Paolo Zampolli and Jeffrey Epstein: The Arrangement Records
Snapshot
- A July 12, 2019 FBI interview records a former model’s account of Epstein visiting Paolo Zampolli at ID Models, looking through portfolios and being at a nightclub with her and Zampolli. She described a later dinner at Epstein’s house and unwanted sexual contact. The person who took her number is redacted, and she said the invitation came from either a woman or Epstein. The record does not identify Zampolli as the caller or dinner organizer
- A separate August 26, 2019 interview describes a woman who joined ID Models at 18, left the agency and a shared model apartment, then encountered an Epstein recruiter while working at a coffee shop at 19. Her account does not place that recruitment inside the agency or attribute it to Zampolli
- Contemporary August 2004 reporting says Zampolli and Epstein were outbid for Elite’s New York business
- The February 2011 Sulayem correspondence records a proposed dinner and Epstein’s warning about Zampolli. The same chain explains the warning as an allegation that Zampolli sold stories to the press. It does not document an illicit dinner or establish that the dinner occurred
- The handwritten July 2019 notes create an important attribution problem for the typed interview’s claim about who introduced Melania and Donald Trump. The handwritten pronoun appears to refer to Zampolli, while the typed report names Epstein. Neither version supplies an eyewitness account of the introduction
- Zampolli’s April 2026 response to the American Prospect acknowledged Epstein’s visits to the agency while denying involvement or collaboration. The records establish access, contact and a reported business proposal. They do not establish that Zampolli knowingly arranged the abuse described by either interviewee
Evidence comparison chart
| Record | What it supports | What it does not establish |
|---|---|---|
| July 2019 proffer, agency and housing | A witness’s account of ID Models work, a shared Varick Street apartment and an affair with the agent | Apartment ownership, the precise housing contract or an arrangement to provide women to Epstein |
| July 2019 proffer, casting and nightclub | Her account of Epstein viewing portfolios and attending a club where she and Zampolli were present | Who took her number, or a Zampolli instruction to visit Epstein’s house |
| July 2019 proffer, dinner | Her allegation of unwanted sexual contact during a later visit to Epstein | Zampolli’s presence, knowledge of the alleged conduct or responsibility for the invitation |
| July 2019 proffer, later employment | Her account of work, housing, travel and appointment duties under Epstein and his staff | A Zampolli role in those later arrangements |
| August 2019 interview | A different former ID Models model’s account of later coffee shop recruitment and abuse by Epstein | Recruitment at ID Models, a shared recruiter with the first witness or a Zampolli referral |
| March 2010 deposition | A redacted witness’s testimony that she worked with ID Models and her husband had the agency contact | Her identity solely from biographical similarities, or a reliable start date from confused questioning |
| August 2004 Elite report | Reported unsuccessful bid | Completed ownership or partnership terms |
| September 2010 forwarding | An intermediary sending Epstein a Zampolli originated event link at Zampolli’s request | Attendance, a completed meeting or a sexual arrangement |
| February 2011 dinner chain | Sulayem’s stated dinner plan and Epstein’s press related warning | A completed dinner or independent proof of Epstein’s allegation |
| Typed and handwritten introduction passages | A material attribution discrepancy within records of the same interview | A definitive finding about who introduced the Trumps or why the wording differs |
The person and the agency setting
The August 2019 interview identifies Paolo Zampolli as the founder of ID Models. The July 2019 proffer uses the spelling Paolo Zempoli and places him at that agency. The matching agency context supports reading these references as concerning Zampolli. It does not justify assigning every first name Paolo in Epstein’s records to him.
The July witness’s description connects the professional and social settings: agency auditions, portfolios, shared model housing and a nightclub appearance. Those details explain how a prospective employer or wealthy contact could encounter a model. They also make it important to identify each subsequent action separately. Access to an agency, a dinner invitation, an offer of housing and a later paid job are different arrangements with different actors.
The central question is therefore what the records actually place Zampolli in a position to do, and what they say he did. The answer cannot be expanded from association alone into knowledge of every later event in a former model’s life.
The July 2019 account of agency access and a nightclub meeting
The July 12, 2019 proffer was recorded in an FBI interview summary with prosecutors and counsel present. The interviewee’s name is redacted in the released version. It is a record of her statements, not a verbatim transcript, an FBI conclusion or a judicial finding. The fact that the interview occurred under a proffer agreement does not, by itself, disclose the agreement’s protections or establish immunity.
The less redacted version of the account says a contact put her in touch with Zampolli at ID Models and that a move to New York for modeling was organized. The corresponding handwritten notes identify that contact as her former husband. She said she could not afford an apartment of her own and lived in model accommodation on Varick Street, the same street as the agency. She described accommodation for ten people and said she had an affair with the agent. The account does not establish who owned the apartment or the terms on which she occupied it.
The agency passage says Epstein was visiting Zampolli while model auditions were taking place and was looking through portfolios, including her photograph. This is a specific account of access to the agency’s working environment. It does not say that a particular casting resulted in employment, identify a paid assignment from that visit or establish that the portfolio review itself was a criminal act.
The nightclub passage places the witness and Zampolli at a club with Epstein and another woman. The name of the person who took the witness’s telephone number is redacted. The following sentence says that the subsequent dinner invitation came from either a woman or Epstein. That uncertainty is part of the evidence. It cannot be replaced with an assertion that Zampolli took the number, called her or arranged the dinner.
The dinner and the experience the witness described
The dinner account describes the witness going to Epstein’s Manhattan house on 71st Street for her first individual meeting with him. She recalled waiting while he played the piano, then discussing her studies, modeling and travel over dinner. She said a remark he made left her uncomfortable.
The same interview page records her allegation that Epstein took her through the house to a massage room and used a vibrating object on her. She said she told him to stop and remembered being tearful in the car taking her home. The account supplies her description of unwanted conduct and its immediate effect. It does not place Zampolli in the house or say that she told him what had happened.
The continuation of her account distinguishes that encounter from later offers. She recalled Epstein calling the next morning or a day later. She was uncertain about the exact progression, but described an English class she attended.
The following page records a job offer around the end of 2004, an apartment offer on 66th Street and an offer of a Victoria’s Secret photo shoot. A claimed offer involving a company does not establish that the company approved it or that the shoot occurred.
The distinction between an offer and a completed arrangement is especially important here. The witness went on to describe actual employment and travel. Her recollection of a proposed modeling opportunity is not equivalent evidence of a completed commercial assignment.
From offers to paid work, housing and travel
The July proffer’s employment chronology places the job offer around the end of 2004 and her work for Epstein approximately from 2005 into early 2006. These are approximate recollections rather than a payroll chronology. She described an early 2006 Paris trip as her last assignment.
The account of her initial duties says she met Ghislaine Maxwell around the end of 2004, received directions about purchases and errands, and helped another assistant whose name is redacted. She reported traveling on Epstein’s aircraft, sleeping in his Palm Beach house and accompanying him to his island, New Mexico, Paris and other destinations. These are her retrospective accounts of completed travel and work, rather than independently matched passenger records for each journey.
The New York housing passage says she worked at Maxwell’s house and was given an apartment in the same building. This is a later accommodation arrangement. It should not be confused with the earlier Varick Street model apartment or treated as proof that Zampolli arranged both.
The pay passage describes payment every two weeks, an initial salary of $36,000 and an eventual salary of approximately $40,000 to $41,000. The source is her interview account, not a pay stub. It supplies a concrete description of paid employment without establishing any payment to or from Zampolli.
The account of her expectations says she initially believed Epstein would teach her about finance. She recalled being sent to one or two business meetings, followed by increasing pressure to telephone women for appointments. That contrast belongs to her experience of the job. It is more specific than a general claim that modeling connections led to social access.
The departure passages describe her giving notice around October 2005 but continuing to work until early 2006. She said she did not want to remain in the situation. The final interview page records a later offer of island work that she declined and her reported fear of being followed after leaving. That fear is her stated experience, not independent proof that anyone surveilled her.
Across these later arrangements, the interview names Epstein, Maxwell, Leslie Groff and redacted staff or associates. It does not assign Zampolli a role in providing the job, directing its duties, arranging the travel or controlling her departure.
What the employment account says about appointments
The proffer’s appointment passages describe the witness beginning to schedule massages after entering Epstein’s employment. She said she inferred that sexual conduct occurred during other appointments because it had happened to her. That is an expressly stated inference, which should be kept distinct from conduct she directly observed.
The following page describes Epstein or another assistant providing names to call, repeated efforts to confirm times, and instructions not to use Epstein’s name on the telephone. She said Epstein became angry when appointments were missed. The payment and referral passage says some callers were asked to bring other women and that Epstein paid approximately $200 after appointments. These are her descriptions of the system and her part in it, not verified accounting for every appointment.
The age related passages include her recollection of two dancers saying they were 16. Her later reflections acknowledge that she should have understood some of the young people were underage. The record also preserves uncertainty about individual ages. These statements concern people encountered during Epstein’s operations; they do not establish that Zampolli sent those people or knew of those appointments.
The reference to Ideal Models is another necessary boundary. That is the name written in the passage about women associated with a Miami agency. It cannot silently be changed to ID Models. The similarity of names does not establish that they were the same business.
Comparing the two former model accounts
| Issue | July 12, 2019 interview | August 26, 2019 interview |
|---|---|---|
| Agency connection | Contact with Zampolli at ID Models, with handwritten notes identifying her former husband as the introducer | Joined ID Models at 18; later released by the agency |
| Housing | Described a Varick Street model apartment accommodating ten | Described a Varick Street apartment shared with two other women, followed by a move to Williamsburg |
| Route to Epstein | Described agency portfolio access and a nightclub where she, Zampolli and Epstein were present | Described an approach at a coffee shop after leaving ID Models |
| Invitation | Caller described as either a woman or Epstein; the person who took her number is redacted | A woman promoted paid massages and arranged the approach to Epstein’s house |
| Age evidence | The cited agency and dinner passages do not establish an exact age for the first individual meeting | Explicitly said she was 19 during the summer 2004 recruitment |
| Reported experience | Unwanted contact at a dinner visit, followed by later employment, housing and travel | Promised a clothed massage appointment, then described coercion, sexual misconduct and emotional harm |
| Later outcome | Described giving notice and leaving Epstein’s employment in early 2006 | Described losing her job, leaving New York and returning to her parents |
| Zampolli’s later role | No named role in the dinner invitation or subsequent Epstein employment arrangements | No alleged role in the coffee shop approach, appointment, payment or abuse |
The table compares two distinct interview accounts. It does not establish that they shared an apartment, recruiter or sequence of events. Differently redacted and reformatted copies of either account do not create additional witnesses.
The separate coffee shop recruitment account
The August 26, 2019 interview describes a woman who began modeling in adolescence with Elite and later signed with ID Models at 18. Her earlier modeling as a minor should not be used to change her stated age when she met Epstein. She described living in a model apartment on Varick Street with two other women for approximately a year.
Her account of ID Models says Zampolli dated models, required her to cut her hair short and then let her go. She recalled having little work and spending substantial time in the apartment. These are her statements about the agency experience. They do not say Epstein recruited her there.
The next page describes her and another former model moving to Williamsburg after being released. She obtained work at a coffee shop in Union Square. In the summer of 2004, when she said she was 19, a woman approached her at the hostess stand and described a wealthy client who paid women in cash for massages. The chronology puts this approach after the agency relationship ended.
The recruiter’s pitch, as recalled by the witness, included claims of earning $600 for each woman recruited and bringing three or four women a day. The witness also described a nightclub outing where the recruiter emphasized the client’s powerful connections. These are reported claims made in a recruitment pitch, not verified totals, an established daily schedule or proof of a particular political relationship.
The appointment account says she was told she would remain clothed and Epstein would not touch her. She then described being intimidated, feeling trapped and being ordered to undress at his house. The final page records her allegation of sexual misconduct, payment and a renewed invitation the following day.
Her account of the aftermath describes serious emotional distress, difficulty functioning, loss of her job and leaving New York for her parents’ home, where she felt safer. Those consequences are part of the experience she reported. Nothing in this interview attributes the recruiter’s approach, the appointment or the abuse to an arrangement made by Zampolli.
Repeated records and the separate deposition
The compilation beginning EFTA00090773 and the standalone EFTA00159321 preserve the same July 2019 proffer. The compilation’s relevant account begins on PDF page 3, so its agency passage is on PDF page 4; the standalone version places that passage on PDF page 2. The less redacted copy preserves housing and relationship details absent from the other version. It is additional text from the same account, not a second witness confirming it.
The version beginning EFTA01245554 repeats the August 2019 interview, while EFTA00173834 preserves an overlapping narrative of the same biography and coffee shop sequence. These records should not be counted as independent corroboration or combined with the July witness’s agency and nightclub account.
The March 15, 2010 deposition contains a redacted witness’s testimony that she worked with ID Models in New York and that her husband had the agency contact. She also named agencies in Miami. The subsequent questioning became confused about chronology, with the witness disputing the questioner’s timeline and counsel advising her to invoke her privilege on some questions.
The deposition supports the statements actually answered. Matching career details alone do not establish that its redacted witness is the July 2019 interviewee, and an unanswered question is not an admission. The questioning should not be used to manufacture an exact 2006 agency start date.
The attempted Elite acquisition
The July proffer records the witness’s understanding that Zampolli was trying to buy Elite Models with Epstein. It gives neither a signed agreement nor the allocation of their proposed investment. On its own, it is a remembered business proposal.
British Vogue’s August 26, 2004 report, attributing the bidding account to the New York Post, says Creative World outbid Zampolli and Epstein for Elite’s New York business. It identifies Eddie and Jules Trump as Creative World’s owners and explicitly distinguishes them from Donald Trump. This contemporary report supports unsuccessful joint bidding, rather than completed Zampolli and Epstein ownership.
The proposal provides business context. The cited sources do not supply the financing terms or an agreement to use the agency for sexual access.
September 2010 publicity sent through an intermediary
The September 2010 forwarding chain contains an unnamed sender telling Epstein that Paolo asked for a message to be forwarded. The enclosed messages identify Paolo Zampolli and contain a link to an item about a United Nations event and gala. The embedded messages are dated September 28, while the outer message displays September 29.
This is a documented communication route through an intermediary. It shows a Zampolli originated promotional link being sent to Epstein at his request. It does not establish that Epstein attended the event, that the men met there or that the link concerned any sexual arrangement.
February 2011 dinner plans and Epstein’s warning
The full February 2011 chain begins with Epstein warning Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem about Zampolli. Sulayem replied that Zampolli had pressed him to have dinner and that he had finally agreed. Sulayem said he intended to take his wife so that they would go to places he considered decent.
Epstein’s explanation in the same chain was that Zampolli sold stories to the press. Sulayem then said he would tell Zampolli he wanted a discreet, low profile stay in New York. The explanation is essential context for the warning. Quoting the warning alone as evidence that Epstein was referring to trafficking or violence would change its documented meaning.
The messages establish Epstein’s disparaging allegation and Sulayem’s stated plan. They do not independently prove that Zampolli sold stories, identify a restaurant or show that the dinner occurred. Sulayem’s comment about taking his wife does not supply evidence of a planned sexual encounter.
The disputed Trump introduction sentence
The typed July 2019 summary says Epstein introduced Melania Trump to Donald Trump. That is a statement recorded in an interview summary. The passage does not say the witness saw the introduction, identify her source of knowledge or give its date and location.
The corresponding handwritten notes discuss Paolo Zempoli, then say he was trying to buy Elite with Epstein, that “he” introduced Melania to the president, and that the witness thought he was now an ambassador. The apparent antecedent is Zampolli, but the introduction sentence uses a pronoun rather than a full name. The difference from the typed report is material. It warrants an explicit attribution caveat, without claiming to prove a transcription error or deliberate alteration.
Melania Trump’s April 9, 2026 statement denies that Epstein introduced her to Donald. She said she met Donald at a New York party in 1998 and first crossed paths with Epstein in 2000. Corriere’s April 2026 account of Zampolli’s response reports his insistence that he introduced the couple.
These are competing statements and an inconsistency within the interview record. Neither a government release nor repeated quotation turns the typed sentence into an established historical finding. The discrepancy also provides no basis for changing the separate, specifically described agency and nightclub passages.
Proposals, reported experiences and completed steps
| Arrangement | Evidence of a step taken | Evidentiary status | Missing confirmation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Varick Street accommodation | July witness said she lived in a model apartment | Reported completed housing | Lease, ownership, payments and exact dates |
| Agency portfolio access | Witness said she saw Epstein at the agency looking through portfolios | Reported observation | Independent appointment or visitor records for that occasion |
| Mansion dinner | Witness described attending and experiencing unwanted contact | Alleged completed visit and misconduct | Identity of the invitation caller and independent evidence of the encounter |
| Epstein’s modeling offer | Witness recalled an offer of a photo shoot | Reported offer | A booking, completed shoot or company authorization |
| Epstein employment | Witness described duties, salary, travel and eventual departure | Reported completed work | Payroll, contracts and matched journey records |
| Coffee shop referral | Separate witness described a recruiter’s pitch and subsequent appointment | Alleged completed referral and visit | Recruiter’s full identity and independent payment records |
| Elite purchase | Reported unsuccessful bid | Attempted acquisition | Bid documents and partnership terms |
| Publicity forwarding | Preserved intermediary email sent the event link | Documented message | Epstein’s response or event attendance |
| Sulayem dinner | Sulayem said he agreed and described his plan | Stated intention | Restaurant, date and evidence that dinner took place |
Zampolli’s responses and the 2026 reporting
The American Prospect’s April 23, 2026 report includes a response from Zampolli acknowledging Epstein visited his agency headquarters while denying involvement, collaboration or endorsement. That response is relevant acknowledgment of access. It does not settle the purpose of every visit or the witness accounts of what followed.
RAI’s April 19, 2026 programme page identifies the Report broadcast that renewed scrutiny of the relationship. Corriere’s account of the interview says Zampolli described Epstein approaching him and acquisition discussions that did not proceed. It also reports his lawyer Maurizio Miculan’s defense of their contacts as legitimate and rejection of the allegations against him.
Il Fatto Quotidiano’s April 22 report quotes further portions of the interview concerning Epstein, models and minors. The published excerpts do not securely establish when Zampolli learned particular facts. They should not be converted into a finding that he admitted knowingly facilitating trafficking. A later description of Epstein’s conduct and knowledge at the time of an earlier agency visit are different propositions.
Il Giornale’s April 29 account of a statement from Zampolli’s staff reports announced complaints against Amanda Ungaro, Victoria Drake and Report. RaiNews reported in July that he sought €5 million in damages from RAI. La Sicilia’s September 3 report described his stated intention to continue the Report litigation. These reports document legal responses and announced positions, not judicial findings that the allegations were true or false.
Separate public accounts and later civil allegations
El País’s March 2026 account of Amanda Ungaro’s O Globo interview describes traveling on Epstein’s aircraft as a teenage model with Jean Luc Brunel. Her recollection of other passengers’ ages is not verified identification. The account does not establish that Zampolli booked the flight or recruited her for Epstein. It is a separate account, rather than a third version of either redacted 2019 interview.
The federal docket for Victoria Drake’s suit records a civil filing against Zampolli on September 3, 2026. Inner City Press’s filing report describes an allegation of rape. This is a separate allegation against Zampolli. The cited docket and filing report do not establish that Drake was an Epstein model, employee or victim.
The docket snapshot was last retrieved on September 4, 2026. It establishes the filing, not the subsequent course or outcome of the case. The earlier public complaints and denials are not a verified answer to this September pleading. The civil allegation should remain separate from the question of what Zampolli arranged with Epstein.
What the records establish and where they stop
- The July interview describes a route from agency contact and model housing to Epstein’s social circle, followed by a reported unwanted encounter and later paid work. The uncertain invitation caller is a real limit on assigning responsibility for the transition
- The August interview describes a different route after the woman left ID Models. Her agency history is relevant background, while the coffee shop approach supplies the actual recruitment account
- The Elite proposal does not establish an agreement to enable abuse
- The later employment account describes housing, travel, appointment work, salary and departure. Those details must be attributed to the people the witness actually named, rather than transferred to Zampolli because he appears earlier in her story
- The 2011 warning has a stated press related explanation. Omitting that explanation would give the correspondence a meaning it does not support
- The introduction sentence is complicated by its handwritten counterpart and explicit public denials. It cannot carry the weight of a settled finding
- The public responses, complaints and civil allegations are part of the record. None substitutes for evidence of knowledge, intent or responsibility for a particular act
The accessible material reviewed here supports scrutiny of agency access, business discussions and social connections. It also preserves serious accounts of abuse by Epstein. It does not establish that every model with an ID Models history reached Epstein through Zampolli, or that Zampolli knowingly enabled the conduct described in these interviews.
Open questions
- What contemporaneous agency records survive for Epstein’s visits, portfolio access and any proposed casting or employment?
- Who took the July interviewee’s number at the nightclub, and who placed the later invitation call?
- What were the ownership, payment and supervision arrangements for the model apartments described by the two women?
- What do the Elite bid documents show about the proposed roles, money and commitments of Zampolli and Epstein?
- What payroll, housing and travel records independently support the July witness’s account of her later employment, and do any identify involvement by Zampolli?
- What explains the different attribution of the Trump introduction in the handwritten and typed versions of the July interview?
- What does the full RAI interview establish about the timing of Zampolli’s knowledge, beyond the published excerpts?
- What further procedural records and responses clarify the later civil litigation without conflating it with the Epstein evidence?
Chronological receipt index
- July witness’s agency and nightclub account: Retrospective account recorded July 12, 2019, covering events before her Epstein employment
- August witness’s coffee shop sequence: Summer 2004 events described in a separate August 26, 2019 interview
- Elite bidding report: August 26, 2004 report on the unsuccessful bid
- Employment and housing offers: Recollected offers around the end of 2004 and subsequent work beginning approximately in 2005
- Appointment duties and instructions: The July witness’s account of later work for Epstein
- Departure account: Notice around October 2005, with work continuing into early 2006
- Civil deposition: March 15, 2010 testimony naming ID Models and a husband’s agency contact
- Zampolli event link: September 28 and 29, 2010 forwarding through an unnamed intermediary
- Sulayem dinner correspondence: February 15 and 16, 2011 messages about a proposed dinner and press concerns
- Handwritten interview notes: July 2019 notes containing the ambiguous introduction pronoun
- Melania Trump’s statement: April 9, 2026 denial that Epstein introduced the couple
- Zampolli’s agency response: April 23, 2026 report acknowledging visits while denying involvement or collaboration
- Drake civil filing: September 3, 2026 filing of a separate civil allegation
Related records
- Paolo Zampolli: Broader biographical and documentary context
- Zampolli from modeling agencies to Trump envoy: Related reporting on the agency background and later public role
- The guide supplied to the House Oversight Committee: A separate guide to research leads; a submission does not establish committee endorsement of its conclusions
Full Sources
Primary interview, deposition and correspondence records
- EFTA00090773: Exhibit B compilation; PDF pages 3 through 13 contain the July 12, 2019 proffer. PDF page 4, stamped EFTA00090776, preserves the agency, housing, nightclub, invitation and dinner account with less redaction than EFTA00159321
- EFTA00159321: Standalone 11 page July 12, 2019 proffer summary, entered November 26, 2019; page 2 covers agency access and the dinner, pages 3 through 11 cover later offers, employment, housing, travel, duties and departure
- EFTA00105195: Handwritten notes compilation; PDF page 7, stamped EFTA00105201, contains the former husband, agent, Elite and introduction passages; PDF page 8, stamped EFTA00105202, continues the nightclub, invitation and dinner account
- EFTA00086883: Three page interview of August 26, 2019, drafted March 23, 2020 and entered April 23, 2020; separate former ID Models witness describing departure from the agency, later coffee shop recruitment, abuse and its aftermath
- EFTA01245554: Another version of the same August 26, 2019 interview, not an additional witness
- EFTA00173834: Overlapping narrative of the August witness’s background and coffee shop sequence, not independent corroboration
- EFTA00182418: March 15, 2010 civil deposition; PDF pages 54 and 55, with relevant passages on transcript pages 129 through 132, contain ID Models work and agency contact testimony and disputed chronology
- EFTA02418453: September 28 and 29, 2010 chain forwarding a Zampolli originated United Nations event link to Epstein through an unnamed intermediary
- EFTA00642630: February 15 and 16, 2011 chain between Epstein and Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, preserving the proposed dinner, warning about Zampolli and allegation about selling stories to the press
Contemporary reporting, public responses and litigation records
- British Vogue: August 26, 2004 report on the Elite sale, citing the New York Post
- The American Prospect: Adam Robb, April 23, 2026; reporting on the agency connection and Zampolli’s response acknowledging visits while denying involvement or collaboration
- The White House: Melania Trump’s April 9, 2026 statement denying that Epstein introduced her to Donald Trump
- Corriere della Sera: April 18, 2026 reporting on the Report interviews, Zampolli’s introduction claim and business account, and lawyer Maurizio Miculan’s response
- RAI Report: Official page for the April 19, 2026 programme; the page identifies the broadcast, while claims about interview wording in this article are attributed to the published reporting
- Il Fatto Quotidiano: April 22, 2026 published excerpts of the RAI interview; excerpts alone do not establish the chronology of Zampolli’s knowledge
- Il Giornale: April 29, 2026 account of complaints announced by Zampolli’s staff against Ungaro, Drake and Report
- RaiNews: July 12, 2026 report that Zampolli sought €5 million in damages from RAI
- La Sicilia: September 3, 2026 report of Zampolli’s stated intention to continue litigation concerning Report
- El País: March 25, 2026 report on Amanda Ungaro’s O Globo interview about travel with Epstein and Brunel
- Drake v Zampolli docket: Southern District of New York case 1:26 cv 07582, filed September 3, 2026; public docket snapshot last retrieved September 4
- Inner City Press: Matthew Russell Lee’s September 3, 2026 report on the separate Drake civil complaint