Sean Kent (4:52)

I am ready. Anushka, how are you doing?

Anushka Mutanda Doughty (4:55)

I just want to, like, hash out that Sean has instilled within me an insecurity. He has repeatedly told me that I have a gigantic head and a gigantic head of hair. And now I hide. I don't go outside. I shun the light. So thanks for that, Sean. And I just dyed my hair and he said it looked awful.

Sean Kent (5:11)

I did not say it's a very interesting color. I said, I like your hair. You have a lot of hair.

Anushka Mutanda Doughty (5:16)

Yeah, that's the. That's the objective. I want use interesting is. Yeah, that's what I was going for.

Sean Kent (5:22)

You have a beautiful head of hair. You are a hair person.

Anushka Mutanda Doughty (5:25)

Now, look, we've done this before, Sean. We've gone through the files across a couple of episodes. We're always looking in different places. I think the aftermath of them being released is going to go on for a really long time because it's impacting so many different areas, industries, professions, et cetera. I want to go through some of the correspondence today in the Epstein files. I'm going to let you do the honors here, though. Please just remind us what being mentioned in the Epstein files means.

Sean Kent (5:52)

I think you're doing this to make sure people attack me when I say what I'm about to say. Again, but simply being mentioned in the Epstein file. Here it comes. Does not mean anything. The Epstein file is a compilation. It is basically not even a full fledged investigation. Boy, that sounded like a rap lyric if there ever was one. It is literally just everything that possibly went into every tip, every nuance, everything that could be dealt with Jeffrey Epstein and all of the things that he had done wrong.

Anushka Mutanda Doughty (6:31)

And like, yeah, like you say, the files are wide ranging. Anybody could offer a tip off and put anybody's name in there. But there are levels to this. Absolutely. We have tip lines that are unverified. We have survivor statements that are in there. And we also have emails, correspondence, back and forth. And this is the kind of evidence that we are focusing on today. So the spotlight is on these messages between Epstein and Ramsay El Coley, who was a model scout based in the US and through their correspondence in the files, you can see that he was introducing women as young as 18 to Jeffrey Epstein. He was discussing their bodies, their attitudes to sex. And I want to warn listeners before we go through some of these messages, the language is pretty graphic and pretty degrading. So just be prepared for that. The first one I want to pick up on, as always, we have The EFTA number, that's EFTA 02030774. Just Google DOJ Epstein and you can go through the files yourself. Using that EFT number you will get this mess. Message this is from Ramsay sent to Jeffrey Epstein in 2011. I'm in Riga, Latvia. Amazing girls, many blondes with great bodies. Redacted. Emailed me saying you quote killed her with your words. Calling her silly. Etc. She is alone this last week in New York and has lost dollars. You put the dollar sign on this trip. She is desperate for cash. I have been working on her. She agreed with me that posing in lingerie is part of her job and she told me she would have no problem to do that with you. But she doesn't have the courage to propose it herself. I know it doesn't seem like much, but it's a step. She plans on coming back to New York so I'm thinking she could be an ongoing project for me. It's a great experiment taking a girl who hadn't been with a guy until she was 23, open brackets, exclamation mark, close brackets and then getting her to this point. I think you're in a good position because she is a drama queen and in the past she has said similar things. Open brackets. Jeffrey killed me with his words. Close brackets. And then you would call her the next day and she would be happy. She's sufficiently confused and I think you can get some mileage out of this smiley face. Otherwise, hope all is fine with you. We'll keep you updated on my travels. Now a few days later, Alcoholi wrote again, quote Jeffrey please, in all caps. Just try her in bed. I really need that so I can feel whole about this because she's such a pain in the ass. I also think it would be good to get her to know what it's like to get really. He uses an expletive. We're not going to do that here right now. But that's what was said. Now Alcoholi claims he sent this email, so he admits to sending it and he says he sent it with the woman's permission. We don't know what that woman has to say about that. Her name is redacted. Sean, I want to pick up on the language. I just read you that correspondence. Quote she's alone, she's desperate for cash. I have been working on her. She's sufficiently confused. She could be an ongoing project. Now she is redacted in that file. But if the the woman in question sees these messages, identifies that it Is her he is talking about. Can she raise this with the police or sue saying, maybe I did know this message was being sent, but I didn't know at the time I was being groomed. But reading this message back, understanding coercive control, I can see now I was being coerced.

Sean Kent (9:46)

I could see, from a prosecution standpoint, utilizing that language to say that it mirrors what sex traffickers have been known to do. I could see a creative prosecutor taking language, and they have used language such as that to say, this is what we want to stop with sex trafficking. This is the language that the prosecutors utilized in the Diddy trial to say that this is coercive control. This is the language that our legislators have tried to take away from individuals to stop because it suborns the will of young folks who have not been properly developed, whether they are financially destitute, emotionally destitute. And we have people in positions of power and authority taking advantage of that situation and putting these young ladies into a situation they don't want. As you understand, Anushka, as we've talked about, the person can consent, but they really are not consenting because they have taken away the will of that person. Yes, I want to work at your house, but I didn't have nowhere else to work, and so I have to work for pennies on the dollar. Yes, I volunteered to have sex with you, but I didn't want to because I was in such a position that I didn't enjoy this. Yes, I got on your fancy plane or your boat, but you took advantage and you knew that I was in a weakened state of mind. So this could be looked at as a very scary language. Yes.

Anushka Mutanda Doughty (11:08)

And I understand the civil system in the US Is often the pathway that is open to justice for a lot of people, because you can't force the police to open an investigation. This was sent in 2011, this email, but obviously the files were only released recently. If the young lady in question says, I didn't know this was written, I want the police to do something about this. I wasn't aware this existed. Could it bypass a statute of limitations? Because she's like, I literally didn't know this existed before. But this is, I believe, clearly indication that there was wrongdoing, criminal wrongdoing going on.

Sean Kent (11:43)

Here comes my phrase. That's a great question. And you can look at it in two different ways. First, in a civil parlance, it's a new or should have known, when you are readily on notice that you should have known is what starts the statute of limitations like you said, I didn't know this email exists. I didn't know I was being coerced. I would not have known until 2026. And that would have been the argument that that is the date that the statute of limitations runs. In a criminal arena, specifically in the federal system, there's almost always about a five year statute of limitation window. And, and it's not a new or should have known standard. It is the time in which the crime actually occurred. And we have those statute of limitations for a reason. Now if you look in the federal system, they usually have them in five year windows. There's a five year statute of limitations for almost all misdemeanors and felonies. When you get to a more violent esque type crime or crimes that could have some type of death, then you have a 10 year statute of limitations. Some of them have 20 year statute of limitations. But anytime you have charges for the most part involving minors, there are no statute of limitations whatsoever. Good federal prosecutors, however, in Nushka, creative federal prosecutors come up with ways might have seen a trial that happened a year or so ago. Rico. You utilize the RICO charge and something of that nature to increase the statute of limitations as a possibility. But no, I guess the simplest way to answer your question, just finding out today, my belief does not increase and take the statute of limitations back to 2011.

Anushka Mutanda Doughty (13:22)

Yeah. And so for those of you who weren't with us during the Diddy trial, that rico, I mean, you want to roll your eyes. I don't know if I. Sean likes to say rico, but I don't think that's how it's officially said in court.

Sean Kent (13:35)

It's not officially. It'll be changed. I'm working on a change on that.

Anushka Mutanda Doughty (13:39)

Good to know. So that's what you're doing during the day, alleging that they were running a racketeering enterprise, running a criminal organization. That was the allegation used against Diddy, obviously that he wasn't convicted of that. But running a criminal organization to facilitate the sex trafficking of these individuals for their own personal sexual desires and proclivities, you're saying a creative federal prosecutor could try and raise that charge. It's quite hard to bring a RICO charge though, right?

Sean Kent (14:07)

Oh, completely. As you saw from the Diddy trial. Just because I'm saying it doesn't make it easy. It's very hard to do that. And one of the reasons they had to do it is on a state level, the allegations that Diddy was looking at in California for abusing people and other States for abusing people. The statute of limitations had run. If you look in America, that statute of limitations is used a lot. Probably a great example. In 1950, the mob did this great Brinks truck robbery. Shut up, Anushka, and let me be a dork. In 1950, there was still the great Brinks truck robbery. The mob actually robbed this Brinks truck of like $3 million. At the time, the statute of limitations on that state level was for six years. And so all of these mobsters got together, they got away with this crime, and they said, nobody do anything. Nobody spend money for six years. Because if we wait till the end of six years, we can do whatever we want. Five days before the six years ended, one of the people turned snitch, and they all ended up getting arrested. So the statue of limitation. Did I say that incorrectly? The statue of limitations is created, and people use it as a sword and a shield Sometimes. Some criminals say, we're just gonna hide out and wait until that statute runs. And that's one of the reasons that we have rico, because these mobsters said, we're gonna sit around and wait. And they created rico. So people couldn't just sit around and close their eyes and wait. Don't pick on me. I'm a door.

Anushka Mutanda Doughty (15:27)

I'm not gonna pick on you. But I do love it when you. You pull one out. The archive. The personal archive.

Sean Kent (15:33)

Her own. Wow, I caught what you just did there. Personal archives. No, I was not around in 1950. Anushka.

Anushka Mutanda Doughty (15:42)

Really?

Sean Kent (15:43)

You could have fooled me. And they wonder why I talk about your hair. Just saying.

Anushka Mutanda Doughty (15:48)

You need to moisturize, honey. No, I'm just kidding. This man moisturizes a lot. I know.

Sean Kent (15:56)

This whole skin care. You know what? I'm just going to be. Nope. Nope.

Anushka Mutanda Doughty (16:03)

That's so interesting, though, because like you say, sometimes we think of the law as quite a linear practice. You learn this, you prosecute this in court. But it's about doing things creatively. I want to read you some of the other sections of these correspondence. This is EFTA number 00771864. Now, this was sent three months after Epstein was released from prison after serving time for soliciting a minor for prostitution. This is what sets quote redacted is also 23, very hot blonde. We could set up a quote casting of some sort. I know her the least of all the girls, so maybe that would be the best way to play it. I know 23 is on the old side for you, but I think they're both worth meeting for different reasons. One is blonde arm candy. Not sure if she has a boyfriend and she's a business minded sex machine. Then there is this one. EFTA 01059853. Now this is part of an email chain about the launch of a French magazine in the US And Epstein advised El Coley not to invest. So he's asking him, should I invest in this? Epstein says, stay away. He spells that.0 a w a Y. Anyone who's in the files themselves will know that this man frequently has atrocious spelling. It just happens throughout. It's just something we've picked up on, like really incomprehensible spelling. But anyway, Ali responds saying, grr, think of all the girls I would have effed. Okay, I'll pass it on. Maybe just buy Brazil for a couple hundred K. That will ensure a steady stream of punani. That is obviously a colloquial term for a vagina. And then they go on to talk about no one's interested in print media anymore, but it's going digital. So they're discussing this business venture. The Next one is EFTA 00698203 where he says this is El Coli to Epstein. A Brazilian fashion magazine is for sale. If we can get it cheap, would you like to buy it together? Castings can come through New York, so you could easily have 20 to 30 girls trying for the COVID each month. Just an idea. This is the last one I just want to read in this run of correspondence. EFTA 026-34843. This conversation takes place over January to April 2019. They are discussing women and El Coley says, quote, she will be in London if you want to import her, Sean, and I've just read you four or five messages there. Through these messages it appears they are coordinating. Epstein and El Koli are coordinating how to use modeling opportunities, castings and potential business ventures as a means for Epstein to have sexual relations with these women. We don't have evidence yet of what happened following these emails and we haven't had a response from Alcoholy when we asked him about sending women to Epstein. But in one message, when they are discussing if Epstein should invest in a modeling agency, Alcoholi says, quote, I assume you are more interested in access to the. And then he uses an emoji rather than saying women. It's the emoji of a woman. We know models, Sean. We know this. We know models were among those who Epstein abused, which the FBI have estimated could total a thousand women and girls in these Messages, it's El Coley who appears to be planning, organizing and acknowledging that Epstein's interest in modeling in the modeling industry was based on his access to the models. In fact, in one message, he appears to check if Epstein was, quote, getting some mileage out of a model being alone and cashless in New York. There are no known legal claims or charges against him relating to these interactions. The natural question here is what is the bar theoretically for being a co conspirator?

Sean Kent (19:45)

Well, a co conspirator liability is just that, two individuals engaged in some type of criminal activity. It just takes two. Usually what you have to require is exactly what I said, two or more people engaged in some type of criminal activity. The difficulty improving co conspirators have done something is what have they done in furtherance of the crime is the problem that most prosecutors have to prove. They may be into saying they're going to do something, but what have they done in furtherance of the crime? Again, a good savvy prosecutor looking at those messages could say that these messages are sent in furtherance of a crime and then all they have to do is prove the crime. So a young lady comes forth and says, I was sent. I went, I did. And then they have the email and say they are co conspirator liability. And so what ends up happening is the actions that are taken by Jeffrey Epstein can be seen as the same actions as as anyone who is tied into the conspiracy. So let's take that one step further, Anushka. Let's say for argument's sake, they have created a conspiracy. Let's say for argument's sake that these emails say that he has engaged and just for argument's sake, engaged in some type of sex trafficking and he's brought somebody over hypothetically, hear me, let's say then Epstein kills somebody. Let's say Epstein robs a bank neck. The co conspirator is liable for everything that he has done in furtherance of that conspiracy, even though he had nothing to do with that part. And so being tied into a conspiracy ties you into everything your co conspirator does until you affirmatively pull yourself out of the conspiracy.

Anushka Mutanda Doughty (21:35)

The BBC did ask alcohol for a statement, Fame Under Fire. Specifically, we asked him for a response and we haven't received one. But he did respond earlier to the BBC and he said he'd not been part of Epstein's inner circle. He said he regretted the language in some emails and his association with Epstein and that he had not been aware that financier had Been abusing women. I've read you the correspondence. If he says, I thought these women wanted to have sexual relations with Jeffrey Epstein and I thought what was happening was whining and dining and romancing and everything was good and happy, is that his defense to saying, yes, I was setting it up. Yes, I was introducing women to him, but I thought everything was. How was I supposed to know that he was an abuser?

Sean Kent (22:19)

This is far reaching. I'm not saying this is actually happening, but if this was an actual scenario, that would have to be his defenses that I did not know. And there is a little charge in the federal system and some state systems that's called willful blindness. And that's where the judge tells the jury, you cannot just close your blind eye and just ignore what you reasonably should have seen. You know, you cannot say, I did not know what was going on because you did not want to look as an individual. The federal system says you have a duty to look into some situations. Here's the most realistic example of what ends up happening in our situations. We have a young lady who lives with a man. The man does not have a job. He wears flashy jewelry and has six cars. He has multiple phones and he pays for all the bills and he gives her hundreds, if not thousands of dollars a week. But he does not work and does not file his taxes. And people come in inside the house and she sees white powder substance on her hands. She is interviewed by law enforcement, say, did you know he's a drug dealer? I never asked about his business. I didn't know what he was doing. Well, the federal government says that's willful blindness. You should have known what he's doing because of what you're getting. The argument that they can make with those emails and messages is you are sending young ladies to him. You are sending young ladies who clearly, you know, by your own words have issues, emotional issues, financial issues, you know, and then when you take the phrase that we've all utilized a million times when he says, well, I didn't know that was sex trafficking, the argument is always, ignorance of the law is no excuse. You should have known what you were doing could run afoul of the law, that then creates our co conspirator liability. And even though you did not know the abhorrent stuff that he was accused of doing, you should have known. And now you're a co conspirator. Again, I'm not saying that's what happened. I'm just giving an example of what

Anushka Mutanda Doughty (24:14)

could we have invited Ramsay Okoli to comment, but he hasn't responded yet. But we do need to be crystal clear here. As far as we're aware, he isn't under investigation, hasn't been arrested or charged, and we don't know of any civil claims against him. This discussion about criminal and civil liability is purely hypothetical. On the other side of this is the civil side, civil lawsuits and the civil route to justice. The women's names in these emails are redacted, but sometimes he appears to be speaking generally about women that he can send over. He says at one point, you can fly these girls anywhere. Could the women represented by agencies he's affiliated with. He's a model scout. File a class action against him for workplace endangerment or a hostile work environment, saying we did not know at the time that you were behind the scenes talking to a convicted child sexual predator, offering to fly us here, there and everywhere, telling him that we were in cities with no money, telling him our whereabouts, and you endangered all of us because of your activity. So this is a class action.

Sean Kent (25:14)

Yes, they could. And then you run into the phrase that we started at the beginning, statute of limitations. But if you look at certain states like New York, who remember when we all started this whole Diddy case, what do they do? The New York legislators went out of their way to re increase that statue of limitations by creating a statute. And they said, look, this is awful. We should have a look back period, a little bit longer because we wouldn't have known these situations. You look at the cases of Bill Cosby, you look at the case of Harvey Weinstein, you look at all these cases where they created these statutes, statutes that you could look back and come through, it could be the same situation.

Anushka Mutanda Doughty (25:47)

Here we focus on these messages between Ramsey L. Coley and Epstein. But the unfolding after effects of the release of the files is far broader. It seems to be a broader reckoning in the modeling industry that goes beyond just this one model scout and his relationship with Epstein. On 25 March 2026, Epstein Survivors and fashion models released an open letter to the Attorney General of New York. This has been organized by a non profit organization, Model alliance, founded by Sara Z. Ziff and more than 40 other survivors of fashion models impacted by sexual abuse and trafficking within the industry are calling for an inquiry into the modeling industry's role in facilitating Jeffrey Epstein's abuse. I'll read you a bit of the letter in a second. But when you ask for an investigation, what are you asking for that is

Sean Kent (26:33)

such a wide rating question but what you're basically asking for some type of oversight or a committee report. You're asking for your federal government to look into it. You're asking for an investigation. You are telling your attorney General that this is an issue that has been ignored for entirely too long. There is so much information that we do not know on the Epstein files. We're asking our attorney generals to look into this nuanced issue. You guys are looking at all of these big things and we believe there is an underrepresented group of individuals, these models who are not looking into. We want you to look at them too.

Anushka Mutanda Doughty (27:08)

And this is a section of the letter that speaks to the situation in the modeling industry. Modeling is a 2.5 trillion dollar global industry. But for decades, it says modeling agencies have operated with minimal oversight whilst exercising sweeping control over a uniquely vulnerable workforce. Children and teens as young as 14 years old, many of whom are immigrants. Until 2 June 2025, when New York enacted the Fashion Workers act, three modeling agencies required models to sign granting power of attorney, giving agencies complete control over models, finances, work visas, housing and access to job opportunities. This structure did not merely create a power imbalance, it created a pipeline through which vulnerable teenagers were regularly delivered to powerful predators. Jeffrey Epstein was not a rogue outlier, but a beneficiary of and a participant in this system. The public record, survivor testimony, investigative reporting and newly released material indicate that Epstein's trafficking operation intersected directly with modeling agencies and executives who introduced him to young women and girls and facilitated his access to potential victims. Now the full letter is available on. If you type in Model alliance, you can go and read the full thing. There's a list of allegations about different modeling agencies in there. And the survivors who've come together to write this letter go through, you know, lots of the allegations that they have. Sean, when I read that, I was quite. Power of attorney, isn't there workers rights to protect against that? If you sign over the power of attorney to your job, is that not quite extreme?

Sean Kent (28:43)

Extremely. Well, go extreme with extremely. It really is. And this is one of the theories that they're saying is you may have been an innocent participant modeling agency, but you have created a system that allowed Jeffrey Epstein's of the world to flourish. What ends up happening is it's right for being taken advantage of. And that's what the theory is. You know, everybody signs these power of attorneys. You should be grateful to be a model. We are cutting you these chances. We own your likeness. You should be happy to be able to do this and you should do whatever it takes. And we've all watched the movies, we've all seen the situations people will do anything to get into modeling television and so forth. And that's what they're saying allowed a creature like Jeffrey Epstein to be created, a creature like Harvey Weinstein to be created, these creatures to be create, created. Because this is a system and we have to stop the system. And all of you are equally liable because it is crazy that you're coming over here and working. You've got to give me a power of attorney. You become powerless almost and willing to do stuff that you don't want to do.

Anushka Mutanda Doughty (29:50)

Well, look, like I said, the unfolding after effects of the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files, it's not slowing down. We will keep you updated. We will do more programs on this and we will follow what happens when we get a response from the Attorney General in New York and what happens with Model Alliance. Sean, thank you so much for coming on today and walking us through everything so expertly.

Sean Kent (30:08)

Thank you. And I love your hair.

Anushka Mutanda Doughty (30:11)

That was our resident trial attorney, Sean Kent from South Carolina. But before we go, there's some exciting news. The BBC is throwing open the doors to Maida Vale Studios on Saturday 25th April for Cast Fest, a one day celebration bringing our biggest news podcast directly to you. And Fame Under Fire will be there as well as Newscast americast, the global story and Top Comment. You will be able to go behind the scene scenes, meet your favorite hosts, join exclusive Q and as, and even step into the studio to record your own mini podcast episode. Come on. Tickets are free. Just head to the BBC shows and tours website. That's it for this episode of Fame Under Fire from BBC Sounds with me, Anushka Matan Adi. Make sure you subscribe and turn on your push notifications so you never miss a thing.

Shari Vaughan (30:55)

I told my dad, stop immediately. This is a scam. Scam Secrets with me, Shari Vaughan. He had actually paid £209,000 to the scammers. Each week we expose a different scam in detail to help you spot the red flags.

Anushka Mutanda Doughty (31:10)

I'll say things like, I carried on

Shari Vaughan (31:12)

with it and I got great returns with special insights from experts including criminologists and a former scammer who now works to help prevent fraud.

Podcast Advertiser Voice (31:22)

When it's successful, it completely wipes people out.

Shari Vaughan (31:25)

Scam Secret from BBC Radio 4. Listen now on BBC Sounds.

Narrator (31:36)

It's 2009 and we're in the German mountains. A man straps himself into a car on the World's most dangerous racetrack. He whispers to himself.

Podcast Advertiser Voice (31:44)

It's time to put my balls on the dashboard.

Narrator (31:46)

As he starts the engine.

Podcast Advertiser Voice (31:48)

In 15 minutes, he's in an ambulance, unconscious in 15 years is he's a billionaire.

Narrator (31:53)

This is Toto Wolf, Formula one's most powerful team boss and the breakout star of Drive to Survive.

Podcast Advertiser Voice (31:59)

This week on Good Bad Billionaire. How Toto Wolf made his billions. Listen, wherever you get your BBC podcasts.