Epstein Data Wiki

David Rodgers

Properties2
tagsperson, pilot, flight-crew, aviation, flight-logs, maxwell-trial, grand-jury, testimony
aliasesDavid Rodgers, Dave Rodgers, David Rogers, Dave Rogers, David Hart Rogers, Rodgers, David, Rogers, David, D. Rodgers

25 min read

⚠ His surname is spelled two ways in these documents and both are him

The 2009 subpoena caption reads “David Hart Rogers”; the flight department’s e-mail traffic mostly reads “Dave Rodgers”; a single four-page invoice uses both. They are one man. This page uses Rodgers except inside quotations and citations, which keep whatever the sheet prints.

RoleJeffrey Epstein’s pilot from 1 July 1991, hired through Les Wexner’s flight department. Chief pilot until January 20051
⭐ The actHe is the witness through whom the United States put Epstein’s flight logs into evidence at Ghislaine Maxwell’s criminal trial. Sworn 8 December 2021, he authenticated Government Exhibit 662, his own pilot logbook2
At that trialHe identified Maxwell in the courtroom and placed her “number two” in Epstein’s organisation, behind Epstein2
Why he stopped being chief pilotHe used the FAA quiet-landing procedure after Epstein told him not to. Epstein saw it, removed him, and cut his pay by about $5,000. The payroll record shows exactly that cut, and its reversal within a year34
The offer he refusedJanuary 2014: Epstein offered to put him back on a full-time salary of $130,000 and he declined, “without much hesitation”, preferring his $50,000 base plus day rates5
His lawyers, and who chose themSomeone in Epstein’s circle told him which lawyer to call; he called Darren Indyke, one of Epstein’s own. A prosecutor’s contemporaneous note reads “Epstein is paying for his attorney”6
⚠ The missing transcriptHe was deposed on 13 October 2009 and the transcript is quoted in another deposition two days later. It is not in the release7
The 2019 trustThe Jeffrey E. Epstein 2019 Trust, executed 18 January 2019, names him among employees whose debts to Epstein the Trustees were directed to extinguish on Epstein’s death. Eleven months later he told the FBI he did not know if he was in Epstein’s will8

David Rodgers flew for Jeffrey Epstein for twenty-eight years, longer than anyone else in the record. He was hired in 1991 through Les Wexner’s flight department, was chief pilot until January 2005, and was still flying Epstein three weeks before the 2019 arrest.

But the reason this page exists is narrower and larger than length of service. The flight logs are the single most-cited artefact in the whole Epstein record: they are how investigators, litigants and journalists have reconstructed who travelled with him and when. Rodgers wrote them, kept them, produced them under subpoena, and swore to them in front of a jury. On 8 December 2021 the United States called him as a witness against Ghislaine Maxwell and, through him, put his logbook into evidence.

Everything else here is the context for why the custodian of that record is worth a page.

The trial, 8 December 2021

He was sworn as a Government witness in United States v. Maxwell before Judge Alison J. Nathan, examined on direct by Assistant United States Attorney Maurene Comey. His testimony runs about 155 pages of that day’s transcript, through cross-examination and redirect, ending “Mr. Rodgers, you may step down.”2

Two things happened in it that matter beyond his own account.

He identified Maxwell in the courtroom, by an article of clothing, and described her position: asked where she stood in Epstein’s organisation, he placed her “number two”, behind Epstein himself.2

And he authenticated the logbook. Government Exhibit 662 is his own pilot logbook. Judge Nathan admitted it under seal, and admitted a redacted version, GX-662-R, for the public.2 Documented fact: the flight logs entered the criminal record of the United States through this witness.

⚠ This page quotes none of the flight-by-flight testimony. Both the trial transcript and his 2020 FBI interview walk through individual flights and name passengers, including court pseudonyms used for trial witnesses. Nothing from those passages is reproduced here.9

On cross he was asked about his own position, and answered plainly: Epstein had paid his daughter’s tuition, for both high school and college, and had done the same for his employees generally. Asked whether that was something Epstein did for several of them, he said: “All of them, I think.”10

The demotion, and what caused it

Three documents fourteen years apart converge on one act.

The 2006 FBI interview gives the bureaucratic formula: “a continual disagreement between EPSTEIN and ROGERS on landing techniques”, resulting in “a demotion and a decrease in pay”, with Larry Visoski taking the chief pilot’s post in January 2005.11

The 2020 interview gives it whole:

The FAA had a quiet landing procedure. EPSTEIN did not like the FAA quiet landing procedure. Most of the time, they landed late at night around 10PM or later and it would wake people up. EPSTEIN told RODGERS he did not want RODGERS to do the procedure. There was a time where they were traveling back to Palm Beach and RODGERS executed the quiet landing procedure. The next day, EPSTEIN asked RODGERS to come over. EPSTEIN told RODGERS that he saw RODGERS do the quiet landing after EPSTEIN had told him not to do it. EPSTEIN told RODGERS that he was no longer the chief pilot. RODGERS received a pay cut of approximately $5000 as a result.

3

And the pay cut is independently documented. A payroll analysis prepared by Epstein’s accountant nine years later shows his salary at $165,000 in 2004 and $160,000 in 2005: a $5,000 cut, matching to the dollar a figure he gave the FBI fifteen years after the event.4

The act, and it is his own: he used a federal noise-abatement procedure after his employer told him not to, and was demoted for it.

⚠ One correction this page makes to another. The 2006 interview’s “$165,000.00 plus benefits” is a post-restoration figure, not a post-demotion one: the payroll record runs 165,000 (2004), 160,000 (2005), 165,000 (2006), 175,000 (2007), 175,000 (2008). The cut was reversed inside a year.4

The depositions: three, in three cases, and the important one is missing

13 October 2009, in the Palm Beach County civil action against Epstein. He was first noticed for 7 October and re-noticed for the 13th; the county docket carries both.7

It happened. Two days later, at Visoski’s deposition, plaintiff’s counsel produced the flight log book with the words “Because this was given to me at a deposition of Dave Rogers, who I understand was the chief pilot for Mr. Epstein …”, and Visoski’s own exhibit index marks it “(MARKED IN PREVIOUS DEPO)”.7

⚠ The transcript is not in the release. That is a tested absence, not an assumption: the protective-order stamp, the reporting agency and the transcript-title forms that carry Visoski’s, Morrison’s and Alfredo Rodriguez’s depositions through this corpus all return nothing for Rodgers, while returning 27, 11 and 90 pages respectively for the others.7

What Epstein’s side filed that afternoon

On the afternoon of the deposition, clerk-stamped “2009 OCT 13 PM 4:35”, Epstein’s lawyers filed a motion for a protective order about the depositions of Visoski and Rodgers. It recites the subpoena’s demand for “All original flight logs from January, 1998 through present”, calls it “overbroad, not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence”, and asks the court to cut the production down to August 2002 through September 2005.12

Question, not allegation: Epstein’s side moved to shrink the flight-log production to a three-year window on the day two of his pilots were being deposed about it.

⚠ Three cautions this page keeps. It is a motion, a stage and not an instrument, and no order resolving it has been found, which is not the same as no order having been entered, because a docket sheet does not caption every order with its motion. The copy carries a “NOT A CERTIFIED COPY” watermark. And the signature block bears an ink mark plus a handwritten “for” against a second name, so which of the two lawyers signed cannot be resolved and is not asserted.12

3 June 2016, in Giuffre v. Maxwell. In the release in excerpt. ⚠ It is passenger-identification material and this page does not quote it; it is cited only for the fact of the deposition and for who appeared.13

19 November 2018. A subpoena and notice of videotaped deposition were served in a Southern District of New York case. Whether it went ahead is not establishable: no transcript is in the release, and on that date he was e-mailing Epstein about flight times.14

Who chose his lawyers, and who paid them

This is the strongest documented chain on the page after the trial testimony, and every link is a primary document.

Epstein’s circle told him which lawyer to call. From the 2020 interview: “Someone from EPSTEIN’s circle told RODGERS to call a particular lawyer when he was contacted by the FBI. RODGERS contacted DARREN INDYKE, who was one of EPSTEIN’s lawyers.”6

A prosecutor wrote down who was paying. A contemporaneous handwritten note of 15 August 2006, the day of his FBI interview, reads: “Epstein is paying for his attorney”.6

And the same arrangement is on an invoice three years later. Bruce Reinhart, who represented five Epstein pilots, billed his work on them to Epstein’s criminal defence firm; the ledger bills “David Rodgers deposition and follow up” on 13 October 2009.15

⚠ The page prints the other half of that paragraph, because a page that prints only the first half is arguing rather than reporting. The same 2020 interview records: “No one told RODGERS not to say something when questioned by the FBI or other law enforcement.”6

⚠ A correction to this desk’s own assumption. The attorney present at his August 2006 FBI interview was Bruce M. Lyons, of Lyons and Sanders, Fort Lauderdale, and not Bruce Reinhart, who practised in West Palm Beach and came in by 2009. There are two Bruces in this record and they are different men.6

What he was paid, and the offer he turned down

The compensation record for him is the cleanest on any Epstein employee documented on this wiki: two independent documents, written by different people for different purposes, agreeing line for line, and both read at the page image rather than from searchable text.45

20042005200620072008200920102011201220132014
Salary165,000160,000165,000175,000175,00050,00050,00050,00050,00050,00050,000
Bonus8,0005,00010,00010,000––47,50055,00031,50071,00075,000
Total cost211,585198,960236,267238,041216,39685,319124,759127,958104,489148,646153,566

Note 2009. His salary drops from $175,000 to $50,000 and stays there for six years, replaced by day rates and an annual reconciliation paid as a bonus the following January.4

In January 2014 Epstein offered to reverse that, and he said no. Epstein’s accountant Richard Kahn wrote to Epstein on 9 January 2014:

I spoke with Dave earlier and told him that you would like to hire him full time for 130,000 per annum. Currently Dave is paid $50,000 and earns 1,000 per day for flying and 500 per day for travel. Dave without much hesitation said he would prefer to operate under existing terms above.

The payroll sheet books the same event in its own margin: “January 2014 - Dave turned down annual salary of 130,000 (prefers to stay on current deal)”.5

March 2019: one word, and a pay change

A complete sequence inside four weeks, four months before the arrest.

  • 3 March 2019, 6:32 a.m. Kahn explains the arrangement to Epstein: a $50,000 salary, “1000 for flying days and 500 per airline / travel days”, reconciled at year end, and quotes Rodgers’ own new-year note listing “Work Days - 136 / Airline Days - 12”.16
  • 3 March 2019, 11:37 a.m. Epstein replies. The entire message is five words:

and how long has dave been doing this scheme

  • March 2019. “RICHARD KAHN called RODGERS in March 2019 and told RODGERS he would be earning ▮ a day.” The rate is covered by a producer’s bar.16

The page sets the three out in order and draws no inference from the word Epstein chose.

The 2019 trust, and what he told the FBI

The Jeffrey E. Epstein 2019 Trust was executed on 18 January 2019, with Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn as Trustees. A clause directs the Trustees, on Epstein’s death, to distribute to five named employees, including “DAVID ROGERS”, “an amount equal to the sum of all financial obligations and liabilities then outstanding and due from her or him to me”, “for the sole purpose of being used to repay all such outstanding and due obligations and liabilities”. In plain terms, a structured forgiveness of the employees’ debts to Epstein.8

Eleven months later, in February 2020, he told federal agents that he “did not know if he was in EPSTEIN’s will; EPSTEIN never talked about it.”8

Question, not allegation: eleven months after an executed instrument named him, he told the FBI he did not know whether he was in it. ⚠ And the two documents are not the same document: the interview says will, the instrument is a trust, and this page does not elide them.

Three more things the record holds

He was interviewed at Teterboro on the day of Epstein’s arrest, 6 July 2019, declined to answer without counsel, and was served with a grand jury subpoena on the spot.17

He stopped writing passenger names in his logbook after the FBI took it in August 2006, on his own telling.18 He also told agents that the passenger manifests had been handed to one of Epstein’s attorneys, named elsewhere as Jack Goldberger, and that he kept no copy.18

He came to the February 2020 interview to correct a reading of his own logbook: the initials “AP” were Adam Perry, not Prince Andrew, and he said he had always written Prince Andrew’s name out in full.18 He also said he had tried and failed to obtain his own 2016 deposition transcript, and thought it had been transcribed incorrectly.18

⚠ A trap in this record, recorded so nobody repeats it

A message headed “Re: Dave Rodgers” reads, in four lines: “50k salary / 150k loan / 25k bonus as loan / Last year received Boeing net sales proceeds 29k as well as zorro expense..”

Those four lines are not about David Rodgers. Read at the image, the message it replies to is Epstein asking “and larrrys salary ? plus all in?”, and the answer describes Larry Visoski. The subject line is stale, carried down a thread. A writer working from search results would have put a $150,000 loan and a $25,000 bonus-as-loan on this page, and it would have been wrong.19

Notes

Footnotes

  1. Hire date 1 July 1991, printed on the payroll analysis at 4. The route into the job is from his own account to the FBI, 7 February 2020: “In the end of June 1991, LES WEXNER had a friend who needed a pilot.” EFTA00159180 p.1, read at the image. The January 2005 change of chief pilot is at 11 and 3. ↩

  2. United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20-cr-00330 (S.D.N.Y.), transcript of the trial day of 8 December 2021, Document 755, filed 10 August 2022, before the Hon. Alison J. Nathan. ⚠ The release copy is Bates-stamped DOJ-OGR-00013279, a dataset-99 stub: 262 pages of text with no PDF, and https://epstein-data.com/pdf/DOJ-OGR-00013279.pdf returns HTTP 403. It is good for locating the text and useless for showing a reader the page, so the readable copy is cited from RECAP, as `people/marvin-minsky` already does for the 2016 deposition: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.539612/gov.uscourts.nysd.539612.755.0.pdf, 262 pages, an exact page-count match with the release copy. His testimony runs pp.100–254 of that PDF (transcript pp.1805–1959): sworn and direct at p.100, the courtroom identification and the “number two” answer at p.105, the admission of GX-662 under seal and GX-662-R publicly at p.116, cross-examination by Mr Everdell from p.240, and “Mr. Rodgers, you may step down” at p.254. Pages 100, 116, 248 and 251 were read at the image; pp.105 and 114 from the transcript text. ⚠ Small discrepancy recorded for the record: the release copy’s page furniture prints the case as 1:20-cr-00330-PAE and the RECAP copy as 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, the same document re-issued after reassignment. The bench on the day was Judge Nathan. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  3. FBI FD-302, interview of 7 February 2020 at One St Andrew’s Plaza, 17 pages. EFTA00159180 p.15, read at the image; the passage is quoted whole and verbatim. ⚠ The interview was conducted under a signed proffer agreement with the Southern District of New York (EFTA00159178 pp.1–2, read at the image), and his attorney was Brendan Quigley; the account is therefore his own statement to the government under that agreement, not sworn testimony, and is reported as such. A contemporaneous handwritten prosecutor’s note of 15 August 2006, EFTA00159176 p.1 read at 600 dpi, already carries the substance in an interlineation about a “quiet way” and a “hard way”. ⚠ That interlineation is the hardest text on the sheet and its attribution is genuinely ambiguous, because the note first says he would not say why and then quotes someone saying why, so no clause of it is quoted here and none is attributed to him. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  4. “JEE 2014 Payroll & Benefits Analysis per entity”, the table headed “JEGE/Hyperion”, giving eleven years for three pilots side by side. EFTA01204656 p.9, every figure read off the rendered page. ⚠⚠ The searchable text of this table reorders its columns and produces three different apparent year-alignments across the sheet’s three copies (EFTA02397369 p.12 and EFTA00709105 p.12 are the others). Any writer who takes these numbers from search results will get them wrong. The table’s own marginal notes record the bonuses as year-end reconciliations approved by Epstein and paid the following January, and carry the January 2014 line quoted at 5. Rows omitted from the table above, present on the sheet: Education, Simple IRA at 3%, Payroll Taxes, and Health/Dental. ⚠ The 2006 FD-302’s “$165,000.00 plus benefits” is a post-restoration figure; the cut was reversed within a year, and the pilots topic page presents that figure in a way that reads as though the demotion left him there. That page needs a one-clause fix. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  5. EFTA01943201 p.1, read at the image: Richard Kahn to Jeffrey Epstein, Thursday 9 January 2014, 7:07:53 p.m., subject “Dave Rodgers”, copied to a third party whose name is barred. Quoted whole. The message continues with a year-by-year compensation list for 2004 to 2013 which agrees with the payroll analysis line for line: two documents, two authors’ purposes, same numbers, both verified at the image. The payroll sheet’s own margin at 4 reads “January 2014 - Dave turned down annual salary of 130,000 (prefers to stay on current deal)”. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  6. Three links, and the first two are the load-bearing ones. Who chose the lawyer: EFTA00159180 p.15, read at the image, quoted whole. Who paid: handwritten prosecutor’s note of 15 August 2006, EFTA00159176 p.1, read at the image at 600 dpi, “Epstein is paying for his attorney”, unambiguous on the sheet. ⚠ The balancing sentence from the same paragraph of the 2020 interview is printed in the body and is not buried here. The correction: the attorney present at the August 2006 interview was BRUCE M. LYONS of LYONS AND SANDERS, Fort Lauderdale, unredacted on the sheet at EFTA00269585 p.1, read at 300 dpi. ⚠ This corrects an assumption made elsewhere on this desk that his 2006 attorney was Bruce Reinhart. Reinhart practised in West Palm Beach and appears from 2009. By February 2020 his attorney was Brendan Quigley (EFTA00159180 p.1; EFTA00159178 p.1), who was also present when he was prepared for trial testimony by video on 30 July 2021 (EFTA00159199 p.1, searchable text only). ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  7. L.M. v. Jeffrey Epstein, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, No. 502008CA028051. Noticed for 7 October 2009 and re-noticed for 13 October 2009 at 10:00 a.m.; both re-notices, his and Visoski’s, appear on the county docket sheet as entries 150 and 151, EFTA00205442 p.7. The notices themselves are exhibits inside the wrapper described at 12, at its pp.26 and 32. That the deposition happened is established from Visoski’s deposition two days later, where plaintiff’s counsel produced the log book saying “Because this was given to me at a deposition of Dave Rogers, who I understand was the chief pilot for Mr. Epstein …” (⚠ the sentence continues on the sheet; the ellipsis marks the cut) (EFTA00159483 p.93), and from Visoski’s exhibit index marking Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1, “FLIGHT LOG BOOK”, “(MARKED IN PREVIOUS DEPO)” (EFTA00159483 p.3). ⚠⚠ THE TRANSCRIPT IS NOT IN THE RELEASE, and the absence was tested rather than assumed. Live positive controls on the same query shapes: "SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS" returns 20,940 pages, "DEPOSITION OF LARRY VISOSKI" 27, "DEPOSITION OF ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ" 90, "DEPOSITION OF LARRY MORRISON" 11. Against those: "DEPOSITION OF DAVID RODGERS" returns 15, all of them the 2016 deposition or its index; "DEPOSITION OF DAVID HART RODGERS" 0; the reporting agency paired with either spelling 0, except one hit which is Visoski’s own index page. The reporter, the agency and the protective-order stamp that carry every other pilot’s transcript through this corpus find nothing for his. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  8. The Jeffrey E. Epstein 2019 Trust, dated and executed 18 January 2019; Grantor Jeffrey E. Epstein, Trustees Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn. EFTA00098341 p.10, §2.3(A)(38), read at the image. The clause names five employees, Louella E. Rabuyo, Bella Klein, Ann Rodriquez, DAVID ROGERS and Merwin Dela Cruz, and quotes as given. Execution verified at p.31, read at the image: three ink signatures on the three rules, Epstein dated 1/18/19, Indyke dated 1/18/19, and Kahn dated 1/29/19, eleven days later. His statement to the FBI is at EFTA00159180 p.17, read at the image. ⚠ The interview says “will” and the instrument is a “trust”. They are different documents and this page does not treat them as one; what is stated is the sequence, not that he was told about this instrument and denied it. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  9. Both the Bates-stamped DOJ-OGR-00013279 run, pp.166–254, and EFTA00159180 pp.7–14 walk through individual flights and name passengers, including court pseudonyms used for trial witnesses. ⚠⚠ Nothing from those passages is quoted, paraphrased, counted or characterised on this page, and no flight on this page is matched to any passenger. The verification pass read enough of each to establish structure and to confirm that the passages this page does cite carry no survivor-identifying material, and transcribed none of it. ⚠ EFTA00159177 carries the standard FBI banner “CHILD VICTIM AND CHILD WITNESS IDENTITY INFORMATION”; that is a pre-printed form banner and the body of that one-page interview report contains nothing of the kind. ↩

  10. Cross-examination, RECAP transcript p.248 (transcript p.1959), read at the image: Q: “Did Mr. Epstein pay for your daughter’s tuition?” A: “Yes.” Q: “Did he pay for both high school and college?” A: “Yes.” Q: “And this was something that he did for several of his employees; isn’t that right?” A: “All of them, I think.” The payroll analysis books the money on an “Education” line across 2004–2009: 10,617 / 6,133 / 32,687 / 23,607 / 12,407 / 13,763. See 4. Two further sheets chase the same payments through Epstein’s office (EFTA02441852 and EFTA01816514 p.2, “Education — Dave Rodgers Education in the amount of $9,420”); ⚠ both of those were read from the searchable text only and are not relied on for any figure. ↩

  11. FBI FD-302, interview of 15 August 2006 at West Palm Beach, transcribed 18 August 2006, file 31E-MM-108062. EFTA01728158 p.14 (Bates-stamped EFTA01728171). The same sheet records that he had been Epstein’s pilot from July 1991 and that Larry Visoski took the chief pilot’s post in January 2005. ↩ ↩2

  12. “EPSTEIN’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING THE DEPOSITIONS OF [Lawrence] VISOSKI AND DAVID HART ROGERS”, clerk-stamped “2009 OCT 13 PM 4:35”. EFTA02761680 pp.20–21, read at the image; docket entry 153 at EFTA00205442 p.7. ⚠⚠ ENCLOSURE TRAP, AND A BAD ONE. EFTA02761680 is a 68-page run and it is NOT the 2009 motion. It is Epstein v. Rothstein, Palm Beach County No. 50-2009CA040800, e-filed 21 November 2017: “PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN’S APPENDIX OF DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF HIS REVISED OMNIBUS MOTION IN LIMINE”, PART 2. The 2009 material is exhibit matter inside it: different case, different year, different court file, eight years apart. Cite the pages, never the run. ⚠ Three further cautions, all kept in the body: it is a motion and not an order, and no docketed order resolving entry 153 was found, which is NOT the same as no order having been entered, because a docket sheet does not caption every order with its motion; the copy carries a “NOT A CERTIFIED COPY” watermark; and the signature block bears an ink mark on the rule plus a handwritten “for” interlineated against a second name, so which of the two lawyers signed cannot be resolved from the mark and is not asserted. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  13. Giuffre v. Maxwell, S.D.N.Y. No. 15-cv-07433, deposition of 3 June 2016, in the release in excerpt; cover page at EFTA02784905 p.36, read at the image. Bruce Reinhart appeared for the witness, on the record at p.40. ⚠⚠ The excerpt is passenger-identification material. This page cites it only for the fact of the deposition and for who appeared, and quotes nothing from its substance. ↩

  14. Rule 45 subpoena and notice of videotaped deposition for 19 November 2018, in 17 Civ. 00616 (JGK) (S.D.N.Y.), notice dated 25 October 2018, signed /s/ Sigrid McCawley. EFTA00806754 pp.1–3, from the searchable text. ⚠ Whether the deposition went ahead is NOT ESTABLISHABLE: no transcript is in the release, and on that date he was e-mailing Epstein about flight times (EFTA02614116, EFTA02614717). The page asserts only that it was noticed. ↩

  15. Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A., invoice no. 240 of 2 November 2009, “Regarding: Epstein, Jeffrey”, billed to Jack Goldberger of Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, Epstein’s Florida criminal defence counsel. EFTA01111305 p.2, read at the image: the ledger bills “10/10 Deposition prep with David Rogers”, “10/12 Meeting with Dave Rodgers and Bob Critton” and “10/13 David Rodgers deposition and follow up” 4.33 hr. Both spellings of his surname appear within those four pages, which is the clearest single demonstration that they are one man. He is also named among Reinhart’s pilot clients in Paul Cassell’s letter of 5 August 2015, EFTA00068228 p.1. ↩

  16. The three steps, in order. Kahn to Epstein, 3 March 2019, 6:32 a.m., setting out the arrangement and quoting Rodgers’ own new-year note. Epstein’s reply, 3 March 2019, 11:37 a.m., EFTA02632771 p.1, read at the image: the quoted line is the entire body of the message. The pay change is from EFTA00159180 p.17, read at the image; ⚠ the day rate in that sentence is covered by a solid producer bar on the sheet and nothing is supplied for it. ⚠ This page sets the three out as a sequence and does not gloss the word “scheme” or assert what Epstein meant by it. ↩ ↩2

  17. FBI FD-302, interview of 6 July 2019 aboard Epstein’s aircraft at Teterboro, New Jersey. EFTA00159177 p.1, run length 1 page, read at the image. He declined to answer questions without counsel and was served with a grand jury subpoena at the conclusion of the interview. 6 July 2019 is the day Epstein was arrested at Teterboro; Bill Hammond was interviewed and served the same day on the same aircraft. ↩

  18. All from the interview of 7 February 2020, EFTA00159180, read at the image: the logbook and the FBI’s 2006 seizure at p.15; the manifests handed to an Epstein attorney at p.4, where the attorney is named as Jack Goldberger and the date given as “in or around 2006”, corroborated at RECAP transcript p.114; the “AP” correction and his account of always writing Prince Andrew’s name in full at pp.1 and 16; and his inability to obtain his own 2016 deposition transcript, and his belief that it had been transcribed incorrectly, at p.16. ⚠ What he says he stopped recording is a statement of his own practice, reported at his tier. This page draws no conclusion about what any logbook does or does not contain. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  19. EFTA02632751 p.1, read at the image. The sheet is headed “Re: Dave Rodgers” and the message it replies to is Epstein asking “and larrrys salary ? plus all in?”, so the four lines answer a question about Larry Visoski and the subject line is stale, carried down a thread. ⚠ This footnote exists to stop the error being made again: a writer working from search snippets would have put a $150,000 loan and a $25,000 bonus-as-loan on this page. The figures are not reproduced here as his and are not reproduced on any other page as anyone’s without a fresh image read. This is at least the fourth instance this week of a stale subject line misattributing a document’s content, and it belongs in the desk’s trap notes. ↩

Backlinks