Jeffrey Epstein and Cecilia Steen: What the Documents Actually Show

Fast facts about the Jeffrey Epstein–Cecilia Steen connection

• A person named “Cecilia Steen” appears in the House Oversight “Epstein files” email dump as the sender of a June 22, 2016 email to Jeffrey Epstein’s jeevacation@gmail.com account, writing “Hi from London” and expressing sympathy about a lawsuit involving Donald Trump.

• The address jeevacation@gmail.com is identified in the released material as a personal email account used by Jeffrey Epstein.

• A Jeffrey Epstein household or office manual lists “Personalized notepads, cards, envelopes (Call Cecilia Steen to order)” among standard office supplies, suggesting that someone by that name was a contact for stationery and shipping-related items.

• FedEx records, discussed at the Ghislaine Maxwell criminal trial, show certain packages linked to Epstein’s office being sent by Jeffrey Epstein himself, by a person identified as “Cecilia Steen,” or by Sarah Kellen; those particular invoices did not list Maxwell as the sender to the accuser known as “Carolyn.”

• A civil discovery request in litigation against the Epstein estate lists “Cecilia Steen” among many names in a broad demand for documents relating to “house staff, employees, or individuals who were compensated by Epstein or affiliated entities.”

• Public Epstein-related databases do not clearly show “Cecilia Steen” in flight logs or in the published “black book”; her name appears instead in emails, internal manuals, and shipping records.

• There is no public reporting that any person named “Cecilia Steen” has been charged with a crime in connection with Jeffrey Epstein. The documents show limited administrative and personal contact, not proven criminal activity.

Who is “Cecilia Steen” in the Epstein files?

The name “Cecilia Steen” appears in several distinct parts of the broader Epstein document universe, including:

• A 2016 personal email to Epstein

• A reference in a household or office operations manual

• Mentions in FedEx shipping records discussed in the Maxwell trial

• A lawyer-drafted list of names in a civil discovery request

Major public sources do not link this name cleanly to a single, publicly known biography. Open-source searches show that there are multiple people in the world named “Cecilia Steen,” but there is no reliable evidence that any specific public figure with that name is the same individual who appears in the Epstein materials.

Because of that, it is safest to treat “Cecilia Steen” exactly as she appears in the documents: a name attached to certain administrative tasks and at least one personal email, without tying that name to a particular real-life profile.

The 2016 email: “Hi from London”

Within the House Oversight Committee email dump, one document stands out as a direct contact between Jeffrey Epstein and someone named “Cecilia Steen.” The file records an email with these basic details:

• From: Cecilia Steen

• To: “JE gmail” (jeevacation@gmail.com)

• Date: June 22, 2016

• Subject: “Hi from London”

• Importance: High

The body of the email is short and personal. In paraphrased form, it:

• Greets Epstein from London

• Expresses regret and sympathy about a lawsuit involving Donald Trump

• Says she wishes there were something she could do

• Notes that she thinks of Epstein often

• Closes with warm, affectionate language and her name

The message reads like a supportive note to a friend or close acquaintance, not like a formal business memo or legal communication. It also shows that by mid-2016, she was aware of legal pressure that involved both Trump and Epstein.

On its own, this email does not tell us:

• How long she had known Epstein

• Whether she worked directly for him or for an external company

• Whether they had a long face-to-face relationship or mainly exchanged messages

From a research methodology perspective, this is a classic example of why appearing in the Epstein email dumps is not, by itself, evidence of wrongdoing. The email documents a personal connection, but it does not show criminal conduct or even a clearly defined job role.

The household manual: “Call Cecilia Steen” for stationery

Another Epstein-related document, labeled as part of a household or office operations manual, includes a section on “Office Supplies.” In that section, staff are given a checklist of items that should always be in stock. One bullet point, paraphrased, reads:

• Personalized notepads, cards, envelopes (Call Cecilia Steen to order)

• FedEx and parcel slips

• Disposable cameras and film

This suggests that:

• “Cecilia Steen” functioned as a contact point for personalized paper goods and related items, such as note cards and envelopes.

• Staff were instructed to call her when they needed to reorder those supplies.

The manual does not say whether she was an employee, a contractor, or a representative of an outside vendor. Plausible explanations include:

• A representative at a stationery or print company that produced custom items for Epstein’s homes and offices

• A long-time vendor contact whose name was familiar to staff

• Someone in a mixed administrative/vendor role

The key point is that the manual places her name next to a practical instruction. This is typical of how house manuals reference service providers and vendors (“Call [name] at [company] when X needs service”).

From the standpoint of Epstein files research methodology, this is a logistical association: a name appears because it is useful for running the household and office, not because it is part of high-level decision-making.

FedEx records at the Ghislaine Maxwell trial

During the Ghislaine Maxwell criminal trial in 2021, FedEx shipping records linked to Epstein’s New York office were introduced and discussed in court. A FedEx representative testified about invoices showing packages sent from Epstein’s office at 457 Madison Avenue to a young woman known publicly by the pseudonym “Carolyn.”

Coverage of that testimony highlighted several points:

• Packages to the accuser were sent from Epstein’s office address.

• The senders listed on those invoices included:

  • Jeffrey Epstein

  • A person identified as “Cecilia Steen”

  • Sarah Kellen, a known associate of Epstein

• In that particular set of records, Maxwell was not listed as the sender of the packages to “Carolyn.”

Journalists and observers were careful to note that the records show who was listed as sender on the paperwork, but not necessarily who physically packed or handed off each parcel. The key courtroom effect was to dispute the idea that Maxwell herself mailed gifts to the accuser, not to define a specific role for “Cecilia Steen.”

For purposes of interpreting names in Epstein-related records, these FedEx documents show that:

• The name “Cecilia Steen” appears in connection with some shipments from Epstein’s office.

• The context again is logistics and shipping, mirroring her appearance in the office supplies manual.

• There is still no public explanation of her exact job title, employer, or responsibilities.

Civil discovery: listed among staff and compensated individuals

In at least one federal civil case against the Epstein estate, plaintiffs’ lawyers served a wide-ranging discovery request seeking documents about any house staff, employees, or compensated individuals connected to Epstein or related entities. As part of that request, they listed many names as examples, including well-known associates and lesser-known contacts such as “Cecilia Steen.”

Important caveats:

• The list shows who the lawyers wanted information about, not what a judge found as fact.

• The estate’s representatives objected to portions of the request, arguing that it was too broad and speculative.

• Being named in a discovery request does not prove that a person was an employee or that they engaged in misconduct; it simply signals that lawyers believed records about them might exist.

From a researcher’s perspective, this is one more data point: attorneys thought documents involving “Cecilia Steen” might be relevant to their case. It does not, on its own, settle whether she was on payroll, an occasional contractor, or just a recurring vendor contact.

Is “Cecilia Steen” in the black book or flight logs?

Across the most commonly referenced public collections:

• The name “Cecilia Steen” does not clearly appear in widely circulated versions of Jeffrey Epstein’s “black book” address book.

• Her name does not stand out in published flight logs for Epstein’s aircraft. Some documents mentioning “Steen” refer to other people or entities and are unrelated to the “Cecilia Steen” in the email and manual.

• Indexes that track every name appearing in the Epstein emails and files generally show only a handful of hits for “Cecilia Steen,” which is consistent with a limited administrative or personal link rather than a central role in his world.

This reinforces the view that “Cecilia Steen” is a low-frequency name in the archive, unlike major recurring figures who appear in dozens or hundreds of documents.

What we do not know about the Epstein–Steen relationship

Based on all available public records, there are significant gaps in what can be said about “Cecilia Steen”:

• We do not know which real-world person this name refers to.

• We do not know where she lived during the period of contact, although the 2016 email references London.

• We do not know whether she was a full-time employee, part-time worker, or external vendor.

• We do not know how long she knew Epstein, how often they met, or how their connection began.

• We do not know what she understood about Epstein’s criminal behavior.

What the documents do show is that:

• She is linked to practical, logistical tasks (ordering personalized stationery, appearing on FedEx sender lines).

• She sent at least one warm, personal email offering emotional support about legal trouble involving Trump.

• Her name is not a major focus of high-profile investigative reporting on Epstein’s activities.

In short, her presence in the archive is real but narrow.

Cautious summary of the Epstein–Steen relationship

Given the current public record, the connection between Jeffrey Epstein and a person named “Cecilia Steen” can be summarized as follows:

• She appears as the sender of a warm, personal email to Epstein in June 2016, mentioning a lawsuit involving Trump and expressing ongoing care and support.

• An internal household or office manual instructs staff to “Call Cecilia Steen” to order personalized notepads and stationery, placing her in a logistical role, possibly as a vendor contact.

• FedEx shipping records discussed at the Ghislaine Maxwell trial show packages from Epstein’s office that list her as sender alongside Epstein and Sarah Kellen, while not listing Maxwell as the sender to the accuser “Carolyn.”

• A civil discovery request groups her name among many individuals about whom plaintiffs sought documents, without making any findings about her specific role.

• There is no credible evidence in the public record that she has been charged with or found guilty of any crime in connection with Epstein’s abuse.

Taken together, these points indicate that a person named “Cecilia Steen” had some administrative and personal contact with Jeffrey Epstein. The record is limited, technical, and does not, by itself, support broader conclusions about her life, motives, or moral responsibility. Any further claims would go beyond what the emails, manuals, shipping records, and court documents actually show.