Martha Stewart

Snapshot

---

Key Takeaways

• The December 2013 correspondence records an assistant-mediated request to exchange contact details. A later message reports that Stewart had been unable to connect with Epstein over the Christmas break.
• A February 2014 request about seats on Epstein’s plane to TED must be read with his next-day response that he was not planning to go at that time.
• The April 2016 dinner correspondence ends with Groff reporting that Stewart could not attend because she already had two events.
• A prospective guest list, a regional holiday list, an account of someone else’s social plans and a forwarded news article provide different kinds of evidence. They do not all document direct contact.
• The records reviewed here support a chronology of communications and mentions. They do not substantiate an allegation that Stewart participated in Epstein’s abuse.

---

Background and Source Scope

Martha Stewart’s professional biography identifies her as the founder of Martha Stewart Living. This article examines the specific released records below, beginning with social references in 2010 and ending with a news-link exchange in 2019.

The clearest office-contact sequence is the December 2013 forwarded email chain. The February 2014 TED follow-up and April 2016 dinner response are particularly important because they record outcomes or limitations that would be lost if only the initial requests were quoted.

The source descriptions distinguish the author of an email from the person it mentions. An assistant’s report is attributed to that assistant. Private contact details and redacted identities are not reproduced.

---

Contact Arrangements and the Christmas Follow-Up

In the November 1, 2013 attorney inquiry, Epstein asks a correspondent to ask Stewart’s assistant whether they like an attorney whose surname is written as “seiller.” The visible page contains a reply from a redacted sender, but no answer from Stewart or her assistant to the attorney question. It does not establish a legal engagement or a recommendation by Stewart.

The December 19–20 exchange preserved in a December 23 forward is more explicit. Lesley Groff tells Epstein that Stewart’s assistant wanted to pass along Stewart’s mobile number and requested Epstein’s. Groff asks permission to share his number. Epstein answers yes and asks how long Stewart will be away; Groff then reports a St. Croix holiday from December 23 to January 2. The outer forward’s recipient is redacted.

A separate December 23 reminder repeats the St. Croix dates. Its sender is redacted. The note identifies a holiday location and period, not a meeting place or an island visit with Epstein.

The later February 27, 2014 message supplies useful context: Groff reports that Stewart’s assistant said Stewart was disappointed she had not been able to connect with Epstein over Christmas. That is a second-hand report of a missed connection, and it should accompany the earlier scheduling material.

---

The TED Flight Inquiry and Epstein’s Reply

In Groff’s February 26, 2014 email, she tells Epstein that Stewart is asking whether there is room on his plane to and from the TED conference, and asks how he wants her to answer. This is an inquiry relayed by Groff, not a passenger manifest or a record that a flight occurred.

The next-day reply identifies TED in Vancouver. Epstein responds: “not planning to go, at the moment,” preserving the qualification in his message. The reviewed exchange therefore contains a request and an answer about his plans, with no confirmation that Stewart flew on his aircraft. It also does not establish her later travel arrangements.

---

The April 2016 Dinner Invitation Was Declined

On April 22, 2016, Groff tells Epstein she spoke with Stewart’s assistant about a Tuesday dinner with “Woody.” She reports that Stewart was already heavily committed, that the assistant would discuss whether she could stop by, and that a response was still expected.

The April 25 follow-up resolves that pending response. Groff reports that Stewart appreciated the invitation to dinner with Epstein and “Woody” the next evening, but already had two events and could not make it. The record supports an invitation and a reported decline. It should not be summarized as a completed dinner with Stewart.

---

Social Lists and Reports by Other People

Several earlier records concern social events, but the distinctions between them matter:

• February 14, 2010, “Palm Beach”: Peggy Siegal describes her own upcoming Tuesday plans, including a dinner Stewart was hosting for the documentary Food, Inc. at Monkey Bar. This is Siegal’s email narrative, not Epstein’s calendar. It contains no confirmation that Epstein attended the Stewart event.
• August 30, 2010 forward of a September 18 guest list: Stewart’s name appears on page 2, stamped EFTA00758095. Page 3 has a separate section for people who replied no. Stewart’s placement in the general list does not itself establish an affirmative RSVP or attendance, and the visible list does not identify the venue or host.
• December 21, 2010, “Fw: St. Barths”: Siegal forwards a prospective regional holiday list. Stewart is entry 39 on page 5, stamped EFTA02010598, with a December 23 reference and “John Pigozzi’s boat.” The forwarded list is signed by Stephanie Berlin as Siegal’s assistant. It is not an Epstein island visitor list.
• January 1, 2011, “Happy New Year!”: Siegal describes a St. Barths gathering and includes Stewart among the people she says were there. She also describes passing on a return-flight option associated with Stewart. This is Siegal’s account, not evidence of Stewart sharing a flight with Epstein.
• March 21, 2012, “Re: Woody/Michel”: in a quoted message, Siegal reports Stewart among attendees at the previous night’s Bully screening at the Paley Center. Stewart is mentioned in an exchange between Siegal and Epstein; the page does not establish that Epstein attended the screening.

---

A Forwarded News Link in 2019

In the March 1, 2019 exchange with David Mitchell, Mitchell sends a New York Times link about Stewart advising a cannabis grower. Epstein’s response is a brief request to call him. Stewart is the subject of the linked news story, not a sender or recipient shown in this exchange. The page does not explain the intended call or establish a business arrangement involving Stewart and Epstein.

---

Evidence Appearances

Page references below follow each released document’s own PDF pagination. Different copies, quoted chains and reminders can repeat the same underlying event; they should not be counted automatically as separate contacts.

---

What These Records Establish

The reviewed correspondence documents efforts to arrange contact and an inquiry about travel, along with replies that limit what can be concluded. It also preserves third-party social reporting and an incidental news reference. None of the reviewed messages is a statement authored by Stewart describing an encounter with Epstein.

A regional holiday list cannot establish a visit to Little St. James. A flight inquiry cannot establish boarding. A general guest list cannot establish attendance. The explicit TED response and dinner decline are part of the record, not details to omit from its summary. These documents do not establish that Stewart knew of or participated in Epstein’s criminal conduct.

---

Sources

• Martha Stewart professional biography, for the public-role description.
• EFTA00763658, EFTA00758094, EFTA02010594, EFTA01832581 and EFTA01839763: social plans, lists and reports, with page-level locations in the evidence table.
• EFTA01754261, EFTA00978797 and EFTA01941259: attorney inquiry, contact arrangements and holiday reminder.
• EFTA02581858 and EFTA01932979: TED flight inquiry and response, including the Christmas follow-up.
• EFTA02464034 and EFTA02464989: April 2016 pending dinner response and subsequent decline.
• EFTA02633143: March 2019 news-link exchange.