Now, attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell and one of Epstein’s most prominent survivors have created a list of more than 150 people whose names may be unsealed in that open records case. They are the “John and Jane Does” at issue in Virginia Giuffre’s long-settled lawsuit against Maxwell, who weren’t parties to the litigation but whose identities may become public.
The list released last week doesn’t accuse all or even most of them of complicity with Epstein and Maxwell’s sex trafficking ring — but at least 18 of the Does are listed as “alleged perpetrators” by one or both of the parties. Some 15 are accused of having engaged in “serious wrongdoing,” and two alleged Epstein affiliates — who aren’t accused of misconduct here — are described as public figures.
Epstein’s abuses are alleged to date as far back as 1985. The swirl of lawsuits, prosecutions and scandals have been brewing for decades, but it’s possible that the next batch of unsealed documents could turn up a number of previously unreported names.
Lawyers pointed out the Does have been named in media coverage, police reports, and unsealed files for fewer than half of the entries on the list.
Providing a deep dive into the data, Law&Crime breaks down those Does, showing broadly what we know about them and how the unsealing of their identities can move the Epstein investigation.
Though the document doesn’t list any of the Does’ names, certain identities seem obvious from context clues.
“Doe 023,” for example, is someone who was “subject to widely publicized criminal prosecution abroad for sex trafficking” — and later “passed away,” according to the document.
That appears to be an unmistakable reference to the late modeling scout Jean-Luc Brunel, who was found dead in his cell — much like Epstein was — roughly one year ago while awaiting trial in an Epstein-related case.
Brunel is far from the only deceased Doe in the document, even among the alleged perpetrators. Law&Crime counted at least nine references to Does being “dead,” “deceased,” or having “passed away.” Three of these are alleged perpetrators, including the apparent reference to Brunel.
Maxwell’s lawyers say that Giuffre entered into a settlement with “Doe 049” and publicly said she was “mistaken” in making allegations against him. That’s a slight misquote — but not by much: Giuffre said she “may have made a mistake” in her accusations against Alan Dershowitz, when she entered into a settlement with him, “without costs,” last November.
Despite that history, Giuffre still appears to list Dershowitz as an “Alleged Perpetrator” and “Alleged Epstein Affiliate” in the document. Her legal team also alludes to the settlement and her public remarks on it, which are almost entirely redacted.
Shown that entry in an email, Dershowitz told Law&Crime in a phone interview that the apparent designation of him as an “Alleged Perpetrator” by Giuffre’s lawyers was “false” and “completely defamatory” — especially in light of their client’s “serious admission.”
“I will take whatever actions are necessary in response to that, but I do want everything unsealed,” Dershowitz added.
Giuffre’s representative did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
In most cases, Giuffre’s attorneys are the parties designating a Doe as an “alleged perpetrator,” but there is one notable exception.
Giuffre labels “Doe 067” as an “Alleged Victim Affiliate” and an “Alleged Witness,” and Maxwell’s team describes that person as an “Alleged Perpetrator.” There’s a reason for that.
“During the criminal trial, one of the named victims testified that [Giuffre] and this individual, who were then both over the age of 18, recruited her at the age of 14 to provide massages to Epstein,” Maxwell’s attorneys note in the document. “This Doe’s first and last name were provided in open court in connection with these allegations.”
This appears to refer to the testimony of Maxwell accuser Carolyn Andriano, who first testified only under her first name and then waived her anonymity in an interview with the Daily Mail. She appears to be described in the chart as “Doe 005,” whose entry cites her testimony under her first name and the interview following the trial.
Andriano testified that two people recruited her to Epstein: Giuffre and her ex-boyfriend Tony Figueroa.
The vast majority of the Does on the chart do not include such clues as to their identities, but their relationships to the major participants are broadly described. More than 30 are former Epstein employees. One formerly worked for Maxwell.
Nearly 90 are described as having been “affiliated” with Epstein, a victim, a witness or someone else. Multiple Does are said to have testified at Maxwell’s trial, including “Doe 016” — a victim who testified anonymously under a pseudonym.
That appears to describe “Jane,” who claimed that Maxwell and Epstein sexually abused her when she was 14 years old. Law&Crime is not publishing her real name, as she has sought anonymity as an adjudicated victim of childhood sexual abuse.
Only one of Maxwell’s victims chose to testify against her under her full, real name: Annie Farmer, and that testimony is alluded to in the description of “Doe 063.”
Multiple people listed as Epstein’s employees are said to have testified at his trial. It is unclear which Does correspond to which former Epstein employees, but Epstein’s ex-property manager Juan Alessi and ex-pilot Lawrence Paul Visoski Jr. fit this description.
Nearly 70 of the Does have been said to have been in the public record before in some form, such as the media, courtroom testimony, and police reports.
On a list of more than 160 Does, that means that many — if not most — of the names to be unsealed could be new. The appearance of names on the list, however, might not mean much. Epstein was known for his ties to the global elite, pictured with everyone from U.S. presidents to Pope John Paul II.
Some of the Does on the list are said to have been defendants in certain civil lawsuits, but some of those cases ended unceremoniously. One case from 2020, which listed more than 35 defendants including Kanye West and Beyonce Knowles, was dismissed as “frivolous.” There is no indication that either of them is on this list of Does, or whether it would be significant if they were.
The attorneys made a point to note that the sealed materials involving more than 40 of the Does are “not salacious.”
Only as to “Doe 124,” an alleged witness, do Maxwell’s lawyers write the opposite: “The witness’s allegations against this individual are salacious.”
Listen to a breakdown of the list on Law&Crime’s podcast “Objections: with Adam Klasfeld.”
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]