The Epstein Chronicles

Privately, the royal family had long been bracing for the inevitable fallout surrounding Prince Andrew's association with Jeffrey Epstein. Insiders described an atmosphere of quiet dread within palace walls—where the Duke of York's behavior, arrogance, and questionable friendships were seen as a ticking time bomb. His extravagant lifestyle, insistence on maintaining ties with Epstein even after the financier's first conviction, and tone-deaf interviews all fed the sense that scandal wasn't a matter of if, but when. Behind closed doors, senior royals were said to be exasperated, viewing Andrew as a liability whose judgment could one day drag the monarchy into the kind of moral quagmire it hadn't seen since the abdication crisis.When that shoe finally dropped, with Epstein's arrest and Virginia Roberts Giuffre's allegations thrusting Andrew's name into global headlines, the sense of inevitability inside the palace turned into damage control. The Queen reportedly struggled to balance maternal loyalty with institutional preservation, while Prince Charles and Prince William quietly pushed for exile to protect the crown's reputation. What followed wasn't just a family crisis—it was a confirmation of their worst fears. The royal family's careful machinery of silence, denial, and image management could no longer contain the scandal. Andrew's downfall wasn't sudden; it was the slow-motion collapse they had all seen coming for years.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

When Alex Acosta sat before Congress to explain himself, what unfolded was less an act of accountability and more a masterclass in bureaucratic self-preservation. He painted the 2008 Epstein plea deal as a “strategic compromise,” claiming a federal trial might have been too risky because victims were “unreliable” and evidence was “thin.” In reality, federal prosecutors had a mountain of corroborating witness statements, corroborative travel logs, and sworn victim testimony—yet Acosta gave Epstein the deal of the century. The so-called non-prosecution agreement wasn't justice; it was a backroom surrender, executed in secrecy, without even notifying the victims. When pressed on this, Acosta spun excuses about legal precedent and “jurisdictional confusion,” never once admitting the obvious: his office protected a rich, politically connected predator at the expense of dozens of trafficked girls.Even more damning was Acosta's insistence that he acted out of pragmatism, not pressure. He denied that anyone “higher up” told him to back off—even though he once told reporters that he'd been informed Epstein “belonged to intelligence.” Under oath, he downplayed that statement, twisting it into bureaucratic double-speak. He even claimed the deal achieved “some level of justice” because Epstein registered as a sex offender—a hollow justification that only exposed how insulated from reality he remains. Acosta never showed remorse for the irreparable damage caused by his cowardice. His congressional testimony reeked of moral rot, the same rot that let a billionaire pedophile walk free while survivors were left to pick up the pieces.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Acosta Transcript.pdf - Google DriveBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The idea of commuting Ghislaine Maxwell's sentence is beyond disgusting—it's an insult to every survivor who suffered under the Epstein machine. This isn't some white-collar embezzler or a tax cheat; this is a woman convicted of trafficking children, grooming them, and serving them up to one of the most vile predators in modern history. To even whisper about leniency for her is to spit in the faces of those victims who were silenced, manipulated, and destroyed by a system that already failed them once. It's not just tone-deaf—it's moral rot at the highest level, a grotesque display of how the powerful still find ways to protect their own while pretending justice has been served.Entertaining this conversation at all makes a mockery of accountability. It confirms everything people like me have been shouting for years: the Epstein network was never dismantled—it was managed, protected, and slowly buried under “procedures” and “reports.” If this administration, or any administration, has the gall to let Maxwell walk free, it won't just be a betrayal—it'll be proof that the cover-up has come full circle. You don't commute the sentence of a predator's enabler; you keep her exactly where she belongs: behind bars, staring at the walls she helped build for others.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Queen Elizabeth's legacy is complicated — not one of villainy, but of restraint taken too far. She wasn't blind to the troubles surrounding her son or the company he kept. Decades on the throne, surrounded by intelligence briefings and advisors, make ignorance impossible. But her instincts, shaped by a lifetime of protecting the monarchy, led her to do what she'd always done: contain the damage, preserve the Crown, and keep the family's troubles behind palace walls. It wasn't malice — it was control. Yet that control, in moments like these, came at the cost of transparency and trust.She wasn't responsible for the crimes of others, but she bore responsibility for how the institution responded. Her silence  was a reflex born of a system that prizes dignity over honesty. And while that may have once seemed noble, the world changed, and silence began to look like complicity. In the end, she'll be remembered as both the monarch who held her nation together through eras of upheaval and the one who held too tightly when truth demanded release. Queen Elizabeth preserved the monarchy — but she also showed us the limits of what silence can protect.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The very idea of commuting Ghislaine Maxwell's sentence is an absolute disgrace — proof that America's justice system has rotted from the inside out. Maxwell wasn't some bystander; she was the architect, recruiter, and enabler of Jeffrey Epstein's child-trafficking empire. Survivors have said she was every bit as monstrous as Epstein, if not worse, and yet she's sitting in a “prison” that feels more like a wellness resort. Now the same establishment that promised transparency with the Epstein files — only to bury the truth under redactions and lies — wants us to believe this predator deserves leniency? It's a slap in the face to every victim who spoke out, every whistleblower who risked their career, and every ordinary person who still believes in the idea of justice.It's the system protecting its own, ensuring Maxwell stays quiet while the real power players keep their names out of the headlines. They'll dress it up as “compassion” or “reform,” but what it really means is: she knows too much, and they can't risk her breaking silence. If they actually let this woman walk, then the message is clear — the powerful are untouchable, and the rest of us are fools for expecting anything different. This isn't justice. It's theater. It's corruption wrapped in civility. And if this country really dares to free her, then it has no right to ever again claim it protects children, truth, or decency.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The entire OIG investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement was a government-produced illusion — a sham built to look like justice while serving as a protective shield for the very people who orchestrated one of the most corrupt plea deals in modern history. The report was never meant to uncover wrongdoing; it was crafted to contain it. Instead of shining light, it poured concrete over the truth, allowing the DOJ and figures like Alexander Acosta to point to it as “proof” of integrity whenever they're cornered. In reality, it's bureaucratic sleight of hand — the government investigating itself and declaring itself innocent. It's the institutional version of laundering guilt, a paper shield designed to keep powerful names untouched and the public pacified.From the beginning, the OIG report wasn't about accountability — it was about insulation. Every line of it was written to protect the Department of Justice, not the victims. It became the official firewall against scrutiny, the final word for anyone asking why Epstein and his network escaped real punishment. And what's worse is how easily people still buy it. Internal oversight in this country has turned into performance art, where the fox investigates the henhouse, stamps “no wrongdoing,” and walks away with a smirk. The OIG report didn't close the Epstein case; it buried it under bureaucracy and called it reform — the ultimate proof that protecting the institution will always matter more than protecting the truth.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the years following Jeffrey Epstein's death, one of the more disturbing revelations about his compensation fund emerged when a self-identified recruiter — referred to in court documents only as “Jane Doe” — attempted to claim money from it. This woman openly admitted that she had helped Epstein recruit underage girls but simultaneously described herself as a victim, saying she had been sexually abused and trafficked by Epstein for more than a decade. Instead of continuing her federal lawsuit against his estate, she withdrew it and pursued a payout through the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program, a fund specifically intended to compensate those exploited by Epstein's network. The move ignited outrage among other victims and their attorneys, who saw it as a grotesque inversion of justice: a recruiter trying to profit from a fund meant to heal the very wounds she helped inflict.The controversy underscored the moral and legal murk that has long surrounded Epstein's empire. His trafficking operation relied on a pyramid-like system in which victims were sometimes coerced into recruiting others, blurring the line between participant and prey. But many advocates argued that this woman's decade-long role as an active recruiter made her claim fundamentally illegitimate. Though her application highlighted the psychological manipulation and coercion Epstein used to control his circle, critics countered that intent doesn't erase culpability. In the end, the episode became another reminder of how Epstein's network corrupted everything it touched — even the very mechanisms meant to deliver justice to his victims.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

For years, Queen Elizabeth II acted as Prince Andrew's unwavering shield against the fallout of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. Even as allegations mounted, she reportedly resisted internal and external pressure to sideline her son, allowing him to retain royal privileges, honors, and public duties long after the public tide had turned. Her personal loyalty was said to eclipse political and institutional logic—Andrew remained a fixture at Balmoral and Windsor, even as palace staff urged the Queen to distance herself. Royal insiders and biographers have described her as deeply maternal in her defense of him, believing he was being unfairly vilified and refusing to entertain discussions about exile or disownment. This protective stance allowed Andrew to delay accountability for years while the rest of the royal household absorbed the reputational damage.But by early 2022, under overwhelming public and institutional pressure, even the Queen's protection could no longer hold back the storm. She reluctantly approved the removal of Andrew's military titles, royal patronages, and the use of his HRH style—a move seen as both a last resort and a symbolic cutting of ties to preserve the monarchy. Still, until her death later that year, she continued to privately support him, hosting him at Balmoral and reportedly helping fund parts of his legal settlement with Virginia Giuffre. It was the ultimate act of maternal loyalty—protecting her son from disgrace even as the monarchy fought to survive the wreckage his scandals had created.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Sarah Kellen (also known as Sarah Vickers or Sarah Kensington) is widely described as one of the key assistants to Jeffrey Epstein during the 2000s — a role in which she allegedly managed and coordinated many of the logistical and operational elements of Epstein's sex-trafficking network. Court records, witness statements, and investigative reporting claim that Kellen was responsible for arranging “massages” (in many cases euphemisms for sexual encounters), scheduling flights on Epstein's private jets, keeping contact lists of girls, and effectively acting as a gatekeeper for victims who were transported to various propertiesDespite her deep involvement, Kellen has never faced criminal charges. Federal judges and prosecutors have described her as a “knowing participant” and a “criminally responsible” figure in Epstein's network, yet she remains free — claiming she was also a victim of Epstein's control. Many survivors reject that narrative, arguing that she had full agency and willingly helped enable the abuse of minors. Her story underscores a broader truth about the Epstein case: that key facilitators, assistants, and coordinators — often women — operated the machinery of exploitation with precision, and most have evaded accountability under the guise of victimhood.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jeffrey Epstein's alleged connections to intelligence agencies remain one of the most enduring and controversial aspects of his story. Former U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta famously told investigators that he was instructed to back off Epstein's original prosecution because Epstein “belonged to intelligence,” a remark that fueled speculation that the financier's crimes were protected for reasons beyond money or influence. Over the years, Epstein cultivated close ties with figures tied to intelligence and geopolitics—hosting former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak at his Manhattan mansion, meeting with former CIA Director William Burns, and maintaining relationships with high-level financiers and scientists who had security clearance. His vast network, offshore structures, and inexplicable access to classified-adjacent individuals led many to theorize that Epstein operated as an asset—either for the U.S., Israel, or both—leveraging sexual blackmail to secure leverage over powerful men.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

When the U.S. Department of Justice filed a formal Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) request with the U.K. Home Office in 2020 to question Prince Andrew as part of its investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's network, the Duke's legal team immediately went on the defensive. They issued a statement claiming Andrew had “on at least three occasions offered his assistance” and accused U.S. prosecutors of violating confidentiality rules by publicly asserting that he had not cooperated. His lawyers framed the MLA request as unnecessary “political theater,” implying that the DOJ's statements were meant to pressure the Duke through media embarrassment rather than legitimate procedure. The legal team presented Andrew as a willing witness, not a suspect — arguing that any suggestion he was stonewalling the investigation was both “false” and “misleading.”However, U.S. officials directly contradicted those assertions, saying that Andrew had “zero cooperation” despite repeated outreach. The Southern District of New York prosecutors maintained that Andrew's team refused to schedule interviews or provide substantive assistance. Legal experts in both the U.S. and U.K. noted that while an MLA request could theoretically compel cooperation through formal channels, it was diplomatically sensitive and rarely used against a member of the Royal Family. The optics were terrible: while the Duke's lawyers publicly insisted on transparency, his continued silence and refusal to appear under oath only deepened perceptions that he was hiding behind privilege and procedure to avoid accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In July 2007, Prince Andrew attended a lavish party in Saint-Tropez hosted by Anglo-French billionaire Tony Murray alongside his daughter Princess Beatrice (then around 18–19 years old). At the event, he was seen socializing closely with Canadian model and singer Pascale Bourbeau—photos reportedly show the Duke with his hand on her rear, and the pair in a “nose-to-nose” pose. The article highlights that while his daughter was present at the same event, Andrew appeared absorbed in the party atmosphere with younger women.Witnesses at the gathering described it as part of a wild streak for the Prince, who was divorced, in his late 40s and apparently embracing an attention-seeking social life. One observer said: “These were really crazy years for Andrew… He was clearly having a full-blown midlife crisis.” According to the report, Andrew and Bourbeau left the party by boat with other women while Beatrice departed separately. The article casts the episode as another illustration of the Duke's controversial nightlife and social conduct in the years before his later public scandal.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Prince Andrew's friendship with Ghislaine Maxwell long carried an air of royal endorsement, giving her—and by extension, Jeffrey Epstein—an appearance of legitimacy few others could grant. Maxwell's invitations to royal events, her presence at Balmoral, and her close access to Andrew's inner circle blurred the line between personal friendship and public representation. Within elite circles, her proximity to the Duke of York acted as a subtle stamp of approval, suggesting that if she was welcome at the Queen's estates, she must be trustworthy. This social validation, however unintentional, helped shield Epstein's network from scrutiny and lent a deceptive respectability to those around him.Behind palace walls, however, courtiers reportedly grew uneasy. Some viewed Maxwell as manipulative, exploiting her friendship with Andrew to bolster her influence in both British and American high society. After Epstein's crimes came to light, that once-casual friendship became a symbol of the monarchy's failure to recognize danger in its own ranks. What had seemed like innocent social mixing was later exposed as the façade that granted Maxwell—and Epstein—cover under the most powerful monarchy in the world.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

When Alex Acosta sat before Congress to explain himself, what unfolded was less an act of accountability and more a masterclass in bureaucratic self-preservation. He painted the 2008 Epstein plea deal as a “strategic compromise,” claiming a federal trial might have been too risky because victims were “unreliable” and evidence was “thin.” In reality, federal prosecutors had a mountain of corroborating witness statements, corroborative travel logs, and sworn victim testimony—yet Acosta gave Epstein the deal of the century. The so-called non-prosecution agreement wasn't justice; it was a backroom surrender, executed in secrecy, without even notifying the victims. When pressed on this, Acosta spun excuses about legal precedent and “jurisdictional confusion,” never once admitting the obvious: his office protected a rich, politically connected predator at the expense of dozens of trafficked girls.Even more damning was Acosta's insistence that he acted out of pragmatism, not pressure. He denied that anyone “higher up” told him to back off—even though he once told reporters that he'd been informed Epstein “belonged to intelligence.” Under oath, he downplayed that statement, twisting it into bureaucratic double-speak. He even claimed the deal achieved “some level of justice” because Epstein registered as a sex offender—a hollow justification that only exposed how insulated from reality he remains. Acosta never showed remorse for the irreparable damage caused by his cowardice. His congressional testimony reeked of moral rot, the same rot that let a billionaire pedophile walk free while survivors were left to pick up the pieces.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Acosta Transcript.pdf - Google DriveBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The state of New Mexico's handling of Jeffrey Epstein's crimes remains one of the most glaring examples of governmental negligence in recent memory. Despite Epstein owning the massive Zorro Ranch property near Stanley, where multiple survivors alleged they were trafficked and abused, state authorities failed to bring a single charge against him. Even after Epstein's 2008 Florida conviction, he was not required to register as a sex offender in New Mexico due to a technicality in the state's laws and the lack of proactive enforcement by local officials. Investigations launched by the New Mexico Attorney General's Office were sluggish, underfunded, and seemingly designed to avoid confrontation with the powerful interests connected to Epstein. The inaction effectively allowed one of the most notorious predators in modern history to operate with impunity on New Mexico soil.Now, amid mounting public anger and renewed scrutiny, New Mexico lawmakers are attempting to atone through the creation of a “truth commission” — a bipartisan investigative body designed to examine how the state's institutions failed. The commission would probe how Epstein was able to buy land, operate businesses, and allegedly abuse victims with no oversight. Its goal is to uncover which officials knew about Epstein's activities, why red flags were ignored, and how state systems can be reformed to prevent such catastrophic negligence in the future. Supporters describe it as a long-overdue reckoning with the failures of law enforcement, regulatory agencies, and political leadership, though critics warn that it may amount to little more than symbolic damage control unless it carries real investigative authority and public transparency.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The newly released correspondence reveals Maxwell gushing that life at Bryan is “much, much happier,” describing the kitchen as “clean,” the staff as “polite,” and boasting she “haven't seen a single fight, drug deal, passed-out person or naked inmate running around”—in her words, “I feel like I have dropped through Alice in Wonderland's looking-glass.” In stark contrast, she painted her old facility, Federal Correctional Institution Tallahassee, as so unsanitary that “possums falling from ceilings… frying on ovens” mingled with the food served. The tone is one of relief mingled with smugness, and it raises profound questions about how a person convicted of aiding a vast sex-trafficking scheme is enjoying conditions so clearly characterized as unusually comfortable.But the emails don't just stop at praise—they touch off a firestorm of claims from fellow inmates and corrections experts that Maxwell is receiving “VIP treatment.” Leaks argue that she gets meals delivered to her dorm, late-night showers when others are asleep, access to the warden for legal help, and in one alarming twist, some inmates say they were threatened or transferred for speaking out about her. Experts say such privileges are unheard-of for someone with Maxwell's conviction and sentence, suggesting she's been moved to a “country club” style prison camp despite federal rules that restrict sex-offender convicts from such facilities. The implications are explosive: favor or influence, justice subverted, and a system that seems to bow for big names while normal inmates rot under far harsher rules.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Ghislaine Maxwell praises cushy prison for cleanliness, lack of possums falling from ceilingBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Calls for Prince Andrew to speak with the FBI began in late 2019, shortly after Jeffrey Epstein's arrest and subsequent death, when U.S. investigators turned their attention to Epstein's inner circle. Andrew's long-standing friendship with Epstein — including his stays at Epstein's New York mansion and the widely circulated photo with Virginia Giuffre — made him a person of interest in the ongoing probe. U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman publicly urged the Duke of York to cooperate, revealing that Andrew had provided “zero cooperation” despite his earlier public pledge to assist investigators. The announcement set off a firestorm in both the UK and U.S., with media outlets accusing the prince of hiding behind royal privilege and fueling public outrage over perceived double standards.By early 2020, the pressure only intensified. Lawmakers, victims' advocates, and legal experts demanded that Andrew face questioning under oath, arguing that his testimony could shed light on Epstein's trafficking network and the powerful figures who enabled it. The FBI reportedly reached out multiple times through formal channels, but Andrew's legal team stalled, citing procedural concerns and jurisdictional issues. His refusal to cooperate became an international embarrassment for Buckingham Palace, further damaging the royal family's reputation and strengthening the perception that Andrew was being shielded from accountability. What began as calls for cooperation soon evolved into a symbol of royal impunity — the moment when the world saw how far the palace would go to protect one of its own.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Donald Trump's ever-changing narrative about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein has grown increasingly incoherent, with his latest claim being that Epstein “stole” spa workers from Mar-a-Lago—including, allegedly, Virginia Giuffre. Instead of expressing outrage over Epstein's crimes or sympathy for the survivors, Trump framed the fallout like a staffing dispute, saying Epstein took people who worked for him and that Giuffre “had no complaints.” The shifting timelines—from calling Epstein a “terrific guy” to suddenly claiming moral indignation or workplace betrayal—don't inspire confidence in his account.Giuffre's family responded critically to Trump's comments, describing them as insensitive and reducing Virginia to an object rather than acknowledging her as a survivor. They emphasized that she was a person who endured serious trauma and should not be spoken about in such transactional terms. Their reaction raised broader concerns about the tone and framing of Trump's statements—particularly the absence of empathy toward those harmed by Epstein. By focusing on staffing disputes and loyalty rather than addressing the abuse itself, Trump's remarks were seen as overlooking the core human cost of the scandal.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Donald Trump's ever-changing narrative about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein has grown increasingly incoherent, with his latest claim being that Epstein “stole” spa workers from Mar-a-Lago—including, allegedly, Virginia Giuffre. Instead of expressing outrage over Epstein's crimes or sympathy for the survivors, Trump framed the fallout like a staffing dispute, saying Epstein took people who worked for him and that Giuffre “had no complaints.” The shifting timelines—from calling Epstein a “terrific guy” to suddenly claiming moral indignation or workplace betrayal—don't inspire confidence in his account.Giuffre's family responded critically to Trump's comments, describing them as insensitive and reducing Virginia to an object rather than acknowledging her as a survivor. They emphasized that she was a person who endured serious trauma and should not be spoken about in such transactional terms. Their reaction raised broader concerns about the tone and framing of Trump's statements—particularly the absence of empathy toward those harmed by Epstein. By focusing on staffing disputes and loyalty rather than addressing the abuse itself, Trump's remarks were seen as overlooking the core human cost of the scandal.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Donald Trump has been dogged by the Jeffrey Epstein scandal for years, as resurfaced documents, photos, and court filings keep linking his name to the disgraced financier's social orbit. Trump and Epstein were well-acquainted throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, sharing appearances at Mar-a-Lago, social gatherings in Palm Beach, and the same circles of models, moguls, and politicians. While Trump has repeatedly claimed to have cut Epstein off years before his arrest, newly surfaced “Epstein files” — a collection of deposition records, contact lists, and sealed court documents — have reignited speculation about how close their relationship really was. The release of a so-called “birthday book” signed by Trump and letters allegedly exchanged between the two have only deepened the public's curiosity and the media's fixation.Within these documents, online investigators and media outlets have pointed to references to a “John Doe 174,” alleging that this pseudonym refers to Donald Trump. The claim stems from court redactions in Epstein-related filings where certain high-profile individuals were anonymized, fueling widespread debate over who each “Doe” represents. The theory surrounding Trump's alleged designation as John Doe 174 has spread rapidly since several European and U.S. outlets drew connections between the redacted entries and Trump's known interactions with Epstein. Whether or not the identification can be proven in court, the allegation alone has amplified political fallout, revived old questions about his social connections, and ensured that the Epstein scandal continues to shadow his public image well into 2025.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Jeffrey Epstein investigation has been defined by a decades-long trail of corruption, influence, and protection that spans both political parties and powerful institutions. From the very beginning, Epstein's connections to elite figures—from Wall Street moguls and intelligence officials to presidents and royals—seemed to grant him immunity from normal legal consequences. The 2008 non-prosecution agreement in Florida, brokered in secret by federal prosecutors under Alex Acosta, remains one of the clearest examples of systemic rot: a sweetheart deal negotiated behind closed doors that shielded Epstein's co-conspirators and effectively nullified justice for dozens of victims. Even as federal agents collected evidence of trafficking and witness tampering, the powerful leaned on their connections to ensure the case was quietly buried.When Epstein was re-arrested in 2019, that same machinery of protection reappeared—just more desperate and more visible. His suspicious “suicide” inside one of the most secure jails in the country occurred amid camera failures, sleeping guards, and missing logs, all while key financial and political figures scrambled to distance themselves. Every step since—sealed records, vanishing evidence, selective prosecutions, and lenient treatment of Ghislaine Maxwell—has reeked of containment rather than accountability. What began as a criminal case against one man has become a case study in institutional corruption, where the truth about Epstein's network of power remains locked behind the same walls that failed to keep him alive.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Federal prosecutors in New York confirmed that an active grand jury investigation into Ghislaine Maxwell and other potential Jeffrey Epstein co-conspirators is still underway, despite Maxwell's 2021 conviction. In court filings, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York revealed that the probe remains sealed, describing it as part of a broader effort to hold accountable anyone who participated in or enabled Epstein's trafficking network. The disclosure was made during legal arguments over unsealing additional materials from Maxwell's criminal case, with prosecutors warning that premature disclosure could interfere with “ongoing law-enforcement activity.”The revelation reignited public scrutiny over why, years after Epstein's death, no additional high-profile figures have been charged. It also underscored the enduring sensitivity of the case, as prosecutors continue to pursue evidence tied to Epstein's finances, logistics network, and associates. Legal experts noted that such a statement from federal authorities is rare, suggesting that investigators may still be gathering testimony or preparing potential indictments against individuals whose names surfaced during Maxwell's trial and related lawsuits.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the year following his explosive Prince Andrew interview for the BBC's Newsnight, the prince transformed from a high-profile member of the royal family into a sidelined figure engulfed in scandal. His candid, but tone-deaf attempts at damage control—claiming a rigid alibi, failing to show sympathy to his alleged victims, and denying memory of key meetings—prompted the palace to strip him of official roles, revoke his security detail, remove his Buckingham Palace office and effectively erase him from public royal duties.During this time he also publicly offered to cooperate with investigators into Jeffrey Epstein's alleged trafficking network, but again fell short—US authorities declared he'd given “zero cooperation” to the FBI. Meanwhile his and his ex-wife's financial troubles mounted, with income streams drying up and assets such as their Swiss ski-chalet contract falling into dispute. All the while the queen reportedly kept contact, yet in public he became the visible face of the monarchy's worst PR nightmare.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Clayton Howard, a former male escort and frequent participant in Diddy's private sex parties known as “freak-offs,” has filed a lawsuit accusing both Sean “Diddy” Combs and Cassie Ventura of sex trafficking, coercion, and abuse. According to his claims, he was recruited to perform sex acts under the guise of high-end parties, only to find himself drugged, manipulated, and transported across state lines for increasingly degrading and violent encounters. He alleges that Diddy exercised complete control over the events, orchestrating who did what and with whom, often while recording the acts without consent. Howard describes a world of intimidation, where refusal meant exile, and participation meant surrendering autonomy and dignity.What makes his allegations even more explosive is his assertion that Cassie wasn't just a victim of Diddy's abuse—but an active participant in his exploitation. He accuses her of knowingly infecting him with an STD, coercing him into sexual acts, demanding he masturbate for hours while she filmed him, and ultimately pressuring him into an abortion. Howard paints a picture of Cassie as someone who embraced the power dynamic created by Diddy, allegedly using it to dominate and humiliate others in turn. His lawsuit portrays the entire environment as a sadistic, hierarchical structure of abuse where both Diddy and Cassie held power and used it to break down and control those beneath them.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - Howard v Combs VenturaBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Clayton Howard, a former male escort and frequent participant in Diddy's private sex parties known as “freak-offs,” has filed a lawsuit accusing both Sean “Diddy” Combs and Cassie Ventura of sex trafficking, coercion, and abuse. According to his claims, he was recruited to perform sex acts under the guise of high-end parties, only to find himself drugged, manipulated, and transported across state lines for increasingly degrading and violent encounters. He alleges that Diddy exercised complete control over the events, orchestrating who did what and with whom, often while recording the acts without consent. Howard describes a world of intimidation, where refusal meant exile, and participation meant surrendering autonomy and dignity.What makes his allegations even more explosive is his assertion that Cassie wasn't just a victim of Diddy's abuse—but an active participant in his exploitation. He accuses her of knowingly infecting him with an STD, coercing him into sexual acts, demanding he masturbate for hours while she filmed him, and ultimately pressuring him into an abortion. Howard paints a picture of Cassie as someone who embraced the power dynamic created by Diddy, allegedly using it to dominate and humiliate others in turn. His lawsuit portrays the entire environment as a sadistic, hierarchical structure of abuse where both Diddy and Cassie held power and used it to break down and control those beneath them.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - Howard v Combs VenturaBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

When Alex Acosta sat before Congress to explain himself, what unfolded was less an act of accountability and more a masterclass in bureaucratic self-preservation. He painted the 2008 Epstein plea deal as a “strategic compromise,” claiming a federal trial might have been too risky because victims were “unreliable” and evidence was “thin.” In reality, federal prosecutors had a mountain of corroborating witness statements, corroborative travel logs, and sworn victim testimony—yet Acosta gave Epstein the deal of the century. The so-called non-prosecution agreement wasn't justice; it was a backroom surrender, executed in secrecy, without even notifying the victims. When pressed on this, Acosta spun excuses about legal precedent and “jurisdictional confusion,” never once admitting the obvious: his office protected a rich, politically connected predator at the expense of dozens of trafficked girls.Even more damning was Acosta's insistence that he acted out of pragmatism, not pressure. He denied that anyone “higher up” told him to back off—even though he once told reporters that he'd been informed Epstein “belonged to intelligence.” Under oath, he downplayed that statement, twisting it into bureaucratic double-speak. He even claimed the deal achieved “some level of justice” because Epstein registered as a sex offender—a hollow justification that only exposed how insulated from reality he remains. Acosta never showed remorse for the irreparable damage caused by his cowardice. His congressional testimony reeked of moral rot, the same rot that let a billionaire pedophile walk free while survivors were left to pick up the pieces.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Acosta Transcript.pdf - Google DriveBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

When Alex Acosta sat before Congress to explain himself, what unfolded was less an act of accountability and more a masterclass in bureaucratic self-preservation. He painted the 2008 Epstein plea deal as a “strategic compromise,” claiming a federal trial might have been too risky because victims were “unreliable” and evidence was “thin.” In reality, federal prosecutors had a mountain of corroborating witness statements, corroborative travel logs, and sworn victim testimony—yet Acosta gave Epstein the deal of the century. The so-called non-prosecution agreement wasn't justice; it was a backroom surrender, executed in secrecy, without even notifying the victims. When pressed on this, Acosta spun excuses about legal precedent and “jurisdictional confusion,” never once admitting the obvious: his office protected a rich, politically connected predator at the expense of dozens of trafficked girls.Even more damning was Acosta's insistence that he acted out of pragmatism, not pressure. He denied that anyone “higher up” told him to back off—even though he once told reporters that he'd been informed Epstein “belonged to intelligence.” Under oath, he downplayed that statement, twisting it into bureaucratic double-speak. He even claimed the deal achieved “some level of justice” because Epstein registered as a sex offender—a hollow justification that only exposed how insulated from reality he remains. Acosta never showed remorse for the irreparable damage caused by his cowardice. His congressional testimony reeked of moral rot, the same rot that let a billionaire pedophile walk free while survivors were left to pick up the pieces.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Acosta Transcript.pdf - Google DriveBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Virginia Roberts Giuffre's unpublished memoir The Billionaire's Playboy Club recounts her recruitment into Jeffrey Epstein's world as a 16-year-old working at Mar-a-Lago, where she says Ghislaine Maxwell lured her in with promises of opportunity and travel. The manuscript describes how she became trapped in Epstein's orbit, allegedly forced into sexual encounters with powerful men, including Prince Andrew, and ferried across his properties in New York, Florida, and the Virgin Islands. Giuffre paints a detailed picture of coercion, psychological manipulation, and the disturbing normalization of exploitation within Epstein's high-society circle.In this episode, we conlcude our journey through that memoir.   to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Virgina Giuffre Billionaire's Playboy Club | DocumentCloudBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

People like Prince Andrew live by a rule book that the rest of us don't even get to see. When ordinary people get accused of wrongdoing, they face real consequences — investigations, charges, public humiliation, the works. But when it's a royal, the system suddenly becomes very delicate, very cautious, and very secretive. Doors that slam shut for everyone else magically open for them. Andrew, for instance, managed to dodge law enforcement interviews, avoid depositions for years, and settle a major sexual abuse lawsuit without ever admitting guilt. Every step of the way, his titles, connections, and family name served as a kind of diplomatic armor — the privilege of being born above accountability.That's the true “Rule Book for Royals”: deny everything, hide behind tradition, and let the palace machinery manage the damage. The same institutions that claim moral leadership close ranks to protect their own, wrapping scandal in ceremony and silence. For men like Andrew, shame isn't career-ending — it's just an image problem to be managed by courtiers, PR consultants, and lawyers on retainer. The royal playbook isn't about justice or truth; it's about preservation. And as long as the crown still glitters, the rule book that governs them will always have different laws — and fewer consequences.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

After her sentencing, Ghislaine Maxwell immediately began pushing for special treatment, arguing that her imprisonment should be served in the United Kingdom rather than in the U.S. federal system. Her legal team claimed she was being unfairly treated compared to other inmates and that she should be allowed to serve her time closer to her family. Maxwell cited her British citizenship, her alleged “difficult” prison conditions, and her supposed lack of fair treatment throughout the trial as grounds for leniency. In effect, she was attempting to frame herself as a victim of the system — not an enabler of Epstein's crimes — while using diplomatic channels and her powerful connections to petition for a transfer under international prisoner-exchange agreements.She also sought a drastically reduced sentence, claiming she was being punished for Epstein's sins and that her role was exaggerated. Maxwell's lawyers argued that her upbringing, reputation loss, and media scrutiny should be taken into account, painting her as a scapegoat for a man who could no longer be tried. This push for leniency and relocation was seen by victims' advocates as a continuation of the entitlement that defined her life — a refusal to accept accountability or face the same justice as ordinary offenders. Rather than remorse, her response after sentencing reflected the same privilege and arrogance that had protected her and Epstein for years.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

When it comes to Jeffrey Epstein, the world's most powerful people all seem to suffer from a highly selective strain of amnesia. Presidents, princes, professors, and billionaires who once took his calls, rode his planes, and cashed his checks suddenly can't recall how they knew him or why. Bill Clinton can't quite remember how many times he flew on Epstein's jet. Prince Andrew claims he doesn't remember that infamous photo with Virginia Giuffre. Les Wexner “doesn't recall” signing over his mansion. Ehud Barak “barely knew the man.” Even Alan Dershowitz, who was practically Epstein's legal shadow, insists any contact was purely academic. It's like the entire upper crust of global power suddenly developed synchronized memory loss the moment the cameras turned on.This “collective amnesia” isn't accidental—it's a survival mechanism. The same people who built and benefited from Epstein's network now pretend they barely knew the guy who managed their money, funded their projects, and connected them to each other. Their stories always change, their timelines blur, and their denials sound like rehearsed lines from the same crisis-management manual. When it comes to Epstein, the elite don't just forget—they professionally unremember.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Prince Andrew's first major “cancellation” unfolded in November 2019 after his infamous BBC Newsnight interview with Emily Maitlis. The interview was meant to clear his name regarding his association with Jeffrey Epstein, but it instead became a public relations catastrophe. Andrew's demeanor — unapologetic, defensive, and tone-deaf — provoked massive backlash across Britain and beyond. Within days, the Duke of York announced he would be stepping back from public duties “for the foreseeable future,” admitting that his relationship with Epstein had become “a major disruption” to the work of the royal family. The Queen approved his withdrawal, and charities and corporate sponsors swiftly severed ties, effectively exiling him from public life.In the weeks following, more than 230 charities and organisations either dropped him as patron or distanced themselves. Buckingham Palace quietly confirmed he would no longer represent the Crown in any official capacity, marking the first time in modern royal history that a senior royal was effectively removed due to scandal rather than abdication or illness. The event became known as Andrew's first “cancellation” — a total collapse of public and institutional support triggered by his disastrous defense of an indefensible friendship. It also set the tone for the years of isolation, legal scrutiny, and humiliation that would follow.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In regard to Epstein's death, Kuvin has expressed strong skepticism that it was a straightforward suicide. He notes that in his mediations with Epstein the financier never displayed the mindset of someone considering ending his own life — Epstein was “overly self-confident” and apparently believed he would beat the system. In one interview he said the “evidence is circumstantial but overwhelming” that Epstein did not die by his own hand, pointing to protocol failures in the jail (absent cellmate, sleeping guards, camera failures) and Epstein's attitude as major red flags.On the question of Prince Andrew's connection to Epstein, Kuvin has been openly critical. He argues that the Prince's denials and limited admissions do not erase the years of association with Epstein and others in that orbit. He has labelled Andrew's 2019 interview and other statements as “despicable” for failing to fully acknowledge the breadth of the friendship and what it meant for victims, and has said that until Andrew transparently cooperates with U.S. authorities, his avoidance only reinforces the perception of guilt.Finally, on Epstein's estate, Kuvin has called attention to the rights of victims and the need for full transparency in how that estate is being managed. He has pointed out that he represents multiple claimants against the estate and lauded the establishment of the victims' compensation program as a “huge victory” for survivors. He has also underscored that the estate remains a critical vehicle not just for compensation, but for uncovering the scope of Epstein's network and financial dealings — something he says is far from finished.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

A Newsweek poll conducted in mid-2020 revealed that a majority of Britons believed Prince Andrew should face extradition to the United States for questioning over his ties to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. According to the survey, 59 percent of respondents said the Duke of York should be sent to the U.S. if requested by authorities, while 52 percent said he should also be stripped of his remaining royal titles. The poll reflected widespread public anger following Andrew's disastrous 2019 BBC Newsnight interview, in which his attempts to distance himself from Epstein backfired and intensified scrutiny over his conduct and associations.The findings underscored the severe reputational damage Andrew's scandal inflicted on the British monarchy, highlighting the growing public demand for accountability. Despite his insistence on cooperating with law enforcement “when required,” U.S. prosecutors at the time accused him of failing to respond to official requests for an interview, deepening frustration both in America and the U.K. The poll's results were seen as a clear signal that the public's patience had run out, with a majority viewing him as a liability to the royal family rather than a protected institution of it.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Netflix film Scoop (released in April 2024) dramatizes the lead-up to Prince Andrew's disastrous 2019 interview on Newsnight about his relationship with convicted sex-offender Jeffrey Epstein. The film highlights how BBC producer Sam McAlister secured the interview and how the palace and Prince Andrew miscalculated the damage it would cause. Viewers are taken through Andrew's association with Epstein, the mounting allegations (including from Virginia Giuffre), and the institutional failures at Buckingham Palace that allowed the situation to spiral.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Virginia Giuffre's lawyers have accused Prince Andrew of engaging in “extreme and outrageous conduct,” alleging that he not only sexually abused her when she was a teenager trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein but also sought to discredit her in the years that followed. According to the Daily Mail's report, the claims stem from newly filed court documents in which Giuffre's legal team asserts that Andrew and others associated with Epstein engaged in a deliberate campaign to smear her reputation and undermine her credibility as a victim. The filing reportedly portrays Andrew's denials and legal maneuvers as part of a wider effort to protect himself and the powerful figures within Epstein's network, drawing renewed attention to his prior settlement with Giuffre in 2022 — a deal said to have cost him millions and which did not include any admission of guilt.The accusations come amid continuing scrutiny of Prince Andrew's conduct and his lingering ties to Epstein's world, long after his attempt to rehabilitate his public image following his forced withdrawal from royal duties. Giuffre's attorneys have framed the allegations as emblematic of a broader pattern of intimidation and gaslighting endured by Epstein's victims, arguing that powerful men like Andrew weaponized their influence to suppress accountability. For Andrew, the renewed legal focus could reignite public and political pressure on Buckingham Palace, which has spent years distancing the monarchy from the scandal. While his team has not issued a detailed response to the latest claims, the development underscores how the Epstein saga continues to shadow the disgraced prince — legally, morally, and reputationally.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

It's curious how Prince Andrew's COVID-19 diagnosis surfaced just as he was set to appear at one of the biggest public events of his post-scandal life — Queen Elizabeth II's Platinum Jubilee Thanksgiving Service. The palace claimed he had “tested positive” and would therefore miss the ceremony. To many, that announcement felt a little too convenient. Andrew's absence spared the royals from the awkward optics of his presence amid the jubilee celebrations, where his appearance would've surely drawn boos, headlines, and renewed scrutiny. Critics online quickly called the timing “suspect,” noting that a sudden case of COVID seemed to arrive right on schedule to save both Andrew and the Crown from public embarrassment.The vagueness surrounding the diagnosis didn't help either. Buckingham Palace offered no details on how sick he was, when he tested positive, or whether anyone else in his circle had been affected. Given the royal family's long-standing penchant for secrecy — especially when managing scandal — many observers questioned whether this was truly about health or about optics. Even royal commentators admitted that the announcement's timing “raised eyebrows” and that it might have been a polite cover for keeping him far away from the cameras. Whether coincidence or calculated withdrawal, the entire episode only deepened the public's skepticism toward both Andrew's integrity and the monarchy's management of his reputation.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

When Alex Acosta sat before Congress to explain himself, what unfolded was less an act of accountability and more a masterclass in bureaucratic self-preservation. He painted the 2008 Epstein plea deal as a “strategic compromise,” claiming a federal trial might have been too risky because victims were “unreliable” and evidence was “thin.” In reality, federal prosecutors had a mountain of corroborating witness statements, corroborative travel logs, and sworn victim testimony—yet Acosta gave Epstein the deal of the century. The so-called non-prosecution agreement wasn't justice; it was a backroom surrender, executed in secrecy, without even notifying the victims. When pressed on this, Acosta spun excuses about legal precedent and “jurisdictional confusion,” never once admitting the obvious: his office protected a rich, politically connected predator at the expense of dozens of trafficked girls.Even more damning was Acosta's insistence that he acted out of pragmatism, not pressure. He denied that anyone “higher up” told him to back off—even though he once told reporters that he'd been informed Epstein “belonged to intelligence.” Under oath, he downplayed that statement, twisting it into bureaucratic double-speak. He even claimed the deal achieved “some level of justice” because Epstein registered as a sex offender—a hollow justification that only exposed how insulated from reality he remains. Acosta never showed remorse for the irreparable damage caused by his cowardice. His congressional testimony reeked of moral rot, the same rot that let a billionaire pedophile walk free while survivors were left to pick up the pieces.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Acosta Transcript.pdf - Google DriveBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Leaked emails between Jeffrey Epstein and former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak reveal Epstein's involvement in brokering high-level security and intelligence deals across Africa, including Côte d'Ivoire, where his efforts coincided with the country's new cybercrime accord with Israel. Epstein appears to have acted as a shadow intermediary—opening doors between Barak and African officials while helping Israeli-linked security firms sell surveillance systems to governments later accused of repressing dissent. Ghislaine Maxwell's recent deposition adds another layer, with her claim that Epstein worked “with and for African warlords,” suggesting his role extended beyond business into covert operations tied to Western and Israeli interests.These revelations expose a darker truth: Epstein's global ventures were never just about wealth or depravity—they were about access, influence, and deniable statecraft. Through Barak, Epstein became a bridge between Western intelligence, Israeli cyber firms, and authoritarian regimes seeking control over their populations. If substantiated, these leaks suggest governments and intelligence networks used Epstein as a middleman for dirty work—outsourcing surveillance, political manipulation, and backchannel diplomacy through a convicted sex offender precisely because his involvement could be disavowed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) reportedly informed congressional Republicans that the files tied to Jeffrey Epstein are “even worse” for Donald Trump than previously publicized, suggesting that evidence of Trump's connection to Epstein is more extensive and potentially more damaging than past reporting indicated. The leaks reflect mounting anxiety among GOP lawmakers, some of whom are reportedly preparing to back efforts to force the release of related investigative records.The piece also notes that the rumor mill—particularly an account from Michael Wolff stating Epstein had shown him photos of Trump with underage girls—has stirred serious concern. The silence and evasive behavior of key figures, such as the Attorney General, have further alarmed members of Congress who fear a cover-up, prompting a growing coalition of over 100 Republicans ready to confront what they anticipate is an escalating exposure of wrongdoing.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:DOJ Admits to Republicans That Epstein Files Are Even Worse for Trump | The New RepublicBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

State legislators in New Mexico have proposed the establishment of a “truth commission” to investigate what occurred at Epstein's sprawling desert property, known as Zorro Ranch, located approximately 35 miles south of Santa Fe. The public proposal, led by State Rep. Andrea Romero (D-Santa Fe) and cosponsored by Rep. Marianna Anaya (D-Albuquerque), sought a preliminary budget of about $2.5 million and would include a bipartisan oversight body with subpoena power. The aim: to reconstruct what officials knew (or didn't know), how possible crimes (including alleged sex-trafficking activities) were reported or suppressed, and how New Mexico might prevent similar abuse in the future. Survivors of Epstein's abuse have alleged trafficking extended to Zorro Ranch, yet there remains no full public account of what happened.Despite these serious allegations and investigations, Epstein never faced prosecution in New Mexico, though the Attorney General's office interviewed potential victims in 2019 and later examined financial institutions linked to Epstein's operations. The 2023 probe of financial services led to agreements involving $17 million tied to human-trafficking prevention. The proposed truth commission would therefore not simply revisit past crimes but also examine systemic failures in regulation, criminal investigation, and oversight—especially given New Mexico laws and policy may have allowed Epstein to avoid local sex-offender registration that he faced elsewhere. The initiative still needs approval when the legislature meets, and full findings are expected to take at least two years.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:New Mexico lawmakers propose 'truth commission' on Epstein, alleged sex abuse at his former Santa Fe County ranch | Local News | santafenewmexican.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Virginia Roberts Giuffre's unpublished memoir The Billionaire's Playboy Club recounts her recruitment into Jeffrey Epstein's world as a 16-year-old working at Mar-a-Lago, where she says Ghislaine Maxwell lured her in with promises of opportunity and travel. The manuscript describes how she became trapped in Epstein's orbit, allegedly forced into sexual encounters with powerful men, including Prince Andrew, and ferried across his properties in New York, Florida, and the Virgin Islands. Giuffre paints a detailed picture of coercion, psychological manipulation, and the disturbing normalization of exploitation within Epstein's high-society circle.In this episode, we begin our journey through that memoir.   to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Virgina Giuffre Billionaire's Playboy Club | DocumentCloudBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Prince Andrew, Duke of York attempted a comeback into public royal life after formally stepping back in 2019, but the efforts were swiftly frozen by the senior royal family amid mounting scandal. After his disastrous BBC interview and the civil settlement with Virginia Giuffre in 2022, Andrew quietly hoped to rehabilitate his reputation and re-emerge at low-key royal events. Instead, in October 2025 the palace confirmed he would no longer use his Duke of York title or royal honours — a decision reportedly made in close consultation with his brother King Charles III and his son Prince William, Prince of Wales, who both viewed Andrew's presence as a continuing distraction to the monarchy.Despite murmurs of a comeback strategy — appearances at charitable events, discreet patronage involvement — the monarchy drew a hard line. Andrew's titles, honours and privileged residence at Royal Lodge near Windsor Castle were revoked or set for removal, signalling that any revival would not be sanctioned. Charles' decision to strip Andrew of his official capacity not only ended the comeback effort but demonstrated the institution's priority: preserving its integrity over personal loyalty. Analysts say the move cements an irreversible cut-off and makes any future public role for Andrew extremely unlikely.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the early 2000s, while serving in an official capacity as the UK's Trade Envoy, Prince Andrew travelled to Thailand for what was publicly described as a diplomatic mission. According to historian Andrew Lownie, the visit included a stay in a five-star Bangkok hotel rather than at the British embassy, and during what was designated “private time” in the official itinerary he is alleged to have had up to 40 sex workers brought to his hotel suite over a four-day span.The allegations further claim that taxpayer funds were used to cover that trip, and that diplomatic and royal staff helped facilitate the hotel booking and stay. If true, this incident raises serious ethical questions about the use of public office for personal indulgence, the accountability of royals on trade missions, and the lack of transparency in the files covering Andrew's envoy years (2001-2011).During the early 2000s, Prince Andrew is reported to have visited Jeffrey Epstein's New Mexico ranch — identified as Zorro Ranch, near Santa Fe — which has become notorious in civil suits and media scrutiny for alleged sex-trafficking and under-age abuse claims. The allegations in court documents and depositions assert that Epstein used the ranch for illicit activity, including recruiting minors for so-called “massages” and transporting guests to the property via private landing strip. Among the names listed in these documents is Prince Andrew, though the papers do not allege direct sexual activity by him at the ranch; rather, the presence of his name in guest logs or mentions in deposition material raises serious reputational concerns.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The internal investigation by Victoria's Secret's parent company, L Brands, was launched after the resurfacing of longstanding ties between billionaire founder Les Wexner and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. In July 2019 the board retained outside counsel to determine what role, if any, Epstein had within the company—despite L Brands stating that Epstein was “never employed by nor served as an authorized representative of the company.”The inquiry aimed to clarify whether Epstein's influence extended beyond his position as Wexner's personal money manager, including allegations that he posed as a talent scout for Victoria's Secret and might have leveraged access to young models. Former employees and journalists raised concerns that Epstein misrepresented his role, and that red flags from the 1990s went unaddressed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The allegations surrounding Prince Andrew and the alleged smuggling of massage therapists into Buckingham Palace stem from multiple reports dating back to the early 2000s. One of the most circulated claims came from Monique Giannelloni, a massage therapist who said she was called to Buckingham Palace by Ghislaine Maxwell in 2000 to perform a massage on the Duke of York. According to her account, she was brought in through a side entrance without formal clearance or security vetting — something she and others described as a serious breach of royal protocol. The story suggested that Maxwell used her social access to facilitate the encounter, which many later interpreted as part of a wider pattern of lax boundaries between Prince Andrew, Epstein, and their shared social network.Another account came from massage therapist Emma Gruenbaum, who said she provided legitimate sports therapy sessions to Prince Andrew in 2005 but described the Duke's behavior as “inappropriate,” including requests for nudity, intrusive personal questions, and a generally uncomfortable atmosphere. While none of these reports have led to formal charges, they contributed to the growing public perception of Andrew's entitlement and blurred judgment in his private dealings, particularly in relation to his friendship with Maxwell and EpsteinBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

At Prince Philip's memorial service in March 2022, the Queen shocked royal watchers by arriving arm-in-arm with Prince Andrew, her disgraced son who had just weeks earlier settled a U.S. civil case with Virginia Giuffre over sexual-assault allegations tied to Jeffrey Epstein. The image of the monarch publicly escorted by Andrew into Westminster Abbey — in front of cameras and global audiences — was seen as a deliberate act of endorsement. It came at a moment when the rest of the Royal Family had carefully distanced themselves from him, making the Queen's decision feel tone-deaf and defiant in the face of widespread disgust.The optics were brutal. To much of the public, it looked as if the Queen was rehabilitating Andrew's image and signaling royal forgiveness before the dust had even settled on his legal disgrace. Critics said it undercut the monarchy's message of integrity and accountability, turning what was meant to be a solemn tribute to Prince Philip into a PR disaster. Commentators described it as a “misjudged show of support,” arguing that the Queen, perhaps out of maternal loyalty, had allowed personal sentiment to eclipse public perception — and in doing so, reignited outrage over Andrew's continued presence at royal events.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

According to a former housekeeper at Epstein's New Mexico property (Zorro Ranch), during a stay by Prince Andrew at the ranch, he was allegedly accompanied by a “beautiful young and brilliant” woman — described as a neurosurgeon — whose role, the housekeeper claims, was to “keep him company.” The woman reportedly asked for herbal teas intended to make Andrew “more horny,” as the housekeeper recounted. The Sun reported that the woman was “given” to Andrew by Epstein for the duration of his visit.The story places Andrew at the ranch in a self-contained guest house, ostensibly unsupervised by Epstein, during which this woman allegedly stayed with him for three days, according to the housekeeper's testimony. The implication drawn is that Epstein orchestrated not just the location but the company and context for Andrew's stay. While the claim remains unverified in terms of independent evidence and has not been substantiated by publicly available official records, the tabloid narrative highlights how far the web of associations around Epstein extended — and how the involvement of high-profile individuals like Andrew continues to generate new, sensational allegations.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In August 2019, 19-year-old Harry Dunn was killed in a motorcycle collision near RAF Croughton, Northamptonshire, when a car driven by Anne Sacoolas — the wife of a U.S. intelligence official stationed at the base — crossed into the wrong lane. Sacoolas claimed diplomatic immunity and fled back to the U.S., sparking a major diplomatic row between the UK and U.S. over extradition and accountability. Harry's family sought justice and attempted to use high-level leverage — including linking Sacoolas's return to the UK with the U.S. questioning of Prince Andrew — but no formal exchange deal was made.Separately, Prince Andrew's name has been engulfed in scandal due to his association with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, allegations of sexual misconduct raised by victim Virginia Giuffre — who claimed she was trafficked and forced into sex with him when 17 — and his publicly disastrous BBC interview in 2019. He categorically denies the allegations, but the legal, royal and public fallout has been intense: he stepped back from public duties in 2020, faced a U.S. civil lawsuit which was settled out of court in 2022, and his UK military affiliations and royal patronages were removed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

When Alex Acosta sat before Congress to explain himself, what unfolded was less an act of accountability and more a masterclass in bureaucratic self-preservation. He painted the 2008 Epstein plea deal as a “strategic compromise,” claiming a federal trial might have been too risky because victims were “unreliable” and evidence was “thin.” In reality, federal prosecutors had a mountain of corroborating witness statements, corroborative travel logs, and sworn victim testimony—yet Acosta gave Epstein the deal of the century. The so-called non-prosecution agreement wasn't justice; it was a backroom surrender, executed in secrecy, without even notifying the victims. When pressed on this, Acosta spun excuses about legal precedent and “jurisdictional confusion,” never once admitting the obvious: his office protected a rich, politically connected predator at the expense of dozens of trafficked girls.Even more damning was Acosta's insistence that he acted out of pragmatism, not pressure. He denied that anyone “higher up” told him to back off—even though he once told reporters that he'd been informed Epstein “belonged to intelligence.” Under oath, he downplayed that statement, twisting it into bureaucratic double-speak. He even claimed the deal achieved “some level of justice” because Epstein registered as a sex offender—a hollow justification that only exposed how insulated from reality he remains. Acosta never showed remorse for the irreparable damage caused by his cowardice. His congressional testimony reeked of moral rot, the same rot that let a billionaire pedophile walk free while survivors were left to pick up the pieces.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Acosta Transcript.pdf - Google DriveBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Congress, specifically the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform led by Robert Garcia and signed by 13–16 Democratic members, has formally written to Andrew Mountbatten Windsor (formerly known as Prince Andrew) requesting that he provide a transcribed interview about his “long-standing friendship” with Jeffrey Epstein and his possible knowledge of Epstein's co-conspirators, enablers and criminal operations. The letter points to flight logs, financial records (including notations such as “massage for Andrew”), an email from 2011 in which Andrew allegedly wrote “we are in this together”, and the fact that he traveled with Epstein to several locations. The committee asks for Andrew's response by 20 November 2025.However, the request is not a binding subpoena: because Andrew is a foreign national no longer holding British royal immunity, Congress cannot compel his testimony in the same way it can U.S. citizens. He therefore may choose to decline without facing the usual legal penalties for ignoring a congressional subpoena. Congress and the committee stress that his cooperation is sought in the interest of justice for Epstein's victims and to shed light on potential further misconduct.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.