Podcasts about crime victims

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.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

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

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.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

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.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

By law, revenues generated from federal prosecutions go to a special crime victims service fund. But that money has been drying up, forcing deep cuts in service agencies, such as rape crisis centers, around the country. Former federal prosecutor Martin Weinstein explains what's going on and how to fix it. The post White Collar Prosecutions Linked to Crime Victims Services appeared first on WORT-FM 89.9.

Survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking network spoke on Capitol Hill, demanding the release of Epstein files and calling out a government cover-up. They urged Congress to stop shielding predators, protect victims and push through the Crime Victims' Rights Reform Act. Survivors warned they may release names if the government does not act. Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed with the latest news from a leading Black-owned & controlled media company: https://aurn.com/newsletter Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Judge Richard Berman, who oversaw parts of the Epstein proceedings, became one of the few figures within the judiciary to openly acknowledge the deep failures in how the system handled Epstein's victims under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). He recognized that survivors were denied their legal right to be informed, consulted, and treated with fairness during the secretive crafting of Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement in 2007. Berman repeatedly emphasized that the survivors were treated as afterthoughts, sidelined in a case where their voices should have been front and center.To contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/26/judge-in-jeffrey-epstein-case-calls-for-prison-reforms-after-death.htmlBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Department of Justice's handling of Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement is not a story of legal inevitability but one of institutional protection and betrayal. In 2008, prosecutors secretly struck a deal that gave Epstein and his co-conspirators immunity, hiding it from victims in direct violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. When a federal judge confirmed that violation in 2019, the DOJ had the chance to admit the deal was unlawful and void it. Instead, it doubled down, filing a 35-page defense insisting there was “no legal basis” to undo the sweetheart deal. At the same time, it staged a hollow push to release grand jury records it knew the courts would never unseal—then blamed the judiciary for the failure. This was theater, designed to shift blame while burying what the DOJ actually controls: the rotten deal it authored.The truth is that the DOJ could dismantle the non-prosecution agreement tomorrow. Legal tools exist: declare it void for violating victims' rights, for being unconscionable, or for undermining public policy. But the department refuses because dismantling it would expose its own complicity, the reputations it protected, and the powerful network Epstein served. By clinging to the deal, the DOJ isn't upholding the law—it's shielding itself and the elite beneficiaries of Epstein's world. The result is a department that masquerades as a guardian of justice while acting as caretaker of corruption. The ultimate betrayal is clear: the very institution meant to protect victims instead became a predator's last line of defense.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The Department of Justice's handling of Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement is not a story of legal inevitability but one of institutional protection and betrayal. In 2008, prosecutors secretly struck a deal that gave Epstein and his co-conspirators immunity, hiding it from victims in direct violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. When a federal judge confirmed that violation in 2019, the DOJ had the chance to admit the deal was unlawful and void it. Instead, it doubled down, filing a 35-page defense insisting there was “no legal basis” to undo the sweetheart deal. At the same time, it staged a hollow push to release grand jury records it knew the courts would never unseal—then blamed the judiciary for the failure. This was theater, designed to shift blame while burying what the DOJ actually controls: the rotten deal it authored.The truth is that the DOJ could dismantle the non-prosecution agreement tomorrow. Legal tools exist: declare it void for violating victims' rights, for being unconscionable, or for undermining public policy. But the department refuses because dismantling it would expose its own complicity, the reputations it protected, and the powerful network Epstein served. By clinging to the deal, the DOJ isn't upholding the law—it's shielding itself and the elite beneficiaries of Epstein's world. The result is a department that masquerades as a guardian of justice while acting as caretaker of corruption. The ultimate betrayal is clear: the very institution meant to protect victims instead became a predator's last line of defense.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The Department of Justice's handling of Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement is not a story of legal inevitability but one of institutional protection and betrayal. In 2008, prosecutors secretly struck a deal that gave Epstein and his co-conspirators immunity, hiding it from victims in direct violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. When a federal judge confirmed that violation in 2019, the DOJ had the chance to admit the deal was unlawful and void it. Instead, it doubled down, filing a 35-page defense insisting there was “no legal basis” to undo the sweetheart deal. At the same time, it staged a hollow push to release grand jury records it knew the courts would never unseal—then blamed the judiciary for the failure. This was theater, designed to shift blame while burying what the DOJ actually controls: the rotten deal it authored.The truth is that the DOJ could dismantle the non-prosecution agreement tomorrow. Legal tools exist: declare it void for violating victims' rights, for being unconscionable, or for undermining public policy. But the department refuses because dismantling it would expose its own complicity, the reputations it protected, and the powerful network Epstein served. By clinging to the deal, the DOJ isn't upholding the law—it's shielding itself and the elite beneficiaries of Epstein's world. The result is a department that masquerades as a guardian of justice while acting as caretaker of corruption. The ultimate betrayal is clear: the very institution meant to protect victims instead became a predator's last line of defense.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Department of Justice's handling of Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement is not a story of legal inevitability but one of institutional protection and betrayal. In 2008, prosecutors secretly struck a deal that gave Epstein and his co-conspirators immunity, hiding it from victims in direct violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. When a federal judge confirmed that violation in 2019, the DOJ had the chance to admit the deal was unlawful and void it. Instead, it doubled down, filing a 35-page defense insisting there was “no legal basis” to undo the sweetheart deal. At the same time, it staged a hollow push to release grand jury records it knew the courts would never unseal—then blamed the judiciary for the failure. This was theater, designed to shift blame while burying what the DOJ actually controls: the rotten deal it authored.The truth is that the DOJ could dismantle the non-prosecution agreement tomorrow. Legal tools exist: declare it void for violating victims' rights, for being unconscionable, or for undermining public policy. But the department refuses because dismantling it would expose its own complicity, the reputations it protected, and the powerful network Epstein served. By clinging to the deal, the DOJ isn't upholding the law—it's shielding itself and the elite beneficiaries of Epstein's world. The result is a department that masquerades as a guardian of justice while acting as caretaker of corruption. The ultimate betrayal is clear: the very institution meant to protect victims instead became a predator's last line of defense.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the mid-2000s, Jeffrey Epstein faced mounting allegations in Palm Beach, Florida, that he had sexually abused dozens of underage girls under the guise of paying them for massages. The case began in 2005 when the parents of a 14-year-old girl reported him to local police, prompting a months-long investigation that uncovered a network of young girls—many recruited by other minors—who said they were coerced into sexual acts at Epstein's Palm Beach mansion. Police gathered statements, physical evidence, and corroborating accounts, ultimately identifying over 30 potential victims. The Palm Beach Police Department recommended multiple felony charges, including unlawful sexual activity with minors and lewd and lascivious acts.Instead of proceeding to a state trial, the case was taken over by the U.S. Attorney's Office, leading to the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Brokered behind closed doors, the NPA allowed Epstein to plead guilty in state court to two lesser prostitution-related charges—one involving a minor—in exchange for federal prosecutors agreeing not to pursue broader sex trafficking charges. He served 13 months in the Palm Beach County jail under a work-release program that let him leave six days a week. The deal also granted immunity to “any potential co-conspirators,” effectively shielding alleged enablers from prosecution. This resolution, kept secret from victims in violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act, became a flashpoint for public outrage and later federal litigation when it was revealed just how sweeping and lenient the agreement had been.In this episode, we see that corruption in action as we hear from one of Jeffrey Epstein's first accusers during a deposition given in 2008.to contact me:gov.uscourts.flsd.318730.1.0.pdf

In the mid-2000s, Jeffrey Epstein faced mounting allegations in Palm Beach, Florida, that he had sexually abused dozens of underage girls under the guise of paying them for massages. The case began in 2005 when the parents of a 14-year-old girl reported him to local police, prompting a months-long investigation that uncovered a network of young girls—many recruited by other minors—who said they were coerced into sexual acts at Epstein's Palm Beach mansion. Police gathered statements, physical evidence, and corroborating accounts, ultimately identifying over 30 potential victims. The Palm Beach Police Department recommended multiple felony charges, including unlawful sexual activity with minors and lewd and lascivious acts.Instead of proceeding to a state trial, the case was taken over by the U.S. Attorney's Office, leading to the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Brokered behind closed doors, the NPA allowed Epstein to plead guilty in state court to two lesser prostitution-related charges—one involving a minor—in exchange for federal prosecutors agreeing not to pursue broader sex trafficking charges. He served 13 months in the Palm Beach County jail under a work-release program that let him leave six days a week. The deal also granted immunity to “any potential co-conspirators,” effectively shielding alleged enablers from prosecution. This resolution, kept secret from victims in violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act, became a flashpoint for public outrage and later federal litigation when it was revealed just how sweeping and lenient the agreement had been.In this episode, we see that corruption in action as we hear from one of Jeffrey Epstein's first accusers during a deposition given in 2008.to contact me:gov.uscourts.flsd.318730.1.0.pdf

In the mid-2000s, Jeffrey Epstein faced mounting allegations in Palm Beach, Florida, that he had sexually abused dozens of underage girls under the guise of paying them for massages. The case began in 2005 when the parents of a 14-year-old girl reported him to local police, prompting a months-long investigation that uncovered a network of young girls—many recruited by other minors—who said they were coerced into sexual acts at Epstein's Palm Beach mansion. Police gathered statements, physical evidence, and corroborating accounts, ultimately identifying over 30 potential victims. The Palm Beach Police Department recommended multiple felony charges, including unlawful sexual activity with minors and lewd and lascivious acts.Instead of proceeding to a state trial, the case was taken over by the U.S. Attorney's Office, leading to the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Brokered behind closed doors, the NPA allowed Epstein to plead guilty in state court to two lesser prostitution-related charges—one involving a minor—in exchange for federal prosecutors agreeing not to pursue broader sex trafficking charges. He served 13 months in the Palm Beach County jail under a work-release program that let him leave six days a week. The deal also granted immunity to “any potential co-conspirators,” effectively shielding alleged enablers from prosecution. This resolution, kept secret from victims in violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act, became a flashpoint for public outrage and later federal litigation when it was revealed just how sweeping and lenient the agreement had been.In this episode, we see that corruption in action as we hear from one of Jeffrey Epstein's first accusers during a deposition given in 2008.to contact me:gov.uscourts.flsd.318730.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the mid-2000s, Jeffrey Epstein faced mounting allegations in Palm Beach, Florida, that he had sexually abused dozens of underage girls under the guise of paying them for massages. The case began in 2005 when the parents of a 14-year-old girl reported him to local police, prompting a months-long investigation that uncovered a network of young girls—many recruited by other minors—who said they were coerced into sexual acts at Epstein's Palm Beach mansion. Police gathered statements, physical evidence, and corroborating accounts, ultimately identifying over 30 potential victims. The Palm Beach Police Department recommended multiple felony charges, including unlawful sexual activity with minors and lewd and lascivious acts.Instead of proceeding to a state trial, the case was taken over by the U.S. Attorney's Office, leading to the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Brokered behind closed doors, the NPA allowed Epstein to plead guilty in state court to two lesser prostitution-related charges—one involving a minor—in exchange for federal prosecutors agreeing not to pursue broader sex trafficking charges. He served 13 months in the Palm Beach County jail under a work-release program that let him leave six days a week. The deal also granted immunity to “any potential co-conspirators,” effectively shielding alleged enablers from prosecution. This resolution, kept secret from victims in violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act, became a flashpoint for public outrage and later federal litigation when it was revealed just how sweeping and lenient the agreement had been.In this episode, we see that corruption in action as we hear from one of Jeffrey Epstein's first accusers during a deposition given in 2008.to contact me:gov.uscourts.flsd.318730.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Courtney Wild, one of Jeffrey Epstein's underage victims, has waged a prolonged legal battle asserting that federal prosecutors violated her statutory rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act by secretly crafting a 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) shielding Epstein and his co-conspirators without notifying or consulting her—her “right to confer” and be treated fairly were emphatically ignored. After the district court acknowledged the CVRA violation but declined to provide relief on jurisdictional grounds following Epstein's death, Wild pressed her case through the Eleventh Circuit. In a contentious en banc ruling, the court recognized the profound injustice yet held that the CVRA does not allow victims to enforce their rights via standalone legal action absent a formal criminal proceeding. Feeling thwarted by this interpretation, Wild and her attorneys petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve this critical question of whether the CVRA's protections extend to pre‑charge, behind‑the‑scenes deals that effectively nullify accountability.Wild's Supreme Court petition presents what she and her legal team call a “now-or-never opportunity” for the Court to buttress victim protections and clarify that the government cannot clandestinely dispense with criminal accountability while ignoring victims entirely—especially when the accused wield immense wealth and influence. Without such reckoning, the Justice Department may continue negotiating secret deals that nullify the statutory rights Congress fought to grant crime victims. Despite the urgency and gravity of the case, the Supreme Court ultimately declined to hear the appeal—effectively allowing the Eleventh Circuit's restrictive interpretation to stand and signaling that victims in similar predicaments may remain legally powerless when prosecutors circumvent the formal charging process.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein victim seeks US Supreme Court review of prosecutors' secret deal - ABC News

Courtney Wild, one of Jeffrey Epstein's underage victims, has waged a prolonged legal battle asserting that federal prosecutors violated her statutory rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act by secretly crafting a 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) shielding Epstein and his co-conspirators without notifying or consulting her—her “right to confer” and be treated fairly were emphatically ignored. After the district court acknowledged the CVRA violation but declined to provide relief on jurisdictional grounds following Epstein's death, Wild pressed her case through the Eleventh Circuit. In a contentious en banc ruling, the court recognized the profound injustice yet held that the CVRA does not allow victims to enforce their rights via standalone legal action absent a formal criminal proceeding. Feeling thwarted by this interpretation, Wild and her attorneys petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve this critical question of whether the CVRA's protections extend to pre‑charge, behind‑the‑scenes deals that effectively nullify accountability.Wild's Supreme Court petition presents what she and her legal team call a “now-or-never opportunity” for the Court to buttress victim protections and clarify that the government cannot clandestinely dispense with criminal accountability while ignoring victims entirely—especially when the accused wield immense wealth and influence. Without such reckoning, the Justice Department may continue negotiating secret deals that nullify the statutory rights Congress fought to grant crime victims. Despite the urgency and gravity of the case, the Supreme Court ultimately declined to hear the appeal—effectively allowing the Eleventh Circuit's restrictive interpretation to stand and signaling that victims in similar predicaments may remain legally powerless when prosecutors circumvent the formal charging process.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein victim seeks US Supreme Court review of prosecutors' secret deal - ABC NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the mid-2000s, Jeffrey Epstein faced mounting allegations in Palm Beach, Florida, that he had sexually abused dozens of underage girls under the guise of paying them for massages. The case began in 2005 when the parents of a 14-year-old girl reported him to local police, prompting a months-long investigation that uncovered a network of young girls—many recruited by other minors—who said they were coerced into sexual acts at Epstein's Palm Beach mansion. Police gathered statements, physical evidence, and corroborating accounts, ultimately identifying over 30 potential victims. The Palm Beach Police Department recommended multiple felony charges, including unlawful sexual activity with minors and lewd and lascivious acts.Instead of proceeding to a state trial, the case was taken over by the U.S. Attorney's Office, leading to the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Brokered behind closed doors, the NPA allowed Epstein to plead guilty in state court to two lesser prostitution-related charges—one involving a minor—in exchange for federal prosecutors agreeing not to pursue broader sex trafficking charges. He served 13 months in the Palm Beach County jail under a work-release program that let him leave six days a week. The deal also granted immunity to “any potential co-conspirators,” effectively shielding alleged enablers from prosecution. This resolution, kept secret from victims in violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act, became a flashpoint for public outrage and later federal litigation when it was revealed just how sweeping and lenient the agreement had been.In this episode, we see that corruption in action as we hear from one of Jeffrey Epstein's first accusers during a deposition given in 2008.to contact me:gov.uscourts.flsd.318730.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the mid-2000s, Jeffrey Epstein faced mounting allegations in Palm Beach, Florida, that he had sexually abused dozens of underage girls under the guise of paying them for massages. The case began in 2005 when the parents of a 14-year-old girl reported him to local police, prompting a months-long investigation that uncovered a network of young girls—many recruited by other minors—who said they were coerced into sexual acts at Epstein's Palm Beach mansion. Police gathered statements, physical evidence, and corroborating accounts, ultimately identifying over 30 potential victims. The Palm Beach Police Department recommended multiple felony charges, including unlawful sexual activity with minors and lewd and lascivious acts.Instead of proceeding to a state trial, the case was taken over by the U.S. Attorney's Office, leading to the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Brokered behind closed doors, the NPA allowed Epstein to plead guilty in state court to two lesser prostitution-related charges—one involving a minor—in exchange for federal prosecutors agreeing not to pursue broader sex trafficking charges. He served 13 months in the Palm Beach County jail under a work-release program that let him leave six days a week. The deal also granted immunity to “any potential co-conspirators,” effectively shielding alleged enablers from prosecution. This resolution, kept secret from victims in violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act, became a flashpoint for public outrage and later federal litigation when it was revealed just how sweeping and lenient the agreement had been.In this episode, we see that corruption in action as we hear from one of Jeffrey Epstein's first accusers during a deposition given in 2008.to contact me:gov.uscourts.flsd.318730.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the mid-2000s, Jeffrey Epstein faced mounting allegations in Palm Beach, Florida, that he had sexually abused dozens of underage girls under the guise of paying them for massages. The case began in 2005 when the parents of a 14-year-old girl reported him to local police, prompting a months-long investigation that uncovered a network of young girls—many recruited by other minors—who said they were coerced into sexual acts at Epstein's Palm Beach mansion. Police gathered statements, physical evidence, and corroborating accounts, ultimately identifying over 30 potential victims. The Palm Beach Police Department recommended multiple felony charges, including unlawful sexual activity with minors and lewd and lascivious acts.Instead of proceeding to a state trial, the case was taken over by the U.S. Attorney's Office, leading to the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Brokered behind closed doors, the NPA allowed Epstein to plead guilty in state court to two lesser prostitution-related charges—one involving a minor—in exchange for federal prosecutors agreeing not to pursue broader sex trafficking charges. He served 13 months in the Palm Beach County jail under a work-release program that let him leave six days a week. The deal also granted immunity to “any potential co-conspirators,” effectively shielding alleged enablers from prosecution. This resolution, kept secret from victims in violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act, became a flashpoint for public outrage and later federal litigation when it was revealed just how sweeping and lenient the agreement had been.In this episode, we see that corruption in action as we hear from one of Jeffrey Epstein's first accusers during a deposition given in 2008.to contact me:gov.uscourts.flsd.318730.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Courtney Wild, one of Jeffrey Epstein's underage victims, has waged a prolonged legal battle asserting that federal prosecutors violated her statutory rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act by secretly crafting a 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) shielding Epstein and his co-conspirators without notifying or consulting her—her “right to confer” and be treated fairly were emphatically ignored. After the district court acknowledged the CVRA violation but declined to provide relief on jurisdictional grounds following Epstein's death, Wild pressed her case through the Eleventh Circuit. In a contentious en banc ruling, the court recognized the profound injustice yet held that the CVRA does not allow victims to enforce their rights via standalone legal action absent a formal criminal proceeding. Feeling thwarted by this interpretation, Wild and her attorneys petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve this critical question of whether the CVRA's protections extend to pre‑charge, behind‑the‑scenes deals that effectively nullify accountability.Wild's Supreme Court petition presents what she and her legal team call a “now-or-never opportunity” for the Court to buttress victim protections and clarify that the government cannot clandestinely dispense with criminal accountability while ignoring victims entirely—especially when the accused wield immense wealth and influence. Without such reckoning, the Justice Department may continue negotiating secret deals that nullify the statutory rights Congress fought to grant crime victims. Despite the urgency and gravity of the case, the Supreme Court ultimately declined to hear the appeal—effectively allowing the Eleventh Circuit's restrictive interpretation to stand and signaling that victims in similar predicaments may remain legally powerless when prosecutors circumvent the formal charging process.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein victim seeks US Supreme Court review of prosecutors' secret deal - ABC NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the mid-2000s, Jeffrey Epstein faced mounting allegations in Palm Beach, Florida, that he had sexually abused dozens of underage girls under the guise of paying them for massages. The case began in 2005 when the parents of a 14-year-old girl reported him to local police, prompting a months-long investigation that uncovered a network of young girls—many recruited by other minors—who said they were coerced into sexual acts at Epstein's Palm Beach mansion. Police gathered statements, physical evidence, and corroborating accounts, ultimately identifying over 30 potential victims. The Palm Beach Police Department recommended multiple felony charges, including unlawful sexual activity with minors and lewd and lascivious acts.Instead of proceeding to a state trial, the case was taken over by the U.S. Attorney's Office, leading to the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Brokered behind closed doors, the NPA allowed Epstein to plead guilty in state court to two lesser prostitution-related charges—one involving a minor—in exchange for federal prosecutors agreeing not to pursue broader sex trafficking charges. He served 13 months in the Palm Beach County jail under a work-release program that let him leave six days a week. The deal also granted immunity to “any potential co-conspirators,” effectively shielding alleged enablers from prosecution. This resolution, kept secret from victims in violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act, became a flashpoint for public outrage and later federal litigation when it was revealed just how sweeping and lenient the agreement had been.In this episode, we see that corruption in action as we hear from one of Jeffrey Epstein's first accusers during a deposition given in 2008.to contact me:gov.uscourts.flsd.318730.1.0.pdf

In the mid-2000s, Jeffrey Epstein faced mounting allegations in Palm Beach, Florida, that he had sexually abused dozens of underage girls under the guise of paying them for massages. The case began in 2005 when the parents of a 14-year-old girl reported him to local police, prompting a months-long investigation that uncovered a network of young girls—many recruited by other minors—who said they were coerced into sexual acts at Epstein's Palm Beach mansion. Police gathered statements, physical evidence, and corroborating accounts, ultimately identifying over 30 potential victims. The Palm Beach Police Department recommended multiple felony charges, including unlawful sexual activity with minors and lewd and lascivious acts.Instead of proceeding to a state trial, the case was taken over by the U.S. Attorney's Office, leading to the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Brokered behind closed doors, the NPA allowed Epstein to plead guilty in state court to two lesser prostitution-related charges—one involving a minor—in exchange for federal prosecutors agreeing not to pursue broader sex trafficking charges. He served 13 months in the Palm Beach County jail under a work-release program that let him leave six days a week. The deal also granted immunity to “any potential co-conspirators,” effectively shielding alleged enablers from prosecution. This resolution, kept secret from victims in violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act, became a flashpoint for public outrage and later federal litigation when it was revealed just how sweeping and lenient the agreement had been.In this episode, we see that corruption in action as we hear from one of Jeffrey Epstein's first accusers during a deposition given in 2008.to contact me:gov.uscourts.flsd.318730.1.0.pdf

In the mid-2000s, Jeffrey Epstein faced mounting allegations in Palm Beach, Florida, that he had sexually abused dozens of underage girls under the guise of paying them for massages. The case began in 2005 when the parents of a 14-year-old girl reported him to local police, prompting a months-long investigation that uncovered a network of young girls—many recruited by other minors—who said they were coerced into sexual acts at Epstein's Palm Beach mansion. Police gathered statements, physical evidence, and corroborating accounts, ultimately identifying over 30 potential victims. The Palm Beach Police Department recommended multiple felony charges, including unlawful sexual activity with minors and lewd and lascivious acts.Instead of proceeding to a state trial, the case was taken over by the U.S. Attorney's Office, leading to the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Brokered behind closed doors, the NPA allowed Epstein to plead guilty in state court to two lesser prostitution-related charges—one involving a minor—in exchange for federal prosecutors agreeing not to pursue broader sex trafficking charges. He served 13 months in the Palm Beach County jail under a work-release program that let him leave six days a week. The deal also granted immunity to “any potential co-conspirators,” effectively shielding alleged enablers from prosecution. This resolution, kept secret from victims in violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act, became a flashpoint for public outrage and later federal litigation when it was revealed just how sweeping and lenient the agreement had been.In this episode, we see that corruption in action as we hear from one of Jeffrey Epstein's first accusers during a deposition given in 2008.to contact me:gov.uscourts.flsd.318730.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the mid-2000s, Jeffrey Epstein faced mounting allegations in Palm Beach, Florida, that he had sexually abused dozens of underage girls under the guise of paying them for massages. The case began in 2005 when the parents of a 14-year-old girl reported him to local police, prompting a months-long investigation that uncovered a network of young girls—many recruited by other minors—who said they were coerced into sexual acts at Epstein's Palm Beach mansion. Police gathered statements, physical evidence, and corroborating accounts, ultimately identifying over 30 potential victims. The Palm Beach Police Department recommended multiple felony charges, including unlawful sexual activity with minors and lewd and lascivious acts.Instead of proceeding to a state trial, the case was taken over by the U.S. Attorney's Office, leading to the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Brokered behind closed doors, the NPA allowed Epstein to plead guilty in state court to two lesser prostitution-related charges—one involving a minor—in exchange for federal prosecutors agreeing not to pursue broader sex trafficking charges. He served 13 months in the Palm Beach County jail under a work-release program that let him leave six days a week. The deal also granted immunity to “any potential co-conspirators,” effectively shielding alleged enablers from prosecution. This resolution, kept secret from victims in violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act, became a flashpoint for public outrage and later federal litigation when it was revealed just how sweeping and lenient the agreement had been.In this episode, we see that corruption in action as we hear from one of Jeffrey Epstein's first accusers during a deposition given in 2008.to contact me:gov.uscourts.flsd.318730.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the mid-2000s, Jeffrey Epstein faced mounting allegations in Palm Beach, Florida, that he had sexually abused dozens of underage girls under the guise of paying them for massages. The case began in 2005 when the parents of a 14-year-old girl reported him to local police, prompting a months-long investigation that uncovered a network of young girls—many recruited by other minors—who said they were coerced into sexual acts at Epstein's Palm Beach mansion. Police gathered statements, physical evidence, and corroborating accounts, ultimately identifying over 30 potential victims. The Palm Beach Police Department recommended multiple felony charges, including unlawful sexual activity with minors and lewd and lascivious acts.Instead of proceeding to a state trial, the case was taken over by the U.S. Attorney's Office, leading to the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Brokered behind closed doors, the NPA allowed Epstein to plead guilty in state court to two lesser prostitution-related charges—one involving a minor—in exchange for federal prosecutors agreeing not to pursue broader sex trafficking charges. He served 13 months in the Palm Beach County jail under a work-release program that let him leave six days a week. The deal also granted immunity to “any potential co-conspirators,” effectively shielding alleged enablers from prosecution. This resolution, kept secret from victims in violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act, became a flashpoint for public outrage and later federal litigation when it was revealed just how sweeping and lenient the agreement had been.In this episode, we see that corruption in action as we hear from one of Jeffrey Epstein's first accusers during a deposition given in 2008.to contact me:gov.uscourts.flsd.318730.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the mid-2000s, Jeffrey Epstein faced mounting allegations in Palm Beach, Florida, that he had sexually abused dozens of underage girls under the guise of paying them for massages. The case began in 2005 when the parents of a 14-year-old girl reported him to local police, prompting a months-long investigation that uncovered a network of young girls—many recruited by other minors—who said they were coerced into sexual acts at Epstein's Palm Beach mansion. Police gathered statements, physical evidence, and corroborating accounts, ultimately identifying over 30 potential victims. The Palm Beach Police Department recommended multiple felony charges, including unlawful sexual activity with minors and lewd and lascivious acts.Instead of proceeding to a state trial, the case was taken over by the U.S. Attorney's Office, leading to the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Brokered behind closed doors, the NPA allowed Epstein to plead guilty in state court to two lesser prostitution-related charges—one involving a minor—in exchange for federal prosecutors agreeing not to pursue broader sex trafficking charges. He served 13 months in the Palm Beach County jail under a work-release program that let him leave six days a week. The deal also granted immunity to “any potential co-conspirators,” effectively shielding alleged enablers from prosecution. This resolution, kept secret from victims in violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act, became a flashpoint for public outrage and later federal litigation when it was revealed just how sweeping and lenient the agreement had been.In this episode, we see that corruption in action as we hear from one of Jeffrey Epstein's first accusers during a deposition given in 2008.to contact me:gov.uscourts.flsd.318730.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

To discuss this Michele Puckhaber, chief executive of the Crime Victims Helpline and Neil McDonnell, chief executive of ISME.

The Jeffrey Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) is widely regarded as one of the most disgraceful failures in the history of American justice. Structured to shield not just Epstein but a host of unnamed co-conspirators, the NPA granted sweeping immunity, all negotiated in secret and without the knowledge or consent of Epstein's victims—an apparent violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Far from being a standard plea deal, the NPA was a calculated firewall built by powerful actors within the Department of Justice to protect a broader network of elite individuals. Its open-ended language, lack of transparency, and immunity clauses served not justice, but systemic protectionism for the well-connected. For over a decade, this deal has prevented real accountability, emboldened Epstein's enablers, and sent the chilling message that influence and wealth can overwrite the rule of law.Yet the NPA is not untouchable. Legal avenues still exist, from challenging its violation of victim rights, to pursuing civil lawsuits, state-level prosecutions, FOIA litigation, and even appointing a Special Counsel to investigate the DOJ's misconduct. Public pressure, congressional oversight, and relentless investigative work could still expose the names hidden behind its broad immunity clauses. What's needed now is moral courage, not more institutional silence. The DOJ must either rescind the NPA, investigate those who crafted it, and pursue those it protected—or be remembered not as an agency of justice, but as the architect of the most shameful cover-up in modern legal history. The survivors deserve more than platitudes—they deserve action. Because the NPA may have buried the truth once, but it doesn't get to bury it forever.to contact me: bobbcapucci@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) is widely regarded as one of the most disgraceful failures in the history of American justice. Structured to shield not just Epstein but a host of unnamed co-conspirators, the NPA granted sweeping immunity, all negotiated in secret and without the knowledge or consent of Epstein's victims—an apparent violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Far from being a standard plea deal, the NPA was a calculated firewall built by powerful actors within the Department of Justice to protect a broader network of elite individuals. Its open-ended language, lack of transparency, and immunity clauses served not justice, but systemic protectionism for the well-connected. For over a decade, this deal has prevented real accountability, emboldened Epstein's enablers, and sent the chilling message that influence and wealth can overwrite the rule of law.Yet the NPA is not untouchable. Legal avenues still exist, from challenging its violation of victim rights, to pursuing civil lawsuits, state-level prosecutions, FOIA litigation, and even appointing a Special Counsel to investigate the DOJ's misconduct. Public pressure, congressional oversight, and relentless investigative work could still expose the names hidden behind its broad immunity clauses. What's needed now is moral courage, not more institutional silence. The DOJ must either rescind the NPA, investigate those who crafted it, and pursue those it protected—or be remembered not as an agency of justice, but as the architect of the most shameful cover-up in modern legal history. The survivors deserve more than platitudes—they deserve action. Because the NPA may have buried the truth once, but it doesn't get to bury it forever.to contact me: bobbcapucci@protonmail.com

The Jeffrey Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) is widely regarded as one of the most disgraceful failures in the history of American justice. Structured to shield not just Epstein but a host of unnamed co-conspirators, the NPA granted sweeping immunity, all negotiated in secret and without the knowledge or consent of Epstein's victims—an apparent violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Far from being a standard plea deal, the NPA was a calculated firewall built by powerful actors within the Department of Justice to protect a broader network of elite individuals. Its open-ended language, lack of transparency, and immunity clauses served not justice, but systemic protectionism for the well-connected. For over a decade, this deal has prevented real accountability, emboldened Epstein's enablers, and sent the chilling message that influence and wealth can overwrite the rule of law.Yet the NPA is not untouchable. Legal avenues still exist, from challenging its violation of victim rights, to pursuing civil lawsuits, state-level prosecutions, FOIA litigation, and even appointing a Special Counsel to investigate the DOJ's misconduct. Public pressure, congressional oversight, and relentless investigative work could still expose the names hidden behind its broad immunity clauses. What's needed now is moral courage, not more institutional silence. The DOJ must either rescind the NPA, investigate those who crafted it, and pursue those it protected—or be remembered not as an agency of justice, but as the architect of the most shameful cover-up in modern legal history. The survivors deserve more than platitudes—they deserve action. Because the NPA may have buried the truth once, but it doesn't get to bury it forever.to contact me: bobbcapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In response to Maxwell's Rule 56.1 “Statement of Contested Facts,” Virginia Giuffre meticulously contested nearly every assertion Maxwell put forth. She denied Maxwell's characterization of her allegations as “obvious lies,” and pointed to FBI interviews and deposition transcripts confirming her account that Maxwell actively recruited and trafficked her to Jeffrey Epstein. Giuffre flagged multiple misrepresentations in Maxwell's filing—ranging from the drafting and distribution of press statements, to claims about the scope and detail of her public disclosures. Giuffre maintains her statements are grounded in evidence, recorded testimony, and contemporaneous documentation—not exaggeration or fabrication, as Maxwell suggested.Giuffre further challenged Maxwell's framing of her motives, rejecting allegations that she sought media attention or monetary gain. Instead, Giuffre emphasized her pursuit of justice under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, her goal to expose governmental failings, and her intention to assist other survivors. She disputed Maxwell's assertion that Giuffre had “sought out media organizations,” clarifying that she was approached, not the other way around. In every contested point, Giuffre created genuine disputes of material fact—underscoring that the truthfulness of her allegations versus Maxwell's denials could not be resolved without witness testimony or trial. This response was crucial in precluding Maxwell from obtaining summary judgment and keeping the defamation case alive.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)

In response to Maxwell's Rule 56.1 “Statement of Contested Facts,” Virginia Giuffre meticulously contested nearly every assertion Maxwell put forth. She denied Maxwell's characterization of her allegations as “obvious lies,” and pointed to FBI interviews and deposition transcripts confirming her account that Maxwell actively recruited and trafficked her to Jeffrey Epstein. Giuffre flagged multiple misrepresentations in Maxwell's filing—ranging from the drafting and distribution of press statements, to claims about the scope and detail of her public disclosures. Giuffre maintains her statements are grounded in evidence, recorded testimony, and contemporaneous documentation—not exaggeration or fabrication, as Maxwell suggested.Giuffre further challenged Maxwell's framing of her motives, rejecting allegations that she sought media attention or monetary gain. Instead, Giuffre emphasized her pursuit of justice under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, her goal to expose governmental failings, and her intention to assist other survivors. She disputed Maxwell's assertion that Giuffre had “sought out media organizations,” clarifying that she was approached, not the other way around. In every contested point, Giuffre created genuine disputes of material fact—underscoring that the truthfulness of her allegations versus Maxwell's denials could not be resolved without witness testimony or trial. This response was crucial in precluding Maxwell from obtaining summary judgment and keeping the defamation case alive.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)

In response to Maxwell's Rule 56.1 “Statement of Contested Facts,” Virginia Giuffre meticulously contested nearly every assertion Maxwell put forth. She denied Maxwell's characterization of her allegations as “obvious lies,” and pointed to FBI interviews and deposition transcripts confirming her account that Maxwell actively recruited and trafficked her to Jeffrey Epstein. Giuffre flagged multiple misrepresentations in Maxwell's filing—ranging from the drafting and distribution of press statements, to claims about the scope and detail of her public disclosures. Giuffre maintains her statements are grounded in evidence, recorded testimony, and contemporaneous documentation—not exaggeration or fabrication, as Maxwell suggested.Giuffre further challenged Maxwell's framing of her motives, rejecting allegations that she sought media attention or monetary gain. Instead, Giuffre emphasized her pursuit of justice under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, her goal to expose governmental failings, and her intention to assist other survivors. She disputed Maxwell's assertion that Giuffre had “sought out media organizations,” clarifying that she was approached, not the other way around. In every contested point, Giuffre created genuine disputes of material fact—underscoring that the truthfulness of her allegations versus Maxwell's denials could not be resolved without witness testimony or trial. This response was crucial in precluding Maxwell from obtaining summary judgment and keeping the defamation case alive.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In response to Maxwell's Rule 56.1 “Statement of Contested Facts,” Virginia Giuffre meticulously contested nearly every assertion Maxwell put forth. She denied Maxwell's characterization of her allegations as “obvious lies,” and pointed to FBI interviews and deposition transcripts confirming her account that Maxwell actively recruited and trafficked her to Jeffrey Epstein. Giuffre flagged multiple misrepresentations in Maxwell's filing—ranging from the drafting and distribution of press statements, to claims about the scope and detail of her public disclosures. Giuffre maintains her statements are grounded in evidence, recorded testimony, and contemporaneous documentation—not exaggeration or fabrication, as Maxwell suggested.Giuffre further challenged Maxwell's framing of her motives, rejecting allegations that she sought media attention or monetary gain. Instead, Giuffre emphasized her pursuit of justice under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, her goal to expose governmental failings, and her intention to assist other survivors. She disputed Maxwell's assertion that Giuffre had “sought out media organizations,” clarifying that she was approached, not the other way around. In every contested point, Giuffre created genuine disputes of material fact—underscoring that the truthfulness of her allegations versus Maxwell's denials could not be resolved without witness testimony or trial. This response was crucial in precluding Maxwell from obtaining summary judgment and keeping the defamation case alive.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Jeffrey Epstein's so-called “deal of the century” wasn't earned—it was engineered. In 2008, despite facing evidence of molesting and trafficking dozens of underage girls, Epstein walked away with a sweetheart plea deal that saw him serve just 13 months in a private wing of the Palm Beach County jail. He was allowed to leave the facility six days a week for 12 hours a day under “work release,” even though his office visits were unsupervised and often involved young female visitors. The deal—brokered in secret—granted Epstein immunity not only for himself, but also for “any potential co-conspirators,” effectively shielding Ghislaine Maxwell, Sarah Kellen, Nadia Marcinkova, and others from prosecution. Federal prosecutors didn't even notify the victims, a clear violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. This wasn't justice—it was protection, delivered by a system that bent the knee to wealth, influence, and possibly much darker forces.The man who publicly signed off on the deal was then–U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta, but he wasn't the architect—he was the middleman. The real decision to cut Epstein loose came from the very top of the Bush-era Justice Department: then–Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip. They quietly pulled the strings behind the scenes, elevating the matter above Acosta's authority and ensuring that Epstein's prosecution would be neutered. This wasn't about a weak local prosecutor making a bad call—it was a deliberate move by the most powerful legal officials in the country to shut down a case that risked exposing too much. Whether it was done to protect intelligence assets, political allies, or institutional reputations, the result was the same: Epstein got a free pass, his victims were betrayed, and the system showed the world that justice is selective, rigged, and for sale when the right names are involved.

In response to Maxwell's Rule 56.1 “Statement of Contested Facts,” Virginia Giuffre meticulously contested nearly every assertion Maxwell put forth. She denied Maxwell's characterization of her allegations as “obvious lies,” and pointed to FBI interviews and deposition transcripts confirming her account that Maxwell actively recruited and trafficked her to Jeffrey Epstein. Giuffre flagged multiple misrepresentations in Maxwell's filing—ranging from the drafting and distribution of press statements, to claims about the scope and detail of her public disclosures. Giuffre maintains her statements are grounded in evidence, recorded testimony, and contemporaneous documentation—not exaggeration or fabrication, as Maxwell suggested.Giuffre further challenged Maxwell's framing of her motives, rejecting allegations that she sought media attention or monetary gain. Instead, Giuffre emphasized her pursuit of justice under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, her goal to expose governmental failings, and her intention to assist other survivors. She disputed Maxwell's assertion that Giuffre had “sought out media organizations,” clarifying that she was approached, not the other way around. In every contested point, Giuffre created genuine disputes of material fact—underscoring that the truthfulness of her allegations versus Maxwell's denials could not be resolved without witness testimony or trial. This response was crucial in precluding Maxwell from obtaining summary judgment and keeping the defamation case alive.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)

In response to Maxwell's Rule 56.1 “Statement of Contested Facts,” Virginia Giuffre meticulously contested nearly every assertion Maxwell put forth. She denied Maxwell's characterization of her allegations as “obvious lies,” and pointed to FBI interviews and deposition transcripts confirming her account that Maxwell actively recruited and trafficked her to Jeffrey Epstein. Giuffre flagged multiple misrepresentations in Maxwell's filing—ranging from the drafting and distribution of press statements, to claims about the scope and detail of her public disclosures. Giuffre maintains her statements are grounded in evidence, recorded testimony, and contemporaneous documentation—not exaggeration or fabrication, as Maxwell suggested.Giuffre further challenged Maxwell's framing of her motives, rejecting allegations that she sought media attention or monetary gain. Instead, Giuffre emphasized her pursuit of justice under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, her goal to expose governmental failings, and her intention to assist other survivors. She disputed Maxwell's assertion that Giuffre had “sought out media organizations,” clarifying that she was approached, not the other way around. In every contested point, Giuffre created genuine disputes of material fact—underscoring that the truthfulness of her allegations versus Maxwell's denials could not be resolved without witness testimony or trial. This response was crucial in precluding Maxwell from obtaining summary judgment and keeping the defamation case alive.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)

In response to Maxwell's Rule 56.1 “Statement of Contested Facts,” Virginia Giuffre meticulously contested nearly every assertion Maxwell put forth. She denied Maxwell's characterization of her allegations as “obvious lies,” and pointed to FBI interviews and deposition transcripts confirming her account that Maxwell actively recruited and trafficked her to Jeffrey Epstein. Giuffre flagged multiple misrepresentations in Maxwell's filing—ranging from the drafting and distribution of press statements, to claims about the scope and detail of her public disclosures. Giuffre maintains her statements are grounded in evidence, recorded testimony, and contemporaneous documentation—not exaggeration or fabrication, as Maxwell suggested.Giuffre further challenged Maxwell's framing of her motives, rejecting allegations that she sought media attention or monetary gain. Instead, Giuffre emphasized her pursuit of justice under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, her goal to expose governmental failings, and her intention to assist other survivors. She disputed Maxwell's assertion that Giuffre had “sought out media organizations,” clarifying that she was approached, not the other way around. In every contested point, Giuffre created genuine disputes of material fact—underscoring that the truthfulness of her allegations versus Maxwell's denials could not be resolved without witness testimony or trial. This response was crucial in precluding Maxwell from obtaining summary judgment and keeping the defamation case alive.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In response to Maxwell's Rule 56.1 “Statement of Contested Facts,” Virginia Giuffre meticulously contested nearly every assertion Maxwell put forth. She denied Maxwell's characterization of her allegations as “obvious lies,” and pointed to FBI interviews and deposition transcripts confirming her account that Maxwell actively recruited and trafficked her to Jeffrey Epstein. Giuffre flagged multiple misrepresentations in Maxwell's filing—ranging from the drafting and distribution of press statements, to claims about the scope and detail of her public disclosures. Giuffre maintains her statements are grounded in evidence, recorded testimony, and contemporaneous documentation—not exaggeration or fabrication, as Maxwell suggested.Giuffre further challenged Maxwell's framing of her motives, rejecting allegations that she sought media attention or monetary gain. Instead, Giuffre emphasized her pursuit of justice under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, her goal to expose governmental failings, and her intention to assist other survivors. She disputed Maxwell's assertion that Giuffre had “sought out media organizations,” clarifying that she was approached, not the other way around. In every contested point, Giuffre created genuine disputes of material fact—underscoring that the truthfulness of her allegations versus Maxwell's denials could not be resolved without witness testimony or trial. This response was crucial in precluding Maxwell from obtaining summary judgment and keeping the defamation case alive.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In response to Maxwell's Rule 56.1 “Statement of Contested Facts,” Virginia Giuffre meticulously contested nearly every assertion Maxwell put forth. She denied Maxwell's characterization of her allegations as “obvious lies,” and pointed to FBI interviews and deposition transcripts confirming her account that Maxwell actively recruited and trafficked her to Jeffrey Epstein. Giuffre flagged multiple misrepresentations in Maxwell's filing—ranging from the drafting and distribution of press statements, to claims about the scope and detail of her public disclosures. Giuffre maintains her statements are grounded in evidence, recorded testimony, and contemporaneous documentation—not exaggeration or fabrication, as Maxwell suggested.Giuffre further challenged Maxwell's framing of her motives, rejecting allegations that she sought media attention or monetary gain. Instead, Giuffre emphasized her pursuit of justice under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, her goal to expose governmental failings, and her intention to assist other survivors. She disputed Maxwell's assertion that Giuffre had “sought out media organizations,” clarifying that she was approached, not the other way around. In every contested point, Giuffre created genuine disputes of material fact—underscoring that the truthfulness of her allegations versus Maxwell's denials could not be resolved without witness testimony or trial. This response was crucial in precluding Maxwell from obtaining summary judgment and keeping the defamation case alive.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In response to Maxwell's Rule 56.1 “Statement of Contested Facts,” Virginia Giuffre meticulously contested nearly every assertion Maxwell put forth. She denied Maxwell's characterization of her allegations as “obvious lies,” and pointed to FBI interviews and deposition transcripts confirming her account that Maxwell actively recruited and trafficked her to Jeffrey Epstein. Giuffre flagged multiple misrepresentations in Maxwell's filing—ranging from the drafting and distribution of press statements, to claims about the scope and detail of her public disclosures. Giuffre maintains her statements are grounded in evidence, recorded testimony, and contemporaneous documentation—not exaggeration or fabrication, as Maxwell suggested.Giuffre further challenged Maxwell's framing of her motives, rejecting allegations that she sought media attention or monetary gain. Instead, Giuffre emphasized her pursuit of justice under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, her goal to expose governmental failings, and her intention to assist other survivors. She disputed Maxwell's assertion that Giuffre had “sought out media organizations,” clarifying that she was approached, not the other way around. In every contested point, Giuffre created genuine disputes of material fact—underscoring that the truthfulness of her allegations versus Maxwell's denials could not be resolved without witness testimony or trial. This response was crucial in precluding Maxwell from obtaining summary judgment and keeping the defamation case alive.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jeffrey Epstein's so-called “deal of the century” wasn't earned—it was engineered. In 2008, despite facing evidence of molesting and trafficking dozens of underage girls, Epstein walked away with a sweetheart plea deal that saw him serve just 13 months in a private wing of the Palm Beach County jail. He was allowed to leave the facility six days a week for 12 hours a day under “work release,” even though his office visits were unsupervised and often involved young female visitors. The deal—brokered in secret—granted Epstein immunity not only for himself, but also for “any potential co-conspirators,” effectively shielding Ghislaine Maxwell, Sarah Kellen, Nadia Marcinkova, and others from prosecution. Federal prosecutors didn't even notify the victims, a clear violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. This wasn't justice—it was protection, delivered by a system that bent the knee to wealth, influence, and possibly much darker forces.The man who publicly signed off on the deal was then–U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta, but he wasn't the architect—he was the middleman. The real decision to cut Epstein loose came from the very top of the Bush-era Justice Department: then–Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip. They quietly pulled the strings behind the scenes, elevating the matter above Acosta's authority and ensuring that Epstein's prosecution would be neutered. This wasn't about a weak local prosecutor making a bad call—it was a deliberate move by the most powerful legal officials in the country to shut down a case that risked exposing too much. Whether it was done to protect intelligence assets, political allies, or institutional reputations, the result was the same: Epstein got a free pass, his victims were betrayed, and the system showed the world that justice is selective, rigged, and for sale when the right names are involved.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In response to Maxwell's Rule 56.1 “Statement of Contested Facts,” Virginia Giuffre meticulously contested nearly every assertion Maxwell put forth. She denied Maxwell's characterization of her allegations as “obvious lies,” and pointed to FBI interviews and deposition transcripts confirming her account that Maxwell actively recruited and trafficked her to Jeffrey Epstein. Giuffre flagged multiple misrepresentations in Maxwell's filing—ranging from the drafting and distribution of press statements, to claims about the scope and detail of her public disclosures. Giuffre maintains her statements are grounded in evidence, recorded testimony, and contemporaneous documentation—not exaggeration or fabrication, as Maxwell suggested.Giuffre further challenged Maxwell's framing of her motives, rejecting allegations that she sought media attention or monetary gain. Instead, Giuffre emphasized her pursuit of justice under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, her goal to expose governmental failings, and her intention to assist other survivors. She disputed Maxwell's assertion that Giuffre had “sought out media organizations,” clarifying that she was approached, not the other way around. In every contested point, Giuffre created genuine disputes of material fact—underscoring that the truthfulness of her allegations versus Maxwell's denials could not be resolved without witness testimony or trial. This response was crucial in precluding Maxwell from obtaining summary judgment and keeping the defamation case alive.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In response to Maxwell's Rule 56.1 “Statement of Contested Facts,” Virginia Giuffre meticulously contested nearly every assertion Maxwell put forth. She denied Maxwell's characterization of her allegations as “obvious lies,” and pointed to FBI interviews and deposition transcripts confirming her account that Maxwell actively recruited and trafficked her to Jeffrey Epstein. Giuffre flagged multiple misrepresentations in Maxwell's filing—ranging from the drafting and distribution of press statements, to claims about the scope and detail of her public disclosures. Giuffre maintains her statements are grounded in evidence, recorded testimony, and contemporaneous documentation—not exaggeration or fabrication, as Maxwell suggested.Giuffre further challenged Maxwell's framing of her motives, rejecting allegations that she sought media attention or monetary gain. Instead, Giuffre emphasized her pursuit of justice under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, her goal to expose governmental failings, and her intention to assist other survivors. She disputed Maxwell's assertion that Giuffre had “sought out media organizations,” clarifying that she was approached, not the other way around. In every contested point, Giuffre created genuine disputes of material fact—underscoring that the truthfulness of her allegations versus Maxwell's denials could not be resolved without witness testimony or trial. This response was crucial in precluding Maxwell from obtaining summary judgment and keeping the defamation case alive.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Ghislaine Maxwell's legal team moved aggressively to block Sarah Ransome from delivering a victim impact statement at the June 28, 2022 sentencing, arguing that Ransome did not qualify as a statutory “crime victim” under the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Maxwell's defenders claimed Ransome was an adult at the time of her interactions with Epstein and Maxwell—outside the timeframe of the charges—and thus lacked legal standing to speak in the sentencing phase. The defense specifically argued that Ransome was not part of the indictment or trial record and that her allegations occurred years after the periods under scrutiny, positioning her voice as irrelevant to the court's legal determinationCritics saw this tactic as a cynical effort to silence survivors by exploiting narrow technicalities, rather than addressing the broader harm experienced by individuals Maxwell helped traffic. Ransome, who alleges threats, abuse, and coercion during her adult years with Epstein and Maxwell, had powerful testimony—including descriptions of being treated as a "sex toy" and forced to attempt escape from Epstein's island. Her exclusion from speaking would have denied the court a fuller understanding of Maxwell's pattern of behavior and the real-life consequences of her crimes—even beyond the window covered by the charges. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10941223/Ghislaine-Maxwell-trying-stop-victim-Sarah-Ransome-testifying-against-sentencing.htmlBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

About 150 organizations that support Oregon crime victims have lost much of their federal funding. With more than $18 million in cuts and no additional state funds, nonprofits and government programs that serve survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, human trafficking and child abuse are preparing to lay off staff and severely reduce the support they provide to victims — both in and out of court.Melissa Erlbaum is the executive director of Clackamas Women’s Services. Due to funding loss, the non-profit will be forced to reduce the number of survivors it can serve by hundreds. And at Safety Compass — a nonprofit that supports sex trafficking survivors — founder Esther Garrett says the cuts threaten to unravel the vital safety net that advocacy provides crime victims.Erlbaum and Garrett join us alongside Clackamas County District Attorney John Wentworth, to tell us more about the consequences of the funding shortfall.

July 14, 2025 - State Office of Victim Services Director Bea Hanson swings by the studio to explain how the Hochul administration plans on spending record levels of funding for crime victims and discusses the challenges of getting this money to the right people.

When the Trump administration moved in April to cancel about half a billion dollars in Department of Justice grants, it said the programs didn't align with the administration's priorities. But many of the programs targeted for cuts seem to be doing exactly the things the administration says it's focused on. Reporter: Marisa Lagos, KQED Israel and Iran have agreed to a ceasefire after more than a week of exchanging bombs and missile fire. But President Trump lashed out at the two sides Tuesday morning, for possible violations of that agreement. This caps a whirlwind of events including the US bombing of three nuclear sites in Iran and Iran's response, launching more than a dozen missiles at a US airbase in Qatar. Iranians living in LA have mixed feelings about the conflict. Reporter: Benjamin Gottlieb Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Grief is a painful journey that can feel isolating and endless. So what tools can we use to process grief, experience its pain, and ultimately learn how to live fully again? Claudia Coenen, a creative grief counselor and certified thanatologist, joins the podcast to discuss her unique perspective on this sensitive topic. Claudia has a private practice at The Karuna Project and is a consultant and grief specialist at The REACH Center for Crime Victims. She is also the author of Shattered by Grief: Picking Up the Pieces to Become WHOLE Again, a book that helps readers work through their grief via expressive therapies and activities. Tune in now to learn about: How to deal with different types of grief. Factors that help and hinder the process of grief. The most impactful ways to manage grief. The ways that journaling can help people externalize their pain. By encouraging others to explore their pain through storytelling, self-care and ritual, and honest reflection, Claudia has achieved remarkable results. This creative approach to grief counseling was inspired by her own experience of loss – and she's eager to share it with the world… You can learn more about Claudia by clicking here! Episode also available on Apple Podcasts: http://apple.co/30PvU9