Epstein Data Wiki

Naomi Campbell

Properties2
tagsperson, correspondence, epstein-office, travel-logistics
aliasesCampbell, Naomi, Naomi Campbel, naiomy campbell, Naombi Campbell

51 min read

Named on the documents as”Naomi Campbell” in the To: field of a 2011 message sent to her and in the To: lines of quoted headers; “Naomi” in the office’s own shorthand; “N” and “x NC” as the sign-off on messages attributed to her; “naiomy campbell” in a message Epstein typed himself1234
Titles the documents give herNone. The sheets read at the image for this page give her no title, role or occupation5
What the correspondence is about, in the documents’ own wordsA meeting about a swimsuit line (2005); whether Epstein could speak or meet (2009, 2011, 2012, 2015); whether he would be in Morocco (2015); and the use of an aircraft (2016)631728
Named counterparties in these documentsLesley Groff, whose quoted signature block reads “Assistant to Jeffrey Epstein”; “Sarah K”; Larry Visoski; Jeffrey Epstein himself2184
Documents cited here run from11 April 2005, a message log kept for Epstein, to 25 July 2025, a second day of the Justice Department’s interview of Ghislaine Maxwell69

Naomi Campbell appears in 308 documents of the released files that carry her full name, and in the great majority of them she is being talked about rather than doing anything: press clippings, guest lists, schedules, name lists and third-party testimony. In a much smaller set she acts: a handful of replies attributable to her, and contemporaneous messages in which Epstein’s office reports that she has telephoned, texted or booked travel. This page is about that smaller set.5

Nothing in the documents read for this page is a finding or an allegation of wrongdoing by her, and the search built to find one is set out below and returned none. Messages between her and Epstein’s office, running in both directions, about meeting, speaking and travel are what these sheets record. What that meant is not supplied here.

2005: a message about a swimsuit line

The earliest sheet opened for this page is not a letter but a log. A printout headed “Messages”, each sheet marked as one of four, stamped CONFIDENTIAL and dated 4/11/2005. The two sheets read for this page carry messages taken for Epstein from 7:43AM to the early afternoon. Between a 12:17PM entry whose caller is barred and a 12:26PM entry, one row names her:

Naomi Campbell 12:18PM Via email: Hello, naomi here would like to know when I can speak with Jeffery, regarding my swimsuit line.For a meeting with VS to see,I have pics and some of the suits with me.. Hope is well

The row is printed in a table cell under the column heading “Message”; the spacing, the misspelling of Epstein’s forename and the truncated closing are as the sheet prints them. The clock carries no zone and none is asserted here. Several caller cells on that sheet are barred by the producing party, as is the whole of its “Phone” column; on the other sheet read that column is only partly covered, and the difference is set out in the footnote.6

2009: two texts and a call, relayed

Three messages of 2009 carry the office telling Epstein that she had been in touch, or that it had reached her. The first is stamped, on a Sent: field carrying no zone, “Mon 9/7/2009 11:41:44 AM”, under the subject “Naomi Campbell”, and its body is one line: “Naomi texted me she is trying to get in touch with you. She is on her UK cell”. The sender is barred on that sheet and none is supplied here.10

The second is fuller. At 00:02:37 +0000 on Tuesday 22 September 2009, a message reached the same address carrying a text the sender said had just arrived:

Just received this text from Naomi Campbell: Hello sarah is JE able to speak ? Im on ▮ x NC

The sender of that message is barred on the sheet, and none is supplied here. What follows “Im on” is not a truncation and does not continue anywhere: it is a value blacked out by the producing party, read at 600 dpi as a solid hard-edged bar on the baseline, and the extraction closes the gap so that the sentence reads as though it simply stopped. A second copy of the same message carries the date as an RFC header, Tue, 22 Sep 2009 00:02:37 +0000, which is how the zone on the unlabelled Sent: field above is known; that copy bars the same value in the same place and bars its sender too.311

Each is a third party’s account of a text message rather than her own device record, and these two are the only relayed texts among the documents read for this page.

The third is a telephone call and not a text. On a Sent: field printed “Wed 10/14/2009 6:07:37 PM”, again carrying no zone, Lesley Groff wrote to Epstein under the same subject line: “Naomi is with her architect who has to be on a flight at 5:00 so she needs to spend some time with him…she said she will try you back after he leaves!” and, after a blank line, “I reached her on her UK cell.” A value follows that sentence and is barred. This sheet is the office reporting that it reached her and that she said she would return the call; it is not her own words either.12

2011 and 2015: messages out, and a reply

On Tuesday 27 September 2011 at 18:20:15 +0000 a message went out under the name Sarah K. It is the only sheet read for this page whose own header block addresses Campbell by name, in its To: field; two others reach her through a To: line quoted inside the body:

Hi Naomi. Jeffrey is in Paris and wondering if you are around as well? Hope all is well.. Sarah x

Both parties’ addresses are barred. The sheet prints no subject line at all.1

In July 2015 the same approach is made, and this time it is answered. On Friday 10 July 2015 at 9:11 PM Lesley Groff wrote to “Naomi Campbell”: “Hi Naomi…Jeffrey is looking to speak with you…could you please give him a call on his cell or the office line ▮”. A contact value follows “the office line” and is barred. At 12:32:14 PM EDT on 11 July (the zone is printed on the sheet) a reply came back:

Yes of course. I’m in London. What best number for JE v

The trailing “v” is on the sheet. Groff then put the question to Epstein (“Shall I give you Naomi your cell number?”, exactly as printed, word order included), and at 7:30:03 PM, on a field carrying no zone, he answered with one word: “Yes”. Nothing of the thread continues onto the document’s second sheet, which carries only the remainder of the office’s standing confidentiality notice.7

The reply’s From: field is barred, as is the sender line of every message on these sheets attributed to her. What attaches the reply to her is the thread around it and not a header: the covering message’s subject line reads “Re: Naomi Campbell”, Groff’s quoted header reads “To: Naomi Campbell”, the message printed beneath that header opens “Hi Naomi”, and Groff’s next line to Epstein names Naomi as the person asking. That is how the attribution is made on this page, and it is the attribution the documents support, not a sender field.7

Two months later Epstein wrote to Groff himself. At 22:50:07 +0000 on Sunday 13 September 2015, on a sheet whose subject field prints the label with nothing after it, his whole message reads:

call naiomy campbell and tell her she is welcome to stop by tomorw or tues

The misspellings and the double space are on the face of the sheet and are not repaired here. No correct spelling of her name reaches this document, which is why it is absent from the 308 and why it went unfound until the surname residual was sampled by hand.45

November 2015: Morocco

The fullest exchange in the release runs from 1 to 16 November 2015 and sits, quoted in full, on one sheet. On Sunday 1 November 2015 at 7:28 PM Groff wrote, over a signature block reading “Lesley / Assistant to Jeffrey Epstein”: “Hi Naomi. Jeffrey wants you to know he will be in NY tomorrow. Might you be around and available to see him?” At 9:39 PM the reply: “I’m in London. Then LA on 5th, Chicago.9th back in city on 11 th. / X N”.

On Monday 16 November at 3:12 PM, to “Naomi Campbell”: “Hi Naomi…Jeffrey will be in NY this Wed. Nov. 18-Fri. Nov. 20th…might you still be in NY and available to come see him?” At 5:17 PM the answer, given here whole:

Hello Lesley, how are you? I want to see Jeffrey, I leave tomorrow at 6pm. I need to go to Vale in Colorado hurt my and need to have treatment. It’s so painful. N Is he going to Morocco soon? As I need to go once more to london. Exhausted babes. Xx

“Vale”, the lower-case “london” and the incomplete clause “hurt my and need to have treatment” are all as printed; there is no bar in that line. Groff replied at 22:29:58 +0000: “Hi Naomi. I’m doing well. I’m sorry to hear you are not feeling well. !!! I will let Jeffrey know you will unfortunately not be around. I k ow he really wants to see you as well. We will keep trying.” The sheet prints “I k ow”, with a space where the n belongs.2

Fifty-seven seconds later, at 22:30:55 +0000, a message to Epstein under the subject “Naomi Campbell” opened: “Below from Naomi re might she be in NY wed-fri?”, and set her message out beneath it. Its sender is barred. That sentence is a contemporaneous third-party attribution of the message to her, made by the office that received it, and it is independent of the quoted To: line.13

Her question was answered. At 22:31:43 +0000 the same evening, on a sheet carrying the same thread:

Oops, and I meant to answer about Morocco. I think he wants to go but has no plans at the moment. On the “To Do” list !

The sender of that reply is barred on the sheet and none is supplied here. Because those three messages carry RFC headers on one zone, the interval stated above is measured from them; the clocks quoted inside the thread carry no zone and no interval is asserted from them.142

January 2016: the plane

The last first-party sequence read for this page runs through a single day, Thursday 21 January 2016, and it runs in two threads. That day was searched by date and not by subject matter, and the difference is the reason this section was twice incomplete. Seventeen of the twenty-seven documents returned by the charter search set out below are copies of that day’s messages, and an earlier pass read all seventeen rather than counting them; that was necessary and it was not sufficient, because the seventeen are what one query returned and not what the day holds. A date-scoped search returns 36 pages in 36 documents for 21 January 2016, and 19 of the 36 are outside those 17. None of the nineteen carries the word “charter” or the word “Miami”, so no search built on those words could reach them, and among them are the thread’s opening message, one of Epstein’s replies and the copy that settles a clock the page had declined to settle. All 36 were resolved to their rows and read in date order, seventeen of them at the image, and the sequence below is what they carry.5

The charter

The first thread carries the subject line “Naomi Campbell”. Nine of its messages survive in the release as messages in their own right, each on a sheet carrying an RFC Date: header on +0000, and every speaker is named on the face of the sheet carrying that speaker’s own message. They are set out here in the order those headers give, with the Eastern equivalent beside each. Eastern is UTC minus five hours in January, and every clock below is that arithmetic on a stamped +0000 header and nothing else:

  • 16:52:34, 11:52 AM. Groff to Epstein, the whole message: “Please call Naomi Campbell”
  • 16:55:55, 11:55 AM. Groff to Epstein: “Naomi is following up on using the plane…she said she spoke to you about this and she hopes you can call her soon! She needs to know…”
  • 17:30:10, 12:30 PM. Epstein: “Tell her I left due to snow”
  • 18:06:00, 1:06 PM. Groff: “Naomi has called back twice now saying she doesn’t have any back up plan as she really thought from you this would work. Says she has booked the hotel and car and driver and mentioned something about Delon’s mom … Sh is wondering if the plane can’t take you to where you are going then go back and get her to take her to where she needs to be. She is certainly fretting on this and hopes you will call her.”
  • 18:17:53, 1:17 PM. Epstein, the whole message: “Tell her I should land in about an hour”
  • 18:36:37, 1:36 PM. Epstein: “see if larry can find a charter , ask her what time she needs to be there”
  • 18:57:53, 1:57 PM. Groff to Larry Visoski: “Larry, jeffrey is asking if you could find a charter for Naomi Campbell to go from NY to Miami tonight and fly back on sat or Sunday!!”
  • 19:17:00, 2:17 PM. Groff to Epstein: “I can’t find Larry. Texted, called emailed…so I have asked rich Kahn to help. Naomi wants to arrive Miami tonight”
  • 19:39:55, 2:39 PM. Visoski to Groff: “Ok checking”

“Sh is wondering” and the double spaces are as printed. Groff’s name is printed on each of the sheets carrying her own messages and her address is barred on each; no role, employer or title is stated on the 19:17:00 sheet for the further person she names there, and none is supplied here.15

Five of those nine sheets are outside the twenty-seven documents the charter search returned: the copies at 11:52 AM, 11:55 AM, 12:30 PM, 1:06 PM and 1:17 PM. None of them could have been inside it, because none carries “charter” or “Miami”. Two of the nine messages were absent from this page altogether before the day was searched by date: the opening line at 11:52 AM, and Epstein’s reply at 1:17 PM, which sits between “Tell her I left due to snow” and “see if larry can find a charter” and is the point at which he engages with the request.

One quoted clock in this thread disagrees with the message it introduces, and an earlier version of this page reported that as a contradiction the record could not resolve. The record resolves it. The four sheets cited below that quote the 18:06:00 message with a clock all render its header “On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 2:06 PM”; that message’s own copy stamps it Thu, 21 Jan 2016 18:06:00 +0000, which is 1:06 PM Eastern. Every other quoted clock on those sheets agrees with the stamp on the quoted message’s own copy: 12:30 PM against 17:30:10 +0000, 1:36:37 PM EST against 18:36:37 +0000, and 1:57 PM against 18:57:53 +0000. Read at 1:06 PM the clocks and the nesting agree; read at 2:06 PM they cannot, because the sheet nests that message inside the 1:36:37 PM one. What is one hour out is a single quoted header line, and it reads the same on every sheet that carries it. That is a defect in the copies, not a property of the day.815

The commercial seats, and the answer

Later the same day a second thread opened under a new subject, “naomi called again…”, and the office moved from a charter to scheduled seats. The clocks below are the Sent: and Date: fields as each sheet prints them, in the sheet’s own form. All of them are UTC, and the basis is measurement rather than assumption: three pairs of sheets read at the image, and, for the first field below, that sheet’s own Apple property-list date-received value. It is set out in the footnote.

  • Groff to Epstein, on a Sent: field printed as “Thursday, January 21, 2016 9:34 PM”: “she said she checked with the airlines and there are no available =lights out tonight to miami or tomorrow morning…”
  • Epstein, Thu, 21 Jan 2016 22:30:40 +0000: “try west palm , or fort lauderdale jansuhc can drive her to miami”
  • Groff, “Thur 1/21/2016 10:45:24 PM”: “2 seats left on a flight out of JFK at 8:40 pm on Jet Blue to Ft. Laud arriving 11:47…return monday Jan. 25”
  • Epstein, “Thur 1/21/2016 10:45:29 PM”: “first class is ok if available nothing to fort lauderdale?”
  • Groff, “Thur 1/21/2016 10:48:29 PM”: “2 seats left on a flight out of JFK at 8:40 pm on Jet Blue to Ft. Laud arriving 11:47pm…return monday Jan. 25 ….$978.20 / Delta has a flight at 6:55pm in first but that is so tight to make…”
  • Epstein, “Thur 1/21/2016 10:49:15 PM”: “tell her im in the air to the caribena but you will organize the flight.”
  • Groff, “Thur 1/21/2016 11:07:35 PM”: “Naomi doesnt want to fly Jet Blue…I tried and tried…every time I would click on something it would tell me the flight was actually not available….and I was on the phone with Amex at the same time… / Naomi just called and was extremely appreciative of the efforts but says it is ok it is just not going to work (she was actually in the car on the way to her dentist because she broke her tooth)…”

“doesnt”, “im”, “caribena”, “jansuhc” and the double spaces are as printed. So is “=lights”: that sheet carries a quoted-printable soft break on its face, which has replaced the f, and it is not repaired here. The copies that quote the same message print “flights”.16

Two further messages of this thread survive only as quoted material, inside the sheet stamped Thu, 21 Jan 2016 22:30:40 +0000, and are given here with the quoted clocks that sheet prints: at 5:15 PM Epstein, the whole message, “you check”; and at 5:25 PM, under a barred sender, “there is one seat left on a flight tonight at 6:15pm out of Newark on United Air arrives 9:33pm…all other non stop flights sold out…there are several connecting flights arriving tomorrow …”, then “$371.10 coach”, then “round trip return on Monday 25th (12:28 arrive 3:29) $742.20”, then “checking tomorrow morning…”. Neither is returned by any search set out below, because neither carries her name; both were found by reading the sheet.16

The zone of the first field in the list above is settled here, and an earlier version of this page declined to settle it. That sheet prints an Apple property-list block beneath the message whose date-received value is 1453412070, 21:34:30 UTC on 21 January 2016, against the Sent: field it prints as “Thursday, January 21, 2016 9:34 PM”. The field is UTC, and the message is 4:34 PM Eastern. A second sheet of the same day in the same style settles it independently: “Thursday, January 21, 2016 4:53 PM” with a date-received of 1453395160, 16:52:40 UTC, carrying the message whose own RFC copy is stamped Thu, 21 Jan 2016 16:52:34 +0000. The copies that quote the 4:34 PM message render it “On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 5:34 PM”, one hour out, and that is the same defect as the “2:06 PM” line in the first thread; the nesting shows it the same way: that message is the innermost of the quoted chain on the 22:30:40 +0000 sheet, inside the 5:15 PM message, inside the 5:25 PM message, inside an outer header that is 5:30 PM Eastern. A quoted message precedes its quoter, so it cannot be 5:34 PM; read at 4:34 PM the chain runs in order.16

The 11:07:35 PM message carries the latest stamp of the thirty-six documents the date-scoped search returned, and it answers the question the sequence opens. No document read for this page records a charter being found; what these sheets record is the office turning to scheduled seats, and then Groff telling Epstein that she had telephoned and that “it is ok it is just not going to work”. That is a contemporaneous third-party report of a telephone call and not the subject’s own words, and no other document read for this page records the call. Read with the 1:06 PM message of the earlier thread, which says “Naomi has called back twice now”, what the day’s record holds is her telephoning the office more than once, the office failing to find her an aircraft, and a last call in which, as Groff reports it, she let the matter go.

Six days later, at 17:45:42 +0000 on Wednesday 27 January 2016, a message reached Epstein under the subject “Naomi Campbell”: “FYI-I have called, texted and emailed Naomi that you will be in town today and tomorrow, but I have not been able to speak with her and she has not replied to anything…” The sender is barred on that sheet.17

Three and a half minutes later the office told Epstein she had called back. On a sheet naming Lesley Groff as its sender, under the subject “Naomi called me back!”, the whole message reads: “Naomi is here now but leaving tonight for London…”. Its Sent: field prints “Wednesday, January 27, 2016 5:49 PM”, the style settled above as UTC, and its own property-list date-received value is 1453916947, 17:49:07 UTC, which is three minutes and twenty-five seconds after the 17:45:42 +0000 send stamp on the message quoted immediately above.18

That is again the office’s report of a telephone call and not her own words. An earlier version of this page said that no document recorded her answering after 27 January 2016. That was wrong, and the document that refutes it is in the same production, from the same sender to the same recipient, three and a half minutes after the message the page had treated as the last word. The searches that would have found it, written in the words such a document would use, are set out in [^search]; this page now makes no claim about what the release holds after that date.

What Maxwell told the Justice Department

On 25 July 2025, a second day of the United States Department of Justice’s interview of Ghislaine Maxwell, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche put her name to the witness. The surname is barred at each of the four places it occurs on the sheet; the forename is not.

TODD BLANCHE: Naomi ▮? GHISLAINE MAXWELL: Yes, I do know Naomi, and I knew her before I met Mr. Epstein and Mr. — former President Clinton. TODD BLANCHE: Do you know whether Mr. Epstein separately knew ▮? GHISLAINE MAXWELL: I think she — he probably met her through me, that I imagine.

Asked whether she and two other men named on the sheet had ever travelled to Epstein’s properties, “the island or New Mexico”, Maxwell answered: “Not Mr. Tucker — well, not to my knowledge Mr. Tucker or Mr. Spacey. Naomi ▮ may have.” Asked “To where?”, she answered in hedges, and they are kept here: “She may have gone — well, she certainly — well, I believe she visited him in Palm Beach, and I believe she may have gone to the island and she may have gone to see his house in New York. Whether she went to New Mexico or Paris as well, maybe. They were friends or friendly.” Asked whether she herself had been on those trips: “I don’t have any independent memory of that, so I’m not sure. I don’t think so.” Then, cutting across the next question, the whole of her answer: “Her relationship, her friendship, her — I think you’re making me use your word. Her — her friendship, whatever, with Mr. Epstein was independent of me.” An earlier version of this page began that quotation at “Her — her friendship” and dropped the clause in which she objects to the interviewer’s word. Asked whether she had a separate friendship with her before meeting Epstein, Maxwell said: “I did.”9

This is a statement by an identifiable witness with direct knowledge, given in a Justice Department interview and not independently corroborated in the documents read for this page. It is recorded here as what that witness said, at that tier and no higher.

What the search returned

The release was searched with the FTS5 index on 2026-09-11. Counts are pages and distinct documents, over the whole index:

  • "Naomi Campbell": 345 pages in 308 documents
  • Campbell (the surname alone): 1,413 pages in 1,050 documents
  • Naomi (the forename alone): 1,019 pages in 861 documents

Homographs, subtracted and named. Of the 1,050 surname documents, 742 carry no “Naomi Campbell” phrase anywhere and were set aside, leaving a canonical residual of 308. Exact-phrase counts inside the 1,050, which overlap and are not additive: Campbell CA 64 documents · Scott Campbell 35 · Campbell v 23, of which United States v Campbell 12 · Peter Campbell 21 · Frank Campbell 20, chiefly a funeral home · Philip Campbell 15 · Tina Campbell 14 · Kurt Campbell 13 · Campbell Soup 10 · Fort Campbell 9 · Campbell Brown 6.5

The wholesale exclusion of the 742 is not safe, and this page does not inherit it. A thirty-document systematic sample of that residual, read in the extraction, returned three documents that are plainly this subject, two of them reachable only through a damaged forename and the third through the bare surname. Following the two out: naiomy campbell returns 3 pages in 3 documents (three copies of the message Epstein typed himself, quoted above), and Naombi Campbell returns 10 pages in 7 documents, all copies of one 2012 Cannes event schedule. Ten documents, all inside the 742.54

Damaged spellings, mechanically. scripts/ocr_variants.py "Naomi Campbell" --wide --count generated 38 forms, 5 from measured glyph pairs and 33 generic single-edit, and three returned anything: aomi Campbell (2 pages, 2 documents, both Epstein schedule sheets on which a quoted-printable soft break has replaced the initial N), Naomi ampbell (1 page, 1 document, an automated notification), and Naomi Campbel (1 page, 1 document, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01099175 p.56, a scanned newspaper page, resolved to its row in the extraction and not rendered, and not cited here). The tool did not generate naiomy or Naombi, which are further than one edit from the correct forename, and neither did any hand pass before this one: those ten documents were found by reading the surname residual, not by guessing spellings. A non-zero damaged form is not an identification, and each of the three above was resolved to its rows before being counted.5

Act against mention. A random sample of 40 of the 308 canonical documents was drawn and hand-classified from the extraction: 9 press clippings or book excerpts · 6 calendar or schedule entries · 3 invitations or guest lists · 2 messages addressed to her with no reply on the sampled page · 1 government name list · 16 documents in which third parties discuss her · and 3 in which she acts: one reproducing her reply, one relaying her act, one logging her message. That is 3 of 40, about 1 in 13. A separate measurement pass, sampling at evenly spaced ranks rather than at random, put it at 6 of 40. The two samples disagree on the figure and agree on the finding: this record is overwhelmingly a record of mention, and the small first-party spine is what this page is built from. Both are samples of the 308 and neither is a census, and documents outside both of them record her acting, the 21 January 2016 resolution set out above being one.5

Note on the documents

Thirty-five sheets across thirty-two documents were read at the image at 400 dpi for this page, and three of those sheets were read again at 600 dpi: one to settle whether a mark following “Im on” is a redaction bar or a scanning artefact, which it is; one to settle whether the sheet prints “Sh” or “She”, which is “Sh”; and one to settle that the sheet prints “=lights” rather than “flights”, which it does. Every quotation above is taken from a page image, and every document any quotation rests on is named here or in a footnote below. Further documents were resolved to their rows and read in the extraction while this page was written, among them the nineteen further copies of the 21 January 2016 messages returned by the date-scoped search, the three press digests and the seven House Oversight documents set out in [^search]; none of them is named as a source above and no sentence above rests on any of them. Four documents are named on this page but were not read at the image, and each is marked as such where it appears.

Five faults in the text layer matter to anyone re-deriving this page, and each was found by opening the sheet.

  1. The extraction deletes a date. EFTA02437356 prints Tue 9/22/2009 12:02:37 AM; the extraction reads Tue 9/ /2009, dropping the day.3
  2. The extraction closes a redaction gap. On the same sheet a barred value between “Im on” and “x NC” is absent from the extraction, so a withheld value reads as an unfinished sentence.3
  3. The extraction drops characters the sheet prints in full. EFTA02075826 prints “Jeffrey is looking to speak with you”; the extraction reads “s ak with ou”. It reads “Ycs” twice where the sheet prints “Yes”.7
  4. The extraction reads a letter that is not on the sheet. EFTA02438749 prints “she said she will try you back after he leaves!”; the extraction reads “shc said”, so a phrase search across that clause returns nothing.12
  5. The extraction reorders a header block and misreads a date inside it. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02067745 p.1 prints Sent: Mon 11/16/2015 10:31:43 PM with its To: / From: / Sent: / Subject: block in order; the extraction detaches the labels from the values and reads Mon 11/18/2015, two days later. The sheet was read at the image at 400 dpi and the extraction at the row. That copy of the November 2015 thread is not otherwise relied on here.

Field states, since a blank is not a bar. The subject field of EFTA00340304 prints its label with nothing after it: an empty printed field, not a redaction.4 The From: line of every message attributed to her on these sheets is barred by the producing party, as are both header values of the sheet at [^nov2015], the sender of the sheet at [^text2009c], the sender of the sheet at [^belowfrom], the sender of the sheet at [^morocco], the sender of the sheet at [^noreply], eight regions of the sheet at [^jan2016], and four occurrences of her surname on the sheet at [^maxwell]. EFTA00568407 names both correspondents on its face and bars both address values.1

No identity number, account number, telephone or fax number, date of birth or residential address printed on any sheet cited here is reproduced on this page, and no correspondent’s personal e-mail address is. One e-mail address is reproduced: the Epstein office account, which these sheets print in their own header and footer lines and which seven pages already published on this wiki carry. Every one of those classes was then checked across the finished page by hand and pattern by pattern, over the text with its hard wraps flattened so that no value could hide in a line break, and not by automatic shape-matching alone. That was necessary rather than cautious, and saying which check was run is part of the measurement, because the two available here disagree and neither contains the other. Measured on 2026-09-11 against invented values, one value to a fixture, each fixture given complete frontmatter so that the only finding it can produce is the one under test, and asserting on that finding’s own message rather than on whether anything fired at all: this wiki’s page checker carries no rule for e-mail addresses and matched none, while the separate value-shape sweep, scripts/desk_privacy_sweep.py, matched every e-mail address on this page: ten lines carrying eleven occurrences, all of them the office account named above. Both tools matched a United States telephone number, in its international, hyphenated-international and parenthesised-area-code forms alike. Neither matched a United Kingdom mobile number in any of the three forms tried, which were international with spaces, international without them, and national, nor a date of birth written with a punctuated label, nor one in ISO order, nor an unlabelled date. The page checker alone matched a date of birth written after the word “born” in United States order. No fixture used a value printed on any sheet cited here, because a live value read an hour earlier is the easiest one to reproduce by accident. A hand pass over the whole page with its line breaks flattened, looking for every run of seven or more digits, returned only Bates numbers, the three Apple property-list date-received values quoted above as timestamps, and the date of this page’s searches.

Sources

Footnotes

  1. E-mail, “Sarah K” to “Naomi Campbell,” Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 18:20:15 +0000. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00568407 p.1. Read at the image at 400 dpi. The sheet names both correspondents; both address values are barred. The header block runs From / To / Date and prints no subject line. No role, employer or title is stated on the sheet for either correspondent and none is supplied here. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  2. E-mail, Lesley Groff, Subject: “Re: Jeffrey Epstein,” Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 22:29:58 +0000, quoting the whole November 2015 thread. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00335421 p.1. Read at the image at 400 dpi. The document is one sheet. Six regions are barred: the sender’s address, both values of the To: field, the speaker attribution on each of the two replies (“On Nov 16, 2015, at 5:17 PM, ▮ wrote:” and “On Nov 1, 2015, at 9:39 PM, ▮ wrote:”), and the To: value of the innermost quoted header. The two quoted headers from Lesley Groff carry her name, and the 16 November one reads “To: Naomi Campbell”; that quoted line, the salutations and the “N” sign-offs are the whole basis on which the replies are attributed to her on this page. No reply on this sheet carries a sender field. “Vale,” “london,” “Chicago.9th,” “11 th,” “I k ow” and the incomplete clause “hurt my and need to have treatment” are as printed; there is no bar in that clause. Only the top-of-sheet header carries a zone; the clocks quoted inside the thread do not, and no interval is asserted from them. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  3. E-mail to “Jeffrey Epstein[[email protected]],” Sent: Tue 9/22/2009 12:02:37 AM, sender barred. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02437356 p.1. Read at the image at 400 dpi and again at 600 dpi. The sheet is one page; nothing continues beyond it. The From: value is barred. A value between “Im on” and “x NC” is barred; at 600 dpi the mark is a solid rectangular bar on the text baseline, of the same weight as the From: bar, and is a redaction rather than a scanning artefact. The extraction reads the date as “Tue 9/ /2009,” dropping the day the image prints, and omits the barred region entirely so that the quoted text appears to end mid-sentence. No value from this sheet is reproduced here. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  4. E-mail, “jeffrey E.” [email protected] to “Lesley Groff,” Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 22:50:07 +0000, body in full: “call naiomy campbell and tell her she is welcome to stop by tomorw or tues”. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00340304 p.1. Read at the image at 400 dpi. The sheet names the sender; the recipient’s address is barred. The Subject field prints its label with nothing after it: an empty printed field, not a redaction. “naiomy,” “tomorw” and the double space after “campbell” are on the face of the sheet and are not repaired. Two further copies of this message carry the same misspelling: https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00846311 p.1 and https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02072479 p.1, neither rendered for this page; verifying each would cost one page render. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  5. Full-text search of the release (full_text_corpus.db, pages_fts, FTS5) on 2026-09-11, in the forms and with the counts set out under “What the search returned.” Statements about what the search returned describe those searches and are not claims about the contents of the release as a whole. FTS5 folds case, so proper-noun counts are upper bounds for exact-case matching and lower bounds wherever the extraction has damaged the name; and because her surname is barred on at least one production (see [^maxwell]), a count on the full name understates the record by an amount this page has not measured. The 742-document surname residual was sampled at thirty documents, read in the extraction, and the three this-subject documents found in it were followed out with the two forename queries reported above. Damaged spellings were generated with scripts/ocr_variants.py "Naomi Campbell" --wide --count: 38 forms, of which aomi Campbell returned 2 pages in 2 documents, Naomi ampbell 1 page in 1 document, Naomi Campbel 1 page in 1 document, and the remaining 35 returned nothing; each non-zero form was resolved to its rows and read before being counted. The act-against-mention figure is a random sample of 40 of the 308 canonical documents, hand-classified from the extraction and not from the images. The seed of that draw was not recorded, so that particular 40 cannot be re-derived: the measurement can be repeated, by drawing again and classifying again, but it cannot be reproduced, and an earlier description of it on this page as reproducible is withdrawn. The second pass sampled at evenly spaced ranks rather than at random and put the figure at 6 of 40; both figures are printed in the body and neither is treated here as a census. Three negative statements in the body were tested rather than assumed. "Naomi Campbell" AND (allegation OR allege OR alleged OR accused OR accuses OR complaint OR "improper conduct" OR misconduct OR wrongdoing OR subpoena OR deposed OR defendant) returns 30 pages in 30 documents; every one was read in the extraction and none alleges wrongdoing by her — they are press clippings, copies of one interview passage in which the questioner states “I’m not asking you to implicate any of these famous people in improper conduct,” a modelling-agency promotional text, one investor name list, and memoir excerpts. "Naomi Campbell" AND (charter OR plane OR flight OR jet) returns 100 pages in 94 documents and "Naomi" AND (charter OR Miami) AND "2016" returns 30 pages in 27 documents, and all 27 were opened and read in date order rather than counted, because a count of a result set is not knowledge of its contents. That was necessary and it was not sufficient, and the 21 January 2016 section was rebuilt a second time because of it: a query-scoped search answers the query, and a day needs a date-scoped search. The date-scoped search is "naomi" AND ("21 Jan 2016" OR "1/21/2016" OR "January 21, 2016" OR "Jan 21, 2016"), and it returns 36 pages in 36 documents, of which 19 are outside the 17 copies of that day’s messages inside the 27. Adding a fifth date form, "21 January 2016", which is the form these sheets use in their quoted headers, returns the same 36 and adds nothing. All 36 were resolved to their rows and read in the extraction; the 17 named in [^jan2016], [^jan2016b] and [^jan2016c] were also read at the image, and the other 19 are further copies of the same messages and are not relied on here. None of the 19 carries the word “charter” or the word “Miami”, checked against the extraction of each, which is why the earlier search could not reach them however exhaustively its returns were read. Seventeen of them are copies of the 21 January 2016 messages set out above, in two threads and across several productions, and they carry that day past “Ok checking” to its last message; three are press digests in which the forename belongs to a different person; and seven are House Oversight documents — three Palm Beach property tax rolls, two OGE Form 278e executive-branch financial-disclosure reports, one TED 2017 programme biography, and one copy of the interview passage quoted earlier in this footnote. Ten of the twenty-seven are excluded from the January account, and not all ten for the same reason: on the three press digests and on five of the seven House Oversight documents the name belongs to a different person, while the programme biography and the interview-passage copy are mentions of this subject in which she does nothing. All ten were read in the extraction rather than at the image, which is all that is needed to exclude them from a first-party sequence. "naomi" AND ("Ok checking" OR "found a charter" OR "charter is") returns 2 pages in 2 documents, both copies of the message quoted at [^jan2016]; that search reaches the middle of the day and not its end, and what reached the end was reading the returned set. Two absence statements in the body were tested in the words a disconfirming document would use rather than in this page’s, and the forms were written before they were run. The first test stands and the second one failed, and the failure is recorded here because the page inherited its result for three passes. The statement that no document read for this page records a charter being found was tested with: "naomi" AND ("charter is" OR "found a charter" OR "got a charter" OR "charter confirmed" OR "charter booked" OR "have a charter") returns nothing; "naomi" AND ("Jan 22" OR "1/22/2016" OR "January 22, 2016" OR "Fri, 22 Jan 2016") returns nothing; and "naomi" AND ("she is booked" OR "booked her" OR "all set" OR "confirmed for" OR "she is on the") returns 3 pages in 3 documents, none of them this subject: one is a course reminder naming a different Naomi, and two are House Oversight documents each holding an entire run in a single row, in which the terms do not meet. The second statement, that no document recorded her answering after 27 January 2016, was NOT tested by any of those three forms — every one of them tests the charter claim — and it was false. The test it needed, written in the words such a document would use, is "naomi" AND ("naomi called" OR "naomi just called" OR "heard from naomi" OR "spoke to naomi" OR "naomi replied" OR "naomi emailed" OR "naomi texted" OR "called me back" OR "she called back"), which returns 9 pages in 9 documents: seven copies of the second thread of 21 January 2016, one message of 7 September 2009 cited at [^text2009c], and the 27 January 2016 call-back cited at [^calledback]. A date scope over the same days, "naomi" AND ("27 Jan 2016" OR "1/27/2016" OR "January 27, 2016" OR "28 Jan 2016" OR "1/28/2016" OR "January 28, 2016" OR "29 Jan 2016" OR "1/29/2016" OR "January 29, 2016"), returns 6 pages in 6 documents: five copies of the 17:45:42 message at [^noreply] and the call-back. A third probe, naomi AND "UK cell", returns 2 pages in 2 documents, the 7 September 2009 message at [^text2009c] and the 14 October 2009 message at [^oct2009]; both were read at the image. The false statement has been removed and is not replaced by another one: this page now reports what these searches returned and makes no claim about what the release holds after 27 January 2016. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8

  6. Message log headed “Messages,” in four sheets, each dated 4/11/2005 at its foot, produced under SDNY_GM and EFTA_ Bates stamps and marked “CONFIDENTIAL” in orange across the foot. The run’s caption, “Records Listed For: JEFFREY EPSTEIN from 04/11/2005 to 04/11/2005,” is printed on the first sheet, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01304453 p.1, not on the sheet carrying the row quoted above; both sheets were read at the image at 400 dpi. The quoted row is at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01304453 p.2, marked “Page 2 of 4.” The table’s four column headings, printed on p.1, are “From,” “Message,” “Phone” and “Done.” The two sheets differ in how much of the Phone column is withheld, and a blank cell is not a bar: p.1 carries sixteen rows, and the Phone cell is blacked out for ten of them and is a white, ruled, empty cell for the other six; p.2 carries nineteen rows and the Phone cell is blacked out for every one. The row quoted is a single table cell giving the caller name “Naomi Campbell,” the time 12:18PM, and the message text. Several caller cells on p.2 are barred, and so are several on p.1. The clock carries no zone and none is asserted. The extraction of this sheet omits the message text of every row, giving only names and times, so the quotation above exists only on the image. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  7. E-mail, “jeffrey E.” to “Lesley Gro[ff],” Sent: Sat 7/11/2015 7:30:03 PM (no zone marked), Subject: “Re: Naomi Campbell,” reading in full “Yes”; quoting Lesley Groff, “Shall I give you Naomi your cell number?”; quoting a forwarded message dated on the sheet “July 11, 2015 at 12:32:14 PM EDT,” sender barred, reading “Yes of course. I’m in London. What best number for JE v”; quoting Lesley Groff to “Naomi Campbell,” Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 9:11 PM, over the signature “Lesley / Assistant to Jeffrey Epstein.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02075826 pp.1-2. Both sheets read at the image at 400 dpi. Sheet 2 carries only the remainder of the standing confidentiality notice; no part of the thread continues onto it. Five regions on sheet 1 are barred, among them the sender of the forwarded reply and a contact value following the words “the office line”; no value from either sheet is reproduced here. The sheet prints “Shall I give you Naomi your cell number?” in that word order, and “What best number for JE v” with the trailing character; neither is repaired. The extraction reads “Ycs” for “Yes” twice and “s ak with ou” for “speak with you,” all three of which the image prints correctly. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  8. E-mail, Larry Visoski to Lesley Groff, Subject: “Re: Naomi Campbell,” Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 19:39:55 +0000, reading “Ok checking,” and quoting, in nesting order inward: Lesley Groff to Visoski at 1:57 PM; “jeffrey E.” [email protected] dated on the sheet “January 21, 2016 at 1:36:37 PM EST”; Lesley Groff at 2:06 PM; “jeffrey E.” at 12:30 PM; and Lesley Groff, “On Thursday, 21 January 2016,” with no clock. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00330668 p.1. Read at the image at 400 dpi, and again at 600 dpi to settle that the sheet prints “Sh” and not “She”. Every speaker on this sheet is named on its face; eight regions are barred — six address values and two blocks beneath quoted messages — and no value from the sheet is reproduced here. “Sh is wondering,” the double spaces in “charter , ask her” and “from NY,” and the ellipses are as printed. One of the quoted clocks on this sheet is one hour later than the stamp on that message’s own copy, and only one. The line reads “On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 2:06 PM”; the message it introduces is carried on its own sheet at [^jan2016c] with the header Thu, 21 Jan 2016 18:06:00 +0000, which is 1:06 PM Eastern. The other three quoted clocks agree with the stamps on their own copies. Four of the five quoted messages carry a clock; the fifth, introduced “On Thursday, 21 January 2016,” carries none. Read at 1:06 PM the nesting and the clocks agree throughout: innermost to outermost the five run 11:55 AM (no clock printed), 12:30 PM, 1:06 PM, 1:36:37 PM and 1:57 PM, inside an outer header of 2:39 PM. An earlier version of this page reported the disagreement as one that held on any single zone; that was a defect in a quoted header line and is reported here as that. Every message of this thread is cited at [^jan2016c]. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  9. Transcript of an interview, transcribed by Magna Legal Services. Its caption sheet is https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02847203 p.1, headed transcript page 216, and reads “United States Department of Justice / INTERVIEW OF: GHISLAINE MAXWELL / DATE: July 25, 2025”, listing for the United States Todd Blanche, Deputy Attorney General, and three others, and for Ghislaine Maxwell three named counsel; nothing on that sheet is barred. The exchange quoted above is on a different sheet, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02847203 p.15, which carries transcript pages 269 to 272 printed four to a sheet; the quoted lines are on transcript pages 269 to 271. Both sheets read at the image at 400 dpi. That an earlier day’s questioning preceded this exchange is established from the sheet quoted rather than inferred from the caption: at transcript page 271 the witness says “I forgot that there was — yesterday. You asked me about Mr. Epstein’s properties,” which places a previous day’s questioning before the exchange above. That is a short inference from what the sheet prints, not a printed statement, and it establishes at least a second day rather than exactly the second; this page says only “a second day”. Her surname is barred at each of the four places it occurs on this sheet, and the forename “Naomi” is not; that is why this transcript is not returned by any search on the full name and why it sits outside the surname population. The self-correction “I think she — he probably met her through me” is as printed; the extraction runs it together as “I think she he.” A page-aligned copy of the same transcript is at DOJ-OGR-00022916 p.15, which is absent from this site’s image store: measured 2026-09-11, its PDF path answers HTTP 403, and a nonexistent identifier answers 403 on that path too, so the code is a fact about the URL and not about the record. The EFTA copy above renders and is the one cited. ↩ ↩2

  10. E-mail to “Jeffrey Epstein[[email protected]]”, Sent: “Mon 9/7/2009 11:41:44 AM”, Subject: “Naomi Campbell”, sender barred. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02436345 p.1. Read at the image at 400 dpi. The sheet is one page. The body is a single line, printed in a monospace face: “Naomi texted me she is trying to get in touch with you. She is on her UK cell”. The sheet prints a gap between “her” and “UK” about twice the width of its other word gaps — measured at 400 dpi, 104 pixels against 41 to 55 — and that width is not reproduced in the quotation above. A region beneath the body is barred, as is the From: value. The Sent: field carries no zone, no second copy carrying an RFC header was located for this message, and no zone is asserted for it. No value from this sheet is reproduced here. ↩

  11. A second copy of the same message, carrying an RFC header: Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 00:02:37 +0000, To: “Jeffrey Epstein [email protected],” sender barred. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00770393 p.1. Read at the image at 400 dpi. This copy is how the zone on the unlabelled Sent: field of [^text2009] is established: 12:02:37 AM against 00:02:37 +0000 is a zero offset, so that field is UTC. This copy bars the same value in the same position in the relayed text, and bars its own sender. Its extraction reads the surname as “Naomi Campb,” which is why no correct spelling of her name returns it. ↩

  12. E-mail, Lesley Groff to “Jeffrey Epstein[[email protected]]”, Sent: “Wed 10/14/2009 6:07:37 PM”, Subject: “Naomi Campbell”. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02438749 p.1. Read at the image at 400 dpi. The sheet is one page. The sender is named on the sheet and no address value is printed beside the name; a value following “I reached her on her UK cell.” is barred. The Sent: field carries no zone and none is asserted for it. The extraction of this sheet reads “shc said” where the image prints “she said”, which is why a phrase search across that clause does not return it. No value from this sheet is reproduced here. ↩ ↩2

  13. E-mail to “Jefffrey Epstein [email protected],” Subject: “Naomi Campbell,” Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 22:30:55 +0000, opening “Below from Naomi re might she be in NY wed-fri?” and setting out beneath it the message quoted at [^nov2015]. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00840582 p.1. Read at the image at 400 dpi. The sender is barred and none is supplied here; the salutation name inside the quoted message is also barred on this sheet. “Jefffrey,” with three fs, is printed on the sheet and is not repaired. The trailer beneath the quoted message cannot be assigned on this sheet to either the forwarder or the quoted writer, and is not quoted here. ↩

  14. E-mail, Subject: “Re: Jeffrey Epstein,” Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 22:31:43 +0000, reading “Oops, and I meant to answer about Morocco. I think he wants to go but has no plans at the moment. On the “To Do” list !” above the same quoted thread as [^nov2015]. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00335423 p.1. Read at the image at 400 dpi. The sender’s name and address are barred, and no sender is supplied here. Both values of the To: field are barred. The header carries +0000, as do the headers at [^nov2015] and [^belowfrom], which is why the intervals between those three messages are stated. ↩

  15. The nine messages of the 21 January 2016 thread “Naomi Campbell”, each surviving as a message in its own right and each read at the image at 400 dpi. In the order of their +0000 headers: https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00330621 p.1, Lesley Groff to “Jefffrey Epstein” [email protected], Thu, 21 Jan 2016 16:52:34 +0000, body in full “Please call Naomi Campbell”, printed in a monospace face; https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00330626 p.1, 16:55:55 +0000; https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00330640 p.1, “jeffrey E.” [email protected] to Lesley Groff, 17:30:10 +0000; https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00330656 p.1, Lesley Groff, 18:06:00 +0000; https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00330657 p.1, “jeffrey E.” to Lesley Groff, 18:17:53 +0000, body in full “Tell her I should land in about an hour”; https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00330661 p.1, “jeffrey E.” to Lesley Groff, 18:36:37 +0000; https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00330664 p.1, Lesley Groff to Larry Visoski, Subject “Fwd: Naomi Campbell”, 18:57:53 +0000; https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00330666 p.1, Lesley Groff to “jeffrey E.”, 19:17:00 +0000; and https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00330668 p.1, at [^jan2016]. Each of these sheets names its own sender, and each bars at least one address value; no value from any of them is reproduced here. The double spaces in “charter , ask her”, “from NY” and “to be. She is certainly”, and the ellipses, are as printed. The Eastern times given in the body are that arithmetic on these +0000 headers and on nothing else, and Eastern is UTC minus five hours on this date. All nine were read at the image by the 2026-09-11 re-gate fix pass, EFTA00330668 for the second time; the “2:06 PM” quoted line appears on EFTA00330661, EFTA00330664, EFTA00330666 and EFTA00330668, and on two further copies of that message which are read at the image but not cited on this page; on none of the six does it agree with the 18:06:00 +0000 stamp on that message’s own sheet. The zone finding of [^jan2016b] is corroborated inside this thread: https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02473833 p.1, read at the image at 400 dpi, carries the 16:52:34 +0000 message with a Sent: field printed “Thursday, January 21, 2016 4:53 PM” and an Apple property-list date-received value of 1453395160, 16:52:40 UTC — so that style of field is UTC. Five of these nine sheets are outside the twenty-seven documents returned by the charter search — EFTA00330621, EFTA00330626, EFTA00330640, EFTA00330656 and EFTA00330657 — and were reached only by the date-scoped search reported at [^search]; the other four, EFTA00330661, EFTA00330664, EFTA00330666 and EFTA00330668, are inside it. Two of the nine messages, the 16:52:34 and the 18:17:53, were on no earlier version of this page in any form. ↩ ↩2

  16. The second thread of 21 January 2016, “naomi called again…”, in seven documents, each read at the image at 400 dpi and one of them again at 600 dpi. Grouped by sender, in the order of the fields given in the body: https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02474900 p.1, Lesley Groff to Jeffrey Epstein, Sent: “Thursday, January 21, 2016 9:34 PM”; https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00330679 p.1, “jeffrey E.” [email protected], Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 22:30:40 +0000; https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02061069 p.1 and https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02061133 p.1, Lesley Groff to Jeffrey Epstein, Sent: “Thur 1/21/2016 10:45:24 PM” and “Thur 1/21/2016 10:48:29 PM”; https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02061107 p.1 and https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02061161 p.1, “jeffrey E.” to Lesley Groff, Sent: “Thur 1/21/2016 10:45:29 PM” and “Thur 1/21/2016 10:49:15 PM”; and https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02061182 p.1, Lesley Groff to Jeffrey Epstein, Sent: “Thur 1/21/2016 11:07:35 PM”. Every speaker quoted in the body above is named in the clear in the header of the sheet cited for that message, and none is supplied. The zone of the unlabelled Sent: field on these sheets is measured, not assumed, and it is measured three ways. EFTA00330679 carries Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 22:30:40 +0000 and EFTA02061182 quotes that same message as “On Jan 21, 2016, at 5:30 PM” — five hours, so the local clocks quoted inside these threads are Eastern. EFTA02061161 stamps its Sent: field “Thur 1/21/2016 10:49:15 PM” for the message EFTA02061182 quotes as “On Jan 21, 2016, at 5:49 PM” — the same five hours, so that field is UTC. And EFTA02474900, whose header is printed in a different style, is settled by its own sheet: it prints an Apple property-list block beneath the message whose date-received value is 1453412070, 21:34:30 UTC on 21 January 2016, against its printed Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 9:34 PM. That style of field is therefore UTC too, and the message is 4:34 PM Eastern; the same reading is corroborated on a third sheet of the same day at [^jan2016c]. An earlier version of this page declined to settle that field and asserted no interval from it. The copies that quote the 4:34 PM message render it “On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 5:34 PM”, one hour later, which is the same defect as the “2:06 PM” line at [^jan2016]; EFTA00330679 nests that message inside a 5:15 PM message, inside a 5:25 PM message, inside its own 22:30:40 +0000 header, and a quoted message precedes its quoter, so the order is settled independently of the stamp. The 5:15 PM and 5:25 PM messages quoted in the body survive on this sheet only; the 5:25 PM sender is barred there. Each of these sheets carries at least one barred address value. “doesnt”, “im”, “caribena”, “jansuhc”, the double space in “available nothing”, the double spaces in “lauderdale jansuhc” and “Monday 25th (12:28 arrive 3:29) $742.20” are on the face of the sheets and are not repaired. EFTA02474900 prints “=lights” where the word is “flights” — a quoted-printable soft break carried onto the face of the document, read at 600 dpi to settle it, and reproduced here as the sheet prints it rather than repaired; EFTA00330679, which quotes the same message, prints “flights”. No value from these sheets is reproduced here. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  17. E-mail to “Jefffrey Epstein [email protected],” Subject: “Naomi Campbell,” Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 17:45:42 +0000. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00835535 p.1. Read at the image at 400 dpi. The sender is barred and none is supplied here. “Jefffrey,” with three fs, is on the sheet. No value from this sheet is reproduced here. ↩

  18. E-mail, Lesley Groff to “Jefffrey Epstein”, Sent: “Wednesday, January 27, 2016 5:49 PM”, Subject: “Naomi called me back!”, body in full “Naomi is here now but leaving tonight for London…”. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02474497 p.1. Read at the image at 400 dpi by the 2026-09-11 re-gate fix pass. The sheet is one page. The sheet names its sender, Lesley Groff; the address value beside that name is barred. “Jefffrey”, with three fs, is on the sheet, as it is at [^noreply] and [^belowfrom]. Beneath the body the sheet prints an Apple property-list block whose date-received value is 1453916947, 17:49:07 UTC on 27 January 2016; the Sent: field is in the style settled as UTC at [^jan2016b] and [^jan2016c]. The attribution of “Naomi” here to this subject rests on the document and not on the forename: the same sender wrote to the same recipient under the subject “Naomi Campbell” three and a half minutes earlier ([^noreply]) reporting that she had not replied, and this message answers that one. No value from this sheet is reproduced here. ↩

Backlinks