains Groff correspondence concerning an Epstein conference call.
EFTA02071334 contains Groff’s September 2015 travel coordination concerning Epstein’s departure.
EFTA02184761 preserves correspondence involving Groff, Bella Klein, and Epstein’s email instructions.
EFTA02168206 illustrates the detailed personal reminders and household tasks appearing within Groff’s scheduling system.
EFTA02235474 contains email metadata for Groff correspondence concerning an appointment.
EFTA02135746 preserves additional Groff scheduling correspondence.
EFTA00353931 contains Groff’s inquiry concerning the size and identity of a visitor’s party.

The individual documents should be read with their surrounding pages, attachments, dates, sender information, and congressional context. A name appearing in a record does not independently establish wrongdoing.

EpsteinWiki Sleuth Sources

These investigations provide analysis, document discovery, and network context. Descriptions such as accomplice, recruiter, facilitator, or co conspirator must be attributed carefully unless supported by a criminal judgment or official charging document.

PostedDecember 8, 2025