Podcasts about Breaking news

Since we have learned about the arrest of Rex Heuermann and assuming he is who the authorities claim him to be, one of the questions that has to be asked is: Has this man killed before and if so where? In this episode we hear from a retired Metro Police Cold Case detective who discusses the Heuermann arrest and the Las Vegas four.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Family of slain teen speaks out as NY serial killer probe expands to Las Vegas (ktnv.com)

The investigation into Rex Heuermann and his activity in Las Vegas is fully underway. Metro Police department has confirmed the investigation now several times and we have learned that they are in the process of comparing Rex Heuermann's DNA with one of the murdered women from Las Vegas, Victoria Camara. In this episode, we get an update on that investigation and we hear from Jessie Fosters Mom about what she thinks about the new developments in her daughters could case.(commercial at 10:37)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Multiple Las Vegas cold case murders are being investigated for connections to the Gilgo Beach suspect | Business Insider India

We start the show off with some super cross talk with Mason & Ireland. We are live from Ontario for the new Dodgers Minor League Affiliate reveal! BREAKING NEWS. Dodgers pitcher Clayton Kershaw will announce today that he is retiring as a player at the end of the 2025 season. Where does Clayton Kershaw rank amongst the Dodgers greats? We take your calls so you guys can react to Kershaw retiring. GUEST Allan Benavides the General Manager of the Dodgers Minor League team joins the show! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Time for Sports Graffiti! Mason and Ireland react to the Breaking News of Clayton Kershaw announcing his retirement after the conclusion of the 2025 season! Kershaw will make his final regular season start tomorrow night at Dodger Stadium vs the Giants! The Rams have a chance to do something that has never been done before, can they do it? Who is the greatest football coach of all time? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Scott Mason talks with Chris Nimbley of Jetsinsider.com about the breaking news surrounding the New York Jets! Chris discusses the news regarding Tyrod Taylor starting Sunday against Tampa, up to date injuries, a QB injury for another team that will impact the Jets soon, presser highlights from throughout the week......and much more! Check out the Play Like A Jet store and get your "Play Like A Jet" logo shirt RIGHT NOW! Hoodies, hats, mugs, etc.....also available! https://www.teepublic.com/t-shirt/19770068-play-like-a-jet-logo-shirt?store_id=717242 To advertise on Play Like A Jet, please contact: Justin@Brokencontrollermedia.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Conway Jr. dives into the breaking news about late-night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel being pulled off air by the ABC due to inflammatory comments he made during his monologue about Charlie Kirk's accused assassin Tyler Robinson. Kimmel said that the MAGA gang was trying to “score political points” off Kirk's murder and stated the accused killer was “one of them,” a pro-Trump Republican. The FCC took exception to the host's inflammatory political commentary. Plus, Michael Monks is in studio to talk about the LA Convention Center being painted for the Olympics in 2028.

Carolyn Margaret Andriano was one of the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking ring, who testified in the 2021 trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. According to accounts, she was recruited into Epstein's Palm Beach mansion around 2001 when she was about 14 years old, and later waived her anonymity in speaking publicly about her experiences. She described how abuse and trauma during her teenage years led to struggles with addiction.She died on May 23, 2023, in a hotel room in West Palm Beach, Florida, at age 36. The medical examiner ruled her death an accidental overdose, citing a combination of fentanyl, methadone, and alprazolam.  Her mother has raised questions about the official findings, disputing that Carolyn was continuing to struggle with substance abuse at the time, and has called for greater transparencyto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Attorney John Ray has made some pretty big accusations against Rex Heuermann's wife and kids since the arrest, even going so far as to say that his wife, Asa Ellerup, was in on the whole thing. He has not provided any proof to back these statements up however. Now, the lawyer for Heuermann's daughter Victoria and son Christopher has responded.Let's dive in and see what he had to say!to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Attorney for Gilgo Beach murder suspect's children hits back at claims family knew about alleged crimes | The Independent

Jeffrey Epstein was able to evade real justice in Florida through a combination of wealth, connections, and a deeply compromised legal system that bent over backward to accommodate him. In 2008, despite overwhelming evidence that he had sexually abused dozens of underage girls, Epstein secured a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) with DOJ. This sweetheart deal allowed him to plead guilty to minor state charges—soliciting prostitution from a minor—while avoiding federal charges that could have put him away for life. The deal was struck in secrecy, without informing Epstein's victims, in blatant violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Instead of facing true consequences, Epstein was sentenced to just 18 months in a county jail, where he was granted work release for 12 hours a day, six days a week, allowing him to return to his office and continue his life of luxury. Even within jail, he received special treatment, reportedly having his own private wing and access to amenities most inmates could only dream of.Beyond the legal system's corruption, Epstein's ability to avoid justice was reinforced by his powerful network, which included high-profile politicians, business moguls, and celebrities. Florida prosecutors initially identified at least 36 underage victims, yet law enforcement's pursuit of him was deliberately stifled. Acosta later admitted that he was told to “back off” because Epstein “belonged to intelligence,” a cryptic remark that only fueled speculation about deeper government entanglements. The failure of the justice system was not just a legal oversight but a calculated betrayal of Epstein's victims. Law enforcement, prosecutors, and the courts all played a role in ensuring he walked free, sending a clear message that power and money could override even the most heinous crimes. It wasn't until over a decade later—after mounting public pressure and investigative journalism—that Epstein was arrested again in 2019. But by then, he had already spent years laughing at a justice system that had been complicit in shielding him from real accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

​Denise George, a seasoned attorney from the U.S. Virgin Islands, served as the territory's Attorney General from 2019 until her dismissal in December 2022. During her tenure, she was recognized for her unwavering commitment to justice, notably leading significant legal actions against the estate of Jeffrey Epstein.In early 2020, George filed a civil enforcement lawsuit against Epstein's estate under the Virgin Islands' Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (CICO). This legal action aimed to hold Epstein's estate accountable for alleged criminal activities, including human trafficking and sexual exploitation within the Virgin Islands. Her efforts culminated in a settlement in November 2022, wherein the estate agreed to pay the Virgin Islands over $105 million and half of the proceeds from the sale of Little St. James, Epstein's private island.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The cases of Jeffrey Epstein and Sean “Diddy” Combs highlight the complexities of holding powerful individuals accountable for systemic abuse and exploitation. Epstein, a financier with global connections, operated an international sex trafficking network for decades, leveraging his wealth and influence to evade scrutiny. Despite overwhelming evidence, a controversial 2008 plea deal allowed him to escape significant consequences, sparking outrage and exposing flaws in the justice system. His 2019 arrest, fueled by survivor advocacy and public outcry, marked a turning point, but his subsequent death in custody left many questions unanswered and denied survivors the full justice they sought. Epstein's case exposed systemic failures, from complicit enablers to legal loopholes, and has since become a symbol of how privilege can distort accountability.Diddy's case, though distinct in scope, reveals similar dynamics of power and impunity within the entertainment industry. Accused of sexual abuse, physical violence, and intimidation, Diddy allegedly used his status as a music mogul to exploit and silence victims for decades. His remand to custody in 2023 reflects a growing cultural shift toward accountability in an industry often criticized for its culture of silence and complicity. Both cases underscore the systemic structures that enable abuse, challenging society to confront these power dynamics and demand reform. While their outcomes remain pivotal, Epstein and Diddy's cases serve as stark reminders that justice must be blind to status, and that societal complicity must be dismantled to protect the vulnerable.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Bill Barr's deposition before Congress on Jeffrey Epstein was a masterclass in calculated deflection. While Barr insisted that Epstein's death was “absolutely” suicide, he conceded that the prison surveillance system had “blind spots”—a detail that conveniently leaves just enough room for speculation without providing definitive answers. His reliance on flawed or incomplete camera footage, combined with his dismissal of alternative forensic perspectives, came off less like transparency and more like institutional damage control. Instead of holding the Bureau of Prisons accountable, Barr's narrative positioned the failures as unfortunate but inconsequential, a stance that fails to satisfy the public demand for clarity.Just as troubling was Barr's evasiveness when pressed about Donald Trump's knowledge of Epstein. He admitted to having spoken with Trump about Epstein's death but couldn't recall when one of those conversations occurred—an astonishing lapse considering the gravity of the matter. His reasoning that “if there were more to it, it would have leaked” was not only flippant but dismissive of the very real history of suppression, obstruction, and selective disclosure that has defined the Epstein saga. By leaning on institutional trust in a case defined by betrayal of that very trust, Barr's testimony did little more than reinforce suspicions that the Department of Justice has long been more concerned with containment than accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Barr-Transcript.pdf

Former Attorney General William Barr resurfaced in the Epstein debate this week, testifying before Congress that Jeffrey Epstein's 2019 death was “undoubtedly suicide.” Barr acknowledged severe lapses in prison security, including broken cameras and inattentive guards, but maintained that these amounted to negligence, not conspiracy. His certainty, however, reignited public skepticism, as many critics argue the unanswered questions surrounding Epstein's death make any definitive conclusion premature.Meanwhile, FBI Director Kash Patel faced heated questioning in a separate congressional hearing about the bureau's handling of Epstein's files. Patel insisted the FBI has complied with all legal obligations but admitted he had not personally reviewed the materials, a revelation that angered lawmakers and survivor advocates. Democrats accused him of stonewalling to shield powerful figures, while Republicans defended his position that releasing certain documents could compromise ongoing cases.Adding further intrigue, Patel confirmed the FBI is open to investigating whether a disputed 2003 signature in Epstein's “birthday book” belongs to Donald Trump. Trump has denied its authenticity, calling it a forgery, but Democrats quickly demanded an independent forensic review. With Barr closing the door on further questions about Epstein's death, Patel hedging on transparency, and the Trump signature stirring new controversy, the scandal remains unresolved—continuing to haunt America's political, legal, and social institutions six years after Epstein's death.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

During his deposition, former Attorney General Bill Barr confirmed that Prince Andrew was always someone the Southern District of New York wanted to question in connection with the Jeffrey Epstein case. Barr explained that Andrew was regarded as a witness the DOJ hoped to interview, given the allegations raised by Virginia Giuffre and the supporting evidence investigators had compiled, such as travel and hotel records. He noted there was an ongoing “dispute” regarding Andrew's cooperation, highlighting how prosecutors publicly stated he wasn't cooperating, while Andrew's camp insisted otherwise.Barr also clarified that, despite the SDNY's interest, he did not recall ever being informed that Andrew had been officially elevated to the level of a “subject” or “target” of the investigation. In Barr's account, Andrew remained in that gray zone of being a “person of interest” — someone the DOJ wanted information from, but not someone the department was actively moving to prosecute or extradite. This distinction reinforced how Andrew's royal status and wealth seemed to keep him shielded from the more aggressive legal pursuit others in Epstein's orbit faced.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Prince Andrew was 'at least' a witness in the Jeffrey Epstein investigation, reveals former chief US prosecutor as he recalls 'zero cooperation' press conference in newly-released Epstein files | Daily Mail Online

During a House Judiciary Committee hearing in September 2025, Ranking Member Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) moved to subpoena the CEOs of four major banks—JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Bank of New York Mellon, and Deutsche Bank—for “suspicious activity reports” these banks allegedly filed related to Jeffrey Epstein and his associates. The motion claimed that roughly $1.5 billion in transactions tied to Epstein had been flagged as suspicious.However, in a narrow vote (20-19), Republicans on the committee led by Chairman Jim Jordan moved to table the motion—effectively killing it—so the subpoena did not proceed. Only Rep. Thomas Massie broke ranks with his party to support the subpoena. The blocking of the subpoena came amid broader efforts by Democrats to force more disclosure about Epstein's financial transactions through banks, as well as the handling of Epstein files by law enforcement.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:GOP shuts down House Democrats' move to subpoena Jeffrey Epstein banks

Bill Barr's deposition before Congress on Jeffrey Epstein was a masterclass in calculated deflection. While Barr insisted that Epstein's death was “absolutely” suicide, he conceded that the prison surveillance system had “blind spots”—a detail that conveniently leaves just enough room for speculation without providing definitive answers. His reliance on flawed or incomplete camera footage, combined with his dismissal of alternative forensic perspectives, came off less like transparency and more like institutional damage control. Instead of holding the Bureau of Prisons accountable, Barr's narrative positioned the failures as unfortunate but inconsequential, a stance that fails to satisfy the public demand for clarity.Just as troubling was Barr's evasiveness when pressed about Donald Trump's knowledge of Epstein. He admitted to having spoken with Trump about Epstein's death but couldn't recall when one of those conversations occurred—an astonishing lapse considering the gravity of the matter. His reasoning that “if there were more to it, it would have leaked” was not only flippant but dismissive of the very real history of suppression, obstruction, and selective disclosure that has defined the Epstein saga. By leaning on institutional trust in a case defined by betrayal of that very trust, Barr's testimony did little more than reinforce suspicions that the Department of Justice has long been more concerned with containment than accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Barr-Transcript.pdf

Between 2003 and 2006, four sex workers disappeared from Las Vegas. Three of the girls are were confirmed to have been murdered after various pieces of their body's were found at various locations in or near Las Vegas, besides one woman whose legs were found in Springfield. The Vegas Four:Lindsay Marie Harris: On May 4, 2005, Harris disappeared from her home in Henderson, Nevada. She was last seen making a bank deposit at the bank near her home. Her rental car was found abandoned in the desert at the southern end of the valley and her credit cards had not been used. Later that November, America's Most Wanted aired a segment on Harris' disappearance.On May 23, 2005, a group of children discovered human legs in a grassy field a couple hundred yards away from Interstate 55 in Divernon, Illinois, 15 miles south of Springfield. After performing DNA tests on both of the legs, it was determined that they both belonged to the same person.In May 2008, the FBI was able to match the DNA of the unidentified woman that was sent in by Illinois authorities to Harris' DNA sent in by authorities in Henderson. After comparing the two DNA samples, the woman's legs were identified as Lindsay Harris.Harris had moved to the valley in 2003 with her boyfriend, whom she had met in New York. Harris had a history of being a sex worker, as Harris had been arrested 5 times for prostitution from the time she had moved to the valley to the time of her disappearance.Misty Marie Saens:Misty Marie Saens, who was 25 when she disappeared from Las Vegas the same month as Brewer. Partial remains were found in the desert on a road leading to Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area near Las Vegas.Jessica Edith Louise Foster:Foster was one of four sex workers who disappeared in Las Vegas between 2003 and 2006. The bodies of the other three have been found. The Las Vegas Police Department launched an investigation of a person in question, bringing in a forensic scientist to spray luminol onto surfaces at crime scenes to detect invisible blood stains; but found nothing at his property, nor has he been interrogated on her disappearance. The documentary Trafficked No More, features her story and led to some tips to her whereabouts.Jodi Marie Brewer:The last time Pamela Brewer saw her 19-year-old daughter Jodi Marie, the teen's newly dyed blonde hair glowed like a halo around her head.Standing at the top of the stairs in their southwest Las Vegas condominium, she told her mother she was going out for the evening."She was so radiant, so beautiful that night," Brewer said. "She said, 'I love you mom' ... I told her I'd see her tomorrow.' "But Jodi Brewer didn't come home.After filing a missing person report with Metro and enduring several agonizing weeks of waiting and wondering, she learned Aug. 29 that the body of a woman had been discovered in San Bernardino County, Calif.The description of the tattoos on the body matched her daughter's. It was Jodi.In this episode, we begin our comprehensive look at the Las Vegas Four and their tragic tale as we explore the possiblity that they might be related to Rex Heuermann. (commercial at 13:02)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Prostitutes share tragic fate | Las Vegas Review-Journal (reviewjournal.com)

The host Anthony went live on youtube and Instagram while recording this episode of the podcast for the first time, to test it out and interact with listeners in real time. Anthony discuss the shooting of Charlie Kirk, the response from both the left and right on social media, answered viewers questions and went on to talk about the future of the democratic party.Podcaster and right-wing leader Charlie Kirk was assasinated during a stop on his "Prove Me Wrong" tour in Utah. The suspect turned out to be a 22-year-old white male who was mormon, and came from a 2-parent, loving home, and a family of Pro gun rights and MAGA/Trump voters.What does this incident tell us about the state of politics today? is the rhetoric too high? who or is there anyone to blame for this act of political violence? How do we move forward as country after this?As always, Please take a moment to leave us a podcast review, they truly help us a lot. Also, Dont forget to subscribe and share the Pod your friends! New episodes every week. You can follow us on Instagram: @BYLATINMEN @MrAnthonyPolanco

In Britain, a state visit by Donald Trump was jolted when activists projected massive images of Trump and Jeffrey Epstein onto the walls of Windsor Castle. The stunt, which British police quickly shut down, resulted in four arrests on charges of “malicious communications.” Photos of the projection spread globally within minutes, hijacking the carefully staged optics of a royal ceremony and forcing Epstein's name back into headlines through spectacle and shock.Across the Atlantic, a federal judge in Manhattan ruled against unsealing the identities of two women once described as potential co-conspirators in Epstein's network. Prosecutors never charged the women, and the court argued disclosure would expose them to unnecessary harm. The decision reignited frustration among survivors and transparency advocates, who see secrecy as another barrier to accountability, ensuring that questions about who enabled Epstein remain unanswered.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Ghislaine Maxwell's proffer session with the DOJ was less about truth and accountability and more about performance and deceit. The entire premise of a proffer is simple: you trade truth for a chance at leniency. But Maxwell didn't come to the table with intelligence, evidence, or leads that could help dismantle Epstein's far-reaching web. She came armed with a rehearsed script of lies and character assassinations. She weaponized her time in that room not to aid justice, but to smear survivors who had already borne the crushing weight of humiliation in courtrooms and the press. The newly released emails now strip away any doubt about what happened—they show that Maxwell didn't stumble or misremember. She perjured herself over and over, carefully contradicting her own sworn statements. This was deliberate, malicious dishonesty. And yet, instead of being dragged back to court with perjury charges and buried under the consequences, she was inexplicably rewarded with cushier accommodations. Sitting across from her during this travesty was none other than Deputy Director Todd “Baby Billy” Blanche, a man who should have cut the session short the moment the lies started, but who instead sat back, nodded, and let justice be mocked.The fallout from this disaster stretches far beyond Maxwell herself. For survivors, it was another betrayal layered on top of years of indifference and ridicule. They were once again slandered, this time under the very nose of the government agency tasked with protecting them. Their truth, earned through blood and tears, was tossed aside so Maxwell could preserve her own skin. For the public, the message couldn't be clearer: the Department of Justice is not an impartial arbiter of the law, but a stage where the rich and connected get to rewrite the script in their favor. Accountability was promised, but what America got instead was a rigged performance where lies were treated as cooperation, and perjury was treated as a perk. A real justice department would have treated her dishonesty as a direct assault on the rule of law, stacking charges on her until her arrogance collapsed. But instead, Blanche and his colleagues chose complicity over courage, shielding Maxwell from consequences and exposing to everyone watching that in America, justice isn't blind—it looks the other way when power is in the room.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In his opening statement, Patel described what he called the “original sin” of the Epstein investigation as being how Alex Acosta handled the case back in 2006. He criticized the limited search warrants used then and said they did not seize as much investigative material as they should have. Patel argued that significant portions of the case were restrained by the original non-prosecution agreement, which included provisions protecting some documents via court orders and limiting later prosecutorial or investigative access.Patel also addressed whether there is credible evidence that Epstein trafficked underage girls to other individuals (i.e. beyond himself). He said there is no credible information that such trafficking to third parties has been proven. He asserted that if he had seen such evidence, he would have pursued those charges. He emphasized that under his administration, the FBI is working to release all “credible information … legally able to do so,” while acknowledging legal limits.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Kash Patel claims no evidence Jeffrey Epstein trafficked girls to anyone but himself | Daily Mail Online

An organized serial killer is a type of serial killer who exhibits a high degree of planning, control, and premeditation when committing their crimes. Unlike disorganized serial killers, who tend to act impulsively and leave chaotic crime scenes, organized serial killers are methodical and strategic in their approach, making it challenging for law enforcement to apprehend them.Key characteristics of an organized serial killer include:Methodical planning: Organized serial killers carefully select their victims, often based on specific criteria such as appearance, occupation, or vulnerability. They may stalk potential victims to learn their routines and habits before carrying out the murders.Controlled crime scenes: These killers go to great lengths to minimize evidence left behind at the crime scenes. They may bring tools, restraints, or other items to help facilitate the killings and dispose of evidence thoroughly.High intelligence and social skills: Organized serial killers often have above-average intelligence and can be charming and manipulative. This enables them to gain the trust of their victims, making it easier for them to lure them into dangerous situations.Lack of remorse: Organized serial killers typically show little to no remorse for their actions and may even take pleasure in the suffering of their victims.Cooling-off periods: After each murder, organized serial killers usually experience a "cooling-off" period where they maintain a relatively normal appearance and behavior. This period allows them to avoid suspicion and plan their next attack without drawing attention to themselves.Often follow media coverage: Organized serial killers may closely follow news reports and police investigations related to their crimes, sometimes even involving themselves in the investigation to elude capture.Long-lasting crime sprees: Due to their calculated and organized nature, these killers may continue their crime sprees for extended periods before being caught or stopped.In this epsiode, we hear from several experts who explain what makes a serial killer and some of the basci psyche that goes into how a profile is built when investigating serial murders. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:What causes someone to become a serial killer? Criminology experts explain | CNN

Mark Epstein, brother of Jeffrey Epstein, has consistently expressed skepticism regarding the official account of his brother's death. He has questioned the swift conclusion by authorities that Jeffrey's death was a suicide, pointing to initial death certificates listing the cause as "pending" and highlighting irregularities in the investigation. Mark has referenced observations from forensic pathologist Dr. Michael Baden, who noted unusual fractures in Jeffrey's neck more consistent with homicidal strangulation than suicide. These concerns have led Mark to believe that the investigation into his brother's death was insufficient and that the possibility of foul play was prematurely dismissed. Additionally, Mark Epstein has criticized statements from officials, such as then-Attorney General William Barr, who labeled the death a suicide shortly after it occurred. He argues that despite acknowledged lapses in prison protocols and the presence of irregularities, attributing the death solely to bureaucratic failures is inadequate. Mark's persistent doubts have been fueled by the lack of comprehensive answers from the Department of Justice and other authorities, leaving him and the public with unresolved questions about the true circumstances surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's death.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Courtney Wild and Haley Robson, two women who say they were abused by Jeffrey Epstein, filed a defamation lawsuit against journalist Julie K. Brown in 2022. They argue Brown's book Perversion of Justice contained false claims that harmed their reputations. Wild says the book wrongly described her as having had intercourse with Epstein and being raped, allegations she denies. Robson, meanwhile, claims Brown portrayed her as complicit in Epstein's operations after she refused to be interviewed for the book.According to the lawsuit, Brown's reporting left both women branded in ways that distorted their roles in the Epstein saga, causing reputational damage and emotional distress. The plaintiffs allege that Brown pressured them and misrepresented facts for dramatic effect, leaving them to suffer fallout in their personal and professional lives. The case underscores the tensions between journalistic storytelling and survivor testimony in high-profile abuse investigations.Courtney Wild and Haley Robson, both survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse, wrote powerful letters to top executives at JPMorgan—among them CEO Jamie Dimon—accusing the bank of enabling Epstein's conduct by keeping him as a client for many years, despite knowing or having reason to know that there were serious abuse allegations. They ask JPMorgan to acknowledge that it benefited from the relationship (through transactions, accounts, etc.), to admit wrongdoing or mistakes, and to take steps to make amends—both to them and to other survivors. Wild and Robson frame their demand not just in moral terms but in legal and institutional accountability: that the bank should own up, not hide behind fine print or internal policies.They also stress that JPMorgan's public statements and depositions (including Jamie Dimon's) have downplayed or denied knowledge of Epstein's abuse or minimized the bank's role. In their letters, they challenge that narrative: they maintain that JPMorgan had ample warning of red flags and thus cannot claim complete ignorance. They call for transparency—release of internal documents, full cooperation, and concrete reforms—to ensure what happened with Epstein doesn't happen again under the bank's watch.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Prince Andrew came under scrutiny after documents revealed he told bankers to call Buckingham Palace when they questioned a £750,000 payment tied to him. The transaction raised compliance concerns, prompting officials to seek clarity on whether it was legitimate. Instead of offering a straightforward explanation, Andrew reportedly directed them to his Palace office, effectively leaning on his royal status to quell the inquiry.The payment's origins and purpose stirred suspicions, especially given Andrew's already controversial financial dealings and public scandals. The move highlighted how he allegedly relied on the prestige of the monarchy to shield himself from financial accountability, deepening concerns about his judgment and raising questions over whether he abused his royal position for personal protection.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

On December 11th 2010, authorities searching for Shannan Gilbert stumbled upon a gruesome scene: The remains of a woman who was bound and wrapped in burlap. Her name was Melissa Barthelmy. Three days later they made another horrific discovery: Three more women who were bound and found in burlap. Those women were:Maureen Brainard-Barnes: Disappeared in 2007.Melissa Barthelemy: Disappeared in 2009.Amber Lynn Costello: Disappeared in 2010.Megan Waterman: Disappeared in 2010.In this episode, we take a look at the investigation throughout the years and how the victims and their families seem to be on the cusp of holding Rex Heuermann, the man the government says is responsible, to justice.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:On This Day: Three Victims Found On Gilgo Beach (longislandpress.com)

Rex Heuermann has been cleared as a suspect in the Murders of the Atlantic City Four. This comes after his arrest sparked theories that Heuermann could also be responsible for what happened in AC. Rodney Harrison, the top cop in Suffolk county, has now come out however, and thrown cold water directly on those theories with his announcement.In this episode, we take a look at the new information and see what the police in AC are saying about the investigation into who killed the AC 4 will go from here.(commercial at 7:43)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Gilgo Beach suspect not connected to Atl. City case: cops (nypost.com)

A multiple serial killer theory suggests the possibility that more than one individual is responsible for a series of murders that share certain patterns or characteristics. In cases where multiple victims have been killed in a similar manner, by the same means, or within a specific time frame, investigators might entertain the idea that more than one person is involved. This theory can emerge when there are variations in the victims' profiles, crime scenes, or methods of killing that suggest the work of different individuals.Key points of a multiple serial killer theory:Distinct Patterns: Instead of attributing all the murders to a single perpetrator, this theory posits that there could be multiple killers operating independently or collaboratively.Diverse Victimology: Different victims with varying characteristics, such as age, gender, socio-economic background, and lifestyle, might be linked to the same series of murders.Varying Methods: The murders may have been committed using different techniques or weapons, indicating the involvement of more than one person with different preferences or modus operandi.Geographic Variation: The locations of the crimes might be dispersed across a wide area, making it unlikely for a single individual to cover such ground, leading to the speculation of multiple perpetrators.Copycat Killings: In some instances, a well-publicized series of murders might inspire other individuals to commit similar crimes, thereby creating confusion as to whether a single or multiple killers are responsible.Complex Investigations: If law enforcement agencies entertain the multiple serial killer theory, investigations become more complex as they need to simultaneously track and analyze the activities of potentially different individuals.In this episode we explore the possiblity that there might be more than one killer responsible for the remains that have been found in and around Gilgo beach.(commercial at 15:37)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Gilgo suspect Rex Heuermann's full body count may never be known & his Google searches point to two killers, expert says | The US Sun (the-sun.com)

In this 2008 case, Jane Doe No. 1 v. Jeffrey Epstein, Haley Robson, and Sarah Kellen, the plaintiff sought to have her lawsuit returned to state court after the defendants removed it to federal court. Epstein and his co-defendants argued for keeping the case at the federal level, while the plaintiff maintained that state jurisdiction was proper. The motion to remand, filed on August 18, 2008, was fully briefed with responses and replies from both sides, giving the court a complete record for review.After considering the arguments and reviewing the filings, the court issued its opinion and order remanding the matter back to state court. The judge determined that federal jurisdiction was not appropriate in this instance, meaning the claims against Epstein, Robson, and Kellen would proceed through the state court system rather than in federal court. This ruling ensured that the case would be handled under state-level legal procedures rather than federal oversight.to conctact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:USCOURTS-flsd-9_08-cv-80804-0.pdf (govinfo.gov)

Todd Blanche's CNN interview about his sit-down with Ghislaine Maxwell has been met with skepticism for good reason. Blanche framed his conversation with her as an exercise in transparency, but his insistence that it was “impossible” to determine if she was credible rang hollow, especially given the mountain of contradictions and lies Maxwell has already told under oath. Instead of pressing her on the details of Epstein's network, Blanche largely leaned into a narrative that it was up to the “public” to decide, effectively punting the DOJ's responsibility to establish facts. For someone in his position, such hedging looks less like neutrality and more like avoidance.What makes it worse is Blanche's background and the circumstances. As a former Trump lawyer, his presence raises red flags about conflicts of interest, and the softball nature of his questions only fuels suspicion that this interview was more about optics than accountability. Maxwell's transfer to a cushier, low-security facility right after this sit-down only adds to the perception that she is still receiving special treatment in exchange for selective cooperation. The entire spectacle looks less like a hard-nosed inquiry into one of the biggest sex-trafficking conspiracies of the modern era, and more like a carefully stage-managed charade designed to protect the powerful.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Blanche breaks silence on meeting with Ghislaine Maxwell: 'Impossible' to say if she was credible - ABC News

Breaking News!  #teamgwic was at the Society of Corporate Compliance and Ethics (SCCE) annual Ethics & Compliance Institute in Nashville and is here to give you an update on our experience.  Ellen, Lisa, and Hemma all caught up mid-conference to interview each other about their panels and also what people were talking about outside the presentations. We had the chance to recap on our earlier panels:  Ellen about how to train leaders to hear and act on bad news in a way to improve our programs; Hemma speaking about how to move your program from a risk-avoidant program to a forward-thinking ethics and compliance program, which is ultimately a competitive advantage, and Lisa's panel which discussed data analytics for humans – intended to be a practical discussion of what data analytics are and how we are all analyzing data. At the end, we were able to bring in a surprise guest – the one and only Adam Turteltaub, SCCE's Chief Strategy and Engagement Officer.  He provided highlights of the conference so far and updates about SCCE's new CEO, Garth Jordan. Sarah was unable to join the recording, but all would agree that CEI left us with new ideas, new friends, and the chance to catch up with this great community.

In this episode Hawk covers the lawsuit filed against Kash Patel, the FBI, Pam Bondi, the DOJ, the Office of the President, and the United States of America. The case was brought by three senior FBI veterans—Brian Driscoll, Steven Jensen, and Spencer Evans—who each served more than two decades in federal law enforcement.Hawk focuses on the allegations that Kash Patel and Dan Bongino were central figures in unlawful firings of FBI agents who had worked on politically sensitive cases, including the January 6 investigation and the Mar-a-Lago search. The lawsuit claims these terminations were politically motivated, ordered by figures like Emil Bové and Stephen Miller, and in clear violation of federal law and constitutional protections.The discussion highlights the experiences of agents like Walter Giardina, who was dismissed while caring for his dying wife, and Chris Meyer, who was wrongfully accused of involvement in cases he never touched. Hawk underscores how Patel and Bongino admitted to knowing these actions were unlawful, yet still carried them out under political pressure.This video also examines new reporting from the New York Times, testimony from Kash Patel before Congress, and the broader implications for the FBI, government accountability, and the politicization of law enforcement.Hawk provides detailed context on how these decisions not only undermined careers but also raised serious concerns about democracy, due process, and the independence of federal institutio SUPPORT & CONNECT WITH HAWK- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mdg650hawk- Support Hawk's Merch Store: https://hawkmerchstore.com- Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@hawkeyewhackamole- Connect on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/mdg650hawk.bsky.social- Connect on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@hawkpodcasts ALL HAWK PODCASTS INFO- Additional Podcasts Available Here: https://www.hawkpodcasts.com- Listen to Hawk Podcasts On Your Favorite Platform:Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3RWeJfyApple Podcasts: https://apple.co/422GDuLYouTube: https://youtube.com/@hawkpodcastsiHeartRadio: https://ihr.fm/47vVBdPPandora: https://bit.ly/48COaTBSimplecast: https://hawk-droppings.simplecast.com- Hawk Podcasts RSS Feed: https://feeds.simplecast.com/pPVtxSNJ

Survivors and victims allege that 301 East 66th Street, a New York City condominium building tied to Jeffrey Epstein, was used as a hub in his trafficking network. Various witnesses say that people involved in coordinating, recruiting, or facilitating abuse—like Sarah Kellen, Nadia Marcinkova, Adriana Ross, and others—had access to or worked out of units in that building. They've also claimed that underage girls were housed in multiple apartments there, sometimes several girls to a unit, and that the building served not merely as living quarters but as a location for parts of the abuse to take place.Victims also say the building was part of a broader system of control and deception. It's alleged the ownership structure was opaque, providing a way to obscure who precisely was responsible for what went on inside. Some have claimed they were brought there under false pretenses (job offers or modeling opportunities), groomed, and then coerced into sexual activity. The claims include that Epstein—or people in his orbit—used the building to conceal the scale of the abuse and maintain oversight (staff, security, transport) so that the trafficking could continue with fewer questions.Teresa Helm gave an exclusive interview the Mirror recently and in the interview she talks about the time she stayed at Jeffrey Epstein's building at 301 E. 66th street. This building has long been rumored to be a place where Jeffrey Epstein and Jean Luc Brunel house trafficked girls, but very little has been disclosed about the inner workings.to contact me:In our second article...Thersa Helm is one of the women who was abused by Jeffrey Epstein. She is also one of the most vocal when it comes to his associates getting away with their alleged crimes. Now, in the wake of the document dump she is once again speaking out.In this episode, we hear from Theresa Helm about the document dump and how this new found interest in Epstein and his horrible crimes could catapult us closer to justice.bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The House Oversight Committee has received hundreds of pages of new material from Jeffrey Epstein's estate following congressional subpoenas. These include Epstein's will, the infamous 2008 non-prosecution agreement, entries from his longtime address book, and a heavily redacted “birthday book” that Ghislaine Maxwell compiled for Epstein's 50th birthday in 2003. The book contained messages, photos, and drawings from associates, sparking scrutiny because of one note signed “Donald” alongside a crude sketch, which Democrats say points to Donald Trump. Trump has flatly denied it, calling the note fake and politically motivated.The estate said it redacted names and identifying details of minors and private individuals to protect victims. It also emphasized it does not possess a so-called “client list” of people involved in Epstein's sex-trafficking crimes, despite years of speculation. The handover reflects growing congressional pressure, led by Rep. James Comer and the House Oversight Committee, to uncover what Epstein's records reveal about his finances, associates, and possible political connections.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jeffrey Epstein estate turns over more documents to House committee

The Epstein scandal continues to resurface through new waves of headlines, each one pulling different corners of power back into the spotlight. Donald Trump has filed a $15 billion defamation lawsuit against The New York Times, accusing it of maliciously tying him to Epstein through disputed documents and reporting. At the same time, Melania Trump secured a rare retraction and apology from The Daily Beast after it published claims—based on Michael Wolff's commentary—that she was introduced to Donald through Epstein's world. Both stories underscore how volatile and litigious the Epstein narrative remains, especially when it brushes against the Trump family.Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, Congressman James Comer has vowed to release any Department of Justice or Epstein estate documents tied to Prince Andrew, promising the American public full transparency. The files are said to include correspondence, travel logs, and testimonies that could reignite scrutiny of Andrew's dealings with Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Buckingham Palace, which has spent years shielding Andrew from the worst fallout, is bracing for renewed scandal, while survivor advocates welcome the promise of sunlight after decades of secrecy. The potential publication of these files signals that the Epstein story remains unfinished and still capable of shaking global institutions.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Jeffrey Epstein's operation cannot be understood through the lens of a traditional sex trafficking ring. Unlike figures such as Heidi Fleiss, Epstein wasn't in it for monetary gain or running a transactional enterprise. His network operated on two levels: the first was driven by his personal compulsions, where he targeted vulnerable high school girls in Palm Beach and New York to satisfy his own deviance. The second level was more strategic—trafficked women, often brought in by Ghislaine Maxwell or Jean-Luc Brunel, were used as leverage, positioned before powerful men in Epstein's properties to entangle them in compromise and silence.This dual structure transformed his crimes into something far more insidious than prostitution or trafficking-for-profit. Epstein weaponized abuse itself, turning victims not only into prey but into tools of influence. The men who participated weren't mere clients—they became co-conspirators, drawn into a system where their indulgence bound them to Epstein's web of secrecy and power. In this sense, Epstein's empire was less about sex as commerce and more about sex as control, creating a machinery of corruption that blurred every line between victim, perpetrator, and accomplice.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Republicans in Congress are intensifying pressure to fully expose the government's files on Jeffrey Epstein, with some now privately conceding that it is only a matter of time before legislation compels Attorney General Pam Bondi to release everything the DOJ holds. Lawmakers have already pushed through partial disclosures — including Epstein's “birthday book,” financial records, and his controversial non-prosecution agreement — but many argue these piecemeal releases fall short of true transparency. Behind closed doors, Republicans increasingly acknowledge that a complete unsealing is inevitable, even if it risks implicating powerful names and institutions.At the same time, Donald Trump has been trying to contain the fallout, publicly resisting demands from MAGA activists and members of his own party to make all Epstein materials public. For weeks he has dismissed the issue as a distraction, but GOP lawmakers admit privately that Trump is losing that argument. The pressure from inside his own ranks reflects not only the enduring political toxicity of Epstein's network, but also the calculation that continued stonewalling may damage the party more than full disclosure would.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:GOP momentum grows to fore release of Jeffrey Epstein files

Sarah Ransome alleged that Jeffrey Epstein kept or claimed to keep sex tapes involving powerful men such as Prince Andrew, Bill Clinton, Richard Branson, and Donald Trump. In emails and exhibits later unsealed in court, she claimed that recordings existed of sexual acts on Epstein's properties, and that these tapes were used for leverage or blackmail. She suggested she either had access to some of this material or believed it existed, and pointed out that people in Epstein's orbit lived in fear that such videos could surface.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Theresa Helm has alleged that Epstein's estate has been uncooperative with survivors in terms of transparency, accountability, and compensation. She and other claimants have brought civil lawsuits against the estate, accusing it of rape, sexual battery, false imprisonment, and of perpetuating a system that allowed Epstein and his enablers to continue abusing and trafficker women and minors. Helm has called for the release of federal documents related to Epstein's cases, arguing that they are essential for understanding the full scope of what happened, who was involved, and how much oversight (or negligence) there was.She has also alleged that many survivors were recruited under false pretenses (e.g. “job interviews,” modeling, legitimate opportunities), and that the estate has not done enough to address the harms done or to compensate victims fairly. Some of the lawsuits in which she is involved (including Teresa Helm et al v. Epstein's estate) seek not only monetary damages but acknowledgment of wrongdoing, accountability for enablers, and public disclosure of records. Helm emphasizes that this is about more than money—it's about exposing structural wrongdoing and ensuring survivors' voices are heard.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:DisplayFile.aspx (vicourts.org)

A superseding indictment is a formal legal document issued by a grand jury that replaces a previous indictment in a criminal case. It updates or adds charges, changes the factual basis, or modifies the defendants listed. Here are the key points:Key Features:Replacement: It replaces an earlier indictment with new or revised charges.Additional Charges: It can include additional charges not present in the original indictment.New Defendants: It can add new defendants or modify the charges against existing ones.Updated Information: It reflects new evidence or information obtained during the ongoing investigation.Purpose:Flexibility: Allows prosecutors to adapt to new developments in the case.Comprehensive Prosecution: Ensures that all relevant charges and defendants are included based on the latest available evidence.Clarity: Provides a clear and updated statement of the charges against the defendants, which is important for legal proceedings and the defense's preparation.Process:Grand Jury Review: Like the original indictment, a superseding indictment must be reviewed and approved by a grand jury.Filing and Notification: Once approved, it is filed with the court, and the defendants are notified of the changes.Impact:Defendant's Rights: Defendants have the right to be informed of any new charges and to respond accordingly.Legal Proceedings: The case proceeds based on the superseding indictment, which may alter the strategy of both the prosecution and the defense.Summary of Superseding Indictment No. 09 CR 383:Case Information:Case Number: No. 09 CR 383Judge: Ruben CastilloType: Superseding IndictmentViolations Cited:Title 21, United States Code:Section 841: Relates to the manufacturing, distributing, or dispensing of controlled substances, or possession with intent to do so.Section 846: Concerns attempts or conspiracies to commit any offense defined in this subchapter, including drug trafficking offenses.Section 952(a): Prohibits the importation of controlled substances into the United States.Section 960: Specifies penalties for the importation and exportation of controlled substances.Section 963: Addresses conspiracies to violate any provision of this subchapter, including import and export violations.Title 18, United States Code:Section 2: Covers the principle of aiding and abetting, meaning anyone who aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, or procures the commission of an offense against the United States is punishable as a principal.Key Points:Superseding Indictment: This document replaces a previous indictment with updated charges and information.Drug-Related Charges: The cited violations primarily relate to drug trafficking, manufacturing, distribution, and importation, as well as conspiracy to commit these offenses.Aiding and Abetting: The inclusion of Title 18, Section 2, indicates that individuals involved may have also been charged with assisting or facilitating these crimes.The defendants:JOAQUIN GUZMAN-LOERA,  a/k/a “El Chapo,”  a/k/a “Chapo Guzman,” ISMAEL ZAMBADA-GARCIA,  a/k/a “El Mayo,” a/k/a “Mayo Zambada,”JESUS VICENTE ZAMBADA-NIEBLA, a/k/a “Vicente Zambada-Niebla,” a/k/a “Vicente Zambada,” a/k/a “Mayito,” a/k/a “30 ”ALFREDO GUZMAN-SALAZAR,  a/k/a “Alfredillo,”ALFREDO VASQUEZ-HERNANDEZ, a/k/a “Alfredo Compadre,”FIRST NAME UNKNOWN, LAST NAME UNKNOWN,  a/k/a “Juancho,”GERMAN OLIVARES,FELIPE LAST NAME UNKNOWN,TOMAS AREVALO-RENTERIA,PEDRO FLORES, and MARGARITO FLORES(commercial at 8:05)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:C:Documents and SettingsrsambornLocal SettingsTemporary Internet FilesContent.Outlook4MRWRZ20Chapo-Mayo Indictment DG ed (go.com)

A superseding indictment is a formal legal document issued by a grand jury that replaces a previous indictment in a criminal case. It updates or adds charges, changes the factual basis, or modifies the defendants listed. Here are the key points:Key Features:Replacement: It replaces an earlier indictment with new or revised charges.Additional Charges: It can include additional charges not present in the original indictment.New Defendants: It can add new defendants or modify the charges against existing ones.Updated Information: It reflects new evidence or information obtained during the ongoing investigation.Purpose:Flexibility: Allows prosecutors to adapt to new developments in the case.Comprehensive Prosecution: Ensures that all relevant charges and defendants are included based on the latest available evidence.Clarity: Provides a clear and updated statement of the charges against the defendants, which is important for legal proceedings and the defense's preparation.Process:Grand Jury Review: Like the original indictment, a superseding indictment must be reviewed and approved by a grand jury.Filing and Notification: Once approved, it is filed with the court, and the defendants are notified of the changes.Impact:Defendant's Rights: Defendants have the right to be informed of any new charges and to respond accordingly.Legal Proceedings: The case proceeds based on the superseding indictment, which may alter the strategy of both the prosecution and the defense.Summary of Superseding Indictment No. 09 CR 383:Case Information:Case Number: No. 09 CR 383Judge: Ruben CastilloType: Superseding IndictmentViolations Cited:Title 21, United States Code:Section 841: Relates to the manufacturing, distributing, or dispensing of controlled substances, or possession with intent to do so.Section 846: Concerns attempts or conspiracies to commit any offense defined in this subchapter, including drug trafficking offenses.Section 952(a): Prohibits the importation of controlled substances into the United States.Section 960: Specifies penalties for the importation and exportation of controlled substances.Section 963: Addresses conspiracies to violate any provision of this subchapter, including import and export violations.Title 18, United States Code:Section 2: Covers the principle of aiding and abetting, meaning anyone who aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, or procures the commission of an offense against the United States is punishable as a principal.Key Points:Superseding Indictment: This document replaces a previous indictment with updated charges and information.Drug-Related Charges: The cited violations primarily relate to drug trafficking, manufacturing, distribution, and importation, as well as conspiracy to commit these offenses.Aiding and Abetting: The inclusion of Title 18, Section 2, indicates that individuals involved may have also been charged with assisting or facilitating these crimes.The defendants:JOAQUIN GUZMAN-LOERA,  a/k/a “El Chapo,”  a/k/a “Chapo Guzman,” ISMAEL ZAMBADA-GARCIA,  a/k/a “El Mayo,” a/k/a “Mayo Zambada,”JESUS VICENTE ZAMBADA-NIEBLA, a/k/a “Vicente Zambada-Niebla,” a/k/a “Vicente Zambada,” a/k/a “Mayito,” a/k/a “30 ”ALFREDO GUZMAN-SALAZAR,  a/k/a “Alfredillo,”ALFREDO VASQUEZ-HERNANDEZ, a/k/a “Alfredo Compadre,”FIRST NAME UNKNOWN, LAST NAME UNKNOWN,  a/k/a “Juancho,”GERMAN OLIVARES,FELIPE LAST NAME UNKNOWN,TOMAS AREVALO-RENTERIA,PEDRO FLORES, and MARGARITO FLORES(commercial at 8:05)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:C:Documents and SettingsrsambornLocal SettingsTemporary Internet FilesContent.Outlook4MRWRZ20Chapo-Mayo Indictment DG ed (go.com)

Many critics inside and outside Parliament argue that Starmer showed poor political judgment by appointing Mandelson as UK Ambassador to the US despite known associations with Jeffrey Epstein. Leaked emails revealed Mandelson had defended or supported Epstein after his 2008 conviction, and expressed views questioning that conviction. Although some of these connections had long been reported, additional content and its extent were only fully disclosed after Mandelson's appointment. Opponents say Starmer should have immediately known that such red flags made the appointment untenable. The delay in reacting — first defending Mandelson, then firing him once the media published further revelations — has amplified the accusations of weak oversight and lack of risk assessment.Within the Labour Party, there's growing frustration over what many see as Starmer's misreading of both optics and substance. Backbenchers and senior MPs have called for full transparency about the vetting process: what he was told, when, and by whom. Opposing parties are demanding apologies to Epstein's victims, and some suggest that if Starmer cannot adequately account for these failures, his position could become unsustainable — especially if the controversy damages Labour's standing in upcoming local elections. The controversy feeds into a broader narrative among critics that Starmer has repeatedly made questionable appointments, and lacks decisiveness and political sharpness when warning signs emerge.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Keir Starmer breaks silence over Mandelson sacking: ‘Had I known then what I know now, I'd have never appointed him' | The Independent

Ever since the arrest of Rex Heuermann, we have been finding out more and more about the man that the authorities say is the Long Island serial killer. Heuermann ,an unassuming architect from Long Island was nabbed after an extensive operation that included the collection of pizza crust and hours of surveillance which eventually led to the bombshell arrest.In this episode, we take a look at the 20/20 special that aired on Friday September 8th, and some of the new revelations that were revealed in it.(commercial at 11:45)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:'The Long Island Serial Killer': How cell phones and a pizza box led to a suspect in 3 cases - ABC News (go.com)

Jes Staley, the former CEO of Barclays, saw roughly £22 million in bonuses and deferred compensation frozen in 2022 as regulators dug into his ties to Jeffrey Epstein. The freeze included unvested share payouts and long-term incentive plans that Staley had been promised but had not yet received. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) launched their review after concerns emerged over how Staley characterized his personal relationship with Epstein, a man whose reputation was already well-tarnished by his 2008 sex-offense conviction. The decision marked a significant step for Barclays, signaling just how seriously the bank's board and regulators were taking any whiff of reputational risk tied to Epstein.The matter didn't end with the freeze. In 2023, the FCA moved to ban Staley from holding senior positions in the UK financial industry, citing his misleading accounts of the Epstein connection. Alongside the ban, regulators initially proposed a £1.8 million fine, which was later reduced to about £1.1 million. Staley ultimately forfeited around £18 million in bonuses and deferred pay. For a man who had once been a Wall Street heavyweight, it was a public and financial fall from grace that demonstrated the long shadow Epstein's scandal continues to cast over those in his orbit.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.wsj.com/articles/barclays-profit-falls-on-slowdown-in-investment-banking-11645603658Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Many critics inside and outside Parliament argue that Starmer showed poor political judgment by appointing Mandelson as UK Ambassador to the US despite known associations with Jeffrey Epstein. Leaked emails revealed Mandelson had defended or supported Epstein after his 2008 conviction, and expressed views questioning that conviction. Although some of these connections had long been reported, additional content and its extent were only fully disclosed after Mandelson's appointment. Opponents say Starmer should have immediately known that such red flags made the appointment untenable. The delay in reacting — first defending Mandelson, then firing him once the media published further revelations — has amplified the accusations of weak oversight and lack of risk assessment.Within the Labour Party, there's growing frustration over what many see as Starmer's misreading of both optics and substance. Backbenchers and senior MPs have called for full transparency about the vetting process: what he was told, when, and by whom. Opposing parties are demanding apologies to Epstein's victims, and some suggest that if Starmer cannot adequately account for these failures, his position could become unsustainable — especially if the controversy damages Labour's standing in upcoming local elections. The controversy feeds into a broader narrative among critics that Starmer has repeatedly made questionable appointments, and lacks decisiveness and political sharpness when warning signs emerge.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Keir Starmer breaks silence over Mandelson sacking: ‘Had I known then what I know now, I'd have never appointed him' | The IndependentBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The House Oversight Committee has received hundreds of pages of new material from Jeffrey Epstein's estate following congressional subpoenas. These include Epstein's will, the infamous 2008 non-prosecution agreement, entries from his longtime address book, and a heavily redacted “birthday book” that Ghislaine Maxwell compiled for Epstein's 50th birthday in 2003. The book contained messages, photos, and drawings from associates, sparking scrutiny because of one note signed “Donald” alongside a crude sketch, which Democrats say points to Donald Trump. Trump has flatly denied it, calling the note fake and politically motivated.The estate said it redacted names and identifying details of minors and private individuals to protect victims. It also emphasized it does not possess a so-called “client list” of people involved in Epstein's sex-trafficking crimes, despite years of speculation. The handover reflects growing congressional pressure, led by Rep. James Comer and the House Oversight Committee, to uncover what Epstein's records reveal about his finances, associates, and possible political connections.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jeffrey Epstein estate turns over more documents to House committeeBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jeffrey Epstein was reportedly terrified of his former cellmate, Nicholas Tartaglione, a former police officer facing charges for multiple murders. Epstein's fear stemmed from an alleged violent encounter between the two while they were housed together at the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) in New York. Shortly before Epstein's first apparent suicide attempt in July 2019, he was found injured in his cell, and he reportedly accused Tartaglione of assaulting him. However, Tartaglione denied any involvement, claiming that he had actually tried to help Epstein and refuted allegations that he had harmed him. Given Tartaglione's background—charged with killing four men in a drug-related crime—Epstein's fear of him fueled speculation that his life was in danger behind bars, adding to the broader concerns and theories surrounding his eventual death.​Documents obtained by the Associated Press under the Freedom of Information Act reveal detailed insights into Jeffrey Epstein's final days at the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) before his death in August 2019. These records indicate that Epstein was increasingly distressed, experiencing difficulty sleeping, and expressing fears about his safety within the facility. Despite a prior suicide attempt, he was removed from suicide watch and placed in a regular cell, a decision now scrutinized for its appropriateness. The documents also highlight significant lapses in protocol, including guards failing to perform routine checks and falsifying records to cover their negligence. Additionally, there were reports of malfunctioning surveillance cameras outside Epstein's cell, further complicating the circumstances surrounding his death. These revelations have intensified public skepticism and fueled ongoing debates about the adequacy of the measures taken to prevent Epstein's suicide.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Haley Robson, one of Jeffrey Epstein's survivors, appeared on The Dr. Oz Show in 2020 and said she actually felt “happier” knowing Ghislaine Maxwell was behind bars than she did when Epstein was arrested. She explained that while Epstein was the abuser, Maxwell played a central role in recruiting and grooming girls, and that accountability for her actions was just as important. For Robson, seeing Maxwell finally face consequences offered a stronger sense of closure, because Maxwell had long been viewed as untouchable despite her deep involvement in Epstein's network.to contact mebobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein survivor says she's 'happier' Maxwell is behind barsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.