Epstein Data Wiki

Ian Osborne

Properties2
tagsperson, london, guernsey, investment-vehicle, epstein-finances, virgin-islands
aliasesIan Osborne, I.W. Osborne

46 min read

How these documents describe himA director. A draft Guernsey investment letter states that the company it is addressed to “will be owned and managed by Ian Osborne and Jacob Burda (the ‘Directors’) as a 50/50 joint venture company”; a signature page of a California stock purchase agreement carries his manuscript signature over the printed lines “Name: Ian Osborne / Title: Director” for Hedosophia Alpha Limited12
The office he asked for, and gotOn 3 May 2012 he wrote to Jeffrey Epstein: “if you can make me an officer of the company so that I am the signatory”. Six days later the board of Mort, Inc., a United States Virgin Islands company, resolved by unanimous written consent “that Ian Osborne be, and he hereby is, elected as a Vice President of the Corporation”34
What that office carriedA letter of the same date on Mort, Inc.’s own paper, signed by Jeffrey Epstein as President, tells him “in that capacity you are an authorized signatory for approved transactions of Mort, including any approved transactions entered into by Mort with, and/or relating to Mort’s investment in, AliphCom, a California corporation”5
His own companyI.W. Osborne (BVI) Limited, which he gives as “My entity details” in his own message; a Hong Kong company, I.W.Osborne (HK) Limited, is the named first party to a draft joint venture letter over Hedosophia36
The sum he is said to have investedNo document read for this page states one. Every version of the investment letter in the release prints the investment amount as a bracketed placeholder, “US$[•] million”78

Ian Osborne appears in the released Epstein files as the man who signed for one purchaser of a San Francisco consumer-electronics company’s preferred stock while holding office in another purchaser named on the same schedule. In 2012 a Guernsey company he is named as owning and managing half of, Hedosophia Alpha Limited, and a United States Virgin Islands company whose three directors were Jeffrey Epstein, Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn, Mort, Inc., were entered as purchasers on one and the same Exhibit A, that instrument’s schedule of purchasers.94 Hedosophia Alpha stands under a closing headed 29 May 2012 and Mort, Inc. under one headed June 2012 whose day is left blank, each against an identical 695,301 shares.1011 They are two names on one side of that transaction, not parties on opposite sides of it. He signed the first company’s signature page as its Director. He was, by then, a Vice President and authorised signatory of the second.245

That is what the instruments record. What they do not record is money. The fund he and Jacob Burda were setting up is in the release as a run of drafts, and in every one of them the amount an investor would transfer is a placeholder in square brackets. Nothing read for this page shows Jeffrey Epstein, or anyone else, putting a sum into Hedosophia; and nothing read for this page records the closing of Mort, Inc.’s own purchase as having happened on a stated date. This page sets out what was proposed, by whom and on what terms, and is careful throughout to say what the record does not say. Nothing here is a finding of wrongdoing by any person or company named on it.

The two pages of this wiki that already name him, David Blaine and Paul Hoffman, use him only as a social correspondent. This page is about the commercial file.

January 2012: the plan, and the name

The earliest document read for this page is an exchange of 3 January 2012, in which the venture is still being named. Osborne wrote to Epstein under the subject “Re: Updated plan”:12

That’s fine. I’m sending the same client agreement and information to Darren that we discussed in Paris back in November.

I will forward you Solina’s comments shortly, for your advice on what to incorporate and what to resist. I will also email you with the lawyers at Slaughter and May, who will send the investment papers. As for the name, which is ultimately a minor point, Jacob is rather attached to “hedosophia” which I actually like. It just merges the Greek works for “pleasure” and “wisdom”.

We prefer this to the blander “partnership 53” because we want to establish a brand in elite circles, one that we can use for as a platform for some other things that we have been contemplating. I trust you will be ok on this point. Many thanks.

Quoted beneath it on the same sheet, and therefore written earlier, is the message he was answering: “do not begin any work,, until everything is reviewed,, in addition i am waiting for the investment papers. for artnership 53”.12 The sheet attributes that message to Jeffrey Epstein by name. Later the same evening Epstein returned to the point, writing “i don’t care about the name,, there are many things to think about names are not one of them”, and Osborne closed it: “Agreed – it is the least important. Onwards.”1314

Three things in that exchange are worth carrying. The London firm Slaughter and May is named as the source of the investment papers, and the subscription drafts in the release carry its name on their covers.15 “Darren” recurs through the file as Darren Indyke, who acts on the Epstein side of the transaction a year later.16 And the working name of the vehicle, before Hedosophia, was “partnership 53”.12

The investment letter, and the number that is not in it

The document at the centre of this file is an INVESTMENT LETTER addressed to Hedosophia Alpha Limited at a registered office in St Peter Port, Guernsey. It exists in the release in at least five datings: 12 January 2012, 2 February 2012, 7 February 2012, and a clean and a marked-up version both dated 13 March 2012. Each carries a solicitors’ draft reference in its header.8

None of them is executed and none of them names a sum. The 7 February version reads, in the paragraph that would carry the money:7

Investment amount: The Investor will transfer to the Company US$[•] million in immediately available cleared funds, on the date of signature of this document, into the bank account of the Company with ABN Amro (Guernsey) Limited […] as notified to the Investor.

We anticipate the Company will enter into investment letters with up to [five] other investors (“Investors”) over the next 30 days such that the Company will have funds for investment of between US$50 and 80 million.

The square brackets are on the sheet. So are the brackets around “[five]” and around the date “[31 December] 2012” by which uninvested funds were to be returned.7 The second sheet ends in a blank signature form: dotted rules against “From:”, “(Investor’s full name in block capitals)”, “By: Authorised signatory”, “Address:”, “Email:”, and, on the other side of the sheet, “Agreed: / Hedosophia Alpha Limited / By: … / Director” over “Date: … 2012”.1 Not one of those rules is filled in, and the third and last sheet is blank but for its page number and footer.117

This is the point on which the whole file turns. A draft records what was offered, not what happened. The letter establishes the terms proposed to a prospective investor: money into a named Guernsey bank on signature; funds to be put into “the equity securities of privately-held consumer internet companies”; repayment of capital first and thereafter a 70/30 split of distributions and sale proceeds in the investors’ favour; a termination date of 28 February 2017; audited annual accounts and quarterly letters; the loan unsecured, non-voting and repayable only out of what the company itself received; English law and the English courts.71 It also carries one prohibition that has nothing to do with the mechanics: “No gambling or alcohol related investments may be made by the Company.” It stands as plain text inside the “Investment proposition” paragraph; the sheet gives it no emphasis of its own.7

What it does not establish is that anybody invested anything, or how much. A page that took a figure from this document would be inventing it.

Two of the terms name the men. The clause headed “Restrictions on investments by Directors” states that the company “will be owned and managed by Ian Osborne and Jacob Burda (the ‘Directors’) as a 50/50 joint venture company”, and bars either of them, or any entity connected with him, from making an investment except through the company, subject to exceptions for passive stakes in other internet funds and for “share-based remuneration received for advisory or consultancy services”.1 The clause on death or incapacity provides that if both directors die or are certified incapable, the company’s administrator will appoint replacements to wind the investments out.71

Alongside the investment letter the release holds a draft JOINT VENTURE LETTER between the two directors’ own vehicles. In its January 2012 form the second party is a placeholder, “[Jacob Burda Investment Vehicle]”; by the February form it has been filled in as Argosophia GmbH of Munich, and the first party is I.W.Osborne (HK) Limited of Hong Kong.186 Its own date is a placeholder too, ”[•] February 2012”. It sets out what happens on a death, an incapacity or a deadlock, and gives Osborne’s Hong Kong company a call option over the shares it does not own.6

A critique of the drafts, sent to “Ian”

One document in the release attacks those drafts line by line. It is six sheets, and it opens with a bold, underlined block in the informal register that runs through Epstein’s messages in this file:19

Ian , sorry I was in meetings all day,, I drafted the following , excuse the numbers and typos .. we should talk about my conversation today,, regarding conflicts. Sloppy docs. And jonathan view that you want to invest in two passive entities and may also be contemplatin g a share based fee , from some of the investor cos/

Beneath it stand two numbered lists in careful legal prose, one on the Investment Letter and one on the Joint Venture Letter, each running to a point 17 with several numbers skipped, and with short interjections in the covering note’s register scattered through them (“This makes no sense,, too many conflicts”; “Too many conflicts”; “should simply state that ian can buy Jacobs interest”; “Potentially chaotic”).19 The sheet carries no From, To or Date field, and this page therefore does not say who wrote the numbered points; it says only that the covering block is addressed to Ian and asserts authorship of what follows.

The substance is worth setting out because it is the sharpest reading of the scheme in the release. The sheet does not say who wrote the numbered points; they read as the work of someone on the investor’s side of the table, and this page puts that no higher than a reading:19

  • On form: “As a general matter, the form of the draft Investment Letter is sloppy. Paragraphs are not numbered.”
  • On who is actually signing: the letter “is purportedly from an investor. However, it is signed by Ian Osborne for his company and ‘accepted’ by Jacob Burda for his company”, when it “should be addressed to HAL, signed by the investor and accepted by HAL (rather than Jacob’s or Ian’s company) through one or more Directors of HAL”.
  • On what the directors’ companies were bringing: “I do not know if either of their companies are providing funds for the Internet related investments, or are just managing the money of others”.
  • On the fund size: “Is $50 MM a minimum aggregate investment amount? … will the money be held in Escrow until HAL raises the minimum? Who is holding the Escrow? By what date must the minimum be raised? Will there be a closing? What will be the closing procedures?”
  • On whether the letter proves payment at all: “This draft Investment Letter appears to be just an agreement by an investor to invest and does not appear to be a document evidencing payment of the investment or acceptance of the payment.”
  • On the carve-outs: an exception letting the directors take “share-based compensation from Internet companies for advisory or consultancy services” is of little comfort, because “An outside investment deal could easily be structured as a consultancy to avoid violating the Restriction on Investments.”

That fifth point is the same conclusion this page reaches from the sheets themselves, reached in 2012 by someone reading the same paper.

Two details in the critique do not match any draft identified here. It describes a letter that has already been signed by Osborne’s company and accepted by Burda’s, where every version located for this page carries an empty signature form; and its point 7 quotes a final investment date of “January 31, 2013”, where the versions located here read “[31 December] 2012”.1978 So the critique is written on a draft that this page has not identified, and no reader should assume it is the one quoted above.

The subscription agreement, with its investors in brackets

A second instrument was drafted in parallel. Its cover reads “DRAFT”, a solicitors’ reference and “5 January 2012”, then “DATED” and “2012” on one line with the space between them left blank and no leaders printed in it, then the parties, “[HEDOSOPHIA INVESTMENTS] LIMITED / AND / THE SUBSCRIBERS / AND / [HEDOSOPHIA HOLDING] LIMITED”, over the title SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT and the name of Slaughter and May.15 Its parties clause, three sheets in, is the most revealing page in the file, because the subscribers are still descriptions rather than names:20

(2) I.W.OSBORNE (HK) LIMITED […]; (3) [Jacob Burda’s investment vehicle;] (4) [Kuok family investment vehicle;] (5) [Investment vehicle on behalf of US investor;] (6) [Canadian Foundation for Mr Li]

A drafting note is set into the text beneath, in bold italic and inside its own square brackets: “[Note: we require, for each Subscriber, the names (including registered office, registered number and jurisdiction of incorporation) for the investment vehicles who will hold the PPS]”.20 The company names remained blank on this copy; so did the two Guernsey companies’ registered numbers and offices, each of which is a bracketed placeholder on the same sheet; so did the price per share in the form of deed of adherence at the back, “at US$[•] per PPS”.2021

One of those bracketed lines can be tied to a message. On 29 March 2012 Epstein wrote to Osborne, in a message of one line: “kwok. ? what does this do hedosophia?” Osborne answered later that night: “Different family. Ours are Kuoks not Kwoks.” Epstein’s reply, thirty-four minutes after that, was two words: “good news”.222324 Which family, and whether any of the five bracketed subscribers ever subscribed, is not established by any document read for this page.

May 2012: the office, and the signature

On 3 May 2012 the subject changed from a Guernsey fund to a specific American company. Osborne wrote to Epstein under the subject “Jawbone documents”:3

Jeffrey, Please find attached the Jawbone principal financing documents.

It looks like $20 million will indeed be possible if we move fast but a minimum of $15 million in any event. I will explain the background by phone.

Assuming you are ok to proceed, please could you or your attorney send information on the proposed entity as per our discussions. Also, if you can make me an officer of the company so that I am the signatory - because the board have approved any entity connected with me to invest at the time of the last closing - December 7th, 2011.

If your people can draft me the simplest 1 page document conceivable for our arrangement. My entity details are

I.W. Osborne (BVI) Limited

Epstein’s reply was about something else: “you shoul ask hussain if he would like gates as an investor. ? no kidding,”. Osborne’s answer to that carries his own account of the pricing: “He meets Gates once a year - and is doing so in 3 weeks. I suspect he’d like that but also rather have BG come in at the higher valuation - this special price is for us, which the board approved last December.”253

Six days later the office was created. On 9 May 2012 the three directors of Mort, Inc., being Jeffrey Epstein, Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn, signed a Unanimous Written Consent, each in blue ink over his printed name and the word “Director”, resolving “that Ian Osborne be, and he hereby is, elected as a Vice President of the Corporation”.4 A covering letter of the same date, on Mort, Inc.’s own printed paper and signed by Epstein as President, told Osborne what the office was for: “in that capacity you are an authorized signatory for approved transactions of Mort, including any approved transactions entered into by Mort with, and/or relating to Mort’s investment in, AliphCom, a California corporation.”5

The documents use two names for one company. The instruments are headed ALIPHCOM, “a California corporation”; the messages about them are headed “Jawbone documents” and “Jawbone/Mort”, and Osborne and Epstein call it Jawbone throughout.26316 The instrument they were joining was its SERIES 5 PREFERRED STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT, dated 16 June 2011, whose initial closing had been taken by two J.P. Morgan funds for an aggregate $39,999,999.05 at $7.19113 per share.269

Osborne signed for the Guernsey purchaser. The signature page reads, above his manuscript signature: “IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this SERIES 5 PREFERRED STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT dated June 16, 2011 at a Subsequent Closing held on May 15, 2012. / PURCHASER: / HEDOSOPHIA ALPHA LIMITED / By: [signature] / Name: Ian Osborne / Title: Director.”2

Three things on the schedules that do not line up

The signature pages and the schedule of purchasers were read at the image for this page, and three details on them are worth recording exactly.

First, the closing dates on the two signature pages differ. The sheet immediately before Osborne’s is the company’s own, signed by Hosain Rahman as Chief Executive Officer, and on that sheet the day is written in by hand: “at a Subsequent Closing held on May 29, 2012”.27 Osborne’s sheet carries a printed “May 15, 2012” and no correction.2 The schedule of purchasers heads Hedosophia Alpha’s entry “SUBSEQUENT CLOSING / MAY 29, 2012”.10 Two of the three say the 29th; the purchaser’s own page says the 15th.

Second, the schedule states a figure for Hedosophia Alpha and a defective one for Mort. Under the May 29 heading, Hedosophia Alpha Limited is entered against 695,301 shares at an aggregate purchase price of $4,999,999.89, with the same figure repeated as the total.10 The next sheet is headed “SUBSEQUENT CLOSING / JUNE __, 2012”, with the day left blank, and enters Mort, Inc. against the same 695,301 shares, at an aggregate purchase price printed as $4,499,999.89, above a total printed as $4,999,999.89.11 The line and the total beneath it differ by half a million dollars. That is not an artefact of the text layer: both figures were read at the image. 695,301 shares at the agreement’s stated price of $7.19113 comes to $4,999,999.88, a cent below the larger of the two printed figures and half a million above the smaller.1126 This page reports the discrepancy and does not resolve it.

Third, one entry on the same schedule was never filled in at all. The December 2011 closing lists “Apoletto Limited” against 69,530 shares, and where the other purchasers carry a street address, Apoletto carries the word “[address]” in square brackets.9

August and September 2012: closing it out

Through the late summer the Epstein side pressed for changes to AliphCom’s investor documents, and Osborne carried the traffic. The counterparty’s account of the state of play reached Epstein through him. On 30 August 2012 Osborne forwarded a message from Craig Jacoby, addressed to himself and to Rahman and written throughout on the company’s side, with a covering line: “Jeffrey - here is the explanation as discussed last night. Would you mind conveying your instruction about dropping any changes that require other shareholder consents to Darren?”28

Jacoby’s message describes the difficulty in terms: “we have been trying to figure out how to satisfy the comments and requests made by Mort without having to recirculate the investment agreements in place with Jawbone’s other investors”, and offers to have the company make its representations afresh at a new closing so that “Mort obtains the same deal that JP Morgan received”.28 The paragraph that matters most for this page is the one about status:28

Given the affiliation between Mort, Hedosophia and Apoletto and their aggregate share purchases, Jawbone is comfortable agreeing to a side letter in which it would agree to treat all three of those investors as “Major Investors” … so long as their collective holdings of preferred and common stock was at least equal to 2,000,000 shares.

That is an assertion of affiliation between the three, made on the company’s side of the negotiation, in a message Osborne forwarded. Epstein’s whole reply to Osborne was: “yes , of course. what is apoletto.???”28 On 21 September the same name came back the other way. Epstein wrote overnight, “im in ny , can you call, darren is asking about some letter from apoletto.. I know nothing about it.? ?”, and Osborne answered later that morning:29

In London - I missed this last night but let’s talk this morning about UN week stuff.

No letter is needed for Apoletto - I had misestimated the share numbers required for Major Investor status; Mort and Hedosophia more than qualify between them, so that letter is now fully executed. Everything is done.

A message dated 18 August 2012 in Epstein’s file gives the position on participation: “Both Mort and Hedosophia are participating in this closing, so we are going to leave in place the references to multiple purchasers.”30 That sheet’s own header gives Jeffrey Epstein as sender and Hosain Rahman as recipient, while the body is written in the voice of the company’s side: it speaks of bringing a point “back to Aliph” and of “your client”, and it carries no forwarding rule or quoted-message header. This page reports what the sheet prints and does not resolve its authorship.

Two executed instruments bracket that traffic, and the outside date in them moves. An Amendment to Sixth Amended and Restated Investor Rights Agreement, “made as of August __, 2012” with the day left blank, extends the definition of registrable securities to “(e) any Common Stock purchased by Hedosophia Alpha Limited on or before May 29, 2012, (f) any Common Stock purchased by Mort, Inc. on or before August 31, 2012”.31 A second, executed through DocuSign and dated in manuscript “as of September 25, 2012”, repeats the clause with Mort’s date moved to 30 September 2012, and adds a waiver by the existing investors of their notice rights and right of first refusal over a sale it describes in full: “the Company intends to sell up to an aggregate of 695,301 shares of the Company’s Series 5 Preferred Stock at a price of $7.19113 per share and 1,260,233 shares of the Company’s Common Stock at a price of $3.96752 per share, to Mort, Inc.”32

Both are drafted in the future and the conditional: “has or intends to issue”, “intends to sell up to”, “purchased or to be purchased”.3132 Neither says the money arrived.

A later exchange, February 2013

The correspondence continues past the transaction. On 5 February 2013 Osborne replied to a message from Epstein’s account:33

I know. Thanks. I’ve held off from joining the EBX board for precisely that reason (of what you and one or two others have cautioned).

The nomination papers have been on my desk since November…

Look forward to discussing further.

The message he was answering is quoted below his reply, indented, and the sheet does not print a sender’s name against it. It reads: “I gave you a heads up about eike tax sit, last year next is more difficult. careful”.33 Neither sheet says what EBX is. An itinerary Osborne sent Epstein five months earlier has him going to “St. Petersburg and Moscow with Eike”, and the quoted line names “eike”; this page does not go beyond that.3433 Whether he ever joined that board is not established by any document read for this page.

What these documents do not show

  • They do not show a sum invested in Hedosophia by anyone. Every version of the investment letter located in the release prints “US$[•] million”; the signature form on every one of them is blank; and searches described below located no executed investment letter, no subscription completed by a named subscriber, and no bank instruction, wire advice or receipt referring to Hedosophia.
  • They do not record Mort, Inc.’s purchase as having closed on a date. The schedule sheet for it is headed “JUNE __, 2012” with the day blank; the two amendments push its outside date from 31 August to 30 September 2012; and both are drafted in the conditional. No stock certificate, ledger entry or payment record for that purchase was located.
  • They do not reconcile that schedule entry with what Mort, Inc. told its own regulator. The financial statement Mort, Inc. filed for the year ended 31 December 2012 shows TOTAL ASSETS of $1,000 and closes “NO ACTIVITY for the Year Ended December 31, 2012”.35 It sits in a run of the company’s filings to the Office of the Lieutenant Governor of the United States Virgin Islands, Division of Corporations and Trademarks; the company’s franchise tax report to that office for the same year stands on the sheet immediately before it.36 That filing and the AliphCom schedule are both in the release; nothing read for this page reconciles them, and this page does not assert that either is wrong. The filing is set out in full on The seven no-activity filings.
  • They do not settle who wrote the six-sheet critique of the drafts. The sheet carries no sender, recipient or date field, and this page attributes only the covering block, which asserts its own authorship without naming an author.
  • They do not settle the authorship of the message of 18 August 2012, whose header and whose voice disagree.
  • They do not name the five bracketed subscribers to the subscription agreement, or state that any of them subscribed.
  • They do not show what Hedosophia Alpha Limited did after 2012, or whether the 70/30 arrangement in the draft letters was ever put into effect.
  • Nothing on this page is a finding of wrongdoing by any person or company named on it.

How this page was searched

The full-text index of the release was queried by phrase through its FTS5 tables, never by scan, on 9–10 September 2026, with no limit applied to any count. "Hedosophia" returns 89 pages across 59 documents; "Hedosophia Alpha" 49 across 32; "I.W.Osborne" 26 across 15; "Argosophia" 8 across 4; "Apoletto" 28 across 23; "695,301" 42 across 32; "4,999,999.89" 7 across 4. "Hedosophia" together with "wire" returns nothing.

"Ian Osborne" returns 4,175 pages across 4,049 documents, which is a count of a routine correspondent line rather than of a subject, and nothing on this page is built on it. "Osborne" alone also reaches a different person, Lucy Osborne, a Guardian reporter cited on David Copperfield, and the two are not conflated here.

One caution about phrase searching in this release is worth recording, because it was met on this page. The same message survives in two scans of differing quality: "the simplest 1 page document conceivable" returns one document, because the second scan reads the digit as a capital I. Any phrase count here is a count of what survived optical character recognition.

See also

Notes

Footnotes

  1. Same document, sheet 2. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01107049 p.2. Read from the page image by the writer at 2026-09-09T23:58Z. This is the sheet that carries the “Restrictions on investments by Directors” clause naming Ian Osborne and Jacob Burda, and the signature form. Every rule in that form is a row of dots with nothing written on it: the form is unexecuted, not redacted. This is a correction to the commission that scoped this page, which placed Osborne’s signature on sheet 1 of this document; he does not sign this document at all, and his name appears on it only inside the clause on sheet 2. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  2. Same instrument, the purchaser’s signature page, sheet 29 of 33. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00286999 p.29. Read from the page image by the writer at 2026-09-09T23:59Z, at 400 dpi. The rule after “By:” is not empty and is not redacted: it carries a manuscript signature in ink reading as the name printed beneath it. The text layer of this sheet prints “By:” followed by nothing, which is an artefact of extraction and not a feature of the sheet. The identical page in the second copy of the instrument, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01120938 p.29, was rendered separately and read at 2026-09-10T00:00Z; it is the same scan. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  3. Ian Osborne to Jeffrey Epstein, “Re: Jawbone documents,” 3 May 2012, three sheets, top-of-message field “Sent: Thur 5/3/2012 1:38:02 PM”; the passage quoted in the body is Osborne’s own message of the same morning, quoted on the same sheet as “On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 8:12 AM”. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01882863 p.1. Read from the page image by the writer at 2026-09-10T00:03Z. Osborne’s address in that quoted line is blacked out on the image, and an address block beneath the words “I.W. Osborne (BVI) Limited” is blacked out as well; neither is supplied here. A second copy of the same chain, carrying Epstein’s message at the head, is at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01882783 p.1. Email addresses appear on this sheet and are not reproduced here. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  4. UNANIMOUS WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF MORT, INC., “Dated as of May 9, 2012”, the second sheet of a two-sheet document. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01118760 p.2. Read from the page image by the writer at 2026-09-10T00:03Z. Three manuscript signatures in blue ink stand on the three rules, over the printed names “Jeffrey Epstein, Director”, “Darren Indyke, Director” and “Richard Kahn, Director”. The resolution is quoted in the body in the words the image prints. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  5. Mort, Inc. to Ian Osborne at I.W. Osborne (BVI) Limited, 9 May 2012, “Re: Mort, Inc. Transaction with AliphCom, a California corporation”, the first sheet of the same two-sheet document. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01118760 p.1. Read from the page image by the writer at 2026-09-10T00:03Z. It is signed in blue ink over the printed line “Jeffrey Epstein / President”. Two further copies of the letter without the consent attached are at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01110734 p.1 and https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01176724 p.1. The letter prints the company’s own business address and the addressee company’s registered postal address; neither is reproduced here. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  6. JOINT VENTURE LETTER, header “DRAFT: 02.02.2012 CMH/JJXC”, dated ”[•] February 2012”, two sheets, from I.W.Osborne (HK) Limited of Hong Kong to Argosophia GmbH of Munich. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00660777 p.1. Read from the page image by the writer at 2026-09-10T00:20Z. Business addresses and company registration numbers appear on this sheet and are not reproduced here. The call option is on the second sheet, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00660777 p.2, read from the page image at 2026-09-10T01:00Z: on a deadlock, “Argosophia GmbH agrees to grant I.W.Osborne (HK) Limited (and any subsequent transferee of all ordinary shares in the Company held by it) a right to purchase (the ‘call option’) all ordinary shares not owned by it at a price per ordinary share calculated in accordance with paragraph 3(C) below”. The same sheet carries the signature form, and both rules on it are rows of dots with nothing written on them: this letter, like the investment letter, is unexecuted. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  7. INVESTMENT LETTER to Hedosophia Alpha Limited, header “Draft 07.02.2012 CMH/DHBG”, three sheets, sheet 1. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01107049 p.1. Read from the page image by the writer at 2026-09-09T23:58Z. The bracketed placeholders quoted here — “US$[•] million”, “[five]”, “[31 December] 2012” — are printed on the image as square brackets and were checked there, because the text layer of this sheet renders the first of them as “USS[•]”. The banking paragraph names ABN Amro (Guernsey) Limited and gives that bank’s own postal address; the address is elided in the quotation above and no account number appears anywhere on the sheet. The footer line, which is a solicitors’ document-management reference and not an account number, is misread by the text layer and reads, at the image, “222756/10076 CD 510774411 21 CMH 070212:1852”. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7

  8. The other versions of the same instrument located in the release, each read in the text layer only and not at the image except where separately noted: header “Draft 12.01.2012 CMH/JJXC” at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01107052 p.1, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00589296 p.1 and https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00708838 p.1; “Draft 02.02.2012 CMH/JJXC” at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01107047 p.1; a further copy of the 7 February text at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01842514 p.1; a clean version dated 13 March 2012 at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01107054 p.1 and https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00586567 p.1; and a marked-up comparison of the 7 February and 13 March texts at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00586272 p.1, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00586569 p.1, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00586573 p.1 and https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01849248 p.1. In every one of them the investment amount is a bracketed placeholder and the number of further investors is “[five]”. The marked-up versions add, among other changes, a bankruptcy trigger referring to the courts of England, Hong Kong or Germany. Because these were read in the text layer and not at the image, no quotation is taken from them here. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  9. Same instrument, Exhibit A, Schedule of Purchasers, sheet 31 of 33, covering the initial closing of 16 June 2011 and the subsequent closing of 7 December 2011. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00286999 p.31. Read from the page image by the writer at 2026-09-09T23:59Z, at 400 dpi, and again at 2026-09-10T00:56Z. The headings “EXHIBIT A” and “SCHEDULE OF PURCHASERS” stand at the top of this sheet and govern the two sheets that follow it: the exhibit runs to the last sheet of the instrument and lists five closings, every entry on all three sheets under those two headings and in the same three columns. The word “[address]” beneath Apoletto Limited is printed in square brackets on the image; it is a drafting placeholder left in the executed schedule and not a redaction. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  10. Same instrument, Schedule of Purchasers, sheet 32 of 33, covering the subsequent closings of 15 December 2011 and 29 May 2012. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00286999 p.32. Read from the page image by the writer at 2026-09-09T23:59Z, at 400 dpi. The Hedosophia Alpha Limited entry gives 695,301 shares and an aggregate purchase price of $4,999,999.89, with the same figure as the total, and prints the company’s Guernsey registered office and its registry number; the number is not reproduced here. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  11. Same instrument, Schedule of Purchasers, sheet 33 of 33, the last, headed “SUBSEQUENT CLOSING / JUNE __, 2012” with the day blank. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00286999 p.33. Read from the page image by the writer at 2026-09-09T23:59Z, at 400 dpi. The discrepancy described in the body is on the sheet and not in the extraction: the Mort, Inc. line reads $4,499,999.89 and the total immediately beneath it reads $4,999,999.89, and both were read at the image. 695,301 multiplied by the $7.19113 per-share price at 26 is $4,999,999.88013, which is a cent below the printed total and is not equal to it. Rounding a cent up is what this exhibit does elsewhere: the J.P. Morgan Digital Growth Fund line at 9 prints $39,499,999.78 against a product of $39,499,999.77214, and the identical 695,301 shares are entered against $4,999,999.89 for Hedosophia Alpha at 10. So the price supports the larger of the two figures on this sheet and not the smaller; the body states the difference and does not resolve it. The sheet prints the company’s own business address. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  12. Ian Osborne to Jeffrey Epstein, “Re: Updated plan,” 3 January 2012, two sheets, top-of-message field “Sent: Tue 1/3/2012 10:27:19 PM”. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02026700 p.1. Read from the page image by the writer at 2026-09-10T00:00Z. Epstein’s message quoted beneath it is introduced on the sheet as “On 3 January 2012 22:12, Jeffrey Epstein … wrote”. A further quoted line lower on the sheet, “On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Ian Osborne … wrote”, has Osborne’s own address blacked out on the image; no withheld address is supplied here. On the zone of the top-of-message field, see 37. Email addresses appear on this sheet and are not reproduced here. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  13. Jeffrey Epstein to Ian Osborne, “Re: Updated plan,” 3 January 2012, three sheets, top-of-message field “Sent: Tue 1/3/2012 10:37:58 PM”. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01843639 p.1. Read from the page image by the writer at 2026-09-10T00:20Z. Osborne’s address in the To: line and in two quoted lines lower on the sheet is blacked out on the image and is not supplied here. This sheet also carries the whole 3 January chain, including Epstein’s earlier message quoted as “On 3 January 2012 22:12”. ↩

  14. Ian Osborne to Jeffrey Epstein, “Re: Updated plan,” 3 January 2012, three sheets, top-of-message field “Sent: Tue 1/3/2012 10:40:23 PM”: “Agreed – it is the least important. Onwards.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02031092 p.1. Read from the page image by the writer at 2026-09-10T00:20Z. The dash in that sentence is an en rule on the image and is given here as one. This sheet also carries the explicit header “Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 17:37:58 -0500” against the message at 13, and is the first half of the matched pair described in 37. Email addresses appear on this sheet and are not reproduced here. ↩

  15. Same document, the cover, sheet 1 of 16. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01122083 p.1. Read from the page image by the writer at 2026-09-10T00:13Z. The parties are given on the cover in the words quoted in the body, with “HOLDING” in the singular. Three lines of the firm’s address beneath its name are blacked out on the image of this copy and are not supplied here; the marked-up copy at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01116257 p.1, read in the text layer only and UNVERIFIED at the image, prints them. On the covers of that copy and of https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01122099 p.1, both read in the text layer only, the third party is set out in the plural, as HOLDINGS, where this copy reads HOLDING; in the parties clause three sheets later all three copies read the singular. ↩ ↩2

  16. Ian Osborne to Jeffrey Epstein, “Re: Jawbone/Mort,” four sheets, explicit header “Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 02:40:14 +0000”, quoting beneath it a message forwarded from Darren Indyke to Jeffrey Epstein of “Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 8:17 PM” enclosing a message from “Jacoby, Craig” to Darren Indyke. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00642177 p.1. Read from the page image by the writer at 2026-09-10T00:01Z and again at 2026-09-10T00:56Z. Not every address on this sheet is blacked out: four of the five are, on the image. None of them is supplied here. A further copy is at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00942703 p.1, read in the text layer only. ↩ ↩2

  17. Same document, sheet 3, the last. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01107049 p.3. Read from the page image by the writer at 2026-09-09T23:58Z. It carries the page number and the footer and nothing else; there is no redaction on it and no signature block continues onto it. ↩

  18. JOINT VENTURE LETTER, header “DRAFT: CMH/JJXC 12 January 2012”, three sheets. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00587383 p.1; further copies at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00589293 p.1 and https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00708835 p.1. Read in the text layer only; UNVERIFIED at the image. The second party is the placeholder “[Jacob Burda Investment Vehicle]”. ↩

  19. Untitled six-sheet memorandum of comments on the draft Investment Letter and Joint Venture Letter. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01842917 p.1. Sheet 1 read from the page image by the writer at 2026-09-10T00:00Z; sheets 2 to 5, at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01842917 pp.2-5, read from the page images by the writer at 2026-09-10T00:20Z; sheet 6, at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01842917 p.6, read in the text layer only and UNVERIFIED at the image, and nothing is quoted from it here. From the image of sheet 1: the covering block is bold and underlined, is addressed to “Ian” and not to “Jan” as the extraction renders it, and reads “Sloppy docs”, not “Sloppy dots”; the sheet carries no From, To, Subject or Date field. The quotations in the body from points 1, 2, 3 and 4 and the covering block are from that image. The quotation on the consultancy carve-out is from the image of sheet 2, and the interjections “This makes no sense,, too many conflicts” and “Too many conflicts” stand inline in the same face on that sheet, distinguished from the surrounding prose by register and not by typography; “should simply state that ian can buy Jacobs interest” is from the image of sheet 4, and “Potentially chaotic” is from the image of sheet 5, where it closes numbered point 10; that sheet was re-read at the image at 2026-09-10T01:00Z. Point 7, quoting a final investment date of “January 31, 2013”, is on the image of sheet 1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  20. SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT, sixteen sheets, the parties clause and recitals at sheet 3. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01122083 p.3. Read from the page image by the writer at 2026-09-10T00:13Z. The five subscriber descriptions at (2) to (6), the drafting note and the bracketed registered numbers and offices for the two Guernsey companies are all quoted from that image. An address block on this sheet is blacked out on the image and is not supplied here. Company registration numbers appear on this sheet and are not reproduced here. Two further copies of the same draft are at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01122099 p.3 and, as a marked-up comparison, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01116257 p.3, both read in the text layer only and UNVERIFIED at the image; in the text layer their parties clauses carry the same five subscriber descriptions. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  21. Same document, Schedule 2, “Form of Investor Deed of Adherence”, sheet 15. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01122083 p.15. Read from the page image by the writer at 2026-09-10T00:20Z. Recital (B) repeats the same five bracketed subscriber descriptions and gives the agreement’s own date as ”[•] 2012”; clause 1 gives the subscription price as “US$[•] per PPS”. ↩

  22. Jeffrey Epstein to Ian Osborne, 29 March 2012, explicit header “Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 22:07:02 +0000”: “kwok. ? what does this do hedosophia?” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00932122 p.1. Read from the page image by the writer at 2026-09-10T00:01Z and again at 2026-09-10T00:56Z. The recipient’s address is on this sheet and it is blacked out; it is not absent. The text layer prints the recipient’s name and stops, closing the gap the image shows, so which of those two things the producing party did is a fact only the image gives. Not every address on this sheet is blacked out: one of the two is. Neither is reproduced here. ↩

  23. Ian Osborne to Jeffrey Epstein, 29 March 2012, top-of-message field “Sent: Thur 3/29/2012 11:45:48 PM”: “Different family. Ours are Kuoks not Kwoks.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02002365 p.1. Read from the page image by the writer at 2026-09-10T00:20Z and again at 2026-09-10T00:56Z. This sheet carries no explicit header; its only clock field is the top-of-message “Sent:” line, read as UTC on the basis set out at 37 and corroborated at 24. Epstein’s address in the quoted line beneath is blacked out on the image and is not supplied here, and email addresses appear elsewhere on the sheet and are not reproduced here. The sender’s own address is not printed on this sheet at all: that field carries a name and no address, which is a different fact about the producing party from a blacked-out one. ↩

  24. Jeffrey Epstein to Ian Osborne, “Re:”, explicit header “Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 00:20:01 +0000”: “good news”. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00932126 p.1. Read from the page image by the writer at 2026-09-10T00:20Z and again at 2026-09-10T00:56Z. Not every address on this sheet is blacked out: two of the four are. None of them is reproduced here. The interval given in the body runs from Osborne’s reply at 23 to this message: from the top-of-message field “Thur 3/29/2012 11:45:48 PM”, read as UTC, to this sheet’s explicit header of 00:20:01 +0000 on 30 March — thirty-four minutes and thirteen seconds. Osborne’s reply carries no explicit header of its own; the messages either side of it do. That reading of his field is corroborated on this sheet, which quotes his message as “On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 7:45 PM”, four hours behind the field and the Eastern daylight offset for that date, and quotes Epstein’s earlier message, whose own explicit header at 22 reads 22:07:02 +0000, as “On Mar 29, 2012 11:07 PM”, one hour ahead of it and consistent with a London client on British summer time. Neither quoted line is used here as a clock time. The two explicit headers, at 22 and on this sheet, are two hours and thirteen minutes apart, and that is not the interval the body states. ↩ ↩2

  25. Same sheet, Osborne’s reply of 3 May 2012 at the head of the page and Epstein’s quoted message beneath it. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01882863 p.1. Read from the page image by the writer at 2026-09-10T00:03Z. The spelling “hussain” is as the sheet prints it; the chief executive’s name is spelled Hosain Rahman on the instruments. ↩

  26. ALIPHCOM, SERIES 5 PREFERRED STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT dated June 16, 2011, thirty-three sheets, recitals and clause 1.2 at sheet 2. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00286999 p.2. Read from the page image by the writer at 2026-09-10T00:20Z: clause 1.2 reads “at a purchase price of $7.19113 per share”, and the recitals give an authorised issue of 11,500,000 shares of Series 5 Preferred Stock. A second copy of the whole instrument is at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01120938. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  27. Same instrument, the company’s signature page, sheet 28 of 33 — the sheet immediately before 2, rendered because a claim about a signature block requires its neighbours. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00286999 p.28. Read from the page image by the writer at 2026-09-09T23:59Z, at 400 dpi, and the date field examined again in an enlargement of the same render. It carries a manuscript signature over “Print Name: HOSAIN RAHMAN / Title: CEO”, both written in by hand, and the company’s own business address in print. In the opening line the day of the subsequent closing is written in by hand as “29” where the purchaser’s sheet carries a printed “15,”. The sheet after the purchaser’s page, sheet 30, is a printed list of exhibits and carries no continuation of any signature block. ↩

  28. Jeffrey Epstein to Ian Osborne, “Re: Investment Update,” two sheets, explicit header “Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 23:03:30 +0000”, quoting Osborne’s message of the same day and, beneath it, a message forwarded from “Jacoby, Craig” dated “Aug 30, 2012 1:23 PM” to Hosain Rahman and Ian Osborne. The sender is given on the image only in that form; the second sheet, read in the text layer only and UNVERIFIED at the image, carries a signature block giving a fuller form of the name and the name of a San Francisco law firm, and this page does not state his firm from an unread sheet. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00942607 p.1. Read from the page image by the writer at 2026-09-10T00:01Z. Not every address on this sheet is blacked out: six of the seven are, on the image. None of them is supplied here. Epstein’s own text is the single line at the top; everything below the first quoted rule is Osborne’s covering line and Jacoby’s forwarded message, and the two quotations in the body are attributed accordingly. The message runs onto a second sheet at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00942607 p.2, read in the text layer only, which continues Jacoby’s account of the points the company preferred not to reopen; nothing is quoted from it here. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  29. Ian Osborne to Jeffrey Epstein, “Re:”, 21 September 2012, top-of-message field “Sent: Fri 9/21/2012 10:29:47 AM”, quoting Epstein’s message of the same night as “On 21 Sep 2012, at 03:12”. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01888366 p.1. Read from the page image by the writer at 2026-09-10T00:00Z. The same message with an explicit “+0000” header is at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00944187 p.1, read in the text layer only; the pair is the second of the two matched renderings described in 37. Email addresses appear on this sheet and are not reproduced here. ↩

  30. Message in Jeffrey Epstein’s file, top-of-message field “Sent: Sat 8/18/2012 6:48:15 PM”, header giving “To: Hosain Rahman” and “From: Jeffrey Epstein”. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01886058 p.1. Read from the page image by the writer at 2026-09-10T00:01Z. The recipient’s address is blacked out on the image and is not supplied here. The body is set in a different face from the standing footer, carries no forwarding rule and no quoted-message header, and is written in the first person of the company’s side — “I can bring that back to Aliph”, “your client”. This page quotes the sheet and does not resolve who wrote it. A copy with an explicit “Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 18:48:15 +0000” header is at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00941197 p.1, read in the text layer only, and carries the same header attribution and the same body. ↩

  31. ALIPHCOM, AMENDMENT TO SIXTH AMENDED AND RESTATED INVESTOR RIGHTS AGREEMENT, “made as of August __, 2012”, seven sheets, clause 1 at sheet 1. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00586277 p.1. Read from the page image by the writer at 2026-09-10T00:00Z. The day of the month is a blank rule on the image. The recitals read “the Company has or intends to issue Common Stock to certain entities which have or will become party to the Agreement”, and the amended definition is quoted in the body in the words the image prints. ↩ ↩2

  32. ALIPHCOM, AMENDMENT TO SIXTH AMENDED AND RESTATED INVESTOR RIGHTS AGREEMENT AND WAIVER OF NOTICE AND PARTICIPATION RIGHTS, eight sheets, executed through DocuSign. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00292207 p.1. Read from the page image by the writer at 2026-09-10T00:06Z, at 400 dpi and again in an enlargement: the date reads “made as of September 25, 2012” with the day written in by hand. The recital quoted in the body giving the share counts and the two prices is on the same sheet. Sheet 2, at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00292207 p.2, was read from the page image by the writer at 2026-09-10T00:20Z: the amended definition reads “(e) any Common Stock purchased by Hedosophia Alpha Limited on or before May 29, 2012 and (f) any Common Stock purchased by Mort, Inc. on or before September 30, 2012”. Sheets 3 to 8 were read in the text layer only and are UNVERIFIED at the image; from that reading the signature pages carry the company and a number of its existing investors, and neither Mort, Inc. nor Hedosophia Alpha Limited. ↩ ↩2

  33. Ian Osborne to Jeffrey Epstein, “Re:”, explicit header “Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2013 21:49:44 +0000”. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00639069 p.1. Read from the page image by the writer at 2026-09-10T00:00Z. Osborne’s own address in the From: line is blacked out on the image and is not supplied here. The message he is answering is set below his reply in an indented block with a rule down its left margin and carries no sender’s name on the sheet; this page therefore quotes it without attributing it. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  34. Same sheet, Osborne’s message of 6 September 2012 quoted on it as “On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 10:00 PM”: “I’m in Munich Saturday, then St. Petersburg and Moscow with Eike Sunday-Tuesday”. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00642177 p.1. Read from the page image by the writer at 2026-09-10T00:01Z. The same message carries the line “Hosain’s really keen to close this out by Monday… It would help me a lot if we can finish this for once and for all.” ↩

  35. Mort, Inc., balance sheet as of December 31, 2012 and statement of income and retained earnings for the year then ended, the thirty-fifth sheet of a thirty-six-sheet run of Virgin Islands corporate filings. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00313152 p.35. Read from the page image by the writer at 2026-09-10T00:01Z. It reads PROPERTY $1,000 over TOTAL ASSETS $1,000, and under the income heading the whole of the statement is the line “NO ACTIVITY for the Year Ended December 31, 2012”. A tax identification number is printed on this sheet and is not reproduced here. The run as a whole, and the six other companies in it, are set out on The seven no-activity filings. ↩

  36. Mort, Inc., franchise tax report for a tax closing date of 12/31/2012, the thirty-fourth sheet of the same thirty-six-sheet run of Virgin Islands corporate filings — the sheet immediately before 35. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00313152 p.34. Read from the page image by the writer at 2026-09-10T01:00Z. It is headed “OFFICE OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR” over “DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS AND TRADEMARKS”, gives the date of incorporation as 4/12/2011 and the nature of business as “Holding Assets”, and states tax due of $150.00. Neither of its two signature rules is signed: the SIGNATURE rule in the Treasurer block and the SIGNATURE rule in the President block are empty rules — no ink and no bar — and the names on the printed-name rules beneath them are printed type, not manuscript. The two DATE rules are empty as well. Examined in an enlargement of the same render. An employer identification number is printed on this sheet and is not reproduced here; the office’s own telephone and fax numbers are blacked out on the image. ↩

  37. How the clock on these sheets was read. The production renders times two ways and the position of the field tells them apart. A four-line To: / From: / Sent: / Subject: block at the head of a sheet carries no zone; an RFC-style head carries an explicit offset. The zone of the first class was established twice, from messages that appear in both renderings. (i) Epstein’s message of 3 January 2012 has a top-of-message field reading “Tue 1/3/2012 10:37:58 PM” on https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01843639 p.1 and is quoted on https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02031092 p.1 as “Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 17:37:58 -0500” — five hours to the second, which is the Eastern standard offset for that date, so the top-of-message field is UTC. (ii) Osborne’s message of 21 September 2012 has a top-of-message field reading “Fri 9/21/2012 10:29:47 AM” on https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01888366 p.1, read at the image, and the same message carries the header “Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 10:29:47 +0000” on https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00944187 p.1 — identical to the second, again UTC. Every clock time on this page is either an explicit +0000 header or a top-of-message field read as UTC on that basis. The one interval stated in the body runs between a top-of-message field and an explicit header, both UTC on that basis; 24 sets out both fields and the corroboration for the first of them. One caution. Times quoted inside message bodies follow whatever client wrote them and are not UTC: a message whose own top-of-message field reads 1:27:33 PM at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01882783 p.1 is quoted in the reply at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01882863 p.1 as “On 3 May 2012, at 14:27”, one hour ahead, which is British summer time and consistent with the writer’s stated location in London. No clock time on this page is taken from a quoted line. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

Backlinks