Epstein Data Wiki

Miles Alexander

Properties2
tagsperson, little-st-james, virgin-islands, epstein-staff, property-management, confidentiality-agreements
aliasesMiles Alexander, Miles S. Alexander, Alexander, Miles, M. Alexander

24 min read

⚠ Nothing in the released files alleges that Miles Alexander did anything to anyone

Every document in which his name appears alongside abuse-related vocabulary was read individually rather than counted. No document accuses him of any wrongdoing. One sentence in the release places him driving an airport pickup, and it is set out below. A widely searchable but false sentence does exist in the release’s machine-extracted text, and this page explains why it is false, because anyone repeating this research will meet it.

RoleProperty manager, or island manager, of Little St. James, Epstein’s Virgin Islands island, with Catherine (“Cathy”) Alexander1
PeriodCorpus documents place him there from at least 2001 to February 2007. The couple’s own account, given to a newspaper in 2011, is “eight years”12
The grant of authorityA letter of 30 November 2006 over Epstein’s wet-ink signature: Alexander “has full authority to act on my behalf in regard to Little St. James Island”3
In Epstein’s booksAt 31 December 2004 Epstein’s balance sheet carried 12258 · Miles Alexander 68,861 under Other Current Assets, an asset account. ⚠ On this record the books treated him as owing Epstein money, not the reverse, and no instrument behind the balance is in the release4
After he leftIn March 2011 he and his wife gave a newspaper interview. Within days Epstein’s London libel solicitor asked Epstein for “the Confidentiality Agreement signed by Kathy and Miles Alexander”, and Epstein replied “ok”5
2016 and 2019Approaches to him about Epstein were forwarded to Epstein’s own lawyers and then to Epstein personally, twice, five years apart. ⚠ An independent document says Epstein’s employees’ agreements required them to contact a named New York lawyer if approached67
2023Judge Jed S. Rakoff signed a Letter of Request on 23 January 2023 for his deposition in South Africa in the Virgin Islands’ action against JPMorgan8

Miles S. Alexander ran Little St. James for Jeffrey Epstein. He and his wife Catherine lived on the island and managed it, and his name is on the correspondence, the supply contracts and the bank mandates that kept it running. He is South African and returned there after the job ended.

He is not a public figure and no one accuses him of anything. This page exists for two reasons. The first is that he held, in writing and over Epstein’s signature, full authority to act on Epstein’s behalf for the island, which makes him one of a small number of people whose ordinary working documents show how the place was actually run. The second is what happened after he left: the release shows approaches to him about Epstein being routed back to Epstein’s lawyers and to Epstein himself, in 2016 and again in 2019, thirteen years after he stopped working there.

Who he is, and the one sentence that is not true

His role is not in doubt. It is printed, in those words, in documents of four different kinds: a letter Epstein signed, two FBI interviews of other Epstein staff, an FBI collection sheet, and his own correspondence, which he signs “Miles Alexander, LSJ” and “Miles S. Alexander, Manager”.1

⚠⚠ Now the sentence that is not true, because anybody searching this release will find it.

The machine-extracted text of one FBI memorandum reads: “Recent known recruiters include … Kathy and Miles Alexander”.

That sentence does not exist on the sheet. Read at the page image, the names following “Recent known recruiters include” are covered by five solid redaction bars. The Alexanders appear two paragraphs further down, as the first entry of a different list under a different heading, “Inner Circle of Jeffrey Epstein – Part I”, where they are described only as “(Former managers of Little St. James estate)”. The same memorandum’s next sheet closes that second list with “These are all people that may or may not cooperate”, and the same memorandum does make an explicit recruitment allegation about a different, named person.

The author of the memorandum drew the distinction. The text extraction destroyed it, by dropping the bars and the intervening heading and joining what was left into one readable sentence.9

Authority, and what he actually did

The grant of authority. On 30 November 2006, on LSJ, LLC letterhead and addressed to a shipping company, Epstein wrote:

I, Jeffrey E. Epstein, being the sole beneficial owner of Little St. James Island, hereby confirm that Mr. Miles Alexander is employed as the property manager of Little St. James Island and, in that capacity, he has full authority to act on my behalf in regard to Little St. James Island.

A blue wet-ink signature crosses the rule above the printed name. This is a signature, not a printed name on a blank rule, and the distinction is one this desk checks at the image every time.3

He made and communicated decisions in his own name. On 29 March 2004 he sent a marine supplier a fax over “Miles S. Alexander, Manager”:

Per our telephone conversation March 29th, we are canceling the order and installation for the Yamaha Z300AETOX and LZ300AETOX engines, and the MAR-GYT3B-V6-3 blades.

The same file carries a rubber stamp reading APPROVED / MAR 30 2004 / MILES ALEXANDER. ⚠ That stamp is invisible to search: a query for “APPROVED” near his name returns zero documents while the sheet sits open on the screen, because a rubber stamp does not survive text extraction.10

He corresponded with Ghislaine Maxwell about running the island: guest-bedroom drawings and dimensions “per request”, work schedules and pick lists, a boat purchase where he met the brokers and “they have agreed to reduce their commission”, and, in October 2004, a note that “Mr Epstein told Cathy and I to take a weeks break”.11 In March 2001 he reported a “lengthy conversation” with Epstein’s Virgin Islands counsel about which island workers were contractors and which were employees; that document is already set out on Paul Hoffman’s page and is not re-derived here.11

He was listed as an authorised signatory on two Epstein Virgin Islands company accounts, LCP Company LLC and Island Grounds Inc, alongside Epstein and Harry Beller. ⚠ That is a bank asserting a mandate, not a signature this desk has seen, and the page says “listed as” rather than “signed”.12

In Epstein’s books

At 31 December 2004, Epstein’s balance sheet carried:

12258 · Miles Alexander … 68,861

Three things about that figure, each of which a careless reading gets wrong.

It is a balance sheet, not a general ledger, and the account it sits in, 12200 · Loans & Exchanges, files under ASSETS → Current Assets → Other Current Assets, between “Due From Cr.Card” and “Due To/From Related Entities”. It is a receivable. Documented fact: on this record Epstein’s books carried him as owing Epstein money, not the other way round.4

The figure is sound and the arithmetic proves it. The whole account block on that sheet sums to exactly the printed total of 2,711,450; change any digit of 68,861 and the column stops closing.4

⚠ And a second, widely-copied figure attached to his name is wrong. A companion sheet appears to read “Miles Alexander (20,000)”. At the image his row carries a dash, meaning nil. The 20,000 belongs to the row beneath, whose name is barred. The same collapse mis-assigns two other figures on the same sheet. He had no movement on that account in 2004 at all, which means the balance predates the year.13

What the release does not contain: any note, loan agreement, repayment schedule or instrument behind the 68,861. The page states the balance and stops.4

Leaving, the interview, and the confidentiality agreement

In March 2011, some years after the job ended, Alexander and his wife gave an interview at their home in South Africa to a British newspaper, which described “the beginning of the end for Cathy and Miles Alexander’s eight years managing Jeffrey Epstein’s private Caribbean island”.2

On 17 March 2011, Epstein’s London libel solicitor wrote to Epstein about that article. Paul Tweed weighed “taking action on the grounds of breach of confidentiality/privacy … perhaps coupled with also hitting them on the core defamatory allegation”, and asked:

Perhaps therefore you could let me have a copy of the Confidentiality Agreement signed by Kathy and Miles Alexander in order that I can review this in conjunction with your common law and Article 8 rights.

Epstein’s reply, in full, is one word: “ok”.5

An inventory of Epstein’s own legal files carries, in a drawer marked PRESS COVERAGE, a folder labelled “Miles Alexander Libel”.5

⚠ Two limits the page keeps. The confidentiality agreement is not in the release: what is documented is that Epstein’s solicitor asked for a copy of it, which is a statement by someone with direct knowledge and not a document in hand. And no libel action against him appears anywhere in the release, and a labelled folder is not a claim filed.5

2016 and 2019: approaches, and where they went

⚠ This section has now been read at the page images. Its quotations are sound: nothing in it was invented by the text layer. But one figure in the first published version was wrong, and the reason it was wrong is itself a finding, set out below.6

18 May 2016. Brad Edwards, acting for an Epstein survivor who is not named here, wrote to “Dear Miles and Kathy Alexander” at their South African employer’s address, saying his client “needs your help”, that “we know that you have helpful information”, and that his client had told him that “of all the people who worked for Mr. Epstein you were the most likely to help”. ⚠ The substance of that letter concerns the survivor and is not reproduced, summarised or alluded to on this page.

Alexander forwarded it before dawn. Edwards’ letter is timed 7:42 p.m. on 17 May on the face of the sheet, ⚠ in a clock that prints no time zone. Alexander forwarded it on at 4:07 a.m. EDT on 18 May, with the line “Thought you may be interested in the email below”, and Darren Indyke, Epstein’s lawyer, had it in Epstein’s personal inbox at 12:44 UTC the same morning: four hours and thirty-seven minutes later, and inside a single calendar day of Edwards writing. Indyke forwarded it again eight days later, marked “Importance: High”. A reply in the chain reads: “Cathy and I have discussed your questions. At this stage we do not feel it is beneficial…”6

And in 2019 the traffic runs the other way first. At the foot of the same run, over Richard Kahn’s signature, is Kahn’s own message to Alexander of 4 April 2018: “hope you are well / would love to talk whenever you have time / i am usually at office 830am - 630pm every day..”. Epstein’s accountant had solicited the former island manager ten months before Alexander wrote back.6

25 January 2019. Richard Kahn forwarded Epstein an e-mail from Alexander, with the covering line “email from Miles Alexander i have not received anything from him since i sent email on April 4th 2018 please advise thank you”. Alexander’s own words in the forwarded message: “I have been contacted again about JE. The gist is that they are researching a doc on wealth, crimes etc and wanted info on JE. I asked for more detail.” ⚠ That the approach came from a documentary producer is a documented fact and not an inference: the producer names himself, his company and its director on the sheet. His letter also asks, in terms, for “anyone else in St. Thomas or elsewhere you think would be helpful”, seeking referrals to other former staff.6

What that shows, and the context that must sit beside it

Documented fact: approaches made to a former employee about Epstein were passed to Epstein’s lawyers and then to Epstein personally, in 2016 and again in 2019, and in 2019 Epstein’s accountant was chasing him for a reply.

⚠ And the context is not optional. A separate document states that Epstein’s employees, past and present, “all signed confidentiality agreements and employment agreements that required them to contact a lawyer in New York named Richard Kahn if ever contacted by law enforcement.”7

A former employee who forwards an approach to his former employer’s lawyer may be doing exactly what a contract he signed told him to do. This page states the routing and the dates. It does not characterise his motive, and no document in the release does either.

2023: the deposition order

In the Government of the Virgin Islands’ action against JPMorgan Chase, the Virgin Islands moved on 20 January 2023 for a Letter of Request to take his deposition and documents in South Africa. Judge Jed S. Rakoff signed it on 23 January 2023, three days later.8

⚠ The copy a searcher meets first is the unsigned [PROPOSED] ORDER, on which the “SO ORDERED. Dated:” line is blank and the rule above the judge’s name carries no mark. Two later composite copies carry the manuscript date “1/23/23” and a wet-ink signature. Both readings are true of their own sheet and only one is true of the document. This page pins the signed copies.8

What the release does not show

  • No allegation of wrongdoing against him, anywhere.
  • No instrument behind the 2004 balance.
  • No libel action arising from the 2011 interview.
  • No confidentiality agreement signed by him, though Epstein’s solicitor asked for one.
  • Whether the 2023 deposition was ever taken does not appear in the release.

⚠ One further document is deliberately not cited. A witness identified his photograph in an FBI photobook of people associated with the investigation. The fact is unremarkable and the sheet around it is not: it is a page-by-page identification of photographs of girls. Citing it would point readers at that array, it adds nothing the documents above do not, and it is omitted.14

Notes

Footnotes

  1. The role is stated in these words across four document classes. Epstein’s signed letter of authority, EFTA00616370 p.1, see 3. FBI interview of Epstein’s pilot: “Miles Alexander - Island Manager (U.S.V.I.)”, EFTA00159473 p.3 and EFTA00162520 p.30. FBI interview of a chef: “Miles Alexander manages Epstein’s St. Thomas, USVI property.”, EFTA00269569 p.3 and four further copies. FBI collection sheet: “MILES ALEXANDER - Property Manager for EPSTEIN’s residence in the U.S. Virgin Islands”, EFTA00087610 p.2 and EFTA00159173 p.2. ⚠ The identification survives a homograph test and is not in doubt: all 429 occurrences of the name were inspected in context, no part of the set is a different man, and "Miles J. Alexander" returns 0 against a live control of 275 for the plain form. ⚠ This page states no corpus count as a measure of his significance, because 58% of the documents bearing his name are courier invoices in which he is a shipper or consignee; a raw figure would tell a reader something untrue about the weight of the evidence. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  2. Newspaper article of 12 to 13 March 2011, reported from the Alexanders’ home in South Africa. EFTA01205884 pp.1 ff. Three further copies survive as raw page source at EFTA01779732, EFTA01779745 and EFTA01779764, each p.2, which is how the date can be fixed against the wire line. The “eight years” is the article’s characterisation of their tenure, not a corpus document’s, and the page attributes it that way. Nothing from the interview’s content about any other person is reproduced here. ↩ ↩2

  3. LSJ, LLC / Little St. James letterhead, 30 November 2006, addressed “To Tropical Shipping:”. EFTA00616370 p.1, read at the image at 400 dpi; the letter is quoted in full. A blue wet-ink signature crosses the rule above the printed “Jeffrey E. Epstein”, verified as a manuscript mark, not a printed name over a blank rule. ⚠ The containing run is 12 pages, a shipping and logistics file; this letter is its first sheet and is self-contained. Cite the sheet, not the run. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  4. “Jeffrey E. Epstein / Balance Sheet / As of December 31, 2004”, cash basis, printed 03/29/05. EFTA01304421 p.6, read at the image at 600 dpi; the line reads 12258 · Miles Alexander … 68,861, with no bar near it. ⚠ CORRECTION TO THIS DESK’S OWN WORKING NOTE: it is a balance sheet, not a general ledger, and 12200 · Loans & Exchanges is not a free-standing ledger and not a liability: at the image it sits under ASSETS → Current Assets → Other Current Assets, immediately after 12050 · Due From Cr.Card and before 12500 · Due To/From Related Entities. Its sibling accounts (“Due from GM”, “Due From Cr.Card”, “Due from Broker”) read the same way. It is a receivable, so a positive balance is money owed TO Epstein. Arithmetic control on the figure: the whole block sums to 23,707 + 1,798,000 + 20,150 + 723,125 + 10,107 + 68,861 + 13,500 + 10,000 + 4,000 + 25,000 + 15,000 = 2,711,450, exactly the printed total; change any digit of 68,861 and the column stops closing. Confirmed in three copies read at the image, EFTA01304421 p.6, EFTA01308282 p.6 and EFTA01720157 p.8. ⚠ The searchable text of the third copy renders the figure 68,851: one digit out, in the direction of a wrong number that still looks plausible. Absence of an instrument, stated with its control: no note, loan agreement or repayment schedule behind the balance appears in the release. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  5. Paul Tweed, Senior Partner, to Jeffrey Epstein, 17 March 2011. EFTA00627603 p.1, with the same message at EFTA00907231 p.1, where Epstein’s one-word reply “ok” appears. Quoted from capital to full stop. The file inventory is EFTA00298018 p.11, copy at EFTA00304845 p.3, read at the image at 400 dpi: under DRAWER THREE: → PRESS COVERAGE, a line reading “-Miles Alexander Libel”. ⚠⚠ Two tier limits. (a) That the Alexanders signed such an agreement is a statement by a party with direct knowledge, not a document in hand: the agreement itself is not in the release, and "Confidentiality Agreement signed by Kathy" returns exactly the two copies of this one e-mail and nothing else, against a live control of 275 documents for his name. The page writes “the confidentiality agreement Epstein’s solicitor asked for”, never “the NDA he signed”. (b) A labelled folder establishes that a file bearing that label existed. It does not establish that any libel action was brought, and none appears anywhere in the release. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  6. ✅ READ AT THE PAGE IMAGES, 2026-09-19. An earlier version of this page published this section as explicitly unverified, because it had been read from the searchable text only. The image pass confirms the quotations: nothing in this section was invented by the text layer. One figure was wrong and has been corrected; the corrections are recorded here rather than made silently. The 2016 chain is EFTA00694141 pp.1-3, a homogeneous single thread of three consecutive sheets, not a bundle, read at the image. ⚠⚠ THE CORRECTED FIGURE. The first version said the letter reached Epstein’s inbox “within about seventeen hours”. That was arrived at by subtracting a timestamp that prints NO TIME ZONE, which is precisely the operation this page’s own note on Epstein’s mail warns against: depending on the zone, the bare clock gives 13, 17 or 19 hours, and 17 is the weakest of the three. What the zone-bearing headers support, both read at the image, is Alexander’s forward at 4:07:22 AM EDT (= 08:07:22 UTC) and Indyke’s at 12:44:42 +0000: four hours, thirty-seven minutes and twenty seconds. That is what the page now says. ⚠⚠⚠ AND THE REASON THE ERROR WAS POSSIBLE IS A NEW EXTRACTION TRAP: the text layer of that sheet DELETES Alexander’s timestamp altogether, rendering the line as Date: Mav 18. 2016 at with the clock and zone simply gone. The interval could not have been computed correctly from the searchable text by anyone. ⚠⚠ A second defect on the same run, and it is the mechanism this page already documents at 9: the extraction of p.2 closes a full-width producer bar over an entire paragraph and leaves no trace of it. That is now the second document about this subject on which the extraction has silently swallowed a redaction. Smaller corrections made at the same time: the “most likely to help” phrase is Edwards relaying what his client had told him, not asserting it, and the page now says so; Indyke’s subject line is Fwd: Maxwell (▮ ▮) and not bare; Kahn’s covering line is four printed lines welded into one by the extraction; and Alexander’s own words had gained a full stop the sheet does not carry and had dropped a preceding “See response below :” without an ellipsis. The 2019 chain is EFTA01027898 pp.1-2, also a homogeneous single thread, read at the image; Kahn’s own solicitation of 4 April 2018 sits at the foot of that same run and is image-verified. ⚠⚠ The 2016 letter’s middle paragraphs concern a survivor. They were not quoted, summarised or characterised by the image pass, and nothing in the routing claim required touching them. The survivor is not named here and is not identifiable from anything on this page. ⚠⚠ The HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_ copies of part of this chain are FOUR sheets, not two, they still return HTTP 403 and cannot be rendered, and no EFTA twin exists, established by eight searches with negative controls, every EFTA candidate opened and found to be a different document. Nothing from them is quoted on this page and nothing may be, and the desk has referred them upward separately. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  7. EFTA00098755 p.5: “Epstein’s employees, past and present, all signed confidentiality agreements and employment agreements that required them to contact a lawyer in New York named Richard Kahn if ever contacted by law enforcement.” ⚠ This is the same memorandum whose extraction manufactures the false sentence at 9, so the quotation is given from the sheet rather than from the search text. It is an investigator’s assertion about a class of agreements, not an agreement in hand, and the page uses it only as the context in which the routing at 6 should be read. It is not evidence that this subject personally signed anything, and the page does not use it that way. ↩ ↩2

  8. Government of the United States Virgin Islands v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., S.D.N.Y. No. 1:22-cv-10904-JSR. Docket entry 28, filed 20 January 2023: motion for issuance of a Letter of Request to take his deposition and documents in South Africa. The signed order is at EFTA02805822 p.2 and EFTA02805860 p.19, both read at the image at 600 dpi: a manuscript “1/23/23” in the Dated field and a wet-ink signature crossing the rule above the printed name of the Hon. Jed S. Rakoff. ⚠⚠ The copy a searcher meets first, EFTA02805817 p.2, is the [PROPOSED] ORDER and is UNSIGNED: “SO ORDERED. Dated:” blank, rule unmarked. Both readings are true of their own sheet and only one is true of the document; this page pins the signed copies. ⚠ Each composite run is 19 pages and bundles two separate applications: EFTA02805841 p.2 is the order for Catherine Alexander, not for him, though its p.3 names him. A writer pinning “the order for his deposition” to that sheet would be pinning it to hers. Whether the deposition was ever taken does not appear in the release. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  9. EFTA00098755 p.2, read at the page image at 400 dpi. ⚠⚠⚠ The searchable text of this sheet produces the sentence “Recent known recruiters include … Kathy and Miles Alexander”. That sentence is not on the sheet. At the image, the names after “Recent known recruiters include” are covered by five solid producer bars; the Alexanders are the first entry of a separate list two paragraphs below, headed “Inner Circle of Jeffrey Epstein – Part I”, described only as “(Former managers of Little St. James estate)”; and the memorandum’s following sheet, EFTA00098755 p.3, closes that second list “These are all people that may or may not cooperate”. The same memorandum does make an explicit recruitment allegation about a different named person, so its author distinguished between the two lists and the extraction did not. The mechanism is the one this desk documents elsewhere: the extraction closes gaps, dropping bars and headings and welding the remainder into a sentence that reads as a finding and is more quotable than either true list. The word “recruiter” appears nowhere else near this subject and must never be attached to him. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  10. Fax from “Miles S. Alexander, Manager”, LSJ, LLC, 29 March 2004. EFTA00600319 p.7, read at the image; quoted whole. ⚠⚠ The run is a 14-page fax bundle whose sheets carry at least three different 2004 dates (19 October on p.1, 1 June on p.6, 29 March on p.7). State the sheet, never the run. The rubber stamp “APPROVED / MAR 30 2004 / MILES ALEXANDER” is on the same file. ⚠ A rubber stamp does not survive text extraction: "APPROVED" AND "Miles Alexander" returns 0 documents while the sheet is open on screen, which is worth recording as a general limit on searching this release for approvals. ↩

  11. Correspondence he wrote, each identified from its own header. To Ghislaine Maxwell, “LSJ Bedroom images”, drawings and dimensions for three guest bedrooms “per request”: EFTA00581002 p.1. “LSJ Pick list”, work schedules: EFTA00581044 p.1. Boat brokers and the reduced commission, 5 October 2004: EFTA02332983 p.1. “Mr Epstein told Cathy and I to take a weeks break”, 5-6 October 2004, with Maxwell’s reply: EFTA02332984 and EFTA02332987 p.1. Sourcing pots for the island, 17 September 2001: EFTA00580483 p.1. His own fax cover sheet re a boat engine, 17 February 2007: EFTA00616626 p.4. The March 2001 report of a conversation with Epstein’s Virgin Islands counsel about contractor-versus-employee status is EFTA00582509 p.1 and is already set out on `people/paul-hoffman`; it is linked rather than re-derived. ⚠⚠ Four of these carry the header date Sat, 01 Jan 4501 05:00:00 +0000, which is an export artefact and not a date. Dates above are taken from the Sent: line or the thread, or omitted. ⚠ Epstein’s mail also rendered quoted times in a zone that is neither UTC nor Eastern: one sheet shows “2:35 PM” against a 21:35 +0000 header, which is UTC−7. No time zone is inferred from a bare clock on these documents. ↩ ↩2

  12. A bank’s letter of 9 March 2020 answering a Southern District of New York grand jury subpoena, tabulating account holder, type, authorised signature and dates. EFTA00065864 p.1. LCP Company LLC, commercial checking, listing Miles Alexander, Harry Beller and Jeffrey Epstein, 20 December 2002 to 10 May 2013; Island Grounds Inc, commercial checking, listing Miles S. Alexander, Jeffrey Epstein, Harry Beller and Lance A. Calloway, 29 August 2006 to 25 July 2014. No account number is reproduced here. The same schedule recurs at EFTA00091271 p.3, EFTA01273238 p.3 and EFTA01252357 p.1, all already cited on `people/stephen-alexander`. ⚠ An “Authorized Signature” column is a bank asserting a mandate. It is not a signature this desk has seen, and the page says “listed as” for that reason. ↩

  13. EFTA01304421 p.4, a flow statement rather than a balance sheet, read at the image at 600 dpi on the rotated page. ⚠⚠ REFUTED: the searchable text produces “Miles Alexander (20,000)”. At the image his row carries a dash, meaning nil. The (20,000) belongs to the row below, whose name is under a bar. The identical collapse mis-assigns (115,000) and 4,000 to two other names on the same sheet. Because the flow statement shows no movement on his account during 2004, the 68,861 balance predates the year. ↩

  14. EFTA00091916 p.1 records a witness identifying his photograph in an FBI photobook of persons associated with the investigation. ⚠⚠ The sheet around that fact is a page-by-page identification of photographs of girls. It has not been quoted, summarised or counted, and it is deliberately not cited as a source on this page. The identification adds nothing the documents above do not already establish about his role, and citing it would point readers at that array. Recorded here as an omission made on purpose, so that a later reader knows it was a decision and not an oversight, and referred to the editor. ↩

Backlinks