The Epstein Chronicles

Prince Andrew asked U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan to dismiss the civil lawsuit filed against him by Virginia Giuffre, arguing that the case was legally flawed and barred by prior agreements. His legal team contended that a 2009 settlement Giuffre reached with Jeffrey Epstein included broad release language that shielded other potential defendants — including Andrew — from future claims. They also argued that the complaint failed to state a viable claim under federal sex-trafficking laws, asserting that Andrew had no knowledge of Epstein's alleged trafficking operation and that Giuffre's allegations lacked sufficient specificity. Additionally, they challenged the court's jurisdiction, claiming Andrew's limited contacts with New York were insufficient to justify the case being heard there.Judge Kaplan ultimately rejected Andrew's motion, ruling that the language in the Epstein settlement agreement did not automatically immunize the prince at the dismissal stage and that Giuffre's complaint plausibly alleged claims under the relevant statutes. Kaplan emphasized that factual disputes — including the meaning and scope of the 2009 release — could not be resolved on a motion to dismiss and would require further proceedings. The ruling allowed the lawsuit to move forward into discovery, increasing pressure on Andrew and leading to intense public scrutiny. Shortly thereafter, the case was resolved through an out-of-court settlement, with Andrew denying wrongdoing but agreeing to a financial settlement and a statement expressing regret for his association with Epstein.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Michael Thomas was a veteran correctional officer employed by the Federal Bureau of Prisons at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan — a federal detention facility — where Jeffrey Epstein was being held in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) while awaiting trial on federal sex-trafficking charges. Thomas had been with the Bureau of Prisons since about 2007 and, on the night of Epstein's death (August 9–10, 2019), was assigned to an overnight shift alongside another officer, Tova Noel, responsible for conducting required 30-minute inmate checks and institutional counts in the SHU. Because Epstein's cellmate had been moved and not replaced, Epstein was alone in his cell, making regular monitoring all the more crucial under bureau policy.Thomas became a focal figure in the official investigations into Epstein's death because surveillance footage and institutional records showed that neither he nor Noel conducted the required rounds or counts through the night before Epstein was found unresponsive in his cell early on August 10. Prosecutors subsequently charged both officers with conspiracy and falsifying records for signing count slips that falsely indicated they had completed rounds they had not performed. Thomas and Noel later entered deferred prosecution agreements in which they admitted falsifying records and avoided prison time, instead receiving supervisory release and community service. Investigators concluded that chronic staffing shortages and procedural failures at the jail contributed to the circumstances that allowed Epstein to remain unmonitored for hours before his death, which was officially ruled a suicide by hanging.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00113577.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

When you're dealing with high-profile figures who are rich and powerful, investigations cannot be handled like routine cases. Prince Andrew's arrest for allegedly passing classified information to Jeffrey Epstein illustrates that reality. What some dismiss as “procedural” is, in truth, a strategic entry point. An arrest shifts the case from public debate to formal legal process, where evidence is compelled, timelines are tested, and statements are measured against documents. In Andrew's case, the allegations carry severe potential penalties and open lawful avenues for investigators to re-examine broader questions about his conduct and associations. Once a subject is in custody and under scrutiny, the space for narrative management narrows and the focus turns to provable facts.Andrew's arrest also demonstrates how a targeted charge can expand the investigative scope when supported by evidence. Allegations tied to misuse of access can lead investigators to review communications, travel records, financial ties, and prior statements—especially in matters connected to Epstein. The strategy is not theatrical; it is methodical: charge what is provable, secure cooperation or test denials, and follow the evidence wherever it leads. In high-profile cases, accountability often begins with a narrow but solid case that unlocks a broader examination of potential wrongdoing. Andrew's situation underscores that principle—use lawful leverage, apply consistent standards, and let documented evidence determine how far the investigation ultimately reaches.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Les Wexner, the 88-year-old billionaire founder and former CEO of L Brands — the retail empire that once included Victoria's Secret — sat for a closed-door deposition with the U.S. House Oversight and Reform Committee as part of the ongoing investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's network. During the session, Wexner denied any knowledge of Epstein's criminal activities, characterizing him as a “world-class con man” who deceived him and misused their relationship. Wexner acknowledged hiring Epstein in the late 1980s to manage his finances and giving him power of attorney, but insisted that their relationship ended around 2007 after he learned of Epstein's misconduct and alleged that Epstein stole from him. He also said he had only visited Epstein's private island once and maintained he had no involvement in or knowledge of Epstein's sex-trafficking crimes.Lawmakers on the committee, particularly House Democrats, were skeptical of Wexner's claims of ignorance and downplaying of their long association. They pointed to FBI and Justice Department files showing Wexner's name repeatedly in connection with Epstein and described him as a significant financial backer whose support helped Epstein gain wealth and connections. Some members of Congress also cited survivor allegations tying Wexner to locations where abuse occurred, and they challenged Wexner's assertions that he had no involvement or oversight of Epstein's activities. While the deposition offered Wexner a chance to address his role directly, it did not resolve lingering questions about the depth of his relationship with Epstein, and investigators continue to examine newly released documents and evidence.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Former Prince Andrew, now Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, was arrested on February 19, 2026 — his 66th birthday — by British police on suspicion of misconduct in public office after authorities began investigating allegations linked to his conduct during his time as a UK trade envoy. Thames Valley Police confirmed they arrested a man in his sixties in Norfolk on those suspicions and were carrying out searches at properties in both Norfolk and Berkshire; under UK procedure the arrested person was not immediately named but the reporting makes clear it was Mountbatten-Windsor. The inquiry stems from documents in the recently released Epstein files suggesting he may have shared confidential government information with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, and he remains in custody while the investigation continues.The arrest represents a historic moment as the first senior British royal to be taken into custody in modern times and follows years of public scrutiny over his association with Epstein and prior civil litigation, including a high-profile settlement with accuser Virginia Giuffre. King Charles III responded to the news by affirming that “the law must take its course,” emphasizing cooperation with police, while Giuffre's family welcomed the development as a sign that no one is above the law. The exact legal outcome — whether formal charges will be filed — remains to be seen as the investigation unfolds.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:UK police arrest Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor for misconduct in public office | AP NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

A new Reuters/Ipsos poll finds that a large majority of Americans believe the recently released files connected to Jeffrey Epstein reveal a broader pattern in which wealthy and powerful figures in the United States are rarely held accountable for their actions. About 69% of respondents said the statement that the Epstein files “show that powerful people in the U.S. are rarely held accountable” reflected their views very or extremely well, and another 17% agreed somewhat. This sentiment cut across party lines, with more than 80% of both Republicans and Democrats saying the statement described their thinking at least somewhat well. The poll, conducted online with 1,117 U.S. adults and a 3-point margin of error, came shortly after the U.S. Justice Department released millions of pages of records showing Epstein's ties to prominent figures in politics, business, finance and academia.While some corporate leaders have resigned in the wake of the disclosures, others who had contact with Epstein remain in powerful posts, and individuals such as the Trump administration's Commerce Secretary and health official Dr. Mehmet Oz are noted in the documents without being accused of crimes. The issue remains politically charged: a significant portion of Republicans (67%) said it's time for the country to move on from talking about the Epstein files, compared with only 21% of Democrats. The poll reflects widespread skepticism about elite accountability and highlights partisan differences over how long the controversy should continue to figure in public debate.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Americans believe Epstein files show the powerful get a pass, Reuters/Ipsos poll finds | ReutersBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

George J. Mitchell, a former U.S. Senate majority leader and diplomat, had a documented personal association with Epstein that shows up in the released Epstein files. A handwritten note in Epstein's 2003 “birthday book” described Mitchell's friendship with Epstein as “a blessing,” and documents released in 2026 show continued contact between them, including emails and a scheduled appointment after Epstein's 2008 conviction. Epstein's former pilot also recalled Mitchell among people he flew on Epstein's private plane, though the pilot did not report witnessing any sexual misconduct during those flights. In the wake of the latest disclosures, institutions such as Queen's University Belfast and the US-Ireland Alliance have cut formal ties with Mitchell, removing his name from programs and positions because of his association with Epstein, even though no criminal charges have been filed.In court documents unsealed from a 2016 deposition, Virginia Roberts alleged that Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell directed her to provide “erotic massages” and sometimes sex to various powerful men, including Mitchell, when she was underage. Although Giuffre's deposition names Mitchell among several high-profile figures she said she was told to go to, Mitchell has firmly denied ever meeting, speaking to, or having contact with Giuffre and says he became aware of Epstein's criminal conduct only through media reports.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the defamation case Giuffre brought against Maxwell over Maxwell's public denial of Giuffre's trafficking allegations, Bernard J. Jansen provided a sworn expert witness report designed to corroborate Giuffre's credibility and the consistency of her disclosures over time. According to the description of his testimony, Jansen asserted that Giuffre had repeatedly and privately disclosed her experiences of sexual abuse by powerful individuals in Epstein's circle well before the allegations became public, and that she did so without any signs of fabrication, exaggeration, or personal motive to deceive. His report emphasized that these prior disclosures aligned with her later public claims and supported the contention that her testimony was grounded in firsthand experience rather than invented narrative.Jansen's report was introduced to strengthen Giuffre's position against Maxwell's efforts to dismiss or discredit her allegations by arguing that Giuffre's account was not a sudden public invention but reflected a history of consistent reporting to a trusted professional. In essence, Jansen's expert opinion countered attempts to characterize Giuffre's claims as unreliable or malicious, presenting them instead as credible statements from someone who had long communicated her experiences in confidence and had no evident incentive to fabricate them.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and the Dubin family—most prominently hedge fund billionaire Glenn Dubin and his wife Eva Andersson-Dubin—has drawn sustained scrutiny because of its depth and duration. Epstein moved comfortably within their social circle for years, vacationed with them, attended family gatherings, and maintained close contact even after his 2008 conviction for soliciting sex from a minor. Court filings and reporting have described Epstein staying at their homes and socializing with their children, raising questions about judgment and boundaries given what was publicly known about him. The Dubins have acknowledged the friendship but have said they were unaware of the scope of Epstein's misconduct and eventually cut ties. Critics argue that continuing to associate with Epstein after his conviction reflects, at minimum, a troubling tolerance for reputational risk and, at worst, willful disregard for the seriousness of his crimes.The scrutiny intensified because of the broader context: Epstein leveraged elite relationships to rehabilitate his image after prison, and the Dubins were part of that post-conviction social reentry. Their status in finance and philanthropy lent him credibility in circles that might otherwise have kept their distance. While there has been no public finding that the Dubins were involved in Epstein's criminal conduct, the persistence of the relationship despite mounting red flags has fueled public skepticism. In a scandal defined by powerful people minimizing warning signs, the Dubin connection remains emblematic of how social prestige and wealth created insulation around Epstein long after the alarm bells were ringing.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jeffrey Epstein was found dead in his cell at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan on August 10, 2019. The official ruling by New York City's chief medical examiner classified the death as suicide by hanging. Federal investigations later cited a series of institutional failures inside the jail, including malfunctioning cameras, guards who failed to conduct required checks, and Epstein's removal from suicide watch shortly before his death. The Department of Justice's inspector general described the episode as a cascade of negligence and staffing breakdowns rather than evidence of a coordinated plot. Two correctional officers were charged with falsifying records related to required monitoring rounds, further reinforcing claims of systemic dysfunction within the facility.Despite the official suicide determination, persistent public skepticism has fueled debate over whether Epstein could have been murdered. Critics point to the extraordinary number of powerful individuals linked to him, the unusual security lapses on the night of his death, and inconsistencies in early reporting as reasons to doubt the conclusion. Some forensic experts hired by Epstein's brother have argued that certain injuries were more consistent with homicide, though those findings have not overturned the medical examiner's ruling. The controversy has become emblematic of broader distrust in institutions, with many people viewing the unanswered questions surrounding Epstein's death as symbolic of deeper failures in accountability and transparency.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Nicholas Tartaglione is a former police officer who was arrested in 2016 and later convicted for the brutal murders of four men in upstate New York in what prosecutors described as a drug-related killing. The case painted him as violent, calculating, and willing to abuse his position of authority. By the time Jeffrey Epstein was housed at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan in 2019, Tartaglione was already in federal custody awaiting trial on the homicide charges. Despite the seriousness of both men's cases, Tartaglione was temporarily assigned to a cell with Epstein after Epstein was placed on suicide watch and later removed from it. That decision immediately raised eyebrows, given Tartaglione's violent criminal background and the highly sensitive nature of Epstein's detention.The pairing became even more controversial after Epstein was found injured in his cell in July 2019, an incident initially described as a possible suicide attempt. Tartaglione denied harming Epstein, and no charges were filed against him in connection with that episode. Still, critics have questioned the judgment of federal officials who allowed a man awaiting trial for multiple murders to share a cell with one of the most high-profile inmates in the country. For many observers, the arrangement reflected either extraordinary negligence or a baffling lapse in correctional protocol, deepening public suspicion about how Epstein was handled in custody.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jeffrey Epstein cultivated relationships with figures connected to the United Nations through philanthropy, academic funding, and high-level networking. He presented himself as a financier interested in global policy, science, and development, and he leveraged donations to gain proximity to diplomats, development officials, and nonprofit leaders operating in UN-adjacent spaces. Through events, private meetings, and introductions facilitated by well-connected intermediaries, Epstein sought legitimacy within international policy circles, often portraying himself as a benefactor of scientific collaboration and global problem-solving initiatives. His strategy relied less on formal titles and more on access—positioning himself around influential individuals connected to global governance institutions.While there is no evidence that Epstein held any official role within the United Nations itself, his ability to move within elite international networks highlighted how private wealth can open doors to multilateral environments. His associations underscored broader concerns about vetting standards and reputational risk when wealthy donors or power brokers insert themselves into diplomatic and development ecosystems. In the aftermath of his arrest and death, scrutiny intensified over how he managed to build relationships within circles linked to global institutions, raising questions about influence, access, and oversight at the intersection of money and international policy.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

One of the most confounding things about the Jeffrey Epstein case is the lack of transparency by the federal authorities. You would think that they would have a vested interest in ending all the conspiracy talk once and for all, but for some reason, they refuse to hand over information when it's asked for, even when it comes in the version of a FOIA request. On today's episode we take a further look at Jeffrey Epstein and his alleged relationship with the government.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.dailywire.com/news/fbi-hiding-potentially-explosive-records-on-jeffrey-epstein-internet-sleuth-claims-after-foia-denialBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Michael Thomas was a veteran correctional officer employed by the Federal Bureau of Prisons at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan — a federal detention facility — where Jeffrey Epstein was being held in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) while awaiting trial on federal sex-trafficking charges. Thomas had been with the Bureau of Prisons since about 2007 and, on the night of Epstein's death (August 9–10, 2019), was assigned to an overnight shift alongside another officer, Tova Noel, responsible for conducting required 30-minute inmate checks and institutional counts in the SHU. Because Epstein's cellmate had been moved and not replaced, Epstein was alone in his cell, making regular monitoring all the more crucial under bureau policy.Thomas became a focal figure in the official investigations into Epstein's death because surveillance footage and institutional records showed that neither he nor Noel conducted the required rounds or counts through the night before Epstein was found unresponsive in his cell early on August 10. Prosecutors subsequently charged both officers with conspiracy and falsifying records for signing count slips that falsely indicated they had completed rounds they had not performed. Thomas and Noel later entered deferred prosecution agreements in which they admitted falsifying records and avoided prison time, instead receiving supervisory release and community service. Investigators concluded that chronic staffing shortages and procedural failures at the jail contributed to the circumstances that allowed Epstein to remain unmonitored for hours before his death, which was officially ruled a suicide by hanging.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00113577.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In a detailed written statement submitted ahead of his closed-door deposition before the U.S. House Oversight Committee, billionaire Les Wexner said he was “pleased” for the chance to “set the record straight” about his long-standing financial and personal connection to the late Jeffrey Epstein. Wexner described Epstein as a “con man” and said he had been “naïve, foolish, and gullible” to trust him, but emphatically denied ever having any knowledge of or involvement in Epstein's criminal conduct. He reiterated that he cut all ties nearly two decades ago when he learned of Epstein's misconduct, asserted he had “done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide,” and called attention to the pain suffered by Epstein's survivors, expressing sympathy for their suffering.Wexner also portrayed himself as a family man, philanthropist, and longtime Ohio community leader, framing his statement around a desire to correct what he characterized as “outrageous untrue statements and hurtful rumor, innuendo, and speculation” about him. He stressed his long career building retail brands, his ethical values, and said that his relationship with Epstein ended after he discovered financial misconduct rather than criminal activity. Throughout the statement, he sought to distance himself from the most egregious aspects of the Epstein scandal while acknowledging the opportunity to cooperate with congressional inquiries.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Ohio billionaire Les Wexner issues statement ahead of deposition in Jeffrey Epstein investigation – WHIO TV 7 and WHIO RadioBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In France, prosecutors in Paris have opened multiple new investigations into suspected crimes connected to late U.S. financier Jeffrey Epstein following the public release of millions of pages of previously sealed documents by U.S. authorities. Authorities announced two preliminary probes — one focused on alleged sex abuse and human trafficking offenses and the other on potential financial and economic wrongdoing, including money laundering, corruption, and tax fraud — with the goal of examining whether any French nationals or activities in France played a role in Epstein's network. Prosecutors are also encouraging potential victims in France to come forward and are revisiting earlier inquiries, including the case of French modeling agent Jean-Luc Brunel, an Epstein associate who was charged with sex crimes but died in custody before trial. The investigations extend to high-profile figures, with probes under way into former culture minister Jack Lang and his daughter for suspected tax fraud linked to Epstein-related financial arrangements, as well as scrutiny of a French diplomat accused of improper conduct based on emails in the released files.In the United Kingdom, police have stepped up inquiries into potential ties between Epstein and activities on British soil as documents released by U.S. authorities shed light on previously unseen details. U.K. law enforcement agencies are examining whether Epstein may have used private flights in and out of UK airports, notably Stansted and Luton, to traffic women — claims prompted by flight logs and passenger lists found in the newly disclosed files. Multiple police forces, including Essex, Thames Valley, Surrey, and the Metropolitan Police, are coordinating through a national group to assess emerging allegations linked to trafficking, immigration irregularities, and connections to British-linked associates, with inquiries involving figures such as Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor (both of whom have denied wrongdoing). The coordinated effort is part of a broader response to the global revelations from the Epstein files and reflects growing political and legal pressure in Britain to investigate any potential abuses or misconduct tied to Epstein's network.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Paris prosecutors open two new Epstein probes and call on victims to come forwardPolice probe claims Epstein trafficked British victims through Stansted | The IndependentBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Tom Pritzker, the billionaire executive chairman of Hyatt Hotels and a prominent member of the Pritzker family, announced his immediate resignation as executive chair following revelations in newly released files tying him to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell. The disclosures showed that Pritzker maintained contact with Epstein well after Epstein's 2008 conviction for sex crimes, including email exchanges and interactions with Epstein's inner circle. In his resignation letter to Hyatt's board, Pritzker acknowledged exercising “terrible judgment” in not distancing himself sooner and said he deeply regretted the association, stressing that protecting Hyatt's reputation was his top priority. He also confirmed he would not seek re-election to the board at the company's upcoming annual meeting and that CEO Mark Hoplamazian would take over as chairman.Beyond the corporate fallout, Epstein accuser Virginia Roberts Giuffre had previously named Pritzker in court filings connected to her trafficking lawsuit against Epstein and Maxwell. In depositions released in the years after Epstein's death, Giuffre alleged that she was trafficked to and had sexual encounters with Pritzker at Epstein's direction—claims he has vehemently denied. Those allegations, while never resulting in criminal charges, were part of the wave of unsealed documents that put scrutiny on Pritzker's ties to Epstein and helped fuel the pressure leading to his resignation.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Hyatt executive chair Tom Pritzker steps down over Jeffrey Epstein tiesBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

At its core, the case hinges on a straightforward legal framework: sex trafficking of minors involves recruiting or obtaining someone under eighteen for sexual activity in exchange for money or something of value. The conduct described in this instance followed a consistent pattern. Underage girls were allegedly approached with offers of cash for “massages,” encounters escalated into sexual acts, and payments were made afterward. Reports further described a referral system in which girls were encouraged to bring other girls and were compensated for doing so. Because minors cannot legally consent to commercial sex, the presence of payment and recruitment carries decisive legal weight. The absence of overt force does not negate the charge when the alleged victims are under eighteen.The allegations were not confined to a single episode or location. Similar accounts surfaced across multiple properties and over an extended period, suggesting repetition and coordination rather than isolated misconduct. Critics note that a prior plea agreement and the lack of a completed federal trial do not eliminate the factual allegations that formed the basis of later indictments. The commercial element—cash tied to sexual access involving minors—remains central. When recruitment, payment, and repetition converge, investigators and prosecutors characterize that structure as organized commercial sexual exploitation of minors. Stripped of political framing, the factual framework aligns with the statutory definition of sex trafficking.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The affidavit submitted by attorney Bradley J. Edwards in the Southern District of Florida lays out a detailed argument for why the U.S. government should be compelled to produce documents related to the federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Edwards, representing Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, explains that the requested records are essential to proving that federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by secretly negotiating and finalizing Epstein's 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement without notifying the victims. He asserts that internal DOJ communications, emails, memoranda, and investigative records would show what prosecutors knew, when they knew it, and how deliberate their decision was to exclude victims from the process despite clear statutory obligations.Edwards further argues that the government's resistance to producing these materials undermines transparency and prevents the court from fully evaluating the extent of the misconduct. He emphasizes that the victims cannot meaningfully litigate their CVRA claims without access to evidence exclusively in the government's possession, particularly records documenting decision-making within the U.S. Attorney's Office and DOJ headquarters. The affidavit frames the document production not as a fishing expedition, but as a narrowly tailored request necessary to expose how Epstein was granted extraordinary leniency, how victims were intentionally misled, and how federal officials acted with impunity while shielding both Epstein and themselves from accountability.to contact me:bobbycacpucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.265.1_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The affidavit submitted by attorney Bradley J. Edwards in the Southern District of Florida lays out a detailed argument for why the U.S. government should be compelled to produce documents related to the federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Edwards, representing Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, explains that the requested records are essential to proving that federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by secretly negotiating and finalizing Epstein's 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement without notifying the victims. He asserts that internal DOJ communications, emails, memoranda, and investigative records would show what prosecutors knew, when they knew it, and how deliberate their decision was to exclude victims from the process despite clear statutory obligations.Edwards further argues that the government's resistance to producing these materials undermines transparency and prevents the court from fully evaluating the extent of the misconduct. He emphasizes that the victims cannot meaningfully litigate their CVRA claims without access to evidence exclusively in the government's possession, particularly records documenting decision-making within the U.S. Attorney's Office and DOJ headquarters. The affidavit frames the document production not as a fishing expedition, but as a narrowly tailored request necessary to expose how Epstein was granted extraordinary leniency, how victims were intentionally misled, and how federal officials acted with impunity while shielding both Epstein and themselves from accountability.to contact me:bobbycacpucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.265.1_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The affidavit submitted by attorney Bradley J. Edwards in the Southern District of Florida lays out a detailed argument for why the U.S. government should be compelled to produce documents related to the federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Edwards, representing Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, explains that the requested records are essential to proving that federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by secretly negotiating and finalizing Epstein's 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement without notifying the victims. He asserts that internal DOJ communications, emails, memoranda, and investigative records would show what prosecutors knew, when they knew it, and how deliberate their decision was to exclude victims from the process despite clear statutory obligations.Edwards further argues that the government's resistance to producing these materials undermines transparency and prevents the court from fully evaluating the extent of the misconduct. He emphasizes that the victims cannot meaningfully litigate their CVRA claims without access to evidence exclusively in the government's possession, particularly records documenting decision-making within the U.S. Attorney's Office and DOJ headquarters. The affidavit frames the document production not as a fishing expedition, but as a narrowly tailored request necessary to expose how Epstein was granted extraordinary leniency, how victims were intentionally misled, and how federal officials acted with impunity while shielding both Epstein and themselves from accountability.to contact me:bobbycacpucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.265.1_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In mid‑2023, Morgan State University launched an internal investigation into Associate Professor of Mathematics Dr. Jonathan Farley after news emerged that he had independently reached out to Jeffrey Epstein—then jailed on sex trafficking charges—in July 2019. In a highly self-serving email, Farley requested a $5 million donation from Epstein to fund an endowed chair for women in mathematics, suggesting this act could rehabilitate Epstein's public image and even likening it to avoiding a conviction akin to Bill Cosby's. He also implied that such a contribution would generate support within the Black community. Crucially, university officials emphasized that Farley had acted alone and without institutional approval, stressing that Morgan State had neither solicited Epstein nor empowered any employee to do so.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:A Math Professor Suggested a Jailed Jeffrey Epstein Give Him Money to Repair His Image in the Black Community (vice.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jeffrey Epstein's financial relationship with Harvard University revealed how elite institutions can compromise their own standards when wealthy donors are involved. Even after pleading guilty in 2008 to soliciting a minor, Epstein continued to maintain access to Harvard's campus and faculty. He had previously donated to research initiatives and was granted privileges including office space, a university email address, and key-card access. Internal reviews later concluded that allowing him continued involvement after his conviction was a serious lapse in judgment that contradicted Harvard's public commitments to combating sexual misconduct and protecting institutional integrity.The situation exposed a broader vulnerability in academic research funding: large private donations can shape scientific priorities without the oversight required in traditional peer-reviewed grant systems. Epstein directed funding toward established, high-profile researchers and specific areas of interest, amplifying existing power structures while sidelining more transparent, merit-based processes.Most scientists or officials at these universities would have you believe that they weren't close to Epstein, even as they were accepting him as a patron. This professor, however, went a different way and took aim at Epstein and his relationship with her University, Harvard.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Public Corruption Unit of the Southern District of New York played a central role in the prosecution of Ghislaine Maxwell, underscoring how seriously the government regarded her alleged crimes. Typically focused on rooting out misconduct by officials and abuses of power, the unit's involvement highlighted that the case was not treated as a routine sex-trafficking prosecution but one with broader implications for systemic corruption and the abuse of privilege. By taking charge, the unit signaled that Maxwell's conduct—and her ties to Jeffrey Epstein—raised concerns that reached far beyond individual victims, touching on networks of influence and power.This unusual assignment was not lost on observers, who noted that it suggested prosecutors were framing the case as part of a larger pattern of accountability, ensuring that Maxwell's proximity to wealth, politics, and international connections would not shield her from justice. The Public Corruption Unit's presence lent the proceedings additional weight, reflecting an institutional recognition that the crimes alleged were intertwined with how elites exploited their positions. It also reassured critics who feared the case would be mishandled, presenting the trial as not only about Maxwell's personal actions but about confronting the broader culture of impunity surrounding Epstein's circle.To contact me:Bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/ghislaine-maxwells-case-being-handled-by-sdny-public-corruption-unit-could-spell-trouble-for-u-s-elites/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

British-born Shelley Anne Lewis, reportedly Epstein's longtime secret girlfriend, was identified in newly unsealed court documents after years of mystery about her identity. Lewis, then in her early 20s, is said to have met Epstein around 1999 while working in the contemporary art department at Christie's auction house in New York and to have dated him until about 2002. Flight logs suggest she took numerous trips on his private jet, including to his properties, and was part of his social circle for several years. She later became known as a children's book author, spiritual entrepreneur and wellness figure, running ventures like Chocolate Sauce Books and Sacred Space and describing herself as pursuing holistic wellbeing projects. Despite the spotlight on her name, there's no indication she was involved in or aware of Epstein's criminal conduct, and she declined to comment publicly after her identity was exposed.Lewis' family acknowledged in other reports that they knew she was seeing “someone in New York” during that period, but her connection to Epstein only fully came to light through references in emails between Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. In one 2015 message, Maxwell asked Epstein to confirm that Shelley had been his girlfriend from the late 1990s to early 2000s, to which he agreed. While some media have highlighted her social travels and describe her as part of Epstein's circle during a formative time in his life, she has not been accused of wrongdoing and has kept a low profile since the documents were released.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Michael Thomas was a veteran correctional officer employed by the Federal Bureau of Prisons at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan — a federal detention facility — where Jeffrey Epstein was being held in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) while awaiting trial on federal sex-trafficking charges. Thomas had been with the Bureau of Prisons since about 2007 and, on the night of Epstein's death (August 9–10, 2019), was assigned to an overnight shift alongside another officer, Tova Noel, responsible for conducting required 30-minute inmate checks and institutional counts in the SHU. Because Epstein's cellmate had been moved and not replaced, Epstein was alone in his cell, making regular monitoring all the more crucial under bureau policy.Thomas became a focal figure in the official investigations into Epstein's death because surveillance footage and institutional records showed that neither he nor Noel conducted the required rounds or counts through the night before Epstein was found unresponsive in his cell early on August 10. Prosecutors subsequently charged both officers with conspiracy and falsifying records for signing count slips that falsely indicated they had completed rounds they had not performed. Thomas and Noel later entered deferred prosecution agreements in which they admitted falsifying records and avoided prison time, instead receiving supervisory release and community service. Investigators concluded that chronic staffing shortages and procedural failures at the jail contributed to the circumstances that allowed Epstein to remain unmonitored for hours before his death, which was officially ruled a suicide by hanging.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00113577.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Questions surrounding Les Wexner have intensified as scrutiny continues over the depth and duration of his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Wexner granted Epstein sweeping financial authority in the 1990s, including power of attorney over vast portions of his fortune—an arrangement that remains one of the most extraordinary aspects of the Epstein saga. Critics argue that such access raises serious concerns about oversight, judgment, and what Wexner may have known about Epstein's conduct during the years he managed Wexner's assets and represented himself publicly as a financial adviser to billionaires. Although Wexner has maintained that Epstein misappropriated funds and betrayed his trust, skeptics question how Epstein was able to operate for so long within Wexner's inner circle without deeper awareness or warning signs.The renewed attention stems not only from Epstein's crimes but from broader questions about institutional complicity and elite insulation. Wexner was widely regarded as Epstein's most important early patron, providing legitimacy that helped Epstein embed himself in powerful social and financial networks. Civil lawsuits, document releases, and investigative reporting have kept focus on why Wexner severed ties only after public scandal erupted and whether internal safeguards failed. While Wexner has publicly expressed regret and distanced himself from Epstein following the financier's arrest, the scale of Epstein's access to his finances and properties continues to fuel demands for fuller transparency about what occurred during their decades-long association.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmal.comsource:Questions swirl over Ohio billionaire Les Wexner's ties to Jeffrey Epstein | Jeffrey Epstein | The GuardianBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Questions surrounding Les Wexner have intensified as scrutiny continues over the depth and duration of his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Wexner granted Epstein sweeping financial authority in the 1990s, including power of attorney over vast portions of his fortune—an arrangement that remains one of the most extraordinary aspects of the Epstein saga. Critics argue that such access raises serious concerns about oversight, judgment, and what Wexner may have known about Epstein's conduct during the years he managed Wexner's assets and represented himself publicly as a financial adviser to billionaires. Although Wexner has maintained that Epstein misappropriated funds and betrayed his trust, skeptics question how Epstein was able to operate for so long within Wexner's inner circle without deeper awareness or warning signs.The renewed attention stems not only from Epstein's crimes but from broader questions about institutional complicity and elite insulation. Wexner was widely regarded as Epstein's most important early patron, providing legitimacy that helped Epstein embed himself in powerful social and financial networks. Civil lawsuits, document releases, and investigative reporting have kept focus on why Wexner severed ties only after public scandal erupted and whether internal safeguards failed. While Wexner has publicly expressed regret and distanced himself from Epstein following the financier's arrest, the scale of Epstein's access to his finances and properties continues to fuel demands for fuller transparency about what occurred during their decades-long association.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmal.comsource:Questions swirl over Ohio billionaire Les Wexner's ties to Jeffrey Epstein | Jeffrey Epstein | The GuardianBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

A bipartisan truth-finding commission has been officially created by the New Mexico House of Representatives to investigate what happened at Jeffrey Epstein's former Zorro Ranch near Santa Fe and the state's connections to his activities. The resolution creating the four-member panel passed unanimously 62-0 and appoints two Democrats and two Republicans, including Rep. Andrea Romero, who sponsored the measure, and members with legal and investigative backgrounds. The commission is scheduled to hold its first meeting this week, will allow public testimony, has subpoena power to compel witnesses to testify, and is expected to publicly post information it gathers. Though it cannot directly launch criminal investigations, it can coordinate with law enforcement and will issue a report by the end of 2026 outlining its findings and recommendations.Lawmakers say the commission aims to explore gaps in past enforcement and understanding of allegations of sexual abuse and human trafficking tied to Epstein's long tenure in New Mexico, where civil suits have accused him of abusing women and girls at the ranch. The initiative comes amid ongoing scrutiny following the release of federal files that mention New Mexico figures and activities, and officials have pointed to the need to ensure such crimes are fully documented and that “gaps in the law and enforcement” are addressed. Past state efforts never resulted in criminal charges, and the panel's work could renew focus on what state officials knew and how these events unfolded.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Truth-finding commission focused on Epstein's activities in New Mexico set to ramp up quicklyBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Calls for former Prince Andrew—now Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor—to face a formal inquiry and cooperate with ongoing investigations have intensified across the UK amid fresh revelations tied to his relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Recently released documents from the U.S. Department of Justice have shown extensive correspondence between Andrew and Epstein from when Andrew served as the UK's trade envoy, prompting critics to argue that these communications raise serious questions about potential misconduct, including sharing sensitive information while in public office. The Director of Public Prosecutions stressed that “nobody is above the law,” and Thames Valley Police, along with other forces, is now assessing allegations of misconduct in public office, adding to demands from figures such as former Prime Minister Gordon Brown and ex-Business Secretary Vince Cable for a full police probe and parliamentary scrutiny of how Andrew's actions were handled. Anti-monarchy campaign groups have also staged protests calling for an inquiry that would extend to what senior royals knew about his links with Epstein.Alongside these UK pressures, there are domestic demands from MPs and public commentators that Andrew should be compelled to answer questions about his knowledge of Epstein's network and associated abuses, with calls for him to appear before both British authorities and, in some cases, US lawmakers. The combination of leaked files, growing media scrutiny, and vocal pressure from politicians and advocacy groups has kept the controversy in the spotlight, fuelling debate about accountability, transparency, and the role of UK institutions—including the monarchy—in addressing allegations linked to one of the most enduring scandals involving a member of the royal family.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Police under renewed pressure to investigate Andrew over Epstein ties after intervention from former minister | The IndependentBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The newly unsealed New York grand jury materials related to Ghislaine Maxwell provide a clearer window into how federal prosecutors built the case that ultimately led to her conviction. The documents outline the scope of witness testimony, evidentiary focus, and investigative priorities considered by the grand jury, reinforcing that Maxwell was not viewed as a peripheral figure but as a central facilitator within Jeffrey Epstein's trafficking operation. While much of the material aligns with facts already established at trial—including patterns of recruitment, grooming, and abuse—the unsealing confirms that prosecutors presented a structured, victim-centered narrative to the grand jury well before Maxwell's arrest, countering claims that the case was rushed or politically motivated.At the same time, the documents have drawn attention for what they do not contain. The grand jury materials remain narrowly focused on Maxwell's conduct and charges, offering little insight into why broader conspiracy cases against other Epstein associates were never pursued in New York. This has fueled renewed scrutiny of prosecutorial discretion and investigative limits, as the records show a deliberate effort to secure Maxwell's indictment while leaving larger questions about Epstein's network unresolved. For critics and survivors alike, the unsealing represents both a measure of long-delayed transparency and a reminder of how much of the Epstein story remains outside the bounds of criminal accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The newly unsealed New York grand jury materials related to Ghislaine Maxwell provide a clearer window into how federal prosecutors built the case that ultimately led to her conviction. The documents outline the scope of witness testimony, evidentiary focus, and investigative priorities considered by the grand jury, reinforcing that Maxwell was not viewed as a peripheral figure but as a central facilitator within Jeffrey Epstein's trafficking operation. While much of the material aligns with facts already established at trial—including patterns of recruitment, grooming, and abuse—the unsealing confirms that prosecutors presented a structured, victim-centered narrative to the grand jury well before Maxwell's arrest, countering claims that the case was rushed or politically motivated.At the same time, the documents have drawn attention for what they do not contain. The grand jury materials remain narrowly focused on Maxwell's conduct and charges, offering little insight into why broader conspiracy cases against other Epstein associates were never pursued in New York. This has fueled renewed scrutiny of prosecutorial discretion and investigative limits, as the records show a deliberate effort to secure Maxwell's indictment while leaving larger questions about Epstein's network unresolved. For critics and survivors alike, the unsealing represents both a measure of long-delayed transparency and a reminder of how much of the Epstein story remains outside the bounds of criminal accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The silence surrounding Stacey Plaskett's lawsuit by Epstein survivors exposes the staggering hypocrisy of both lawmakers and the legacy media. Politicians who pound the table about justice and accountability fall mute when the accusations land inside their own chamber. Journalists who dissect every lurid detail of Epstein's life suddenly find no headlines when survivors point to a sitting member of Congress. This selective outrage isn't oversight—it's complicity. Survivors are abandoned the moment their stories threaten insiders, and the system shows once again that accountability is conditional, not principled.That selective accountability corrodes credibility and turns justice into theater. By politicizing the scandal, lawmakers use survivors as pawns while letting the real villains—Epstein's network of enablers—slip quietly back into the shadows. The result is a collapse of trust: citizens see investigations as performance, predators learn power protects power, and survivors are betrayed all over again. Epstein may be dead and Maxwell imprisoned, but the system that shielded them is alive and well—sustained by cowardice, silence, and the hypocrisy of institutions that pretend to defend justice while practicing selective blindness.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The long-term impact of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse on survivors has been profound, stretching far beyond the immediate trauma of exploitation. Many have spoken about enduring struggles with trust, intimacy, and mental health, with conditions such as PTSD, depression, and anxiety becoming lifelong challenges. The abuse often took place during formative years, leaving deep psychological scars that shaped how survivors viewed themselves and the world around them. For some, the legal battles and constant public discussion of Epstein have compounded the harm, forcing them to relive their experiences repeatedly in a system that often seemed indifferent to their pain.Beyond the psychological toll, survivors have faced lasting social and economic consequences. Some described how the abuse derailed their education or career paths, cutting off opportunities and leaving them with instability that persisted for years. Others experienced stigma or disbelief when they tried to come forward, adding isolation to their trauma. Even after Epstein's death, the slow pace of accountability and the continued prominence of the powerful figures linked to him have been painful reminders of the imbalance between survivor suffering and institutional protection. In this sense, the legacy of Epstein's abuse is not confined to the past—it continues to shape lives, serving as a stark reminder of how long-term harm can ripple outward when justice is delayed or denied.To contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comSource:https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2022/01/04/ghislaine-maxwell-jeffrey-epstein-survivors-julie-dahlstrom-rachel-wechslerBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Bradley J. Edwards spent more than a decade fighting what many believed was an untouchable power structure surrounding Jeffrey Epstein. Based in Florida, Edwards began representing victims in the mid-2000s, when Epstein had already secured a highly controversial 2008 non-prosecution agreement that shielded him from federal prosecution and insulated potential co-conspirators. Edwards challenged that deal relentlessly, arguing that federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act by keeping survivors in the dark. His legal strategy wasn't just about individual settlements; it was about dismantling the machinery that protected Epstein. Through civil litigation, public pressure, and persistence in federal court, Edwards forced scrutiny back onto a case many thought was buried.His work helped reopen national attention on Epstein years after the original plea deal, culminating in a 2019 federal ruling that prosecutors had indeed violated victims' rights. Although Epstein's arrest and subsequent death prevented a criminal trial, Edwards continued pursuing civil accountability against the estate and alleged enablers. He also represented survivors in high-profile litigation involving institutions and powerful individuals connected to Epstein's orbit. Throughout the process, Edwards positioned himself as both litigator and advocate, often publicly criticizing the justice system's handling of the case. His long campaign transformed what began as a quiet Florida prosecution into one of the most consequential accountability battles in modern American criminal law.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In 2023, The New York Times filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Virgin Islands Economic Development Authority after the agency refused to release records related to Jeffrey Epstein and the substantial tax benefits he received while living in the territory. The Times sought documents detailing Epstein's participation in the USVI's Economic Development Commission program, which granted him sweeping tax exemptions and incentives for years, even after serious allegations about his conduct were known. The lawsuit argued that the EDA improperly withheld public records that could shed light on how Epstein was vetted, approved, and allowed to retain those benefits.The legal action highlighted broader questions about government transparency and accountability in the Virgin Islands, where officials have faced criticism for enabling Epstein's financial operations while failing to intervene in his criminal behavior. The EDA contended that some records were protected by confidentiality provisions, but the Times countered that public interest outweighed those claims, particularly given Epstein's role in one of the most significant sex-trafficking scandals in modern history. The lawsuit became part of a wider effort by journalists and investigators to uncover how Epstein leveraged government programs and institutional secrecy to protect his wealth—and how local authorities handled warnings that, in hindsight, should have triggered far greater scrutiny.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In July 2020, New York state regulators fined Deutsche Bank $150 million for its failure to properly monitor its relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, along with other high-risk clients. The New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) determined that the bank ignored clear warning signs while maintaining Epstein as a client from 2013 to 2018, years after his 2008 sex-crime conviction. Regulators found that Deutsche Bank processed millions in suspicious transactions for Epstein, including payments to women with Eastern European surnames and large cash withdrawals that should have triggered scrutiny. The DFS concluded that the bank chose profit over compliance, prioritizing Epstein's business despite internal concerns that he posed legal and reputational risks.The fine was the first major enforcement action against a financial institution for its role in facilitating Epstein's activities. Regulators detailed how Deutsche Bank repeatedly failed to file Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) despite obvious red flags tied to Epstein's network of shell companies and payments structured to look like consulting or tuition expenses. The settlement required Deutsche Bank to improve oversight and compliance systems, but it also underscored a larger problem: financial institutions were essential enablers of Epstein's empire, allowing him to move money and maintain access to elite circles even after his conviction. The $150 million penalty was significant in size, yet critics argued it was still a slap on the wrist for a global bank that had enabled Epstein's financial maneuvering for years.To contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/07/jeffrey-epstein-case-deutsche-bank-fined-150-million-penalty-for-relationship.htmlBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Michael Thomas was a veteran correctional officer employed by the Federal Bureau of Prisons at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan — a federal detention facility — where Jeffrey Epstein was being held in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) while awaiting trial on federal sex-trafficking charges. Thomas had been with the Bureau of Prisons since about 2007 and, on the night of Epstein's death (August 9–10, 2019), was assigned to an overnight shift alongside another officer, Tova Noel, responsible for conducting required 30-minute inmate checks and institutional counts in the SHU. Because Epstein's cellmate had been moved and not replaced, Epstein was alone in his cell, making regular monitoring all the more crucial under bureau policy.Thomas became a focal figure in the official investigations into Epstein's death because surveillance footage and institutional records showed that neither he nor Noel conducted the required rounds or counts through the night before Epstein was found unresponsive in his cell early on August 10. Prosecutors subsequently charged both officers with conspiracy and falsifying records for signing count slips that falsely indicated they had completed rounds they had not performed. Thomas and Noel later entered deferred prosecution agreements in which they admitted falsifying records and avoided prison time, instead receiving supervisory release and community service. Investigators concluded that chronic staffing shortages and procedural failures at the jail contributed to the circumstances that allowed Epstein to remain unmonitored for hours before his death, which was officially ruled a suicide by hanging.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00113577.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jeffrey Epstein's rise, protection, and long run of abuse cannot be honestly framed as a partisan scandal. He cultivated relationships across the political spectrum—courting Democrats and Republicans, donating to candidates, socializing with presidents and princes, embedding himself in elite universities, financial institutions, and think tanks. His 2008 non-prosecution agreement in Florida was negotiated under a Republican U.S. attorney, but later federal oversight failures, intelligence lapses, and regulatory blind spots spanned multiple administrations. He moved easily between Wall Street, academia, philanthropy, and politics, exploiting a culture in which wealth and access often buy insulation. The machinery that allowed him to operate—deferred prosecution deals, sealed records, lax oversight in federal detention, and elite deference—was not owned by one party. It was enabled by a system that too often prioritizes influence, reputation management, and institutional self-protection over transparency and accountability.Reducing Epstein to a left-versus-right talking point obscures the broader failure: a bipartisan ecosystem of power that tolerated, minimized, or ignored red flags because he was useful, connected, or financially valuable. Figures from both sides distanced themselves only after public exposure forced their hand. The revolving doors between government, finance, and academia, along with opaque plea negotiations and limited victim notification, reveal structural weaknesses that transcend party labels. When scrutiny becomes selective—weaponized against political opponents while allies receive softer treatment—it reinforces the very dynamics that allowed Epstein to thrive. Accountability, if it is to mean anything, must confront institutional incentives, prosecutorial discretion, and elite gatekeeping across administrations. The scandal endures not because it belongs to one ideology, but because it exposed a system in which power protected power.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein was invited to gatherings with a dozen members of Congress years after his initial arrest, documents reveal | The IndependentBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Department of Justice is trying to sell finality where there is still fog. After a chaotic rollout of Epstein-related materials, officials have framed the release as complete and urged the public to move on. But volume without structure is not transparency. Dumping massive amounts of material without clear indexing, consistent redaction explanations, and a verifiable accounting of what was withheld creates confusion rather than clarity. The public was promised a legally mandated framework under the Epstein Files Transparency Act that would identify categories of records, explain redactions, and specify which government officials and politically exposed persons were named. Instead, critics argue the process feels curated and defensive, more focused on narrative control than genuine accountability. Declaring “no more files” does not resolve outstanding questions about scope, missing categories, or investigative decisions—it freezes the narrative at a politically convenient moment.At its core, the frustration stems from a longstanding distrust of how powerful institutions handle cases involving powerful people. A serious transparency effort would provide traceability, context, independent review mechanisms, and precise legal justifications for every withholding decision. Without those guardrails, the release risks functioning as a containment strategy rather than a corrective one. Calls to “move on” land as dismissive because the underlying questions—who enabled Epstein, who benefited, and whether institutional actors were protected—remain unresolved in the public's mind. If the administration wants credibility, it must move beyond slogans and provide structured, auditable disclosures that withstand scrutiny. Otherwise, skepticism will continue, not because people crave drama, but because incomplete transparency invites suspicion.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Newly released United States Department of Justice files, as reported by The New York Post, reveal disturbing details about Jeffrey Epstein's long-standing and unusually close involvement with Celina Dubin, the daughter of his former girlfriend, Eva Dubin. Epstein first met Celina when she was a child through Eva, with whom he had a relationship in the 1980s and early '90s. Emails in the documents show that even after his 2008 conviction for soliciting and procuring a minor for prostitution, Epstein maintained contact with Celina through hundreds of messages in which she called him “Uncle F.” He attended family events — including visits to her home and her high school lacrosse games — and was involved in aspects of her life that went beyond typical family friend interaction, such as offering to help with potential modeling opportunities and academic connections. Records also showed him buying clothes for her as a teenager and arranging professional contacts for her, though plans like a photoshoot never came to fruition.One of the most striking revelations in the documents is that Epstein told acquaintances around 2014 that Celina, then 19, was “the only person he wanted to marry.” While there is no evidence of a romantic or physical relationship, the assertion raised concerns due to his history and the ages involved. Epstein even named Celina a contingent beneficiary of his trust without her knowledge; she later renounced any claim after learning of it. The Dubin family, through a spokesperson, pushed back against the implications, stressing that Celina was unaware of Epstein's intentions, did not benefit from his estate, and that Eva Dubin would have cut ties had she known about his criminal conduct.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jeffrey Epstein's obsession with ex Celina Dubin's teen daughterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Documents released by the U.S. Justice Department show that convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein spent years corresponding with figures in the cybersecurity community and repeatedly tried to involve himself with two of the world's biggest hacker conventions, DEF CON and Black Hat, in Las Vegas. According to emails reviewed by Politico, Epstein's interest in cryptography and cybersecurity extended back to at least 2010, and he discussed topics ranging from network security to ways of pushing negative information about himself down in internet search results. Though he expressed a desire to attend these major events — even at times proposing to bring high-profile guests — there's no clear evidence he ever actually got into either conference, and organizers like Jeff Moss have said there's no proof he followed through on plans to attend.The documents also reveal Epstein's broader tech network, including contacts with researchers and entrepreneurs introduced through academic and startup circles. Among those mentioned was Italian security researcher Vincenzo Iozzo, who communicated with Epstein about potential business opportunities and emerging technologies but has denied doing any technical work for him. An FBI file included in the release also alleges Epstein may have had an unidentified “personal hacker” who developed offensive cyber tools sold to governments, though the name was redacted and some of the claims remain unverified.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jeffrey Epstein spent years building ties to well-known hackers - POLITICOBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

One of the biggest mistakes people keep making when they talk about Jeffrey Epstein is flattening everyone in his orbit into the same category. A photo becomes guilt, proximity becomes participation, and suddenly the conversation collapses into noise. That kind of thinking doesn't expose Epstein's operation—it protects it. Not everyone who crossed paths with Epstein was part of his crimes, and pretending otherwise only muddies the water and gives cover to the people who actually mattered. Epstein's power thrived on confusion, and when we refuse to distinguish between social adjacency and real involvement, we're doing his work for him.What the record actually shows is a layered system: people who encountered Epstein socially, people who enabled him by looking away or greasing the wheels, people who helped his operation function day to day, and people directly accused of taking part in the abuse. Those categories are not interchangeable, and pretending they are is how accountability dies. Enablers in finance, law, institutions, and government gave Epstein legitimacy and protection, while operational co-conspirators made the abuse repeatable and enforceable. Now, as scrutiny sharpens, the narrative has shifted to “reputations” and demands to “move on.” That's not accidental. It's a last-ditch effort to blur the lines again. The only way to stop that is precision—knowing who did what, when, and how, and refusing to let facts be laundered into confusion.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource: bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Department of Justice has consistently argued that the controversial 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement did not violate the Crime Victims' Rights Act because, in its view, the CVRA's protections did not attach until formal federal charges were filed. DOJ lawyers maintained that during the pre-charge negotiation phase, federal prosecutors were operating within their lawful discretion to decline prosecution and enter into a resolution without notifying potential victims. According to this position, because Epstein was never federally charged at the time the agreement was reached, the government contended there were no legally recognized “crime victims” under the CVRA to notify, consult, or confer with during the negotiations.The government further argued that the plea deal itself was a lawful exercise of prosecutorial authority designed to secure accountability through a state-level conviction while conserving federal resources and avoiding litigation risks. DOJ filings emphasized that the CVRA was not intended to regulate prosecutorial decision-making before charges are brought, nor to force prosecutors to disclose or negotiate plea discussions with potential victims in advance. In short, the DOJ's defense rests on a narrow interpretation of when victims' rights legally begin, asserting that while the outcome may have been deeply troubling, it did not constitute a statutory violation under the government's reading of federal law.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:TitleBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn were not peripheral figures in Jeffrey Epstein's world but central operators who helped build, maintain, and financially sustain his criminal enterprise. As Epstein's longtime lawyer and accountant, they created and managed the complex web of trusts, shell companies, bank accounts, and legal entities that allowed money to move discreetly while obscuring its purpose. Lawsuits filed by survivors and the U.S. Virgin Islands government describe them as “indispensable captains” of the enterprise, alleging they facilitated payments to victims and recruiters, structured entities to shield assets, and continued working for Epstein even after his 2008 sex-crime conviction. Though they deny any knowledge of abuse, judges have allowed civil claims against them to proceed, ruling that allegations of aiding and abetting trafficking are legally plausible and worthy of full discovery.After Epstein's death in 2019, Indyke and Kahn were named co-executors of his estate, giving them control over key documents, assets, and settlement negotiations, including a $105 million settlement with the U.S. Virgin Islands. Their continued gatekeeping role, combined with their status as beneficiaries of Epstein-linked trusts, has fueled criticism that the system has protected the very professionals accused of enabling his crimes. Despite being repeatedly named in court filings and investigative reports, they have largely avoided public scrutiny and congressional testimony. Critics argue that the failure to subpoena or question them under oath reflects a broader pattern of performative oversight, where political theater replaces substantive investigation into the financial and legal infrastructure that made Epstein's long-running operation possible.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Spencer Kuvin, an attorney representing multiple survivors of Jeffrey Epstein, publicly criticized Bill Gates for continuing to meet with Epstein even after the financier's conviction. Speaking to The Sun, Kuvin questioned Gates's moral judgment, asking, “Why are you taking business meetings with a person like that?” He emphasized that, given Gates's vast resources and investigative capacity, it is “incredibly hard to believe that he would not have known the full extent of the allegations” against Epstein, whose conviction involved sex crimes against minorsBeyond moral criticism, Kuvin urged Gates to cooperate with law enforcement investigating Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's close associate. He pointed out the ongoing nature of those investigations and suggested that Gates—by stepping forward—“should remind Gates and the world that… if Mr. Gates has information that could assist in that investigation, I would say he should step forward”To contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comSource:https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14946349/bill-gates-evidence-ghislaine-maxwell-investigators-jeffrey-epstein/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Charlie Rose's ties to Jeffrey Epstein surfaced through reports that Epstein actively referred young women to Rose's office, pitching them as “perfect assistants.” Phone logs reportedly showed Epstein making multiple calls to Rose with names and numbers of women, and at least one of those women ended up being hired. That Rose—a veteran journalist with decades in elite media circles—would entertain personnel recommendations from a man notorious for surrounding himself with suspiciously young women is a damning reflection on both his judgment and his willingness to benefit from Epstein's pipeline of “recruits.” Even absent criminal charges, the association highlights how Epstein's network infiltrated respectable institutions, with figures like Rose providing an entry point into mainstream legitimacy.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7273553/Jeffrey-Epstein-maintained-network-assistants-Harvey-Weinstein-Bill-Clinton-Charlie-Rose.htmlBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The article reports that Eileen Guggenheim, a former aide to then-Prince Charles and now president of the New York Academy of Art, has been accused i of introducing a studen, Maria  Farmer, to Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted sex offender. The claim centers on an allegation that Guggenheim played a role in connecting a young woman to Epstein before the woman was allegedly abused, drawing renewed scrutiny because of Guggenheim's past association with British royalty. Critics and commentators have circulated versions of the story online that suggest her involvement in the Epstein scandal.In response to the controversy, Guggenheim has strongly denied the allegation, stating she never introduced any student — or anyone else — to Epstein and had no involvement in such matters. She rejected the claims as unfounded and emphasized that there is no evidence linking her to facilitating introductions to Epstein. The article highlights how the resurfaced accusations have generated attention, partly because of Guggenheim's past role in Prince Charles' circle and persistent public interest in Epstein's network of associates.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Manhattan prosecutors in New York played a troubling role in allowing Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse to continue largely uninterrupted. As journalist Jane Coaston detailed, a Manhattan assistant district attorney even petitioned to classify Epstein as a low-risk sex offender—opting to call for the most lenient category possible under the law. This decision had consequences: Epstein never registered in person with the NYPD as required, effectively sidestepping the mandatory check-ins every 90 days—even though a judge explicitly stated this would be a condition of his registration.Meanwhile, New York City authorities seemingly looked the other way. Epstein failed to report his address and skipped the mandatory check-ins for eight years, yet no enforcement actions were taken. In essence, local prosecutors and police enabled his pattern of offending to persist unchecked. By systematically failing to enforce New York's own sex-offender regulations, the state protected Epstein—rather than his victims—allowing him to evade accountability and continue preying on vulnerable girls.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jeffrey Epstein: the state of New York protected Epstein — not his victims | VoxBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The DOJ's so-called “list” is being framed as transparency, but it reads like controlled optics rather than a serious accounting of Jeffrey Epstein's network. A genuine disclosure would distinguish between casual mentions and operational roles, provide context, explain methodology, and prioritize the people who facilitated recruitment, logistics, finances, and legal shielding. Instead, the document appears to emphasize ambiguity and volume over clarity, which fuels politicization and confusion. When key operational figures are absent and no structured explanation is offered, it raises legitimate questions about whether the release was designed to inform the public or to exhaust and divide it. Transparency without context isn't transparency—it's misdirection.At its core, the issue is institutional credibility. A trafficking enterprise of this scale required coordination, staffing, money flows, and protection, and any meaningful disclosure should illuminate that infrastructure rather than obscure it. If leadership presents a curated list without methodology, document categories, or clear definitions, the public is left to speculate while officials claim compliance. That dynamic erodes trust and shifts attention away from survivors and toward political infighting. The demand is straightforward: show the work, clarify omissions, and provide structured, auditable disclosure. Anything less invites suspicion that the priority is reputational protection, not accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The letter outlines the Department of Justice's obligations under Section 3 of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which mandates that within 15 days of completing its required document release, the DOJ must submit a detailed report to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. That report must identify all categories of records that were released and all categories that were withheld, provide a summary of any redactions made to the released materials along with the legal justification for those redactions, and compile a list of all government officials and politically exposed persons named or referenced in the disclosed documents.In the correspondence, the Department states that it is acting “consistent with Section 3 of the Act” and is now providing the required information to Congress. The letter frames the submission as statutory compliance with the transparency requirements set forth in the law, formally accounting for how records were handled, what information was withheld or redacted, and which public officials appear in the materials tied to the Epstein case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:efta-final-letter.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.