Skip to main content
< All Topics
Print

Naomi Campbell 

Updated
ByEpsteinWiki
Views314

Snapshot

  • Four named flight entries establish travel from 2001 onward, including London and Paris.
  • The October 2010 Paris invitation and later attendance acknowledgment document continued access after Epstein’s conviction. Invitations, business appointments and aircraft assistance recur in the correspondence.
  • An FBI interview report records a witness saying Epstein invoked Campbell and modelling opportunities, then introduced them. It does not establish that Campbell knew of the exploitation.
  • Giuffre publicly alleged awareness and witnessing of her abuse in January 2020. Any claim that nobody ever accused Campbell is too broad; the allegation is not a judicial finding.
  • Campbell’s 2019 response acknowledged knowing Epstein and denied knowledge of his crimes.
  • A filed foundation return lists a $10,000 grant to Fashion For Relief as paid in September 2005, adding a concrete financial link.
  • The charity trustee ban was quashed on 1 October 2026. Repeating the 2024 ban as current would be wrong. That case does not decide the Epstein questions.

The documented association warrants scrutiny. The reviewed material establishes access, travel, invitations and business discussions, alongside survivor accounts that raise questions about the social credibility Epstein obtained from famous acquaintances. It does not establish that Campbell recruited victims, participated in trafficking or knowingly facilitated sexual abuse. No Epstein related criminal charge, conviction or judicial finding against Campbell was located in the records and reporting examined for this report. That is a bounded research conclusion, not a claim that every potentially relevant record has been found.

Chronology of the principal records

DateRecord or eventWhat the record establishes
May 2001Birthday introduction accountCampbell later said Briatore introduced her to Epstein at her thirty first birthday.
8 June 2001Teterboro to MontrealNamed Campbell passenger entry in the handwritten flight exhibit.
21 March 2002London Luton to New YorkNamed Campbell entry with Epstein, Maxwell and Clinton’s travelling party.
2 October 2002Paris Le Bourget to New YorkA separate named transatlantic flight entry.
2 April 2003St Thomas to São PauloCampbell is named; the next leg does not name her.
11 April 2005Swimsuit line messageOffice log records a request to discuss a venture and a Victoria’s Secret meeting.
12 September 2005Fashion For Relief grantThe foundation reported $10,000 as paid; recipient receipt and use remain unverified.
2008 and 2009 periodJail mailing listHer name appears on a distribution list; the page itself is undated.
17 May 2009Forwarded personal messageA message signed Naomi sends love through an intermediary.
16 October 2009Previous evening and housingEpstein describes the previous night and seeks Moscow housing details.
27 October 2009Moscow apartment informationDoronin’s assistant reports Naomi requested the information; Epstein is copied.
29 October 2009Reported call and penthouse offerEpstein reports a Naomi call and an offer; currency and outcome are unestablished.
13 December 2009Forwarded delivery confirmationA receipt establishes envelope delivery, without identifying its contents or recipient.
15 December 2009Brunel’s conditional video requestHe proposes asking Naomi; her surname and any fulfillment remain unestablished.
April and May 2010Moscow NEON invitationsThe April benefit was expressly postponed; the gala took place in May. Epstein attendance remains unverified.
13 September 2010New York business appointmentMessages arrange a meeting involving Campbell, an associate and Linda Wachner.
4 October 2010Paris career celebrationAn invitation and affirmative RSVP survive.
2011 and 2012Further Paris approachesInvitations sought contact and a dinner; completed meetings are not established.
May 2012Peggy Siegal’s Cannes scheduleA Campbell event was listed tentatively; this was not an Epstein attendance record.
2015London and other travel referencesCorrespondence includes replies and scheduling attempts, alongside unanswered outreach.
January 2016Aircraft assistance requestCharter inquiries led to commercial booking attempts, which staff reported failed.
August 2019Campbell’s public statementShe acknowledged knowing Epstein and denied knowing about his crimes.
January 2020Giuffre’s public allegationShe alleged awareness and witnessing; the statements require attribution and qualification.

London and the European geography

PlaceStrongest connectionLimit on the inference
London and the United KingdomA 2015 reply from LondonA location reference during contact does not establish a London meeting or abuse.
ParisThe 2010 celebrationA documented event connection is stronger than an unaccepted dinner invitation.
Saint TropezThe 2001 birthday tripGiuffre’s account of abuse on the trip must retain her later correction about the alleged assailant.
Cannes and Antibes areaThe 2010 fortieth birthdayThe celebration is independently documented; an invitation does not establish attendance.
MoscowThe later NEON invitationThe 24 May 2010 date appears in a subsequent invitation; attendance remains unresolved.
SpainA May 2015 call requestA staff message locates Campbell there; it does not place Epstein beside her.
SardiniaReporting about Briatore’s circleThe reporting does not document a Campbell recruitment act.

The United Kingdom and France supply concrete transport and event records. They should not be treated as one undifferentiated European circuit. A journey to London, a birthday in Saint Tropez, a Paris fashion event and an invitation to Moscow are separate occasions with different evidentiary support. No reliable Campbell specific abuse finding for Germany, Switzerland or Scandinavia was identified in this review. An absence of findings here cannot establish that no relevant material exists.

When the acquaintance began

Campbell’s August 2019 account placed her introduction to Epstein at her thirty first birthday through her then partner, Flavio Briatore. The important distinction is between an independently documented early encounter and a retrospective explanation of who introduced whom. Photographs and later accounts situate the association in the 2001 period; the introduction story remains Campbell’s account.

The inspected May and July 2000 entries do not name Campbell. They cannot disprove her 2001 introduction account. Uncorroborated earlier flight assertions are excluded.

Maxwell’s July 2025 interview said she had known Campbell before Epstein and thought she probably introduced them. She identified that explanation as a guess. Her earlier friendship with Campbell does not by itself establish an earlier Campbell relationship with Epstein, and her tentative recollection does not resolve the conflict with Campbell’s Briatore account.

The 2001 French birthday and Giuffre’s account

The French reporting on the birthday places Giuffre, then 17, on the May 2001 Saint Tropez trip with Epstein’s circle. Her presence does not disclose what Campbell understood about her age, relationship to Epstein or treatment. The specific photographed people are identified separately below.

Giuffre’s May 2016 deposition described Maxwell sending her to an unnamed owner of a large hotel chain while she was in France around the birthday trip. On printed page 203 she could not recall his name. The passage describes her alleged exploitation and the setting in which the group stayed. It does not say Campbell arranged that alleged assault. A birthday connection should therefore be reported as context for Giuffre’s account, without transferring Maxwell’s alleged conduct to Campbell.

The July 2021 account of the French investigation reports a material correction. When confronted with passport evidence placing Brunel in Australia, Giuffre changed her identification of the alleged assailant in an incident following the birthday to a hotel chain owner. She maintained other allegations against Brunel. Her representatives cited the difficulty of dating trauma many years later. Any description attaching Brunel to that specific incident must include this correction.

Le Monde’s August 2026 investigation discusses French police material on the Riviera and an alleged hotelier assault during the birthday trip. Its description of the unnamed hotelier’s nationality differs from the earlier French reporting. The identity remains unresolved here. Neither nationality nor a guest list provides a sound basis for naming him.

A newspaper account in the court file also contains remarks attributed to Giuffre about meeting Campbell at the party. Its inclusion as an exhibit does not turn that newspaper interview into sworn testimony. The exhibit and the actual deposition should not be cited interchangeably.

The declaration identifying the manuscript establishes that the Billionaire Playboys Club narrative is a manuscript exhibit. Its inclusion in litigation does not make the narrative sworn deposition testimony. That distinction also matters when reading birthday excerpts reproduced in newspapers.

The French correction changes a specific attribution of an alleged assault. It does not erase the photographed birthday connection, establish Campbell’s knowledge or disprove every separate allegation Giuffre made. Each proposition has to retain its own source and stated limits.

What the photographs establish

The professionally captioned photographs establish several distinct occasions of Campbell’s social proximity to Maxwell. They are meaningful evidence of repeated association. They also need to be read at the level of the actual caption, event date and people shown, rather than the number of times an image has circulated online.

Date and placeCaptioned photographPeople identified in the caption
19 May 2001 Saint TropezBirthday photographCampbell, Briatore, Giuffre in the foreground and Maxwell at the right with her face covered.
8 May 2002 New YorkTribeca premiere arrivalCampbell arriving with Maxwell at the opening night premiere of About a Boy.
19 September 2002 New YorkRosa Cha afterparty at Man RayCampbell and Maxwell.
11 November 2002 New YorkDolce & Gabbana store openingCampbell, Maxwell, Donald Trump and Melania Knauss.

These captions identify four separate occasions. None identifies Epstein in the frame. The Saint Tropez photograph was uploaded to the archive years after it was taken, so its upload date is not the encounter date.

The Sun’s additional frames tentatively identify Epstein at the same birthday; the original agency caption remains unverified.

The dated photographs, shared flights and correspondence together support an association extending across years. They do not measure the total time spent together or resolve knowledge of abuse.

The flights and the island question

The four named entries are a verified minimum. A typed copy incorrectly adds her to 5 April; the original does not. St Thomas departure does not itself establish a Little Saint James visit.

Pilot Larry Visoski’s 2009 deposition shows why questions and answers must be separated. Asked about picking up Campbell at St Thomas with Brunel, he remembered her aboard but did not remember the particular flight. The lawyer’s question cannot be presented as the pilot independently confirming every detail of that route.

Singer acknowledged occasional aircraft travel and a brief island stop with a group travelling toward a Formula One event. He described three or four business visits to Epstein’s home office and denied social gatherings there. These are counsel’s explanations, not findings that resolve every witness account.

Maxwell’s later property recollections were qualified. She thought Campbell had visited Palm Beach and discussed possible visits elsewhere, but acknowledged lacking an independent memory when pressed. Her interview supplies a recollection with uncertainty, not reliable confirmation of visits to every Epstein property.

No precise island date or independent record of the acknowledged stop was established here. The proper account preserves the admission, its stated explanation and its unresolved details. It should neither deny all island presence nor infer that a brief visit establishes knowledge of crimes.

London records and what they do not show

The London return is dated 21 March 2002. Campbell is absent from the outward entry. This is separate from the later Africa trip.

The July 2015 correspondence contains a reply attributed to Campbell saying she was in London and asking for the best number to reach Epstein after an assistant’s call request. This is stronger evidence of engagement than an unanswered reminder. It does not establish the completed call, its content or a meeting in London.

A November 2015 reply outlined London, Los Angeles, Chicago and a return to New York. Epstein asked that she be put on the calendar for the twelfth. A later reminder drew a response postponing contact until his return. The surviving scheduling sequence does not prove that a meeting occurred.

The October 2009 callback message says staff reached Campbell on a United Kingdom mobile number while she was with an architect. A national telephone number does not establish where its owner was standing. This record supports renewed contact after Epstein’s conviction, without independently placing Campbell in Britain that day.

No verified record located for this report places Campbell in Giuffre’s alleged London abuse episode involving Andrew. London society overlap and contact book entries should not be used to fill that evidentiary gap. Private addresses and phone numbers add no necessary explanatory value and are omitted.

The love and light signoff

The verified signoff records represent five occasions: 17 May and 13 December 2009, 9 and 13 September and 1 October 2010. Forwards and duplicate copies are not additional contacts.

Personal messages and the October 2009 encounter

The 17 May 2009 record preserves a message signed Naomi, from her nc connect account, asking an intermediary to send her love to Epstein and saying she was in Moscow. It reached him through a forward; the embedded original was not addressed directly to him. The familiar wording supports continued contact without establishing knowledge of his crimes.

Epstein’s 16 October instruction asks an intermediary to thank Naomi for the previous evening, praises her boyfriend, requests Moscow housing details and invites Vlad to visit while she works. This supports an encounter as described by Epstein, with 15 October inferred from his reference to the previous night. The venue and event type are unstated, and the record does not establish that his requested note was sent.

Naomi and the Moscow housing discussion

The 27 October 2009 message from Anastasia Ustinova, identifying herself as Doronin’s assistant, says she is providing apartment information at Naomi’s request. Epstein is copied; the principal addressee is redacted. This records the assistant’s account of Naomi facilitating information, rather than a message written by Campbell or a completed transaction.

Epstein’s 28 October reply asks for completed sales, prices, maintenance costs and Vlad’s help completing the interior. It quotes Capital Group’s offer on Doronin’s behalf: levels 62 and 63 with a terrace on level 64. No acceptance or purchase is established.

The 29 October message to Sultan Bin Sulayem directly connects the strands in Epstein’s account. He reports just speaking to Naomi, says she and her boyfriend planned a Morocco trip, and describes the boyfriend offering his Moscow penthouse for 15 million. That sentence specifies no currency. It is Epstein’s report, not independent confirmation of the call, travel, a formal sale or payment.

The 4 November property request asks for filmed streets, access, parking, elevators and finishes. This concerns the building. It is separate from Brunel’s correspondence about videos of people; no connection between those subjects is established. Actual filming is unverified.

Pobedina’s later response reports dollar denominated market comparisons, not a price Epstein paid. She cites an upper floor asking price of $19,700 per square metre, 19 apartments reportedly sold the previous month averaging $14,200 per square metre, and a level 51 sale at $16,200 per square metre. She describes a proposed sale of levels 60 and 61, differing from the earlier levels 62 and 63 and terrace. Epstein’s 16 November reply requests Vlad’s telephone number. These are continuing commercial inquiries; the changing configuration should not be silently treated as one fixed offer.

The November consultation with Peter Mandelson includes his offer to pass the material to Tatiana, described as handling property matters for Oleg, and Epstein’s agreement. A companion message identifies the development as Capital City. Neither surname is supplied, and completed onward transmission or advice from them is not established.

The 27 November brochure message markets Legend of Tsvetnoi, another Capital Group property. The presence of more than one project makes it especially unsafe to assign every later business proposal to the initial penthouse. No completed purchase is established by this marketing message.

The December proposal and delivery records

The 13 December inquiry signed Vlad asks whether Epstein received a business proposal. The continuation records Epstein saying he received nothing; the sender then says an information package was sent before leaving Miami and that hotel management would be contacted. No unredacted sender field names Doronin, and the proposal’s contents are unspecified. A connection to the separate delivery record is contextual inference, not an explicit document link.

Naomi’s separate 13 December message forwards a Setai hotel delivery notification to Sarah Je Pa and Epstein, copying Vladislav Doronin. The hotel message addresses her as Ms Campbell. The scanned receipt records an envelope delivered to a Palm Beach residence on 8 December, not the 9 December date produced by text recognition. The recipient and contents remain unestablished.

Epstein’s reply and the repeated receipt belong to the same episode. A redaction precedes a statement about a future arrival; its missing referent must not be supplied. These pages do not establish that Campbell, Epstein or a particular package arrived when that reply predicts.

The December 2010 correspondence expressly addresses Vlad Doronin and discusses seeing his project, an invitation and visa assistance, and possible Russia travel. It does not identify the project or prove a completed visit. It therefore cannot establish that the earlier penthouse negotiations ended in a purchase.

Business discussions and access to Epstein’s home

The 11 April 2005 office log records a request from Campbell to discuss a swimsuit line and a proposed Victoria’s Secret meeting. The message says she had photographs and samples. The date matters: this is a 2005 entry, not a 2015 request. It establishes an attempted business discussion, with no completed Victoria’s Secret agreement or payment established in the reviewed material.

The 9 September 2010 message requests Lesley Groff’s telephone number. Epstein’s reply supplies a callback number and quotes the request. This establishes a response, rather than an unanswered approach. Duplicate versions and forwards should not be counted as separate contacts.

The September 2010 arrangement shows Epstein asking staff to bring Linda Wachner into a meeting with Campbell and an associate. A subsequent message attributed to Campbell confirmed that she and Vlad would come because Karl or Fabien could not. An earlier proposed guest should not be counted as an attendee after the message says that person could not join. The correspondence documents active planning and access to the New York residence.

Epstein’s same day message to Valerie Post said Campbell would be coming for tea and invited Post. Because it coincides with the documented business appointment, it should not automatically become a second, purely social visit. Other participants’ discussion of Epstein’s imprisonment in that chain does not show Campbell received or read it.

Singer described the Wachner discussion as a proposed lingerie or swimwear venture that produced no deal. He said Campbell learned of Epstein’s crimes only after the 2019 arrest, did not know he was a registered sex offender and had no subsequent contact. He cited her Moscow residence from 2008 to 2013.

No contract, fee, commission, investment or transfer involving the proposed Campbell venture was established in the reviewed records.

Paris after the conviction

A September 2010 approach from Sarah asked whether Campbell could see Epstein in Paris. A forwarded reply said she was working, would return on Monday and had an event that evening. The response is evidence of an invitation and communication. It does not independently confirm a private meeting or fix Campbell’s location when she wrote.

The 3 October invitation was sent on Campbell’s behalf by Becky Fatemi for the next evening’s Dolce & Gabbana celebration of her 25 years in fashion, at the avenue Montaigne store. Epstein’s reply sought places for himself and two guests. This preserves both the invitation and an affirmative RSVP. It still needs attendance evidence before an appearance can be treated as completed.

Campbell’s lawyer acknowledged that Epstein and Maxwell attended the Paris celebration for roughly twenty minutes.

The reported Paris recruitment approach concerns an accuser who said an Epstein associate approached her at a 2010 Campbell event and invoked Campbell’s connection as a route into modelling. New York magazine summarizes that investigation. The allegation concerns an intermediary’s use of the event and Campbell’s name; it does not establish Campbell made the approach or knew it was happening.

The 27 September 2011 message again asked whether Campbell was in Paris while Epstein was there. No reply or meeting confirmation appears in that record.

The 22 March 2012 invitation asked her to join a Paris dinner with Epstein and Woody Allen the following evening. The surviving page supplies an invitation, not attendance. It does not establish that Campbell accepted, declined or was in Paris. A separate reply or contemporary calendar would be needed to resolve the outcome.

The Cannes schedule and its limits

The May 2012 correspondence explicitly identifies the enclosed diary as Peggy Siegal’s Cannes schedule. It lists a Weinstein and Blavatnik boat lunch and a Campbell fashion show as separate items. Transmission to Epstein’s office does not make it his personal itinerary or establish that Campbell attended the lunch.

The 9 May revision marks the Campbell show as still to be determined. The surviving copies and updates document one scheduling sequence, not repeated meetings. No completed Campbell and Epstein encounter in Cannes is established by these pages.

Other French birthdays should remain separate

The April 2004 travel sheet supplies logistics for a birthday gala in Saint Tropez on 20 May. It establishes an invitation, not Epstein’s attendance or Campbell’s personal authorship. This is a different occasion from the 2001 trip and the 2010 fortieth birthday.

Vogue’s contemporary photo report independently documents the 2010 birthday at Hôtel du Cap Eden Roc. Photographs supplied by Campbell establish the celebration, not Epstein’s presence.

Singer said Campbell did not prepare the 2010 birthday guest list and Epstein did not attend. He also denied that she requested Epstein’s jail address or authorized his use of her name to cultivate victims.

The Moscow postponement and May gala

The April 2010 invitation chain names Campbell’s Fashion for Relief and Dasha Zhukova’s IRIS Foundation as the organizations behind the inaugural NEON gala in Moscow. It asks recipients to save 22 April. Epstein forwarded the invitation and sought a telephone number in the related exchange. That establishes receipt and engagement with the invitation, not a completed visit to Russia.

The 20 April postponement notice explains the change: the benefit planned for 22 April was delayed for a few weeks because of the situation with international air travel. It says a new date would follow and carries the names of Campbell, Zhukova and the NEON team. That does not establish Campbell personally sent it. The notice does not name volcanic ash.

The 12 May invitation then advertises the gala for 24 May. Contemporary Getty captions establish that the event took place in Moscow on that date. They do not establish Epstein’s attendance.

Contemporary British Vogue reporting in February 2010 supports the narrower proposition that Campbell had moved to Moscow. Residence is relevant to counsel’s later explanation of her circumstances. It does not prove ignorance of Epstein’s conviction, nor does it establish that Epstein attended a Russian event.

No verified arrival, passenger record or photograph in the reviewed material establishes Epstein’s attendance at the NEON gala. A proposed trip, an invitation, a rescheduled date and an actual journey are separate questions. Unrelated Russia photographs or projects should not be folded into this chronology without a documented connection.

The later contact and aircraft assistance

The 29 May 2015 staff message asks Epstein to call Campbell and says she is in Spain and awake. It establishes a proposed telephone contact. It does not establish a Spanish meeting, a shared holiday or a completed call.

The September 2015 messages preserve unsuccessful outreach: staff first left a message about a possible visit, then reported receiving no email reply or returned call. An unanswered approach must not be counted as a completed appointment.

The 16 November 2015 forwarded reply says Campbell wanted to see Epstein and asks whether he was going to Morocco, while discussing her own further London travel. It indicates an expressed wish to meet. It does not document a joint Morocco trip, a London meeting or a completed New York visit.

The 21 January 2016 aircraft chain records Campbell seeking transport help after Epstein left because of snow. Staff reported she had booked a hotel and transport without a backup flight. Epstein asked Larry for New York to Miami charter options with a weekend return; Visoski was checking.

The later booking report supplies an outcome. The office explored commercial flights, with first class permitted if available. Staff said repeated booking attempts failed and Campbell thanked them but said the arrangement would not work. Proposed fares are not charges; no completed ticket, charter or payment is established.

The 26 January follow up sought another meeting. An initial 27 January report said calls, texts and emails had gone unanswered. A later message that day reports that Campbell called back and was leaving for London that night. That supersedes an unanswered contact endpoint. The wording does not place her inside Epstein’s home or establish a completed meeting.

The distinction between direct replies, staff reports of requests, tentative calendars and unanswered messages is important when assessing how close the relationship was. Document counts include forwarded chains and repeated copies. They are not equivalent to a count of separate conversations, meetings, flights or favors.

What survivors and witnesses actually alleged

AccountCampbell related assertionWhat remains unestablished
Giuffre’s public statementsAwareness of and witnessing her abuseNo specific proven Campbell recruitment act or adjudicated incident in those posts.
The 2020 FBI interviewEpstein invoked Campbell and arranged an introductionCampbell’s knowledge of the witness’s exploitation or participation in recruitment.
The separate dinner accountA witness recalled Campbell at a New York dinnerIndependent corroboration and reconciliation with counsel’s denial of social gatherings.

Giuffre’s January 2020 posts addressed Campbell among several people and alleged that they saw her with Epstein and witnessed abuse. Those public accusations matter and should not be erased by broad descriptions saying she was never accused. The posts do not specify a proven recruitment act by Campbell or supply a judicial determination of what she witnessed.

The November 2020 interview report records a witness saying Epstein promised modelling opportunities by invoking his relationship with Campbell and once introduced them in his private office. The report records what a witness told agents. It neither verifies the promised modelling arrangement nor says Campbell knowingly took part in the witness’s exploitation. The witness’s identity remains redacted and is not reconstructed here.

Another recorded witness account describes an introduction to Epstein at a New York mansion dinner where Campbell was present. The witness attributed the introduction to David Blaine. Its implications should be considered alongside the response recorded above. It remains a witness account whose date and independent corroboration were not established here. Presence at that dinner, if established, would still be a different proposition from arranging abuse.

The serious unresolved issue is whether famous acquaintances merely supplied an image of legitimacy without understanding how it was being used, or knowingly helped. The reviewed records support investigation of that question. They do not supply the missing proof of Campbell’s knowledge. Nor does a denial establish that every witness was mistaken.

Campbell’s responses and their limits

Campbell’s own 2019 video response acknowledged knowing Epstein, condemned his crimes and expressed support for victims. She said she had been introduced at her birthday and referred to seeing him at Victoria’s Secret shows. The statement addressed scrutiny of her social and philanthropic associations. It denied knowledge of the crimes rather than denying every encounter.

Singer also said Campbell did not recall meeting victims.

Her later legal responses should be read alongside, rather than substituted for, the records. Some acknowledge contact that is already documented; others dispute witness accounts or explain why a business meeting occurred. The question of awareness cannot be settled solely by showing that a contact happened, and it cannot be settled solely by a lawyer’s assurance.

The jail address distribution sheet lists Campbell with a completion notation. It does not include a personal request from her, a delivered letter, a read receipt or proof of what she knew about the charges. A mailing entry is relevant to continuing social contact, but it should not be described as correspondence she wrote or an acknowledgment of the conviction’s details.

Maxwell Brunel and the wider European network

Tortoise’s July 2022 investigation described an email apparently from Campbell asking Saif al Islam Gaddafi to facilitate a Libya visit for Maxwell, described as a friend travelling by boat. It is a reported travel facilitation request connecting a British social circle with Libya. The reviewed reporting does not establish that the trip occurred or that the request concerned trafficking.

Campbell’s spokesperson disputed verification of that correspondence, saying she did not recognize the exchange and had not been supplied the document or evidence needed to comment. That response limits how confidently authorship can be stated. It is not forensic proof that the message was fabricated.

British Vogue’s October 2008 notice identifies Jean Luc Brunel as curator of a Campbell retrospective at In Fashion Photo during Art Basel Miami. Although the event was in the United States, this is a concrete professional link with the French modelling agent. It is stronger evidence of an actual professional connection than merely placing their names beside each other in a network diagram. It does not establish knowledge of his alleged abuse.

AFP’s March 2026 industry reporting describes former models asking French and American authorities to examine possible Epstein links involving Gérald Marie and Daniel Siad. Both denied the relevant wrongdoing. Campbell appears as an Elite alumnus, not as an accused recruiter in that report. Allegations against agency figures cannot automatically be transferred to models who worked in the same industry.

A May 2001 eyewitness account places Campbell and Maxwell at Briatore’s Sardinia club around 2000.

The Sardinia reporting discusses Epstein, Briatore and nightlife connections, including Briatore’s denial that Epstein visited his club. Campbell’s past relationship with Briatore helps explain the social connection but does not establish that she organized travel, recruited women or knew of abuse there. Tentative club sightings should remain tentative.

The financial link to Fashion For Relief

The foundation’s filed contributions schedule reports a $10,000 unrestricted grant to Fashion For Relief as paid on 12 September 2005. The C.O.U.Q. Foundation return names Epstein as president and director. This is a concrete financial connection, beyond event invitations. The entry does not establish a personal payment to Campbell, her involvement in approving it, a matched bank receipt or how the recipient used the money. The named recipient must not automatically be treated as the English charity registered in 2015. An additional claim about a $25,000 payment in 2013 was not verified.

The wider overlap ledger

The strongest additional leads involve identifiable introductions, scouting arrangements, financial structures and event organizing. The ledger separates Campbell’s documented relationship from the other person’s Epstein connection or abuse case. A path through several intermediaries remains a path through several intermediaries; it is not evidence that Campbell operated a common trafficking organization.

Person or organizationCampbell’s documented linkConnection requiring separate evaluation
Elite and CasablancasRegional agency representationThe alleged Epstein casting referral is described separately below.
Brunel and MC2Her name in his professional credentialsAgency financing and scouting arrangements are documented separately; her role is unestablished.
Daniel Amar SiadNo direct Campbell link established hereA Brunel forwarded scouting agreement connects him to the Epstein correspondence.
Annabelle NeilsonFriendship and a London charity runwaySeparate messages concern sourcing women for an unspecified job.
Doronin and Capital GroupStaff report apartment information requested by NaomiThe record supports facilitation; her contractual role and a transaction outcome remain unestablished.
Giuseppe CiprianiCampbell organized his Ibiza birthdayA separate London club negotiation involved Epstein; completion is disputed.
Harvey WeinsteinNoble described a Campbell introductionNoble said the celebrity encounter lent credibility to career promises.
Frédéric FekkaiNamed client and television collaborationKellen alleges an introduction to Epstein after an assault; Campbell is not placed in that act.
Sean CombsLongstanding public and professional associationNo shared Epstein trafficking operation or Campbell recruitment act established here.
Paolo ZampolliJoint appearance on a UN event invitationSeparate ID Models and acquisition records need their own attribution.
FashionTVBroadcast coverage featuring CampbellAcquisition discussions and other cases do not establish her operational participation.

Elite Casablancas and the casting allegation

Contemporary reporting in 1991 described Ford handling Campbell’s Paris work while Elite retained New York assignments. This is evidence of regional representation, not a lifetime exclusive contract. The dated competition photograph places her at the Plaza Hotel Look of the Year finale on 3 September 1991.

The report on the surviving footage describes Campbell presenting the finale with John Casablancas. That places her in a public role at the competition. It does not place her at a later private casting, establish that she witnessed backstage abuse or prove that she knew of every approach made by an agent.

The original amended complaint now supplies the underlying allegation. Doe 3 alleged that around 1990, when she was approximately 15, Elite’s owner directed her to a residence for her first casting. The pleading identifies him as John Casablanca, using that spelling, and alleges Epstein represented himself as a modelling photographer connected to Elite. It then alleges sexual assault by Epstein. The document was signed on 20 December 2019 and filed on 23 December. These are the claimant’s allegations, not trial findings. Campbell is not named or assigned a role in the referral.

Doe 3’s 1 November 2021 notice voluntarily dismissed her claims with prejudice. The reproduced docket entry records the judge’s endorsement the next day. This establishes the individual procedural outcome. It does not adjudicate whether the referral or assault occurred, and it supplies no verified settlement amount.

A separate 2002 suit alleged abuse of a minor; Casablancas denied it.

Brunel and the proposed video request

The 15 December 2009 email refers to an earlier video and records Brunel conditionally proposing to ask Naomi for videos of her friends. The page supplies no surname, message from Naomi, acceptance or delivery confirmation. Earlier fragments of the same exchange add no clear purpose. The broader Campbell and Brunel association does not supply the missing identity or prove the proposed request occurred. Ages and sexual content are not established.

Separate November correspondence links Brunel’s discussion of casting with a video request. Epstein’s 28 November reply praises videos, but identifies neither their contents nor any Naomi. These records show exchanges between the two men; no verified link makes those recordings the December video or attributes them to Campbell.

Brunel agency financing and the Siad chain

MC2’s July 2014 immigration petition lists Campbell among Brunel’s former or current clients. The original page image supports what MC2 claimed in that submission. It gives no date, territory, recruiting role or contract for Campbell, and does not show she endorsed the statement or belonged to MC2 rather than an earlier agency. It supplements the already documented retrospective and shared flight evidence without turning her into an agent or recruiter.

Brunel’s January 2015 pleading alleges Epstein supplied a letter of credit in 2006 at 5 percent interest, that the plaintiffs invested $1 million with Elite Paris and created E Management, and that the venture closed after referrals stopped. These are substantive financing claims in Brunel’s own lawsuit, coupled with his denial of illicit linkage. They are not audited payment findings or a judicial determination. Campbell is not assigned a role in these paragraphs.

The 2009 scouting correspondence sets out proposed six month terms of €3,000 per month plus 5 percent of model earnings. Brunel forwarded the chain to Epstein in January 2010. The same chain ties Daniel Siad and Daniel Amar Siad to the passport name Amar Siad. It establishes communicated terms and identity within that exchange; it does not prove all payments were made or that every person scouted was trafficked.

The May 2018 bank correspondence queries a $25,000 outgoing wire to Amar Siad dated 29 March. Richard Kahn describes it as a loan to a business associate. That description and the reported wire are relevant financial records. Neither establishes that the payment financed trafficking, and an identical first name in another record would not be sufficient identity evidence.

The House Democrats’ report brings those contract and payment records together. Its institutional source makes the cited records worth examining, but its interpretation remains a committee report rather than a court finding. No direct Campbell contract, introduction, correspondence or journey with Siad was established in this research.

Ebba Karlsson’s reported account alleges Siad assaulted her and then introduced her to Gérald Marie, who also assaulted her. Both men denied the allegations. This is a specific alleged introduction chain. Campbell is not described as arranging it.

The July 2026 reporting on Siad’s death says proceedings against him ended while a wider French investigation continued. His death is not a judgment on the allegations.

Brunel died in custody in February 2022 before trial. He faced French rape charges and was not convicted in that case.

Gérald Marie and the unresolved agency boundaries

Marie’s 2026 interview acknowledges meeting Epstein about possible professional collaboration, which he said did not proceed. RTL dates that approach to 2006, although its accompanying conviction chronology is erroneous. The article also reports seven civil party complaints filed in July 2026 and his denial of rape. These developments should not be replaced by an outdated claim that all scrutiny ended in 2023.

The earlier French investigation was closed in February 2023 on limitation grounds. That is different from a factual acquittal. Campbell’s historical Elite connection does not establish an individual management contract with Marie or participation in his alleged conduct. The Brunel financing claim, Marie’s acknowledged meeting and the Siad allegation should not be assumed to describe one identical transaction.

Reporting says Kates introduced models to Epstein; she denies endangering them.

No specific Campbell representation contract or direct operational link with Next, Faith Kates or Joel Wilkenfeld was established. Accounts that discuss her earlier Elite work near a separate description of Next do not prove she was a Next client. Nor should one officer’s alleged conduct be attributed to all officers of an agency.

Neilson and the London sourcing messages

The documented Campbell relationship includes Neilson’s friendship and their appearance at Fashion for Relief at Somerset House on 18 February 2010. This places the connection in an identifiable London fashion setting.

The September 2010 email excerpts attributed to Neilson discuss assembling women with qualities Epstein wanted, including French language ability, for a job whose nature is not specified. They also refer to Maxwell contacting her and to social plans. These are more concrete than a name in an address book. The published extracts do not establish the candidates’ ages, coercion, a sexual purpose, completed placement or Campbell’s involvement. No adjudication of Neilson’s alleged role was found. The full underlying chain was not independently image checked for this report.

The December 2002 Cipriani party plan

The December 2002 exchange puts the Cipriani party plan in the WJC correspondent’s message, mentioning Brenda. Maxwell’s reply wishes him fun; it does not say she would attend. Neither his completed attendance nor Maxwell’s or Epstein’s attendance is established. Brenda’s surname is unconfirmed.

Band’s testimony supports attributing the WJC correspondent to Doug Band, with qualifications.

The event photographs and Vogue’s archive support matching the party to Campbell’s Miracle on 42nd Street on 17 December 2002. That matching remains a corroborated inference.

Cipriani and the London club negotiations

Vogue Italia’s June 2012 report says Campbell and Doronin organized Giuseppe Cipriani’s surprise birthday in Ibiza, with Campbell arranging a performance. This documents event organizing, rather than merely appearing at the same party.

The later London charity collaboration involved Campbell and Cipriani providing food bags for hospital workers in 2021. It establishes an ongoing working relationship, without saying anything about trafficking.

The June and July 2010 correspondence separately records Cipriani, Livio Bisterzo and Epstein discussing a London club acquisition, lease and management terms, including approximately £800,000 of investment. It is evidence of business negotiations. Campbell does not appear in the retrieved text.

Cipriani’s representative denied that the transaction was completed, documents executed or funds wired to him, and denied Epstein became a partner. The reporting itself leaves the wire’s completion unresolved. It also records an accuser’s account of Epstein groping her at a Manhattan Cipriani venue; it does not place Campbell in that incident.

The renewed Nicole Minetti review must be reported with its outcome. Prosecutors found the renewed sex party claims insufficient to alter the favorable pardon position. Minetti’s earlier prostitution related conviction is a separate matter and does not establish a Campbell and Epstein operation.

RAI’s June 2026 correction reports that the source recanted, saying she had not witnessed or reliably known Minetti to recruit prostitutes and that her earlier words were distorted. The company’s litigation response is a claim for relief, not a damages award. There is no basis here to present an unverified Gin Tonic guest list as proof of a shared trafficking event.

Briatore and Gruosi beyond the guest lists

The additional Briatore correspondence reporting describes 2005 contact and 2010 property and meeting discussions with Epstein. This extends the documented social bridge beyond the birthday introduction. It does not show Campbell arranging those discussions, and it supplies no basis for identifying Briatore as the unnamed hotelier in Giuffre’s account.

The captioned 18 May 2010 photograph places Fawaz Gruosi, Campbell and Doronin at the de Grisogono party near Cannes. It is a different occasion from Campbell’s birthday. No reliable direct Gruosi and Epstein operational connection or specific trafficking overlap was established in the targeted research. The same hotel or nightclub cannot supply that missing link.

Noble Weinstein and the effect of a celebrity introduction

Noble’s press conference account described Weinstein introducing her to Campbell and Oprah at a 2014 BAFTA party, lending credibility to his career promises. She alleged assault at a later Cannes meeting. Weinstein’s spokeswoman denied nonconsensual sex and retaliation. Noble did not thereby accuse Campbell of recruitment or knowledge of the later alleged assault.

The original federal complaint names Harvey Weinstein, Bob Weinstein and the company, not Campbell. It alleges a promised film role was used in recruitment and advances a civil sex trafficking theory. Campbell and Oprah are not mentioned in that original complaint.

The August 2019 opinion addressed an attempted interlocutory appeal; it did not decide that trafficking occurred.

Noble’s 4 January 2022 filing reports an agreed bankruptcy resolution, release of Harvey Weinstein and full resolution of her claims. It requests an unopposed voluntary dismissal with prejudice. The reproduced final docket entry records the judge’s endorsement on 12 January, entered 18 January. This closes the earlier outcome gap. It is not a trial verdict on trafficking or a judgment involving Campbell, and no final payout amount is established here.

Vogue’s firsthand party report independently places Weinstein and Georgina Chapman at Campbell’s 2010 birthday. That substantiates social familiarity. It does not establish that Campbell introduced him to Epstein.

The reported 2003 magazine bid provides a separate Weinstein and Epstein business connection. Neither participation in that unsuccessful investment effort nor Campbell’s social relationship demonstrates that she brokered the men’s relationship.

Davies says Epstein introduced her to Weinstein for an audition; Campbell was not identified as the intermediary.

The September 2026 New York sentence concerned the assault of Miriam Haley. It does not adjudicate Noble’s civil trafficking theory. The California appeal separately upheld convictions while ordering resentencing. Those case outcomes should remain distinct from the alleged Campbell introduction.

Kellen Fekkai and Demarchelier

Fekkai’s company history identifies Campbell as a client. The television photograph places them together on The Face. The V and A exhibition record credits Patrick Demarchelier’s 1988 Campbell cover. These are documented professional relationships.

Kellen’s May 2026 House testimony alleges Fekkai assaulted her after bringing her to a nonexistent hair show, then introduced her to Epstein as a Victoria’s Secret scout. She expressly said Epstein did not facilitate the alleged Fekkai assault because the introduction came afterward. She also said Fekkai introduced her to Demarchelier and alleged sexual misconduct by him after a photo session. She did not know whether Epstein knew about that incident. None of these introductions was attributed to Campbell.

Fekkai’s representative categorically denied assault, illegal behavior and awareness of Epstein’s trafficking. CNN’s review found no direct Epstein and Demarchelier interaction in the files it examined. The absence of such a record in that review does not resolve every possible contact.

The House referral to DOJ asks for investigation and is not a charge or finding. Kellen’s separate allegation involving Philip Levine concerns another Saint Tropez stay, not an established Campbell birthday connection. No Campbell role in that incident was identified.

The earlier Demarchelier investigation reported allegations by seven women and his denial. The much larger number of interviewees across the wider fashion investigation must not be misstated as his personal accuser count. These separate allegations do not establish Campbell’s involvement.

Combs and other documented professional associations

The 1998 birthday photograph documents an early Campbell and Combs social connection. Vogue’s own archive records their October 2001 cover, photographed by Mario Testino. The November 2023 London party report documents Campbell hosting Combs’ celebration. This is a substantial relationship, but no shared Epstein operation or Campbell recruitment act was established in this research.

The Combs court order records acquittals on racketeering and sex trafficking and convictions on two transportation for prostitution counts. DOJ’s sentencing record gives 50 months. He should not be described as convicted of sex trafficking; an appellate final outcome was not established here.

Campbell’s Brixton film with Bruce Weber is documented by the commissioning publication. Vogue’s 2018 announcement reports misconduct allegations against Weber and Testino, their responses and suspended commissions. Later Weber litigation reporting describes civil settlements without admissions. No verified operational Epstein connection for either photographer, or Campbell participation in their alleged abuse, was established.

The secondary fashion archive credits an interior 1996 Campbell feature to Terry Richardson; publisher confirmation was not obtained. The 2023 Portillo lawsuit names Richardson and modelling defendants, not Campbell. The accompanying reporting includes his denials. The final disposition and a direct Epstein operational link remain unverified.

The 1993 benefit invitation lists Campbell on a committee honoring Russell Simmons. The 2017 investigation reports women’s allegations and his denials. AP’s January 2026 reporting notes the continuing Dixon defamation action and his denial of her rape allegation. No verified Epstein operational bridge or Campbell facilitated recruitment was found. Shared Caribbean socializing is not evidence of a Little Saint James visit.

Zampolli and the bounded FashionTV branch

The original 2 May 2008 invitation names Campbell and Paolo Zampolli for an IREO reception at United Nations headquarters. Contemporary onsite reporting corroborates that event connection. No Campbell contract with ID Models was established.

The contemporary 2004 acquisition report documents the failed bid for Elite New York involving Zampolli and Epstein. Zampolli’s later response acknowledges Epstein visited ID’s premises but rejects involvement, collaboration or endorsement. These records do not establish Campbell’s participation in an ID recruitment route.

FashionTV’s own 2007 release identifies Campbell among the models it featured. That establishes media coverage, not employment, ownership or knowledge of conduct at every associated event. The claim that she inspired the channel’s founding was not corroborated sufficiently to adopt.

The February 2010 correspondence shows Epstein asking Brunel to explore buying FashionTV from Michel Adam. A later approach discusses presenting the prospective buyer as a London investment firm. The May assessment is skeptical about price and prospects. No completed acquisition or Campbell role is established in those records.

Contemporary French court reporting records Lisowski’s 2000 conviction for sexual assault. It is not a trafficking conviction, and a later appellate disposition was not established here.

The Romanian agency reporting describes alleged model exchanges and agency defendants Costan and Tămârjan who met through FashionTV events. It supplies an outward branch worth examining, but no reviewed evidence connects Campbell to its recruitment or abuses.

The June 2014 court reporting records final sentences of four years and six months for each man. Independent contemporary reporting corroborates the outcome and records Tămârjan’s denial. The reports differ by one day on the ruling date, so June 2014 is the reliable level of precision here. These convictions do not implicate FashionTV’s celebrity subjects collectively.

The separate Cannes allegation involving Van Damme was denied; August 2026 reporting identified no known formal charges. Campbell’s presence at the alleged event was not established. This allegation must not be merged with Lisowski’s conviction or the Romanian agency prosecution.

Documented trafficking prevention activity

The official UNODC evaluation describes a 2005 Elite Model Look Colombia initiative, organized by Germán Palomino, that combined model training with trafficking prevention. It records a UNODC and Campbell press conference as part of that effort. This is relevant context when evaluating her public involvement in modelling and exploitation issues. It does not establish knowledge of Epstein’s specific crimes or resolve the separate allegations.

Contemporary Colombian reporting confirms Campbell’s visit, judging role and public message against trafficking. Public advocacy should be recorded alongside the other evidence, without treating it as proof that every private association was innocent or that she knew of a particular abuse.

Separate legal history and the latest charity ruling

The official 1 October 2026 judgment allowed Campbell’s appeal and quashed her five year charity trustee disqualification. The tribunal found serious misconduct at Fashion for Relief but held that its gravest features resulted from Bianka Hellmich’s conduct and were concealed from Campbell. It found Campbell neither involved in nor aware of that conduct. She retained limited responsibility for inadequate minutes and late accounts, but those failures did not establish unfitness. The judgment records Hellmich’s denial through her solicitors. These findings concern charity governance and do not adjudicate the Epstein association.

The 2008 Heathrow case resulted in Campbell’s guilty plea over assaults on two police officers and a community service sentence. It is a separate criminal matter. It supplies no evidence about Epstein recruitment, trafficking or knowledge.

The 2015 Italian reporting describes a suspended sentence arising from a 2009 photographer assault and an announced appeal. The eventual appeal outcome was not verified here. It would be inaccurate to call the conviction final or to state, without current evidence, that the appeal remains pending.

The Charles Taylor trial transcript records Campbell’s appearance as a subpoenaed witness in The Hague on 5 August 2010 concerning rough stones received after a 1997 South African dinner. She was not the defendant in that trial. The disputed account is separate from the Epstein evidence and should not be characterized as a Campbell conviction for dealing in blood diamonds.

These matters are included because they frequently become attached to accounts of the Epstein relationship. Their legal status must be described accurately, and none can supply missing evidence of knowing involvement in Epstein’s crimes.

Claims excluded from the factual account

ANSA’s June 2026 report repeated guest overlap claims involving a Uruguayan ranch but also reported that Milan prosecutors found renewed allegations of sex parties unsupported. It supplied no reliable dates, same occasion proof or Campbell specific conduct. Treating that overlap as a proved trafficking connection would omit the reported outcome and exceed the evidence.

A podcast lead was also checked, but the publicly available excerpt consisted of the host’s retrospective narration, with the fuller episode unavailable for direct assessment. No assessable firsthand testimony or independent corroboration establishing Campbell recruited for Epstein was obtained. Its sensational title is not used as evidence. This limitation leaves a research lead unresolved; it does not establish the allegation or its falsity.

Claims that Campbell was a proven recruiter or madam, or that Giuffre was forced into sex with Campbell, were not supported by reliable evidence located for this review and are not repeated as findings. Likewise, uncertain passenger names, speculative hotelier identifications and unrelated Russian projects are excluded from the chronology.

What further checks resolved

Records now resolve the postponement, failed bookings and callback, identify the Cannes schedule and establish two case dismissals. Those dismissals do not adjudicate the allegations.

Financial searches excluded namesakes, text recognition errors and duplicate records rather than counting them as Campbell transactions. No matched recipient bank receipt for the foundation grant or executed Campbell agency or swimsuit contract was established. The regional representation reports, immigration submission and proposed business discussions remain different kinds of evidence.

Outstanding questions

  • What original photographs, dated event records and witness accounts best resolve the circumstances of the first Campbell and Epstein introduction?
  • Can the French confrontation record clarify the corrected birthday trip allegation, including the conflicting descriptions of the unnamed hotelier, without speculative identification?
  • What contemporary evidence fixes the date, itinerary and participants of the island stop acknowledged by counsel?
  • Are there replies or attendance records resolving the Paris approaches in 2011 and 2012?
  • What records establish who authorized the 2010 event invitations and what organizers knew about Epstein at the time?
  • Do any travel, acceptance or attendance records establish whether Epstein went to the May Moscow gala?
  • Did any alternative journey follow the failed commercial booking attempts, and is there evidence of a completed ticket or payment?
  • Can the dinner and office introduction accounts be corroborated and placed in time, and what evidence bears directly on Campbell’s knowledge?
  • Is the purported Libya correspondence authentic, and did any travel follow?
  • Can recipient records identify the legal recipient, authorization and use of the foundation grant?
  • Which agency contracts establish the relevant representation dates and territories, beyond the newly located original casting allegation?
  • Which banking, investment and lease records establish completed transactions in the agency ventures and London club negotiations?
  • Can complete sourcing and scouting records establish the nature of the jobs, ages, consent and eventual placements described in the correspondence?
  • Is there direct evidence connecting Campbell to those specific introductions or arrangements beyond the professional and social relationships already documented?
  • Do property contracts, title records or payment evidence resolve the Moscow discussions, changing apartment configuration or unidentified December proposal?
  • Can any unredacted or independent record identify the Naomi in Brunel’s conditional video request and establish whether the request occurred or was fulfilled?

The central unanswered question is knowledge and participation, not whether an acquaintance existed. The acquaintance is documented, and the expanded evidence adds identifiable financial and professional links. These findings do not amount to an exhaustive inventory of every acquaintance or a unified trafficking enterprise. Resolving the more consequential question requires evidence tied to specific conduct, dates and communications, together with the responses and contradictions that bear on it.

Sources

The original handwritten flight pages and the September 2010 Wachner arrangement were checked against page images. Other correspondence labelled as a released record transcription was assessed from document text, without independent inspection of the original scan.

The records and reporting below are grouped by what they establish. An official release authenticates the provenance of a file in the released collection; it does not certify every assertion inside it. Repeated emails and syndicated versions of the same investigation do not supply independent corroboration.

Flight records and testimony

Captioned photographs

Correspondence and investigative records

  • EFTA02332875: April 2004 travel information for the May birthday; released record transcription
  • EFTA00008870: Office message log, PDF page 2, entry of 11 April 2005; released record transcription
  • EFTA00306074: Jail mailing instructions and distribution list, PDF page 2
  • EFTA02438749: Callback report of 14 October 2009; released record transcription
  • EFTA02421903: September 2010 Wachner meeting arrangement; source image checked
  • EFTA02420031: Campbell’s attributed reply about the proposed attendees; original image subsequently checked
  • EFTA00896792: Same day tea invitation; the document transcription, rather than the site’s summary, supplies the evidence
  • EFTA02418936: September and October 2010 Paris approach; matching EFTA00755183 image checked
  • EFTA02533251: October 2010 Paris invitation and RSVP; released record transcription
  • EFTA02326253: September 2011 Paris inquiry; released record transcription
  • EFTA02303765: March 2012 Paris dinner invitation; released record transcription
  • EFTA01826079: April 2010 Moscow invitation; released record transcription
  • EFTA02425900 postponement notice: 20 April 2010 postponement notice; original page image checked
  • EFTA00759078: May 2010 Moscow invitation; released record transcription
  • Getty’s 24 May 2010 Moscow gala collection: Contemporary captions establish the event date, not Epstein’s attendance
  • EFTA02170466 Peggy’s Cannes schedule: Page images checked; page 1 identifies the schedule and page 2 lists the Campbell event
  • EFTA00413346 revised Cannes schedule: 9 May 2012 revision, page 3, marks the Campbell show as tentative
  • EFTA02077452: May 2015 call request; released record transcription
  • EFTA02075810: July 2015 London reply; released record transcription
  • EFTA02069354: November 2015 itinerary and calendar request; released record transcription
  • EFTA02067804: Later November reminder and response; released record transcription
  • EFTA02067735: November 2015 travel discussion; released record transcription
  • EFTA02487746: September 2015 unanswered contact; released record transcription
  • EFTA02062867: January 2016 charter inquiry and earlier messages quoted in the chain; released record transcription
  • EFTA02061182 commercial booking outcome: Image checked at page 1; staff reported failed booking attempts on 21 January 2016
  • EFTA02061107 commercial alternatives: Epstein permitted consideration of first class; fares are proposals, not charges
  • EFTA02061012: January 2016 unanswered outreach report; released record transcription
  • EFTA00330535: The preceding January 2016 follow up; released record transcription
  • EFTA02474497 returned call report: Image checked at page 1; supersedes the earlier unanswered outreach on 27 January 2016
  • EFTA01245461: FBI interview of November 2020; Campbell passage on PDF page 8, Bates EFTA01245468; transcription
  • EFTA00153851: Recorded witness account of a New York dinner; released record transcription

Public accounts and European reporting

Separate legal records and reporting

Financial and prevention records

Agencies and operational records

European intermediary records

Named survivor accounts and related cases

Other professional associations

Zampolli and FashionTV records

Additional personal and Moscow correspondence

Posted
ByEpsteinWiki
Tags:
Previous Morgan Fairchild
Next Peggy Siegal
Table of Contents