The Moscow Murders and More

​On April 1, 2025, plaintiff Manzaro Joseph filed a federal lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida against Sean "Diddy" Combs and several associates, including Eric Mejias, Brendan Paul, Emilio Estefan, and Adria English. The complaint alleges that the defendants participated in a criminal enterprise involving human trafficking, sexual exploitation, kidnapping, and obstruction of justice. Joseph claims he was drugged, transported across state lines, and subjected to sexual violence orchestrated by Combs, with assistance from the other named individuals. The lawsuit invokes federal statutes such as the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and the Civil Rights Act, as well as Florida's human trafficking laws.The complaint details each defendant's alleged role: Mejias is accused of drugging and threatening Joseph; Paul of coordinating transportation; Estefan of facilitating and approving the transport; and English of aiding in Joseph's targeting and concealment. Joseph also references unidentified individuals ("DOE Johns") who may have contributed to the alleged crimes. He seeks damages and injunctive relief, asserting that the defendants' actions violated multiple federal and state laws. The case brings renewed scrutiny to Combs, who has faced previous legal challenges, and raises questions about the involvement of high-profile individuals in alleged criminal activities.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.686843.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

​On April 1, 2025, plaintiff Manzaro Joseph filed a federal lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida against Sean "Diddy" Combs and several associates, including Eric Mejias, Brendan Paul, Emilio Estefan, and Adria English. The complaint alleges that the defendants participated in a criminal enterprise involving human trafficking, sexual exploitation, kidnapping, and obstruction of justice. Joseph claims he was drugged, transported across state lines, and subjected to sexual violence orchestrated by Combs, with assistance from the other named individuals. The lawsuit invokes federal statutes such as the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and the Civil Rights Act, as well as Florida's human trafficking laws.The complaint details each defendant's alleged role: Mejias is accused of drugging and threatening Joseph; Paul of coordinating transportation; Estefan of facilitating and approving the transport; and English of aiding in Joseph's targeting and concealment. Joseph also references unidentified individuals ("DOE Johns") who may have contributed to the alleged crimes. He seeks damages and injunctive relief, asserting that the defendants' actions violated multiple federal and state laws. The case brings renewed scrutiny to Combs, who has faced previous legal challenges, and raises questions about the involvement of high-profile individuals in alleged criminal activities.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.686843.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In 2016 a woman using the name Katie Johnson filed a federal lawsuit alleging that she had been assaulted as a minor — in her complaint she claimed that in 1994, when she was 13, she was lured by Jeffrey Epstein to his Manhattan residence with promises of modeling, and that Trump and Epstein took turns sexually assaulting her during a series of parties. After filing the suit, the case was dismissed or voluntarily withdrawn, and the woman's identity and credibility came under heavy question. Media investigations found no independent verification of the accuser's identity or direct confirmation of her story, and suggested the legal action may have been tied to outside actors, raising serious doubts about the authenticity of the claims.The pushback included abrupt cancellation of a planned press appearance by Johnson, no confirmed attorney-client communications, and serious scrutiny of the legal counsel and promoters of the case, including accusations of coordination by a controversial figure with a history of disputed celebrity claims. Trump's camp denied the allegation outright, and legal analysts pointed to procedural deficiencies in the filing — including that the lawsuit alleged criminal conduct under a civil statute that did not apply. This resulted in the case failing to proceed, major media outlets treating the matter as unverified, and critics arguing that the entire matter became a lightning rod for conspiracy theories rather than a credible path to accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:A California woman accused both Epstein and Trump. Did she exist?Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Bill Gates has once again been pulled back into the Jeffrey Epstein maelstrom as newly resurfaced records and correspondence reignite questions about the true depth of his relationship with Epstein—long after Epstein's 2008 conviction made his reputation impossible to ignore. The latest disclosures include communications involving Gates' philanthropic circle that appear to show Epstein positioning himself as a broker of influence, attempting to connect Gates with political figures and high-level networks. These revelations undermine the long-standing public narrative that Gates only met with Epstein a handful of times for benign philanthropic purposes and had no meaningful partnership with him. They also intensify scrutiny over why one of the most powerful and well-informed figures in the world continued to engage with someone already known as a convicted sex offender.The renewed spotlight has also revived the internal controversy surrounding Gates' personal life, including widely reported tensions within his marriage as Melinda French Gates repeatedly objected to the association and later described Epstein in strikingly harsh terms. As more details surface, Gates' attempts to minimize the relationship appear increasingly strained, especially with each new record that contradicts earlier public statements. What was once portrayed as a minor footnote now looks like a strategic, mutually beneficial connection—raising the central unresolved question: Why was Bill Gates willing to maintain contact with Epstein after the world knew who Epstein truly was?to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In a development that has raised serious questions about transparency and accountability, the Bureau of Prisons has reportedly terminated the employee who exposed Ghislaine Maxwell's preferential treatment while in federal custody. Rather than address why a convicted sex trafficker was receiving unusual accommodations — including a relocation that has never been fully explained — officials chose instead to penalize the individual who alerted the public. The agency's justification rests on claims of “policy violations” and unauthorized communication with the media, a defense that has done little to dispel concerns that the move was designed to suppress scrutiny rather than uphold procedure. For observers, the timing and severity of the response appear less like a personnel issue and more like a concerted effort to control the narrative surrounding Maxwell's conditions.The decision has intensified frustration among survivors, advocates, and members of the public who have demanded answers about how and why Maxwell has been treated differently from other federal inmates. Rather than clarifying who approved her transfer, why she was granted amenities rarely afforded to prisoners, or what internal discussions led to these decisions, the focus has shifted toward silencing the whistleblower. The optics are stark: a system that has repeatedly resisted transparency in the Epstein-Maxwell case now punishing the one person attempting to shed light on it. The unresolved questions remain central: Who authorized the move? What motivated it? And why has the response to legitimate inquiry been discipline instead of disclosure? Until those questions are answered, concerns about a deepening institutional coverup will only continue to grow.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com'source:Nurse is fired after revealing Ghislaine Maxwell's VIP treatment at comfortable new federal prison where she has access to puppy | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In her deposition in the defamation lawsuit filed by Virginia Giuffre against Ghislaine Maxwell, Johanna Sjoberg described being recruited to work for Jeffrey Epstein under the impression that it was a legitimate job opportunity. According to her testimony, she was initially hired to help with office work but was soon asked to give massages to Epstein—something she testified quickly evolved into inappropriate and unwanted conduct. Sjoberg stated that Ghislaine Maxwell played a central role in managing the household and was often present during these encounters, contributing to the atmosphere of control and pressure. Her deposition supported claims made by Giuffre and other women who alleged they were misled into situations where they were exploited.Sjoberg also testified about interactions with well-known individuals while in Epstein's company, including an allegation involving Prince Andrew, which she said took place at Epstein's residence. She described an incident in which Maxwell, Epstein, and others were present during a moment she considered inappropriate and unsettling. While the full extent of those interactions remains the subject of legal scrutiny and public interest, Sjoberg's deposition contributed to the broader pattern of allegations suggesting a tightly controlled environment where young women were manipulated under false pretenses. Her account was one of several that added weight to the claims being investigated in both civil and criminal proceedings surrounding Epstein and Maxwell.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In her deposition in the defamation lawsuit filed by Virginia Giuffre against Ghislaine Maxwell, Johanna Sjoberg described being recruited to work for Jeffrey Epstein under the impression that it was a legitimate job opportunity. According to her testimony, she was initially hired to help with office work but was soon asked to give massages to Epstein—something she testified quickly evolved into inappropriate and unwanted conduct. Sjoberg stated that Ghislaine Maxwell played a central role in managing the household and was often present during these encounters, contributing to the atmosphere of control and pressure. Her deposition supported claims made by Giuffre and other women who alleged they were misled into situations where they were exploited.Sjoberg also testified about interactions with well-known individuals while in Epstein's company, including an allegation involving Prince Andrew, which she said took place at Epstein's residence. She described an incident in which Maxwell, Epstein, and others were present during a moment she considered inappropriate and unsettling. While the full extent of those interactions remains the subject of legal scrutiny and public interest, Sjoberg's deposition contributed to the broader pattern of allegations suggesting a tightly controlled environment where young women were manipulated under false pretenses. Her account was one of several that added weight to the claims being investigated in both civil and criminal proceedings surrounding Epstein and Maxwell.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In her deposition in the defamation lawsuit filed by Virginia Giuffre against Ghislaine Maxwell, Johanna Sjoberg described being recruited to work for Jeffrey Epstein under the impression that it was a legitimate job opportunity. According to her testimony, she was initially hired to help with office work but was soon asked to give massages to Epstein—something she testified quickly evolved into inappropriate and unwanted conduct. Sjoberg stated that Ghislaine Maxwell played a central role in managing the household and was often present during these encounters, contributing to the atmosphere of control and pressure. Her deposition supported claims made by Giuffre and other women who alleged they were misled into situations where they were exploited.Sjoberg also testified about interactions with well-known individuals while in Epstein's company, including an allegation involving Prince Andrew, which she said took place at Epstein's residence. She described an incident in which Maxwell, Epstein, and others were present during a moment she considered inappropriate and unsettling. While the full extent of those interactions remains the subject of legal scrutiny and public interest, Sjoberg's deposition contributed to the broader pattern of allegations suggesting a tightly controlled environment where young women were manipulated under false pretenses. Her account was one of several that added weight to the claims being investigated in both civil and criminal proceedings surrounding Epstein and Maxwell.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In her deposition in the defamation lawsuit filed by Virginia Giuffre against Ghislaine Maxwell, Johanna Sjoberg described being recruited to work for Jeffrey Epstein under the impression that it was a legitimate job opportunity. According to her testimony, she was initially hired to help with office work but was soon asked to give massages to Epstein—something she testified quickly evolved into inappropriate and unwanted conduct. Sjoberg stated that Ghislaine Maxwell played a central role in managing the household and was often present during these encounters, contributing to the atmosphere of control and pressure. Her deposition supported claims made by Giuffre and other women who alleged they were misled into situations where they were exploited.Sjoberg also testified about interactions with well-known individuals while in Epstein's company, including an allegation involving Prince Andrew, which she said took place at Epstein's residence. She described an incident in which Maxwell, Epstein, and others were present during a moment she considered inappropriate and unsettling. While the full extent of those interactions remains the subject of legal scrutiny and public interest, Sjoberg's deposition contributed to the broader pattern of allegations suggesting a tightly controlled environment where young women were manipulated under false pretenses. Her account was one of several that added weight to the claims being investigated in both civil and criminal proceedings surrounding Epstein and Maxwell.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In her deposition in the defamation lawsuit filed by Virginia Giuffre against Ghislaine Maxwell, Johanna Sjoberg described being recruited to work for Jeffrey Epstein under the impression that it was a legitimate job opportunity. According to her testimony, she was initially hired to help with office work but was soon asked to give massages to Epstein—something she testified quickly evolved into inappropriate and unwanted conduct. Sjoberg stated that Ghislaine Maxwell played a central role in managing the household and was often present during these encounters, contributing to the atmosphere of control and pressure. Her deposition supported claims made by Giuffre and other women who alleged they were misled into situations where they were exploited.Sjoberg also testified about interactions with well-known individuals while in Epstein's company, including an allegation involving Prince Andrew, which she said took place at Epstein's residence. She described an incident in which Maxwell, Epstein, and others were present during a moment she considered inappropriate and unsettling. While the full extent of those interactions remains the subject of legal scrutiny and public interest, Sjoberg's deposition contributed to the broader pattern of allegations suggesting a tightly controlled environment where young women were manipulated under false pretenses. Her account was one of several that added weight to the claims being investigated in both civil and criminal proceedings surrounding Epstein and Maxwell.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Jeffrey Epstein's story is about far more than one predator; it's about the powerful network that protected him. While survivor accounts have finally come to light, the elite figures who surrounded Epstein—politicians, billionaires, academics, and global power brokers—have largely avoided scrutiny. His influence wasn't rooted only in wealth, but in access and the willingness of institutions to shield him long after credible allegations surfaced.The failures that enabled him remain unresolved: a 2007 plea deal that granted immunity to unnamed co-conspirators, missing evidence, and a justice system seemingly designed to protect the influential at the expense of victims. Epstein's death eliminated the one person who could have named names, leaving the broader structure untouched. Until the enablers are exposed, accountability remains an illusion.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Many powerful figures were connected to Jeffrey Epstein not by accident, but because his world provided access, influence, and a level of secrecy that appealed to elites. The piece discusses how prominent individuals across politics, business, and media continued associating with Epstein even after serious allegations were known, suggesting that they viewed the benefits of proximity—connections, financial doors opening, and social credibility—as outweighing the risks. Epstein wasn't operating on the fringe; he was embedded in elite circles that helped legitimize him.It also emphasizes how structural protections helped shield both Epstein and those around him. Institutions with the authority to intervene often failed to act, while wealthy and influential associates had the power to suppress scrutiny and shape the narrative. The scale of elite involvement is portrayed as a key reason full accountability has never materialized: exposing Epstein fully would require exposing the network that enabled him, and that remains a threshold the system has avoided crossing.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The Epstein estate claimed it was facing a liquidity problem when the victims' compensation fund requested additional payouts, arguing that although the estate's total value appeared substantial, most of the assets were tied up in hard-to-sell property, aircraft, and other non-liquid holdings. They stated that they did not have enough immediately accessible cash to fulfill compensation requests and could not provide a clear timeline for resolving the issue, which resulted in a temporary pause on new settlement offers.Victims' attorneys and officials sharply criticized the move, suggesting the liquidity explanation functioned more as a stalling tactic than a genuine financial obstacle. They pointed out that the estate continued covering operational and legal expenses during the payout freeze, raising suspicion about priorities and transparency. The announcement also came amid steep reported declines in the estate's overall valuation, prompting questions about where the money had gone and whether resources were being shielded rather than distributed to survivors.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Photos showing Jean-Luc Brunel and Ghislaine Maxwell together on Jeffrey Epstein's private island, Little Saint James, function as damning visual evidence of their direct presence inside the epicenter of Epstein's operation. These images don't show distant acquaintances or innocent vacationers — they show two of Epstein's closest and most active enablers relaxing comfortably in the middle of the Caribbean paradise that survivors have described as a hub of industrial-scale sexual exploitation. Maxwell appears seated poolside, casual and at ease, while Brunel stands nearby, smiling, moving freely around the property as if he belonged there. These are not images of people merely passing through; they depict the inner circle, enjoying the spoils of a predator's empire, positioned exactly where countless victims say the abuse occurred.Taken together, the photos strip away decades of denial and PR spin designed to portray Epstein's network as a loose association of wealthy socialites. Maxwell — the convicted trafficker — and Brunel — the modeling agent long tied to supplying girls through his agency connections — stand shoulder-to-shoulder on the very ground where survivors say horrors unfolded behind closed doors. Their presence on Little Saint James confirms what so many already understood: Epstein's island was not a rumor or a conspiracy theory, but a fully operational center of power, protected by money, influence, and silence. The images lock Maxwell and Brunel permanently into the geography of Epstein's crimes, proving that their roles were not distant or theoretical — they were right there, in the sun, enjoying the view.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In her deposition on March 15, 2010, Ross was questioned extensively about her relationship with Epstein and individuals in his orbit, including the role of recruiting young women for massages and possible sexual contact. She was asked whether she ever used the term “massage” as a euphemism, whether she personally arranged for young women (including minors) to meet Epstein, and whether she benefited financially or materially from such arrangements. Ross repeatedly invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination when asked substantive questions about her own conduct in connection with Epstein's sexual-abuse network, declining to answer many questions about the details of her involvement.Ross was also asked about her knowledge of Epstein's associates and activities, including whether she was aware of certain flights, properties, and contacts used by Epstein's organization for transporting, lodging or grooming associates. The deposition records show that many of these questions were met with silence or non-responses, as Ross declined to answer on advice of counsel or invoked the Fifth. The lack of direct testimony from Ross thus left significant gaps in the civil case's ability to pin down the full details of her role.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Recent revelations have intensified scrutiny of major news organizations and their handling of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, particularly following the release of emails showing New York Times reporter Landon Thomas Jr. communicating with Epstein in a manner critics say appeared closer to strategic guidance than objective journalism. The correspondence has revived longstanding accusations that influential media outlets—including ABC, Vanity Fair, the New Yorker, and the New York Times—minimized or suppressed reporting that could have brought Epstein's activities to light sooner. Multiple newsrooms previously dismissed concerns as fringe speculation or “conspiracy theory,” creating an environment in which survivors struggled to be heard and credible leads were not pursued. Critics argue that these decisions, driven by the desire to preserve relationships with powerful figures in Epstein's network, contributed to years of continued abuse.Today, media organizations have adopted a markedly different tone, positioning themselves as champions of transparency and accountability, but skepticism remains high among the public and advocates for survivors. Many contend that the press's recent coverage is less a moral awakening than a defensive reaction to overwhelming evidence that can no longer be ignored. Trust in legacy media has eroded as news consumers question how such systemic failures were allowed to persist unchallenged and why no meaningful internal reckoning has occurred. The episode has reignited calls for accountability, not only for Epstein's associates but also for the institutions that played a role in shielding them from scrutiny. For survivors and those demanding full disclosure, the issue is no longer whether the truth will emerge—but whether the media will finally confront its own role in delaying it.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Prince Andrew's continued evasion of accountability has transformed him into a central figure in the fallout surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's criminal empire. Born into one of the most privileged positions on earth, he repeatedly placed himself in Epstein's inner circle even after Epstein's conviction, including reportedly staying at his home in New York after the scandal was public. A widely criticized BBC interview intended to clear his name instead became a defining moment of public collapse, in which Andrew offered implausible explanations involving a Pizza Express alibi and a medical claim that he could not sweat—responses that significantly damaged his credibility. The now-iconic photograph of Andrew with Virginia Giuffre and Epstein's documented pattern of exploiting underage girls further intensified scrutiny, raising serious questions about the prince's judgment, integrity, and transparency.Andrew has repeatedly declined opportunities to speak with U.S. authorities and has now let multiple congressional deadlines pass without cooperation, retreating into royal seclusion as public pressure mounts. The royal family has since removed many of his public roles and military honors in an effort to contain the damage, but the strategy has only highlighted the seriousness of the allegations and the depth of Andrew's involvement with Epstein. His silence has become its own indictment, signaling fear rather than innocence, and reinforcing the perception that accountability is being avoided rather than confronted.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

President Donald Trump abruptly reversed his longstanding opposition to public disclosure of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein's network, telling House Republicans to back a measure requiring the Department of Justice to release Epstein-related files. He previously labelled the disclosure effort a “hoax” and actively resisted it, but as bipartisan and intraparty pressure mounted—including from conservative lawmakers—the tide shifted and he pledged to sign the bill if passed.The legislation mandates the DOJ to publish all unclassified records tied to Epstein's investigations within 30 days, with limited allowances for redactions only to protect victims or continuing probes; it explicitly bars withholding records on the basis of embarrassment or political sensitivity. The move comes amid growing scrutiny of Epstein's ties to powerful figures and renewed demands for accountability, even as questions linger about Trump's motivations for this pivot and whether it signals a genuine commitment to transparency or a tactical retreat under mounting pressure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:How Trump reversed course on the Epstein files as his administration faces lingering suspicion about their release | CNN PoliticsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

President Donald Trump abruptly reversed his longstanding opposition to public disclosure of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein's network, telling House Republicans to back a measure requiring the Department of Justice to release Epstein-related files. He previously labelled the disclosure effort a “hoax” and actively resisted it, but as bipartisan and intraparty pressure mounted—including from conservative lawmakers—the tide shifted and he pledged to sign the bill if passed.The legislation mandates the DOJ to publish all unclassified records tied to Epstein's investigations within 30 days, with limited allowances for redactions only to protect victims or continuing probes; it explicitly bars withholding records on the basis of embarrassment or political sensitivity. The move comes amid growing scrutiny of Epstein's ties to powerful figures and renewed demands for accountability, even as questions linger about Trump's motivations for this pivot and whether it signals a genuine commitment to transparency or a tactical retreat under mounting pressure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:How Trump reversed course on the Epstein files as his administration faces lingering suspicion about their release | CNN PoliticsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Jeffrey Epstein's role as a benefactor to Stacey Plaskett has become a focal point as records show that he provided financial support to her political campaigns while she was serving as the congressional delegate for the U.S. Virgin Islands. Multiple donations were made by Epstein and individuals connected to him over several election cycles, reportedly totaling tens of thousands of dollars. These contributions have fueled criticism that Plaskett benefited directly from Epstein's wealth and influence at a time when many institutions and public figures were distancing themselves from him following his 2008 conviction.Beyond the money, Epstein's relationship with Plaskett raised questions of personal access and influence. Communications released in recent months show that Epstein texted Plaskett during the high-profile 2019 congressional hearing featuring Trump's former attorney Michael Cohen, suggesting talking points and strategy in real time as she questioned witnesses. That exchange has been widely interpreted as evidence that Epstein saw Plaskett not merely as a politician he supported, but as someone he could advise, confide in, and potentially influence on matters of national visibility. Plaskett has denied any improper relationship, characterizing Epstein as nothing more than a constituent, but the revelations have sparked intense scrutiny over how close the two actually were and why Epstein felt comfortable inserting himself into her congressional work.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

From the moment Ghislaine Maxwell was arrested in 2020, there was widespread speculation that she would eventually cut a deal with federal prosecutors. Many observers believed she held explosive information about Epstein's most powerful associates—names that could devastate careers, shake institutions, and expose a sprawling web of enablers. The logic was simple: Maxwell was facing decades in prison, and prosecutors often rely on cooperation agreements to dismantle complex trafficking networks. The headlines, courtroom chatter, and legal commentators all echoed the same expectation—Maxwell would flip to save herself, and the public would finally learn the truth about who else participated, enabled, or benefited from Epstein's criminal operation.But that deal never materialized, leaving many to question why. Throughout her trial and sentencing, Maxwell never publicly cooperated, never named names, and never provided the kind of testimonial firepower that so many assumed she possessed. Whether this silence was self-preservation, pressure from powerful figures, fear for her personal safety, or belief she could survive her sentence without betraying anyone remains a point of fierce debate. Ultimately, instead of becoming the prosecution's star witness, Maxwell absorbed the full weight of her conviction and remains imprisoned without having triggered the broader reckoning many survivors, journalists, and the public expected. The absence of a cooperation deal has only intensified suspicion that the system was never truly willing to open that door.to contactme:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Stacey Plaskett, the U.S. Virgin Islands delegate to the U.S. House, has called the civil lawsuit filed against her by six survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's trafficking scheme “frivolous.” In her motion seeking sanctions against the plaintiffs' attorney, she described the accusations as “outright untruth, fiction and misrepresentation,” stating the attorney persisted with what she characterized as unfounded claims even after her legal team warned that continuing would trigger a Rule 11 motion.The lawsuit, originally filed in November 2023 and amended twice, alleged that Plaskett and other U.S. Virgin Islands officials helped facilitate Epstein's trafficking operations, including through tax-break programs, fundraising, and other support.   Plaskett denied all the allegations, and by August 2025 the case against her alone was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice, meaning it cannot be refiled.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Two investigative journalists in Norway reported that they were threatened after publishing stories that examined connections between powerful figures in their country and Jeffrey Epstein. Their reporting focused on financial ties and personal dealings involving well-known public officials, and after their findings were released, the threats escalated through emails, phone calls, and other forms of intimidation. The situation created serious internal concern within their newsroom, leading editors to publicly acknowledge the dangers faced by reporters who challenge influential networks with global reach.The incident became a striking example of the risks that accompany accountability journalism, particularly when investigations touch individuals with resources, status, or connections capable of exerting pressure. Norway, typically regarded as one of the safest places in the world for press freedom, suddenly found itself confronted with the reality that reporters can be targeted simply for exposing uncomfortable truths. While the fallout from the reporting led to resignations and public scrutiny for those involved, the journalists themselves were left to navigate personal safety concerns — a reminder that uncovering the truth often comes with a price.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Jeffrey Epstein and his crimes transcended politics because the network he built operated far above the petty divides of left versus right. His circle of power drew from every corner of American and international influence — Democrats, Republicans, royalty, intelligence figures, billionaires, bankers, academics, scientists, and media executives. The ties to his operation spanned presidential administrations, global finance, elite philanthropy, celebrity culture, and the modeling world. Epstein wasn't loyal to any ideology; he was loyal to leverage. His world functioned on access, compromise, and mutual protection, using connections and shared secrets as currency. That's why so many powerful people were comfortable around him even after his 2008 conviction — because they believed they were insulated by the same system that protected him.The aftermath of Epstein's downfall proved even more clearly that his crimes superseded partisan identity. Every institution that should have enforced accountability — prosecutors, the intelligence community, federal agencies, the press, and political leadership — failed in ways that appeared coordinated rather than accidental. His death in federal custody united the country in one rare moment of agreement: nobody believed the official story. The rage and distrust cut across traditional political lines because Epstein exposed a truth Americans already sensed — the powerful protect their own, and when the stakes are high enough, the system will bend reality to shield them. His case wasn't a left or right scandal; it was a ruling-class scandal, a blueprint for how the elite operate above consequences and expect the public to swallow the lie.to contact me:  bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In earlier reporting, much of the media framed the Jeffrey Epstein case largely as fuel for conspiracy theorists. The narrative around his death, the secretive networks, and the alleged “client list” often got labeled as fringe speculation, with the focus on odd memes and internet chatter rather than systemic investigation. The lack of transparency — the sealed records, the unanswered questions about his connections and how he died — created an environment where speculation thrived, and the mainstream coverage treated it as detached from serious journalism.More recently though, the tone has shifted. The piece acknowledges that what was once mostly dismissed as conspiracy talk is now being seen by some outlets as, at minimum, a reflection of genuine institutional failures — gaps in oversight, accountability and transparency that allowed the story to be mishandled or ignored. The reinterpretation means the media is slowly moving from “crazy fringe theory” toward “legitimate unanswered questions,” recognizing that the earlier dismissal may have been premature and that the conditions that spawned those theories often stemmed from real structural problems.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

A persistent misconception continues to circulate around the Epstein case: the belief that survivors have never identified individuals involved. In reality, numerous names have already been publicly stated in sworn testimony, court filings, and interviews. Among those named are former New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, former Senate majority leader George Mitchell, financier Glenn Dubin, scientist Marvin Minsky, billionaire retail magnate Les Wexner, investor Leon Black, Hyatt executive Thomas Pritzker, and Prince Andrew. These are not obscure figures; they are individuals of immense political and financial influence. Yet the public response has largely been silence, shaped by partisan distractions and misinformation that shifted attention away from real testimony in favor of viral conspiracy narratives. The issue is not that names have not been provided — it is that society has not acted on them.Survivors face intense pressure and legal intimidation when they come forward, including the threat of financially ruinous lawsuits from powerful defendants with vast legal resources, which has historically deterred additional testimony. This environment of fear has shielded the accused for decades, enabling them to operate without accountability. Many advocates and journalists have become increasingly vocal in rejecting that silence and calling for immediate action — demanding investigations, subpoenas, and legal consequences for the names already publicly identified. The question should no longer be, “Why aren't survivors naming names?” but rather, “Why are the named individuals not being investigated?” Until there is movement on the existing record, continued calls for additional names serve only as a distraction from the urgent need for accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Jeffrey Epstein's story has long been framed as a failure of the Department of Justice, but the emerging picture suggests something far larger, deeper, and more strategically protected than bureaucratic incompetence. While the DOJ files may eventually expose mid-level accomplices and enablers—from recruiters to financial fixers—those records are widely seen as the leftovers, not the main course. The patterns surrounding Epstein's rise, protection, wealth, connections, plea deals, and death point toward a man operating not as an independent criminal, but as an intelligence asset whose true handlers operated far above prosecutors and judges. The extraordinary legal shielding he enjoyed for decades, the global scope of his operation, and the immediate clampdown on information following his arrest and death align more with a covert intelligence compromise operation than with the actions of a rogue financier.Increasingly, investigators and observers argue that the CIA, not the DOJ, holds the real archive—tapes, testimonies, leverage files, operational memos, and the materials that could explain how a former prep-school math teacher became the center of a multinational blackmail network involving presidents, billionaires, royalty, and corporate and scientific elites. The stakes are not embarrassment, but system collapse: public acknowledgment that Epstein was a U.S.-built intelligence tool used to manufacture leverage over global power figures would undermine the myth of democratic control and reveal the extent of unelected power inside American governance. The pressure to release DOJ documents is important, but the real battlefield is Langley, where the answers to the central question—who built Jeffrey Epstein, and why—remain sealed behind national-security justifications. Until that vault opens, the truth remains incomplete, and accountability remains impossible.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Stacey Plaskett was just saved from censure by Republicans — the same Republicans who have spent weeks pounding the podium about protecting children and holding Epstein-connected figures accountable. They backed off not out of principle, but to shield their own colleague Cory Mills, who is facing ethics violations of his own. It was a stunning collapse of supposed moral courage, with lawmakers folding like cheap lawn chairs when it came time to actually act. The GOP proved that all of their righteous fury was nothing more than stage lighting and sound effects. If they won't even take action against someone they call an enemy, the idea that they would ever go after their own donors or allies is laughable. Every Democrat who voted against censure is just as complicit, exposing the hypocrisy of claiming moral high ground while protecting one of their own. Both parties showed their hand: preserving power matters more than accountability or truth.Stacey Plaskett shouldn't just have been censured — she should be stripped of committees, cut off from party backing, and pressured to resign. Her actions and alliances are indefensible, and protecting her destroys any credibility either party claims to have in the fight for transparency and justice in the Epstein case. If Democrats want to be taken seriously in demanding full disclosure and real consequences for everyone tied to Epstein's network, they must abandon the practice of shielding “favorites” and clean their own house first. You cannot scream about Trump while ignoring Plaskett. You cannot claim to defend victims while protecting someone who served as an institutional shield for a predator's ecosystem. Until both parties stop rolling in the mud, neither can pretend to stand on higher ground. This isn't going away. Accountability starts now — not when it's convenient.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Harvard has announced that it is launching a fresh review of its connections to Epstein after new emails and documents were released showing long -standing ties between Epstein and former Harvard president Lawrence Summers. The released materials show that Summers maintained communications with Epstein well after Epstein's 2008 conviction for solicitation of prostitution of a minor, including advice-seeking messages and email exchanges in 2017-2019. The university's statement says the review will look into “information concerning individuals at Harvard included in the newly released Epstein documents to evaluate what actions may be warranted.”This comes on the heels of a previous investigation (completed circa 2020) which found that Epstein had made sizeable donations to Harvard (about $9 million between 1998–2008) and had access to Harvard campus facilities — including an office — even after his conviction. The new probe focuses not only on Summers but also on other Harvard affiliates named in the documents (including Summers's wife, Harvard professor Elisa New). The scandal is reopening questions about how institutions handled Epstein's donations, access and post-conviction privileges.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the Epstein Files Transparency Act (H.R. 4405), the small-print language in Section 2(c)(1)(C) allows the Department of Justice (DOJ) to withhold or redact “segregable portions of records … that would jeopardize an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution, provided that such withholding is narrowly tailored and temporary.” On its face this sounds reasonable, but in practice it gives the DOJ the ability to declare many documents “ongoing investigation” materials and thereby delay or avoid disclosure—even if the broader investigative posture is dormant, tangential or long past its active phase. Because the bill does not define strict deadlines or require the DOJ to demonstrate why the “ongoing investigation” exception remains valid in each case, the phrase becomes a flexible escape hatch for non-release.Additionally, while the Act mandates public availability of all unclassified records within 30 days of enactment (Section 2(a)), the exception language appears to give the Attorney General the power to claim that large swaths of documents remain subject to an active or future proceeding, thereby deferring release indefinitely. Advocacy analyses note this creates a “loophole” enabling executive branch discretion to deny transparency despite the bill's intent.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The estate of Jeffrey Epstein faced major hurdles in trying to sell Zorro Ranch, his massive and infamous New Mexico property. Initially listed for roughly $27.5 million, the ranch sat on the market without a buyer for more than a year as the price steadily dropped, eventually being reduced to around $18 million in an effort to attract interest. Beyond the financial challenges, a clouded title emerged when a small religious nonprofit claimed it owned the land through a deed reportedly transferred from Epstein for $200—an allegation the estate argued was fraudulent. That dispute triggered legal complications that stalled any potential sale while the ownership question was argued in court.Even once the legal issues began to resolve, Zorro Ranch remained a toxic asset. The property was widely associated with allegations of sexual abuse and trafficking tied directly to Epstein's network, and the public scrutiny made potential buyers reluctant to become involved. Questions surrounding how proceeds would be distributed, particularly as victim compensation processes were ongoing, added further uncertainty. After nearly two years on the market, the estate finally managed to sell Zorro Ranch, but the deal was disclosed at an undisclosed price and made through a newly formed corporation—hardly the clean, high-value transaction Epstein's estate had originally expected.to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Adriana Ross, Sarah Kellen Vickers, Lesley Groff, and Nadia Marcinkova were four of the women long described in court filings, survivor testimony, and investigative reporting as central figures within Jeffrey Epstein's inner orbit—often referred to as his “core four.” Each played a different role in the machinery that enabled Epstein's trafficking operation to function across multiple properties and jurisdictions. Ross, a former model from Poland, was accused in depositions of helping arrange encounters and recruit new girls inside the Palm Beach network. Kellen Vickers was repeatedly described by survivors as the gatekeeper who scheduled “massages,” organized travel, and prepared rooms—allegedly escorting underage girls into Epstein's private quarters and instructing them on how to behave. Groff functioned as Epstein's long-time executive assistant, handling logistics like flights, schedules, and household coordination that allowed the operation to run smoothly and discreetly. Marcinkova, a Slovak-born pilot and former model who lived within Epstein's residence network, was alleged to have been both a sexual participant and a recruiter, and was later named as one of the individuals who received immunity under Epstein's 2008 sweetheart deal.Together, the roles of Ross, Kellen Vickers, Groff, and Marcinkova illustrate how Epstein's criminal empire operated like a corporate structure—complete with scheduling, logistics, recruitment, transportation, and internal management that shielded Epstein from direct exposure. They formed a protective layer between Epstein and the victims, helping sustain a system designed to normalize abuse, silence resistance, and minimize the risk of interruption. The fact that none of these women have ever faced criminal prosecution, despite repeated accusations and extensive naming in legal proceedings, underlines the depth of systemic failure surrounding the Epstein case and raises the question of how an operation of this scale could have persisted for decades without intervention. These four figures remain emblematic of how Epstein did not act alone; he relied on a network that operated with precision—and that network has largely escaped accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

After Jeffrey Epstein was found dead in his cell at the Federal Bureau of Prisons facility in Manhattan on August 10, 2019, several inmates and former inmates voiced serious doubts about the official narrative of suicide. One inmate who had previously been housed in the exact cell claimed that the architectural layout made a hanging suicide physically improbable—he cited lack of ceiling fixtures, low bunks, and other structural barriers. Others pointed to the absence of a cellmate, malfunctioning cameras, and alleged lapses in guard monitoring as factors that undermined the “alone in the cell” story.These inmate observations fuel persistent skepticism and speculation around Epstein's death. Their accounts intertwine with documented failures by prison staff—such as broken cameras and falsified check logs—and with broader concerns that the system allowed, or even facilitated, a scenario where a high-profile detainee died under murky circumstances. Together, these statements from inside the prison ecosystem continue to drive debate over whether the official determination of suicide reflects the full reality of what happened that night.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Jeffrey Epstein's story is about far more than one predator; it's about the powerful network that protected him. While survivor accounts have finally come to light, the elite figures who surrounded Epstein—politicians, billionaires, academics, and global power brokers—have largely avoided scrutiny. His influence wasn't rooted only in wealth, but in access and the willingness of institutions to shield him long after credible allegations surfaced.The failures that enabled him remain unresolved: a 2007 plea deal that granted immunity to unnamed co-conspirators, missing evidence, and a justice system seemingly designed to protect the influential at the expense of victims. Epstein's death eliminated the one person who could have named names, leaving the broader structure untouched. Until the enablers are exposed, accountability remains an illusion.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Many powerful figures were connected to Jeffrey Epstein not by accident, but because his world provided access, influence, and a level of secrecy that appealed to elites. The piece discusses how prominent individuals across politics, business, and media continued associating with Epstein even after serious allegations were known, suggesting that they viewed the benefits of proximity—connections, financial doors opening, and social credibility—as outweighing the risks. Epstein wasn't operating on the fringe; he was embedded in elite circles that helped legitimize him.It also emphasizes how structural protections helped shield both Epstein and those around him. Institutions with the authority to intervene often failed to act, while wealthy and influential associates had the power to suppress scrutiny and shape the narrative. The scale of elite involvement is portrayed as a key reason full accountability has never materialized: exposing Epstein fully would require exposing the network that enabled him, and that remains a threshold the system has avoided crossing.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Anne Robinson, who as a journalist and presenter had past personal connections to Maxwell (and to Maxwell's father), publicly described Maxwell and her family as “broken” and fundamentally damaged by their upbringing. She said Maxwell was left “broken by her childhood,” referencing the toxic mix of privilege, secrecy, and dysfunction she believed underpinned Maxwell's later life. Robinson's remarks suggest she views Maxwell's socialite image as a façade masking deeper psychological and moral fractures.Robinson's commentary does not delve into detailed allegations of sexual-trafficking or Maxwell's criminal conviction, but rather offers a broad moral judgment: that Maxwell's privileged background and entanglement with power disguised a deeper collapse of values and character. In Robinson's view, Maxwell's public persona and high-society access were symptoms of a person shaped by inherited trauma and entitlement — a person “broken” in a way that allowed the abuses associated with her to happen.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The Epstein estate claimed it was facing a liquidity problem when the victims' compensation fund requested additional payouts, arguing that although the estate's total value appeared substantial, most of the assets were tied up in hard-to-sell property, aircraft, and other non-liquid holdings. They stated that they did not have enough immediately accessible cash to fulfill compensation requests and could not provide a clear timeline for resolving the issue, which resulted in a temporary pause on new settlement offers.Victims' attorneys and officials sharply criticized the move, suggesting the liquidity explanation functioned more as a stalling tactic than a genuine financial obstacle. They pointed out that the estate continued covering operational and legal expenses during the payout freeze, raising suspicion about priorities and transparency. The announcement also came amid steep reported declines in the estate's overall valuation, prompting questions about where the money had gone and whether resources were being shielded rather than distributed to survivors.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The Epstein Files bill blasted through Congress with numbers you almost never see anymore—427-1 in the House, and then it slid through the Senate with unanimous consent like it was greased. On paper, that looks like a triumph of transparency and a rare moment of unity. But let's not kid ourselves: Washington doesn't suddenly grow a conscience overnight. When politicians from both parties lock arms this tightly, it's usually because they believe it protects them rather than exposes them. The speed of the vote and the lack of debate feel less like courage and more like a calculated move—an attempt to get ahead of a tidal wave they know is on the horizon.Now the bill sits on Trump's desk, waiting for his signature, and everyone in D.C. is acting like this is the final step before sunlight floods the entire Epstein network. But the truth is, nothing is guaranteed. Signing a bill is not the same as releasing the records, and this administration has already signaled that “national security” and “ongoing investigations” will be used like bulletproof shields. If this turns into another stall tactic, another reroute, or another sanitized dump of heavily blacked-out PDFs, then this near-unanimous vote will go down not as a victory for transparency—but as the largest bipartisan cover-your-ass maneuver in modern political history. The real test isn't the vote. It's whether the files actually see daylight without being shredded, scrubbed, or neutered beyond recognition.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Senate expected to send Epstein files bill to Trump - ABC NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In his recent remarks about the Jeffrey Epstein files, Mike Johnson shifted from publicly demanding transparency to cautioning that the disclosure could “publicly reveal the identity … of undercover law-enforcement officers” and “chill” whistle-blowers. He argued that releasing the full files might weaken future investigations and endanger informants, effectively invoking national‐security style protections for evidence he suggested could have implications beyond the usual criminal records.By repeatedly emphasizing the danger of exposure — without detailing what those dangers are — Johnson appears to signal that Epstein's case may not merely be a private criminal network but intertwined with intelligence or covert operations. His insistence on protecting sources, methods, and “sensitive” information aligns more with the language used when classified intelligence assets are involved than when standard prosecution files are at issue. Combined with longstanding rumors that Epstein might have functioned as an intelligence asset, Johnson's position implicitly buttresses the theory: that some of the Epstein documents may sit in a realm where disclosure truly threatens national-security interests.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

A growing movement is calling out the decades-long failure of institutions to deliver justice in the Jeffrey Epstein trafficking scandal, arguing that the system has consistently protected powerful individuals instead of victims. After years of obfuscation, sealed records, shifting narratives, and political deflection, frustration has reached a breaking point. What was once treated as fringe or conspiratorial has become an unavoidable national and international reckoning, with visible cracks forming in the wall of silence that shielded influential figures across politics, finance, royalty, intelligence, media, and elite social circles. The tone of certainty that once accompanied official dismissals has shifted to defensiveness and unease, as public pressure intensifies and demands for transparency grow more forceful.At the heart of the movement is a unified push to transcend political divisions and focus on a shared objective: full accountability for those involved in Epstein's network and a complete, unredacted release of all related records. Advocates argue that this case is not partisan but moral, and that unity across ideological lines is the only force powerful enough to break through institutional resistance. The call is for the immediate publication of every flight log, email, deposition, and document connected to Epstein and his associates, with no redactions or procedural delays. Supporters maintain that anyone resisting transparency is signaling complicity, and insist that the era of silence, distraction, and protection of the powerful must end now, declaring that justice demands exposure rather than continued concealment.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

For years, there have been predictions that the eventual release of the Epstein files will be nothing short of explosive—an earth-shaking moment that shatters the carefully crafted narratives protecting the powerful. The expectation is that once the full scope of Epstein's network, communications, travel records, financial flows, and visitor logs are uncensored, the American public will see an unfiltered view of how deeply embedded Epstein was among global elites. People believe the documents could expose the complicity of politicians, billionaires, intelligence figures, media executives, royalty, and corporate titans who have been shielded by redactions, legal maneuvering, sealed settlements, and a bipartisan effort to control the narrative. Many predict it will rewrite modern political history and reveal a system of influence peddling and blackmail that operated in plain sight while the public was lied to.These predictions also suggest that the reaction will be existential—that when people finally see the unredacted truth, trust in institutions will collapse. The files are expected to demonstrate that authorities deliberately protected Epstein for decades, that intelligence agencies may have used him as leverage, and that the cover-ups were coordinated at the highest levels. Supporters of full transparency argue that the reason the files have been delayed, redacted, or buried behind claims of “ongoing investigations” is because the material is too damning, and too many influential figures have something to lose. The belief is that once the files are fully revealed, it will crack open a hidden architecture of power and exploitation that many Americans have suspected but never been allowed to see.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Exclusive | Rep. Ro Khanna pushing for release of full Epstein files predicts contents will 'shock the conscience of this country' | New York PostBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

A growing rift has emerged within the MAGA movement as frustrations intensify over the administration's handling of the Epstein files and what supporters view as broken promises and deliberate misdirection. Influential MAGA personalities who once championed transparency are now openly attacking their own base, accusing ordinary supporters of disloyalty simply for demanding answers regarding Jeffrey Epstein and the long-promised release of related documents. Critics argue that the movement's leadership is attempting to redirect blame and silence its strongest advocates, branding dissenters as traitors rather than addressing legitimate concerns about accountability and the integrity of the investigation. The backlash has highlighted deepening distrust among former allies and exposed widening fractures that were once concealed beneath slogans and unity-themed messaging.Central to the conflict is former President Donald Trump's escalating public feud with Congressman Thomas Massie and the broader shift from outsider populism to aggressive internal policing. Detractors claim that Trump's continued refusal to release the Epstein files, combined with public attacks on longstanding supporters and allies, signals the decline of what was once a powerful political force. Political observers describe the behavior as characteristic of movements entering collapse: lashing out at internal critics, redefining loyalty tests, and prioritizing personal preservation over promised reforms. Many former supporters now argue that instead of dismantling political corruption, the movement has become indistinguishable from it, with Trump increasingly portrayed not as a reformer, but as a participant in the elite system he vowed to expose.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

It strains credulity to believe that the world around Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell—filled with elite elites in finance, tech, entertainment, and fashion—was completely unaware of what was going on. For example, Ellen Pao, former Reddit CEO and one-time partner at venture firm Kleiner Perkins, publicly stated that Maxwell was invited to a Silicon Valley holiday party in 2011 despite existing reports that she was supplying underage girls for sex. Pao wrote that “we knew about her supplying underage girls for sex” and yet “that was fine with the ‘cool' people who managed the tightly controlled guest list.” This confession suggests that circles of power didn't just “miss” what was happening—they arguably chose to ignore it.Similarly, the modeling industry had whispered about the predatory nature of agents like Jean‑Luc Brunel long before the Epstein-Maxwell drama exploded. Brunel was a longtime model scout and agency boss who received millions from Epstein to expand his business, and his name repeatedly came up in allegations of sexual misconduct dating back decades. The fact that such warnings were circulating in fashion—well before the mainstream reckoning—raises the question: how could so many people connected to these men claim no knowledge, no signs, no suspicion? When one entire industry quietly signals something is rotten, it becomes much harder to swallow wholesale claims of unaware innocence.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Allegations have circulated that Jamie Dimon knew significantly more about Jeffrey Epstein than he publicly claimed. Dimon has repeatedly insisted that he never met Epstein, never spoke with him, and didn't even recognize his name until after Epstein's 2019 arrest. However, critics point to the fact that Epstein was a major JPMorgan client for roughly 15 years while Dimon was CEO, moving large sums of cash that triggered repeated internal compliance warnings. Senior bank executives reportedly viewed Epstein as an important figure worth cultivating, and Epstein was credited with bringing wealthy, high-value clients into the bank. This has led to widespread skepticism that Dimon—at the very top of the institution—could have known nothing about someone whose transactions drew scrutiny and who was deeply networked inside JPMorgan.Further questions were raised when former executives alleged that Epstein was discussed at senior levels and that Dimon was aware of the relationship years earlier than he acknowledged. Claims surfaced that Dimon was briefed about Epstein at least twice and that internal emails referenced directives encouraging top leadership to “get to know” Epstein for business reasons. Dimon has denied all such assertions, dismissing them as false and insisting he had no knowledge of Epstein's activities or banking arrangements. Still, the timeline, the scale of Epstein's financial footprint, and allegations from those once close to the situation have fueled suspicions that Dimon's version of events is incomplete—and that the full truth about the extent of the bank's relationship with Epstein remains obscured.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The FBI spent months trying to locate Ghislaine Maxwell after she disappeared from public view following Jeffrey Epstein's death. Investigators obtained warrants to access data from a cellphone registered to an alias she used, which allowed them to monitor who she was communicating with and identify approximate regions where the phone had connected to cell towers. Through historical cell-site records, GPS metadata, and call-pattern tracking, agents were eventually able to narrow her location to a remote area of New Hampshire, where the phone routinely appeared within the same coverage radius, suggesting she was living in seclusion and limiting digital footprints to avoid detection.Once the FBI had reduced the search field to a one-square-mile area, they sought court authorization to use a more aggressive device — a cell-site simulator, often referred to as a Stingray — which imitates a cellular tower and forces phones nearby to reveal their exact position. After deploying the device, agents pinpointed the precise property Maxwell was using as a hideout. On July 2, 2020, armed with that precision location data, federal agents moved in, encountered Maxwell attempting to evade them inside the house, and placed her under arrest, ending the lengthy federal manhunt.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

When Epstein was found unresponsive in his cell at the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) in Manhattan on August 10, 2019, standard jail protocols—from cell-mate monitoring to regular inmate checks—were wildly breached. The cellmate had just been transferred out the previous evening, leaving Epstein alone in violation of suicide-watch policy. Investigators later found his cell in disarray: mattresses piled, linens strewn, items moved and photographs inconsistently recorded. The delay in the arrival of investigators, and removal of the body before full forensics, added to concerns that the scene was mishandled.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Virginia Roberts Giuffre alleges that Prince Andrew, Duke of York sexually abused her on three separate occasions after she was trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. She claims the first encounter occurred in March 2001 when she was 17, at Maxwell's London residence; she asserts that Maxwell told her she was “going to meet a handsome prince.” The second encounter is alleged to have been in New York, and the third on Epstein's island, Little Saint James in the U.S. Virgin Islands, involving multiple under-aged girls. In her memoir and public statements she describes being forced into the situations, having little ability to refuse, and later being paid as part of the trafficking structure.In her book and interviews, Giuffre also details the streams of evidence and “guessing game” rounds that critics and defenders of Andrew engage in — including his repeated denials, his claim he could not sweat (used to contradict her nightclub memory), and arguments over whether a widely circulated photograph of him with Giuffre and Maxwell is genuine. She writes that Andrew correctly guessed her age when they first met (“My daughters are just a little younger than you”), and emphasizes how the photo's timestamp (March 13 2001) aligns with the timeline she gives. Meanwhile, defenders of Andrew insist flaws in her account or “memory issues” but Giuffre states that the guessing about details of the case (where she was, what day it was, who else was present) is precisely what the networks of power rely on to muddy her truth and preserve his denials.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In late 2019, Prince Andrew publicly stated that he was “willing to help any appropriate law-enforcement agency” in relation to Epstein's criminal activities. However, on 27 January 2020 the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York announced that the prince had provided “zero cooperation” to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) despite repeated requests to interview him as part of the investigation.Since then, although at times Prince Andrew has asserted he remains open to cooperating, U.S. investigators maintain he has not voluntarily submitted to interview or question-and-answer sessions regarding the Epstein network.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

For years, Prince Andrew acted like the high-flying royal who couldn't see the minefield he was walking into: cozying up with ­Jeffrey Epstein, showing up in dubious photographs, giving an infamous 2019 BBC interview that looked more like a clown show than a credible defence (including his claim to have been at Pizza Express while accusations rained down). Ultimately his behavior came across as shamelessly indifferent, tone-deaf, and foolish—he didn't just stumble; he waltzed through the wreckage.Then everything collapsed. The monarchy pulled the plug: he relinquished titles, had military honours stripped, was told to leave his royal residence, and in late 2025 he was formally stripped of his “Prince” title and other styles, becoming simply Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. These aren't small demotions—they mark the end of his public roles and any real stature in the institution he once embodied. He gambled his privilege, association, and reputation—and lost it all.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Congress is set to vote today, November 18, 2025, on the Epstein Files Transparency Act, a bill that would compel the Department of Justice to release as much information as legally possible about its investigations into Jeffrey Epstein. The legislation comes after months of partisan infighting, petitions to bypass leadership, and public pressure from both parties. Initially opposed by President Donald Trump and House GOP leadership, the measure gained momentum when more than half of House members—including every Democrat and several Republicans—signed a discharge petition to force the vote. Trump reversed his stance over the weekend, now urging Republicans to support the release, a dramatic shift that has reshaped the political landscape surrounding the issueThe vote carries major implications for transparency, political accountability, and the balance of power between Congress and the executive branch. If passed, the bill would require the DOJ to disclose files that could shed light on Epstein's network of political and financial connections, which have long fueled speculation across party lines. The debate has fractured the GOP, with figures like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene clashing publicly with Trump, while bipartisan sponsors such as Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) have pushed the measure forward. Beyond its immediate political drama, the vote represents a rare bipartisan effort to force disclosure in one of the most controversial criminal cases of recent decades, raising questions about how much the government has withheld and what revelations could follow.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:House Republicans brace for Epstein files vote led by Trump foe Thomas Massie | Fox NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.