Epstein Data Wiki

Bill Hammond

Properties2
tagsperson, pilot, flight-crew, aviation, grand-jury, operation-leap-year, palm-beach-civil-litigation, sdny-2019
aliasesBill Hammond, William Hammond, William Gary Hammond, Billy Hammond, Hammond, Bill, Captain Hammond, B. Hammond, W. Hammond, WGH

51 min read

RolePilot on Jeffrey Epstein’s aircraft. Full-time from about January 2005 to July 2008, and on contract from 2015. ⚠ What he was between July 2008 and 2015 the release does not say, though it shows him scheduled and paid throughout1
RankNot established by the record. No document in the release places him in the left seat or in the right one; the forms that name him have no rank field, or leave it blank2
AircraftThe Boeing 727 (N908JE) and the Gulfstream family (N909JE), and by 2013 a Boeing Business Jet for other operators3
SubpoenaedThree times in thirteen years, by three different authorities: a federal grand jury in West Palm Beach (13 November 2006), the plaintiff in a Palm Beach County civil action (9 September 2009), and a federal grand jury in the Southern District of New York (served in person, 6 July 2019)4
DeposedNever. Of the five Epstein pilots subpoenaed in the 2009 action, he and Robert Roxburgh are the two whose depositions never happened5
The reason, on the recordTen days after the subpoena issued, Epstein was told directly that Hammond’s wife had received it and that he “will be out of the country for 2 months so he can not appear.” Three weeks later the schedule circulating on Epstein’s side read “Bill Hammond (in Iraq)(will have to be rescheduled)“6
His lawyerBruce Reinhart, who represented five Epstein pilots and other Epstein employees, and who had been a federal prosecutor in the office that investigated Epstein7
Who paid that lawyerThe time Reinhart billed on Hammond was billed to Epstein’s criminal defence firm, under the matter name “Epstein, Jeffrey.” A payment from that firm is recorded against the invoice; ⚠ it was not settled in full, the sheet showing a balance still due8
Day rate$1,000 a day, set by Epstein personally on 8 September 2015. Asked by his accountant “500 or 1000,” Epstein’s entire reply was “1000”9
Paid byCheques drawn by JEGE, LLC of St Thomas, USVI, memo-lined “Pilot Service.” No total can be established from this record10
In his own wordsThree documents in the release carry his own writing: an invoice cover note, a thank-you to the chief pilot, and a short message of figures quoted inside someone else’s forward11

Bill Hammond flew Jeffrey Epstein’s aeroplanes for about fourteen years. He was one of the two full-time pilots the flight department had in 2006, dropped to contract relief afterwards, and was still being scheduled onto Epstein’s flights three weeks before Epstein’s arrest in July 2019.

He is also the Epstein pilot the record almost lost. He appears in roughly 1,276 released documents, but the overwhelming majority of those are rows of a derived flight index, which this page does not cite and cannot verify. Strip the index away and what remains is a small, hard set of primary documents, and they describe something the other pilots’ files do not: a witness three separate authorities came for, over thirteen years, and who was never once put under oath.

This page states that sequence and asks the obvious question about it. It does not assert that anyone avoided anything, and it prints the innocent explanation the documents themselves supply, because the documents supply one and a page that omitted it would be describing a different case.

The flight department, and where he sat in it

The earliest account of his position is hearsay inside a government record. Dave Rogers, Epstein’s pilot since 1991, told the FBI in August 2006 that “EPSTEIN has two other full time pilots, LARRY VISOSKI, and BILL HAMMOND.”12 The same interview records that Rogers had been chief captain until January 2005, when Larry Visoski took the post over after “a continual disagreement between EPSTEIN and ROGERS on landing techniques,” described on the sheet as “a demotion and a decrease in pay.”

By 2010 Hammond’s status had changed. On 6 June 2010 the flight department wrote: “Boeing is ready to fly, (, Bill Hammond is available to use on a contract basis as pilot in the Boeing, and Dave as Flight Engineer)”.13 In July 2015 he calls him “our former pilot,” in a parenthesis that is never closed:

(FYI,. We are using Bill Hammond our former pilot to help fly with me and Dave,. Helps with vacation time, and training, etc,.

That phrase is accurate rather than dismissive.14 He had been a full-time pilot and by 2015 he was relief cover: brought in for holidays, for training gaps, and for the aircraft the others were not current on. ⚠ And the flight department felt the change five months before that. On 16 January 2010: “When I had Bill Hammond, I was a full crew in Boeing, now I can’t just hire a part time guy for one flight on short notice, since I personally have to train him to our operation, (its no big deal, but is FAA approved). I still have Morrison to fly as engineer but very limited usage.” “I was a full crew” is the sheet’s own wording.15

The tightest employment dates in the release are second-hand and come from 2019: a note of a telephone call with his lawyer records that he “was full-time from January 05 to July 08, and since 2015 has been contract basis.”16 Those dates reconcile the 2006 interview, the 2010 e-mail and the 2015 “former pilot” line, and they leave a hole. Between July 2008 and 2015 the release shows him being scheduled and paid, but no document says what his status was. This page flags the gap and does not fill it.

The record does not say whether he was in command

Three kinds of form name him as crew, and not one of them ranks him.2

The passenger manifests carry a pre-printed “Pilots:” line amended by hand, and no pilot-in-command or second-in-command field exists on the form at all. The aircraft logs do carry Captain and Co-Pilot columns, in the test-signal block and in the signature block; on the sheets bearing his name, those columns are blank. The derived flight index gives unranked crew strings and is not a source this page will use.

Direct probes of the corpus return nothing: pilot in command near his name, zero documents, against forty-seven uses of the phrase corpus-wide; second in command, zero. The only rank language anywhere near him is a subpoena’s own belt-and-braces demand for logs of aircraft “which you piloted or co-piloted,” which is a drafter covering both cases, not a finding.

He signs one invoice cover note “Captain Hammond.”11 That is self-description on a covering e-mail and this page will not let it become a finding either. Anyone who writes that Bill Hammond was Epstein’s pilot in command is inventing it.

2006: the federal grand jury

On 13 November 2006 the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida issued him a subpoena to testify before a grand jury in West Palm Beach, returnable 1 December 2006 at 9:30 a.m. in the grand jury room at 701 Clematis Street. Both boxes on the form are ticked: he was summoned as a person and for documents.17

The demand, in full:

Any and all information and records related to Jeffrey Epstein, Gulfstream Aircraft N909JE, and Boeing Aircraft N908JE, including but not limited to flight records, maintenance records, and passenger manifest records. Any and all records related to your employment, including but not limited to paystubs, W-2 forms, correspondence, employment applications, and employment reviews. Any and all information regarding methods to contact Jeffrey Epstein directly or via any secretaries/assistants from 1/1/2004 to the present, including but not limited to, telephone numbers, cellular telephone numbers, Blackberry addresses, e-mail addresses, and mailing addresses.

Note the scope: the records limb carries no date floor whatever. Only the contact-methods limb is bounded, and only back to 1 January 2004. This matters later.

The prosecution’s own subpoena log, kept for Operation Leap Year, records the result in a single row: “OLY-21 | Bill Hammond (pilot) | flight records / employment records / contact information | 12/01/2006 | 02/06/2007.”18 The appearance date was 1 December 2006; records came back on 6 February 2007.

The comparator is one line further down the same log. Entry OLY-22 is Larry Visoski, and every column is identical: same categories demanded, same appearance date, same return date.18 Whatever else the 2006 subpoenas were, they were not aimed at Hammond in particular.

The FBI’s own file index describes the instrument as an “EXECUTED FGJ SUBPOENA,” “To : BILL HAMMOND From : US DIST COURT,” dated 11/13/06, serialised at 34 and later transferred into the grand jury sub-file at serial 25.19 And in 2007, on the record in open court, a prosecutor said: “we have issued a Grand Jury subpoena to Bill Hammond, another pilot for Mr. Epstein, we have spoken with him.”20

Spoken with, not testified. That is the first of three times an authority reaches him and stops short of sworn testimony.

2009: the civil subpoena, and a demand that was identical for everyone

On 9 September 2009 a subpoena duces tecum for videotaped deposition issued out of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, in a civil action against Epstein brought by a plaintiff whose name the produced copy bars. It is directed “TO: William Gary Hammond,” with the address beneath it blacked out, and it commands him to appear on 13 October 2009 at 2:00 p.m. at a court reporter’s office on North Flagler Drive in West Palm Beach, bringing:

All original flight logs from January, 1998 through present for any and all aircraft/airplanes/jets which you piloted or co-piloted that were owned or controlled by Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell.

It closes: “If you fail to appear, you may be in contempt of court.”21

The day of the month is handwritten, a single digit filled into a printed “DATED on September ___, 2009” line, and the corpus text layer gets it wrong. This page reads it as a 9 on the strength of three instances of the same glyph in the same hand, on this sheet, on Roxburgh’s, and on a certificate of service where the impression is cleanest.22

A second 2009 instrument exists and it is not a second subpoena. It is a Notice of Taking Deposition, same date, same time, same location, and its certificate of service shows it served on counsel of record, not on the witness.23

And the demand was form language. Every Epstein pilot subpoenaed in that action got the same paragraph, over the same dates, word for word:

PilotDeposition set forSubpoena dated
Larry Eugene Morrison6 October 2009, 10:00 a.m.21 August 2009
David Hart Rogers7 October 2009, 10:00 a.m.24 August 2009
Lawrence Paul Visoski Jr8 October 2009, 10:00 a.m.24 August 2009
William Gary Hammond13 October 2009, 2:00 p.m.9 September 2009
Robert Gary Roxburgh13 October 2009, 4:00 p.m.9 September 2009

“January, 1998” is cleanly machine-printed on all five.24 There is no differential in what was asked of whom.

What is not the same is the calendar, and it is worth being exact about it, because the page’s own sources will not support the tidy version. Only one of the five, Morrison, was deposed on the date his instrument set. Rodgers’ subpoena set 7 October and he was deposed on 13 October; Visoski’s set 8 October and he was deposed on 15 October. Slippage of a few days was normal.

What did not happen at all is the last two. Hammond and Roxburgh were subpoenaed a fortnight after the others, on the same day, and set down back to back for the afternoon of 13 October. Neither was ever deposed, and 13 October is the day Rodgers’ deposition did go ahead, so the date itself was not the obstacle.248

The deposition that never happened

That both depositions failed is not an inference. Six years afterwards, Paul Cassell, acting for two Epstein victims, wrote to a federal prosecutor about Bruce Reinhart’s conduct and listed Reinhart’s Epstein-side clients:

Specifically, he represented ▮ (Epstein’s number one co-conspirator who was actually named as such in the NPA), his housekeeper (Louella Ruboyo), his pilots Larry Morrison, Larry Visoski, David Rogers, William Hammond and Robert Roxburgh. (Hammond and Roxburgh were not deposed, but the others were.)

Cassell states it as a fact and gives no reason for it.5

Reinhart’s own invoice proves the same thing from the other side. His November 2009 bill on the Epstein matter runs a line-by-line ledger of the pilot depositions: Morrison prepped on 5 October and deposed on 6 October, Roxburgh prepped on 8 October, Rodgers prepped on 10 and 12 October and deposed on 13 October for 4.33 hours, Visoski deposed on 15 October for 6 hours. In four pages there is no Hammond deposition entry and no Roxburgh deposition entry. On 13 October, the day both men were noticed, the ledger bills exactly one deposition, and it is Rodgers’. On 14 October it bills 0.20 of an hour for “Telephone calls and emails to reschedule depositions.”8

The reason the record gives

The record explains it, and the explanation reached Epstein personally. On Saturday 19 September 2009, ten days after the subpoena issued, Story Cowles e-mailed Jeffrey Epstein under the subject “Hammond Subpoena.” The message is four lines long:

FYI. Bill Hammonds wife received a subpoena for Bill. He will be out of the country for 2 months so he can not appear. Story

That establishes two things at once: the subpoena was served at his home and received by his wife, and a reason for his non-appearance existed, contemporaneously, and was communicated to the defendant.6 His wife is not named on the sheet and is not named here.

Eighteen days later the deposition schedule circulating on Epstein’s side reads:

10/13 - Dave Rogers (10am) 10/13 - Robert Roxburgh (2pm if they finish with Dave or 4pm) 10/13 - Bill Hammond (in Iraq)(will have to be rescheduled) 10/15 - Larry Visoski (10am)

Only Hammond is flagged. Roxburgh is still expected to go ahead. Neither was ever deposed.25

The question that is left

An unexplained missing deposition and an explained one are different findings, and this one is explained. A pilot who is abroad on the date set cannot sit that day, and there is nothing sinister in a rescheduling e-mail.

What the documents do not explain is the rest of it. Analysis, not allegation: the two pilots subpoenaed last and set down back to back are the two whose depositions never took place; only one of them had a stated reason; the reschedule was billed for on 14 October; and ten days later the same lawyer was still corresponding with plaintiff’s counsel about pilot logs.26 Why did neither deposition ever happen, and why was neither rescheduled once the two months were up? The release does not answer that, and a gap in a record that is otherwise itemised to the tenth of an hour is itself a finding.

Who paid his lawyer

The five pilots did not each find their own counsel. All five were represented by Bruce Reinhart, who had until recently been a prosecutor in the United States Attorney’s Office that investigated Epstein, and who went into private practice and took on Epstein’s employees. That is what Cassell’s 2015 letter is complaining about.7

Cassell alleged, on information and belief, that the pilots’ counsel was being paid by Epstein. The invoice is the primary document and it settles the tier. Reinhart’s bill of 2 November 2009, invoice number 240, “Regarding: Epstein, Jeffrey,” is addressed not to any pilot but to Jack Goldberger of Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, Epstein’s Florida criminal defence counsel. It carries the Hammond time as a line item: “9/22/2009 | BER | Telephone call and email with Bill Hammond | 0.30 | $500.00 | $150.00.” Total fees on the invoice are $25,090.00, and page four records a payment against it and an annotation crediting a cheque from Goldberger’s firm.8

So: documented fact, not allegation. The lawyer who appeared for Bill Hammond in the action against Epstein billed that work to Epstein’s own criminal defence firm, and that firm paid against it.

⚠ One inference has been removed from this page rather than softened. An earlier version read Cassell’s phrase “While working in this Office adjacent to Epstein’s” as a statement about shared premises with Epstein’s counsel, and offered as corroboration that Reinhart’s letterhead and the address he billed to carry the same street and suite. That reading is wrong. Cassell was writing to an Assistant United States Attorney, and “this Office” is the United States Attorney’s Office, where Reinhart had been a prosecutor. The complaint is about his moving from that office to represent Epstein’s employees, not about where his firm’s desk was. The address match is real but proves nothing about the allegation, and it is not offered here as though it did.27

2019: Teterboro, and a third grand jury

On 6 July 2019, the day Jeffrey Epstein was arrested at Teterboro, FBI agents interviewed Bill Hammond aboard Epstein’s private jet on the ramp there. The FD-302 is one short paragraph:

HAMMOND is a contracted pilot for Jet Aviation. HAMMOND has been flying EPSTEIN’s private jets since approximately 2005. HAMMOND advised he never saw any minors on any flight he flew with EPSTEIN.

Agents served HAMMOND with a Grand Jury Subpoena at the conclusion of the interview.

That is the third subpoena.28 Three weeks earlier Visoski had written: “FYI, I have Dave Rodgers and Bill Hammond Flying Jeffrey to Paris tomorrow morning.”29

Correspondence between the Southern District of New York and his newly retained lawyer follows, under the subject line “RE: subpoena of William Hammond.” On 16 July an Assistant United States Attorney set out what the office wanted:

As we briefly discussed, the documentary materials we are seeking from Mr. Hammond in the first instance are any flight manifests, flight plans, or other documents reflecting passengers and/or travel records, dating back to 2000. And we would like to hear from ▮ about ▮ observations, if any, of young women or girls on flights, as well as any discussions with Mr. Epstein about his relationships with young women or girls, or his legal issues relating to those relationships. We are also interested to know the identities of Epstein’s employees and staff whom Mr. Hammond is aware of, current and previous.

and then:

As I mentioned on the phone, given the prospect of attorney proffer information and/or a possible voluntary interview, we are prepared to hold in abeyance the current subpoena return date of July 22, 2019.

The thread runs on to 30 July, scheduling calls with his counsel.30 Epstein died on 10 August 2019. The third subpoena was held in abeyance and, on this record, never came off it.

A note of the 30 July call, taken on the government side, summarises what his lawyer reported.31 It is a note-taker’s shorthand of a lawyer’s account of what a client said, which is as far from sworn testimony as a document in this file gets, and this page treats it accordingly. It records that he kept no records containing passenger information, that he kept a personal log book holding only date, aircraft and route, that even when full-time he was not responsible for manifests, and that he “was interviewed in 2007.” One line in it is genuinely ambiguous on its face and is quoted rather than resolved:

would not say that he saw underage women on planes

That sentence can mean he declined to say so or that he would not go so far as to say so. The note does not settle which, and neither does this page. The next line reads: “young women he believed were staff members (like, 25ish).”

Three demands, thirteen years, and no escalation

Set the three date ranges side by side and the shape people expect is not there. The 2006 federal records demand has no floor at all. The 2009 civil demand reaches back to January 1998. The 2019 federal demand reaches back to 2000, two years later than the civil one. The broadest demand ever made of him was the first one.

What he was paid

Epstein set the rate himself. On the evening of 8 September 2015, Richard Kahn put the question to him: “please advise on Bill Hammond 500 or 1000 per airline and nonflying days / thank you”. The entire body of Epstein’s reply, sent at 21:03 that night, is one line:

1000

That is the whole message.9

The thread beneath it is Visoski arguing the case for the higher figure, and it is the best account in the release of how the flight department priced a relief pilot:

I was able to reach an agreement with Hammond not to pay his daily rate in exchange for GIV training, in the past we pay Dave and Bill Hammond $1,000 per day while they are in school training in B727 or GIV. Hammond gave us a $13,000 discount from daily pay to complete GIV class, for his appreciation of sending him to GIV class,, see attached invoice.

and:

We can pay what ever you decide, and doesn’t matter what anyone else pays,. since Bill Hammond is exclusive for us in B727 and GIV now, and is always available when we need his service,. if we reduce his pay to $500 airline day, it may be a different view.

The same sheet carries Visoski’s market comparators for other principals’ pilots, running $1,200 to $1,400 a day, and fixes Rodgers’ different status: “Dave Rodgers on the other hand is our Full time / Part time paid employee that gets first right to fly any trip.”9

In December 2015 Kahn forwarded Epstein a running total, in a sheet whose own printed text is corrupted by transmission errors that are reproduced here rather than tidied away:32

Bill Hammond indicate he’s made up u=til 12/2/2015 $72,000

Message from Bill Hammond: Larry, looks like $59,000 not including the $13000 credit for G=V training. Also includes November that I have not sent an invo=ce yet ($18,000).

The cheques, and why there is no total here

He was paid by cheque against invoices, drawn by JEGE, LLC of St Thomas in the US Virgin Islands on a New York bank, memo-lined “Pilot Service.” Four are verified on the page image:10

ChequeDateAmount
12989 November 2015$6,186.04
13075 January 2016$15,000.00
133318 July 2017$24,149.24
142424 September 2018$26,850.67

Every one of those figures had to be read off the image, because the searchable text of this release is wrong about all four of them, in one case by more than $100,000. On cheque 1424 the bank’s own exception screen appears on the same sheet and independently confirms $26,850.67; the same screen records that a JEGE cheque to him had previously been pulled for review with the reason “Signature Irregular.”

This page prints no total, and the reason is not squeamishness. Nothing in the release asserts that these are all the payments; the cheque images arrive as fragments of two different bank productions with visible gaps between the dated instruments, and the same instrument recurs under several identifiers, so a naive sum would both undercount and double-count. A sum over a set of unknown completeness is not a total. What the record supports is that JEGE, LLC paid William Hammond for pilot services by cheque from at least 2010 to at least 2018, and nothing more precise than that.

There was also training money. A May 2017 thread has Kahn negotiating a FlightSafety quote down “from 64,500 to 62,600” for a G550/GIV course for him, inside a larger package for three pilots, and a September 2018 exchange asks Epstein to approve recurrent training at $22,995 for a four-day class. These figures were read at the image after this page was drafted, and all of them are confirmed.33

The licence

In September 2017 he sent Visoski his newly reissued certificate, which Visoski forwarded to Epstein with the covering note attached. The certificate is an FAA temporary airman certificate in the name WILLIAM GARY HAMMOND, grade airline transport pilot, with ratings listed as:

AIRPLANE MULTIENGINE LAND; B-727; B-737; DA-200; G-1159; G-IV; G-V; HS-125; IA-JET; COMMERCIAL PILOT PRIVILEGES; AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND; [LIMITATIONS]; ENGLISH PROFICIENT

The ratings corroborate the whole employment record: B-727 is Epstein’s Boeing, B-737 is the Boeing Business Jet behind the “Contract BBJ Pilot” line he used on his own LinkedIn profile, and the G-1159, G-IV and G-V are the Gulfstreams. The G-V is what the September 2017 course bought him.

It is worth being precise about what it is not. It is an interim certificate, reissued to record a new rating, superseding one dated October 2008, and void after 120 days. It is not a new licence and it confers no rank.34

His covering note is one of the three documents in the release that carry his own voice:

Larry,

I am back in Columbus and I just wanted to let you know how much I appreciate you and Jeffrey for sending me to G550 training. As I have reiterated, this is a big deal to me. Not only am I now trained in an awesome aircraft I will be able to continue to support your flight department as needed. Thank you!!! Please Let Jeffrey know how much I appreciate this. I look forward to the first trip! For your records I have attached the temporary certificate.

Cheers

Bill

The apartment line

In July 2016 Visoski asked Lesley Groff for crew lodging at Epstein’s building on East 66th Street:

By any chance do you have two apt at 301 for us for Saturday night for us? Bill would prefer one without a girl in it ! Lol hahah

This must be framed exactly. It is Visoski characterising Hammond’s preference to Epstein’s scheduler. It is not Hammond speaking, and nothing in the release records his view of it. What the sheet documents is the two staff members who wrote and received it: Epstein’s chief pilot and Epstein’s scheduler treated the presence of a young woman in a crew apartment as an ordinary condition to be joked about in an accommodation request.35

Lodging records place Hammond in that building on dated nights, and the 2015 “our former pilot” e-mail is itself an apartment-booking e-mail.35

A pattern this page tested and rejected

It is easy to read the 2009 subpoena and conclude that Hammond was singled out. His demand reaches back to January 1998, eight years before the earliest Epstein conduct the Palm Beach investigation was pursuing, and he is one of the two pilots who were never deposed. The two facts sit together and suggest a third.

They do not support one. The other four pilots’ subpoenas are in the release, and the demand paragraph on each of them is word for word identical, over the identical dates. So is the 2006 treatment: the grand jury log gives Hammond and Visoski byte-identical rows. Nothing was asked of Bill Hammond that was not asked of every other Epstein pilot. The apparent asymmetry is form language, and this page records the test because the inference is a natural one and someone else will reach for it.24

What survives the test is narrower and better documented: not the demand, but the calendar and the outcome. Documented fact: two pilots were subpoenaed a fortnight after the rest, on the same day, and set down back to back on the same afternoon, and those two are the two who never testified. Question, not allegation, and labelled that way here exactly as it is above: why neither deposition ever happened. One of the two had a reason on the record and the other did not, and the release explains neither man’s non-appearance once the two months were up.

What this page cannot show

Three classes of document that name Bill Hammond are excluded here, and the exclusions are themselves worth stating.36

The passenger manifests. Several dozen documents in the release put him on crew lines of JEGE passenger manifests. A first count gave 52; a second pass could not independently reproduce that figure and a looser probe returned 78 with obvious false positives among them. The count is not settled, and it does not matter, because none of them is usable. None of them is cited on this page for any purpose. On those sheets the crew block and the passenger column sit on the same page, and the passenger column interleaves blacked-out lines with printed names. There is no way to pin a reader to his crew line without pinning them to a sheet that would tend to identify a victim, and everything the manifests establish about his role is established elsewhere.

The congressional flight index. Of the 1,100 documents matching his commonest name form, 767 are HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_* items, and every one of those PDFs returns an HTTP 403 to this desk, so no page image in that set can be read by anyone here. Those documents are not OCR of a source sheet; they are a model’s structured description of a page image, generated row by row with no controlled vocabulary. This page cites none of them.

The strike-through count. A great many index rows annotate his name as struck through, which would be interesting if it could be counted and interpreted. It cannot. Three different counting methods applied to the same derived text produced three different answers, spanning an order of magnitude; the largest single category of annotation names nobody at all and is unattributable; and even a correct count would not settle the meaning, since a struck crew name can record a crew change, a cancelled leg, or a clerk’s correction. This page prints no figure and makes no claim about what the marks mean. The one thing that can be said rests on a single sheet read at the image: on that manifest, his name is a handwritten insertion above a pre-printed crew line with another pilot’s name struck out. That is what a relief pilot looks like on paper.

And there is no employment contract. Probes for an employment agreement, a W-2, a 1099 or a payroll entry near his name return nothing, against live corpus-wide controls of 168, 686, 1,714 and more.37 He invoiced and was paid by cheque, which is exactly what the rest of the record describes.

Notes

Footnotes

  1. Status over time is established by four documents read at the page image and one second-hand account: the August 2006 FBI interview of Dave Rogers (12); the June 2010 “contract basis” e-mail (13); the July 2015 “our former pilot” e-mail (14); and the July 2019 FBI interview (28). The explicit dates, “full-time from January 05 to July 08, and since 2015 has been contract basis,” come from a government note of a call with his lawyer and are an account at two removes (16). ↩

  2. Three form types name him and none ranks him. Passenger manifest: a pre-printed “Pilots:” line amended by hand, with no pilot-in-command or second-in-command field on the form. The manifest is not cited or linked here, for the reason given under “What this page cannot show.” Aircraft log: EFTA01334740 p.68, read at the image, Bates-stamped JE_000068 / SDNY_GM_02765836, stamped CONFIDENTIAL and subject to a protective order. The form does carry Captain and Co-Pilot columns, in the test-signal block and in the signature/hour block, and on the sheets bearing his name they are blank. Derived flight index: unranked crew: strings, not cited. FTS5 probes, document counts: NEAR("Hammond" "pilot in command", 30) returns 0 against a corpus-wide control of 47 for the phrase; NEAR("Hammond" "second in command", 30) returns 0; NEAR("Hammond" "type rating", 20) returns 0 against a control of 111. ↩ ↩2

  3. Tail numbers N908JE (Boeing 727-31) and N909JE (Gulfstream G-1159B) are named in the 2006 grand jury subpoena’s own demand (17) and recur throughout the flight-department correspondence; N212JE appears on a small number of late rows of the derived index and is reported here only as orientation, not as a citation. The Boeing Business Jet is his own self-description, “Bill Hammond, Contract BBJ Pilot,” which survives in the release as an entry inside a third party’s LinkedIn connections list in an automated notification e-mail sent to Epstein in July 2013, EFTA01965149 pp.1-3, with the same headline in two other people’s connection lists at EFTA01965962 p.2 and EFTA01965222 p.2. ⚠ Three documents, one fact, and the fact is a job title. The B-737 rating on his FAA certificate is the BBJ rating (34). ↩

  4. The three instruments are cited individually at 17, 21 and 28. The 2009 instrument is one subpoena, not two: the second 2009 document is a notice of deposition, see 23. ↩

  5. Paul G. Cassell, Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law, S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of Utah, to Assistant U.S. Attorney Vernon Miles, U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Puerto Rico, 5 August 2015, writing for “Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2”. EFTA00068228 pp.1-2, run length 2 pages, both read at the image. The “Re:” line reads “Bruce Reinhart Matter”, which is the sheet’s own unbarred title for the subject; the individual’s name is blacked out at every point inside the letter body, and the ▮ in the quotation is the producer’s bar, reproduced where the producer put it. Contact blocks for both the sender and the addressee’s office are barred and nothing is recovered from them. Cassell states the non-deposition flatly and gives no reason for it; he also refers to “various Epstein civil cases” rather than to one proceeding, so the sentence should not be read as confined to the 2009 Palm Beach action alone. ↩ ↩2

  6. Story Cowles to Jeffrey Epstein, Saturday 19 September 2009, 2:16:45 PM, subject “Hammond Subpoena”. EFTA02437157 p.1, run length 1 page, homogeneous, read at the image; the quotation is complete at both ends and is the whole substantive body. The sheet names both sender and recipient without redaction. His wife is not named on the sheet, is not named, traced or characterised here, and no page of this wiki should attempt to identify her. This document is reachable by no name key this desk previously used: it spells the surname “Hammonds”, and it is the only document in the release to do so. ↩ ↩2

  7. Bruce E. Reinhart. The identification is fixed by two independent sheets read at the image: his own letterhead, “Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A.,” on the invoice at 8, and the “Re: Bruce Reinhart Matter” line on Cassell’s letter at 5. ⚠ This resolves a Steve-versus-Bruce ambiguity for the Hammond material only. No “Steve Reinhart” appears anywhere in the Hammond documents. A 2010 e-mail elsewhere in the release prints the form “Steve Reinhart” in an unrelated context, and whether that is a different person or a sender’s error is not settled by anything on this page. That he appeared for the witness at a pilot’s deposition is separately on the record: appearances at Larry Visoski’s deposition of 15 October 2009 are Bradley J. Edwards for the plaintiff, Robert D. Critton, Jr. for the defendant, and Bruce Reinhart for the witness, EFTA01110326 p.2. ↩ ↩2

  8. Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A., West Palm Beach, invoice no. 240, dated 2 November 2009, “Regarding: Epstein, Jeffrey,” billed to Jack Goldberger of Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss. EFTA01111305 pp.1-4, run length 4 pages, all four rendered and read at the image. The Hammond line item, p.1: “9/22/2009 | BER | Telephone call and email with Bill Hammond | 0.30 | $500.00 | $150.00”. The deposition ledger is on p.2 and the entries cited are read at the image: 10/05 “Larry Morrison depo prep”; 10/06 “Larry Morrison deposition” 5.00 hr; 10/08 “Gary Roxburgh witness prep” 1.10 hr; 10/10 “Deposition prep with David Rogers”; 10/12 “Meeting with Dave Rodgers and Bob Critton”; 10/13 “David Rodgers deposition and follow up” 4.33 hr; 10/14 “Telephone calls and emails to reschedule depositions” 0.20 hr; 10/15 “Larry Visoski deposition” 6.00 hr. There is no Hammond deposition entry and no Roxburgh deposition entry anywhere in the four pages. Total Fees $25,090.00; Total Expenses $786.07, being two copying invoices “for JEGE logs” and “for copying JEGE records”. p.4 records “9/24/2009 | Payment | Epstein, Jeffrey | $-6,830.00” with the annotation “AGW check for $14,302.50 for Epstein and ▮”, and a balance due of $25,876.07. The billing address on the invoice carries the same street address and suite number as Reinhart’s own letterhead. ⚠⚠ CORRECTED: this footnote previously added “which independently corroborates Cassell’s description of adjacent offices.” It does not, and the body of this page now says so. Cassell’s “this Office” is the United States Attorney’s Office, not Epstein’s counsel’s premises; see 27. The address match is a fact about two law firms in West Palm Beach and corroborates nothing about the allegation. ⚠ Several line descriptions and figures on pp.1-3 are struck out by hand. Those are privilege markings made on the paper, not government redactions, and they are not rendered as bars here. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  9. Thread of 27 August to 8 September 2015, subject “Re: JEGE Inc_William Hammond_inv_5000_08/28/15”. EFTA00846771 pp.1-3, run length 3 pages, all three rendered and read at the image. The top-level document is Epstein’s own reply: From “jeffrey E.”, unredacted on the sheet, to Richard Kahn, sent Tuesday 8 September 2015 21:03:27 +0000, and its entire body is the single line “1000”. Kahn’s question of the same evening sits immediately beneath it. Visoski’s memo of 31 August 2015 and his further messages are quoted from the same run; the invoice approval line reads “William Hammond Pilot service / Jege Inc / Approved / Larry”, and Bella Klein’s line of 27 August reads “Rich, please note charge for the flight day is $1000.” The comparators Visoski cites for other principals’ pilots are $1,200 domestic and $1,400 international. ⚠⚠ CORRECTED: an earlier version of this page called EFTA02673304 a duplicate of this thread. It is not. Read at the image, it is 3 pages, homogeneous, the same subject and the same underlying messages, but one link earlier in the chain: its p.1 is Kahn’s message of 8 September 2015 9:03 PM, and there is no Epstein reply header and no bare “1000” line anywhere in that run. EFTA00846771 p.1 is the only imaged source for the answer, and a page relying on the other copy would not have the finding at all. ⚠ A grep trap for whoever follows: “1000” does occur on EFTA02673304 p.2, as Bella Klein’s “charge for the flight day is $1000”, a different person saying a different thing. ⚠ The two are different exports of the same mail: EFTA02673304 carries quoted-printable residue that replaces the first character of a word (=onflying days, B727 or =IV), while EFTA00846771 carries none. They are not interchangeable. Punctuation and doubled commas are as printed on the sheets throughout. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  10. Four cheques drawn by JEGE, LLC, St Thomas, US Virgin Islands, on Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, New York, payable to William Hammond, each read at the page image with numerals and written words in agreement: no. 1298, 9 November 2015, $6,186.04, EFTA01348492 p.1; no. 1307, 5 January 2016, $15,000.00, EFTA01348480 p.1; no. 1333, 18 July 2017, $24,149.24, memo “Pilot Service:06/28/17 - 07/16/17- Pilot Service & Ex”, EFTA01348340 p.1, Bates-stamped DB-SDNY-0035258 / SDNY_GM_00181442; no. 1424, 24 September 2018, $26,850.67, EFTA01372166 p.1. ⚠⚠ The corpus text layer is wrong about all four figures, rendering them 8,186.04, 95,000.00, and 128,850.67 respectively; the last is wrong by $102,000. The sheet for cheque 1424 carries the bank’s own exception screen as a third witness, “Amount 26,850.67 / Check # 1424”, and records “Exception Type: High dollar pull / Previous Decision: Refer / Previous Reason: Signature Irregular.” No aggregate is printed on this page. Completeness cannot be shown: these images arrive as fragments of two separate bank productions, the dated instruments have visible gaps, nothing in the release asserts the set is complete, and the same instrument recurs under several identifiers. A sum over a set of unknown completeness is a floor of unknown tightness, not a total. ⚠ No element of any residential address is reproduced on this page, from these sheets or any others. What the producer did and did not bar is recorded for the privacy gate and is not described here. ↩ ↩2

  11. Three documents in the release carry Bill Hammond’s own writing, and all three are short. (1) His invoice cover note of 27 August 2015, 11:42:26 AM EDT, to Larry Visoski, subject “invoice-August-Albuquerque,” signed “Captain Hammond,” at EFTA00846771 pp.2-3, read at the image; the From: shows as “WGH” with the address barred. (2) His thank-you of 12 September 2017, quoted in full in the body above, EFTA01026211 p.1, run length 1 page, read at the image; From: “WH”, address barred, forwarded by Visoski to Epstein with the attachment hammond.license.pdf. (3) The figures message quoted inside Kahn’s December 2015 forward, 32. ⚠ “Captain Hammond” is self-description on a covering e-mail and is not evidence of command status; see 2. His e-mail address is barred on every sheet where it appears. ↩ ↩2

  12. FBI FD-302, interview of David Rogers, 15 August 2006 at West Palm Beach, transcribed 18 August 2006, file 31E-MM-108062, SA E. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall. EFTA01728158 p.14 (Bates-stamped EFTA01728171), read at the image. ⚠ This is hearsay within a government record: it is Rogers telling the FBI what Epstein’s staffing was, not a finding by the Bureau, and the sentence should always be attributed to him. The same sheet carries the January 2005 change of chief pilot and the “demotion and a decrease in pay” language. ↩ ↩2

  13. Sent Sunday 6 June 2010, 9:16:43 PM, subject “updates”; the From: value is barred. EFTA02413797 p.1, run length 1 page, read at the image. The open parenthesis immediately followed by a comma is on the sheet and is not repaired. No = corruption; text layer and image agree. ⚠ Upgraded from text-layer-only after an image check; an earlier version of this page attributed the line to Visoski, and the sheet’s sender is barred, so no sender is named. ↩ ↩2

  14. Larry Visoski, Sunday 19 July 2015, 7:58:46 PM, subject “301 apt”. EFTA02075512 p.1, run length 1 page, homogeneous, read at the image. The To: value and the salutation name are separately barred on the sheet. The quotation begins at the opening parenthesis because that is where the sentence begins on the sheet, and the parenthesis is never closed; the text layer renders the sender as “Larry \Moak’”, which is an extraction error, and the sheet says Visoski. Punctuation and doubled commas are as printed. ↩ ↩2

  15. Subject “Dave/ Darren”, From: barred. EFTA02431683 p.1, run length 1 page, read at the image. ⚠⚠ CORRECTED: an earlier version of this page called this document undated and attributed it to Visoski. The searchable text lost the date entirely; the image carries Sat 1/16/2010, corroborated by the quoted original beneath it, and the sender is barred. The date matters: it puts this lament five months before the June 2010 “contract basis” line, not after it. ⚠ A producer bar over a third party’s name on this sheet is rendered by the text layer as an apostrophe; the bar is real and only the extraction lies. ↩

  16. Government note of a telephone call of 30 July 2019, headed “notes from 7/30 t/c with Kate Cassidy re: Hammond subpoena,” sent Thursday 1 August 2019 3:00 AM UTC, sender barred, stamped CONFIDENTIAL, Jencks number 3501.105-006. EFTA01246372 p.1, run length 1 page, read at the image. Named in the body: Kate Cassidy and Caroline Groshans. ⚠⚠ This is a note-taker’s shorthand of a lawyer’s account of what a client said. Nothing in it is Hammond speaking, and no sentence in it should be quoted as his statement. The employment dates it records are nonetheless the tightest in the release and reconcile three other documents; the 2008-to-2015 gap they imply is left open on this page because no document closes it. ↩ ↩2

  17. Subpoena to testify before a grand jury, United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, form ORD-227 in lieu of AO110, “TO: Bill Hammond”, FGJ 05-02(WPB)-Fri./No. OLY-21, returnable 1 December 2006 at 9:30 a.m., grand jury room, United States District Courthouse, 701 Clematis Street, West Palm Beach. Dated 13 November 2006. EFTA00220959 pp.1-2, run length 2 pages, both read at the image. The form’s two “SUBPOENA FOR” boxes are fillable text fields and the producer’s own text-box appendix on p.2 renders both as ticked, that is, person and documents. The Special Agent’s name and telephone number and the Assistant U.S. Attorney’s name and direct lines are barred; the clerk and deputy-clerk signature lines are blank on this copy. The return of service grid and the declaration of service on p.2 are entirely blank, so this is the issued instrument, not a returned one. ⚠ Note that the records demand carries no date floor at all; only the contact-methods limb is bounded, at 1 January 2004. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  18. “GRAND JURY SUBPOENA LOG / In Re: Operation Leap Year / Lions No. 2006R01181 / FGJ 05-02 (WPB) Fridays [expiration 2/1/07] / Transferred to FGJ 07-103 (WPB) Tuesdays / Investigative No. OLY”. EFTA00193068 p.3 of a 131-page run for the Hammond row and p.4 for the Visoski row; ⚠ this is a long mixed run and must be cited by page, never at run level. Both pages read at the image. The FBI agent’s and the AUSA’s names are barred on the image. Hammond is the bottom row of p.3: “OLY-21 | Bill Hammond (pilot) | flight records / employment records / contact information | 12/01/2006 | 02/06/2007”. Visoski is on p.4: “OLY-22 | Larry Visoski (pilot) | flight records / employment records / contact information | 12/01/2006 | 02/06/2007”. The two rows are identical in every column. A separate investigation timeline records the same event at EFTA00225378 p.53 of a 294-page run: “Subpoena to Bill Hammond (pilot) (return date 12/1/06)”. ↩ ↩2

  19. FBI FD-1057 electronic communication, “AUTOMATED SERIAL PERMANENT CHARGE-OUT”, dated 12/04/2018, DRAFT watermark, case ID 31E-MM-108062-SBP. EFTA02857863 p.529 of a 582-page run, read at the image; ⚠ cite the page, never the run. The detail records an FD-5a charge-out of 06/22/07 at 14:15, serial 34, “Type : OTHER Date : 11/13/06 To : BILL HAMMOND From : US DIST COURT Topic: EXECUTED FGJ SUBPOENA”, reason “transfer to the grand jury sub”, transferred to case ID 31E-MM-108062-GJ serial 25. Drafter and employee names are barred. The word “EXECUTED” is the Bureau’s own index term for the instrument and is quoted as such, not interpreted. ↩

  20. United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, West Palm Beach Division, In Re: Operation Leap Year, 2007. EFTA00223910 p.9 of a 22-page run, read at the image; a fuller copy of the same transcript page is at EFTA00009632 p.9. ⚠ Cite by page. The distinction the sentence draws, between issuing a subpoena and speaking with a witness on one hand and taking sworn testimony on the other, is the speaker’s own. ↩

  21. Subpoena duces tecum for videotaped deposition, In the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, Civil Division, case no. 502008CA028051XXXXMB, issued in the name of the State of Florida, “TO: William Gary Hammond”. EFTA00730311 pp.1-2, run length 2 pages, both read at the image, p.1 re-rendered at 600 dpi for the date. The plaintiff’s name is barred in the caption of the produced copy and is not supplied here or anywhere on this wiki, and the address block beneath his name is barred. The command, the demand paragraph and the contempt warning are quoted whole and verbatim. Signed “For The Court” by counsel, as Florida practice allows; the typed name is Bradley J. Edwards of Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, Fort Lauderdale, for the plaintiff. ⚠ The ink signature is another hand signing for him, with a second Florida Bar number written beside it, so the signature is not attributed to Edwards personally. There is no return of service in this run; for service, see 6. ↩ ↩2

  22. The day of the month is a single handwritten digit on a printed “DATED on September ___, 2009” line, and the searchable text of the release renders it “September 1” on Hammond’s sheet and “September 91” on Roxburgh’s, both wrong. Read at 600 dpi the glyph is a closed top loop with a straight descender. The same hand wrote the same glyph on Roxburgh’s subpoena, EFTA00730330 p.1, where the loop is larger, and again on the certificate of service at EFTA00728278 p.2, “this 9 day of September, 2009,” where the impression is cleanest. Three instances, one hand, one glyph. This page reads it as 9 September 2009 with high confidence and states that the day is handwritten so that a reader can check it. ↩

  23. Notice of taking deposition, same court, case no. 502008CA028051XXXXMB AD. EFTA00728278 pp.1-2, run length 2 pages, both read at the image. ⚠ This is not a second subpoena and must not be counted as one. It gives notice that the plaintiff’s attorney will take the deposition of William Gary Hammond on 13 October 2009 at 2:00 p.m. The certificate of service on p.2 certifies service “via U.S. Mail and Emailtransmission, this 9 day of September, 2009” on Michael Burman and Robert D. Critton, Jr., on Jay Howell, and on Jack Alan Goldberger, with copies to the court reporters; ⚠ that is service on counsel of record, not on the witness. The plaintiff is shown by initials in this caption where the subpoena bars the field; neither form is printed here. Searches for any further 2009 instrument to him, by every name variant and by the subpoena’s own title block, return nothing. ↩ ↩2

  24. The four sibling subpoenas, each read at the page image: Larry Eugene Morrison, EFTA00730325 p.1, deposition 6 October 2009 at 10:00 a.m., dated 21 August 2009; David Hart Rogers, EFTA00774009 p.1, duplicate at EFTA00730309, deposition 7 October 2009 at 10:00 a.m., dated 24 August 2009; Lawrence Paul Visoski Jr, EFTA00730316 p.1, duplicate at EFTA00774011, deposition 8 October 2009 at 10:00 a.m., dated 24 August 2009; Robert Gary Roxburgh, EFTA00730330 p.1, duplicate at EFTA00730332, deposition 13 October 2009 at 4:00 p.m., dated 9 September 2009. The demand paragraph is word for word identical on all of them and on Hammond’s, and “January, 1998” is cleanly machine-printed on every copy, in high-contrast set text with no legibility question and no dependence on OCR. ⚠ This footnote exists to make the refutation checkable. The deposition dates given in the table for Rogers and Visoski are the dates the instruments set; the depositions Reinhart’s ledger actually bills are 13 October for Rodgers and 15 October for Visoski, see 8, and Visoski’s transcript is dated 15 October 2009, see 7. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  25. Story Cowles to Jeffrey Epstein, Wednesday 7 October 2009, 9:31:00 PM, subject “Deposition schedule as of October 7th at 5:30pm”. EFTA02438335 p.1, run length 1 page, read at the image. The four lines are quoted whole and in the order they appear. Note the two things the sheet shows and this page relies on: Hammond is the only name annotated, and Roxburgh is still expected to go ahead, at “2pm if they finish with Dave or 4pm”. Neither man was deposed. Spellings “Rogers” and “Rodgers” alternate across the flight-department record for the same man and are left as each sheet prints them. ↩

  26. EFTA01111305 p.3, read at the image: “10/23/2009 | Telephone calls with Brad Edwards; draft and send letter regarding Rodgers pilot logs”. ↩

  27. The verbatim passage is quoted in full under “The deposition that never happened” above, from EFTA00068228 p.1. ⚠⚠ This footnote exists because an earlier version of this page got the sentence wrong, and the error ran in the direction that hurts a named living person. Cassell’s letter is addressed to an Assistant United States Attorney, and the phrase “While working in this Office adjacent to Epstein’s” is about the prosecutor’s office: the complaint is that a lawyer moved from the office investigating Epstein to representing Epstein’s employees. The earlier version appended the word “counsel” outside the quotation marks, which turned it into a claim about sharing premises with the defence, and then offered a street-and-suite match between the invoice’s letterhead and its billing address as corroboration of that. The corroboration had no anchor in either document: the phrase it was hung on does not appear in the passage at all. The address match is a real fact about two law firms in West Palm Beach and it is evidence of nothing here, so it is stated and discounted rather than removed, and no inference is drawn from it. The underlying allegation is Cassell’s and is reported at his tier; this page makes no finding about it. ↩ ↩2

  28. FBI FD-302, 31E-NY-3027571 serial 147, investigation conducted 6 July 2019 at Teterboro, New Jersey, in person; drafted 8 July 2019, entered 16 July 2019; stamped CONFIDENTIAL, Jencks number 3501.105-005. EFTA01246371 p.1, run length 1 page, read at the image. The quotation is the whole substantive text of the document. The interview took place aboard Epstein’s private jet at 111 Industrial Avenue, Teterboro. His cellular telephone number is covered by a solid producer bar on the sheet, verified at the image, and the interviewing agent’s name is likewise barred; neither is recovered here. 6 July 2019 is the day Epstein was arrested at Teterboro. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  29. Larry Visoski, 13 June 2019, 12:25 PM, quoted in a same-day thread. EFTA02290320 p.1, read at the image. ⚠ The document is dated 13 June and the flight it describes is “tomorrow morning”; the document date and the flight date are stated separately here for that reason. ↩

  30. Correspondence between the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York and counsel newly retained for Hammond, subject line “RE: subpoena of William Hammond” throughout, running from 16 July to 30 July 2019. EFTA00096229 pp.1-2, run length 2 pages, both read at the image. Both passages quoted are from the message of 16 July 2019, 12:53 PM, which runs across the two sheets; the abeyance passage is on p.2. Sender names are barred throughout; the signature block reads “Assistant U.S. Attorney / Southern District of New York”. The ▮ marks in the quotation are the producer’s bars over pronouns and are reproduced where the producer put them. ⚠ Note the date floor: 2000, which is two years later than the 1998 floor of the 2009 civil demand and later still than the 2006 federal demand, which had no floor at all. ↩

  31. EFTA01246372 p.1; the document is described in full at 16. ⚠⚠ Two framing warnings apply to everything in it. First, it is a note of a lawyer’s account of a client’s statements, recorded in shorthand by a third party, and nothing in it is Hammond speaking. Second, the line “would not say that he saw underage women on planes” is ambiguous on its face and this page does not resolve it in either direction; it is quoted and left as it stands. The note’s questions to itself, in capitals, are the note-taker’s own and are not reproduced as findings. ↩

  32. Richard Kahn to Jeffrey Epstein, Wednesday 9 December 2015, 1:16 PM, subject “Fwd: Dave / Bill Hammond”, forwarding a Visoski message of 8:01:06 AM the same day. EFTA02350635 p.1, run length 1 page, read at the image. ⚠ The ”=” corruption is on the produced sheet itself, not only in the searchable text, and the quotation therefore reproduces it rather than silently repairing it. A comparator figure for Dave Rodgers on the same sheet reads “$15=,500” and cannot be cited as a number at all, so it is not cited. ↩ ↩2

  33. The May 2017 FlightSafety thread appears across seven documents: EFTA00661735, EFTA01044651, EFTA01044665, EFTA02364787, EFTA02364710, EFTA02648669 and EFTA02648749. It quotes $62,600 for his G550/GIV course plus $7,300 CPDLC and $4,700 synthetic vision, $74,600 in total, inside a $218,600 package for three pilots, after Kahn negotiated “an additional 1,900 discount for both dave and bill hammond from 64,500 to 62,600”. The September 2018 recurrent-training approval is at EFTA01023263 p.1 and EFTA02622631 p.1: “Chip and Bill Hammond are due for G550 recurrent,. Do you approve to send 1 or both to class? Cost $22,995 each 4 day class”. ✅ All six figures, the discount phrase and the $22,995 line have now been READ AT THE IMAGE and are confirmed; all six sit on one sheet, EFTA01044651 p.1, which is the citation to use. ⚠ EFTA02364787 is deliberately excluded from the discount citation: its = mangling is ink on the sheet, not a producer bar. An earlier version of this page reported all of these as unverified text-layer figures; the caveat is lifted. ↩

  34. FAA form 8060-4, temporary airman certificate, IACRA equivalent, application number 1548880. EFTA00812015 p.1, run length 1 page, homogeneous, read at the image at 400 dpi. “THIS CERTIFIES THAT iv. WILLIAM GARY HAMMOND”; grade, airline transport pilot; ratings and limitations quoted verbatim. The middle name is confirmed at the image here and on both 2009 instruments. The certificate is a reissuance, not an original issuance: the reissuance box is ticked and the original-issuance box is not, it supersedes an airman certificate dated 28 October 2008, it was issued 10 September 2017 at 12:44:28 PM, and its own conditions block describes it as “an interim certificate … pending the issuance of a certificate of greater duration,” void after 120 days. Examiner Harold Eugene Ford Jr, IACRA e-signed, CE07, designation number barred, designation expiring 30 November 2017. Producer-side: the date of birth, height, weight, hair and eyes are covered by one solid bar, as are the certificate number and the line under his name, and only sex and nationality print. ⚠ No signature, in any form, is reproduced, described or linked from this page. Producer-side handling of that field is recorded for the privacy gate and is not described here. The covering e-mail that transmitted it is at EFTA01026211 p.1, see 11. ↩ ↩2

  35. Larry Visoski to Lesley Groff, 21 July 2016, 6:04 PM, quoted inside Groff’s reply of 22 July. EFTA00321845 p.1, run length 2 pages, read at the image; the sheet names both correspondents and bars both e-mail addresses. ⚠⚠ This is Visoski characterising Hammond’s preference to Epstein’s scheduler. It is not Hammond speaking, no document in the release records his own account of it, and it must never be quoted as his words. It names nobody and does not tend to identify anyone. Corroborating lodging records place him in the building on dated nights at EFTA02053042 p.1, EFTA02240679 p.1, EFTA02241222 p.1 and EFTA00324967 p.1; the July 2015 “our former pilot” message at 14 carries the subject line “301 apt” and is itself one of these booking e-mails. ↩ ↩2

  36. The three exclusions rest on findings recorded in this page’s verification file. Manifests: the structure was established by rendering one sheet, a “JEGE, INC. PASSENGER MANIFEST” at EFTA01266759 p.47, Bates-stamped SDNY_GM_00010660 / EFTA_00121314, stamped CONFIDENTIAL. That identifier is recorded here only to show the exclusion was tested against a real sheet; it is not offered as a source and nothing on it is described further. The crew block and the passenger column share the page and the passenger column interleaves barred lines with printed names, so no crew pin can be given that does not also deliver the passenger column. None of the manifest documents is cited on this page for any purpose, whatever their number. The congressional set: every HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_* PDF probed returns HTTP 403 to this desk, four tested directly against a control identifier that returned 200, so no page image in that set can be read here; the documents also carry their own header declaring them a structured vision transcription of a page image rather than OCR of the sheet. The strike-through: three independent counting methods applied to that derived text produced three answers differing by about an order of magnitude, the largest single class of annotation names nobody and cannot be attributed at all, and the underlying page images are unreachable, so no figure is printable in either direction and no meaning can be assigned to the marks. The one qualitative statement made in the body rests on the single manifest sheet read at the image. ↩

  37. FTS5 probes, document counts, each run with a live corpus-wide positive control so that a zero is a finding rather than a broken query: NEAR("Hammond" "employment agreement", 20) returns 0 against 168 for the phrase corpus-wide; NEAR("Hammond" "W2", 20) returns 0 against 686; NEAR("Hammond" "1099", 20) returns 1, and that one is a cheque page, against 1,714; NEAR("Hammond" "payroll", 20) returns 0. On the deposition itself: "deposition of Bill Hammond" and "deposition of William Hammond" each return 0, against 25 for "deposition of Larry Visoski". He invoiced and was paid by cheque; there is no written employment contract in the release. ↩

Backlinks