Podcast appearances and mentions of Ghislaine Maxwell

Deep Dive with Stroud - Ep. #1: Ghislaine Maxwell's Father Robert Maxwell AND Sisters Isabel and Christine Maxwell! There is always a story behind the headline! Behind the narrative - just around the corner from the media or cultural spin, there are just enough elements of truth to create confusion! If we look beyond the glare of the conispriacy theory we will see dots that connect the truth OR we may see more consipiracy! This is what Deep Dives with Stroud is about - digging just below the surface til the shovel clangs against the unknown parts of the story! News to myths and folklore to history - Stroud does the digging and brings what he finds to us - here on The Nooga Podcast Network! THANK YOU TO OUR SPONSORS: Nutrition World: https://nutritionw.com/ Vascular Institute of Chattanooga: https://www.vascularinstituteofchattanooga.com/ The Barn Nursery: https://www.barnnursery.com/ Optimize U Chattanooga: https://optimizeunow.com/chattanooga/ Guardian Investment Advisors: https://giaplantoday.com/ Alchemy Medspa and Wellness Center: http://www.alchemychattanooga.com/ Our House Studio: https://ourhousestudiosinc.com/ Big Woody's Tree Service: https://bigwoodystreeservice.com/ ALL THINGS JEFF STYLES: www.thejeffstyles.com PART OF THE NOOGA PODCAST NETWORK: www.noogapodcasts.com Please consider leaving us a review on Apple and giving us a share to your friends! This podcast is powered by ZenCast.fm

The UK's Metropolitan Police Service (Met) is now “actively looking” into fresh allegations that Prince Andrew allegedly used a taxpayer-funded police bodyguard to obtain the U.S. Social Security number and date of birth of his accuser, Virginia Giuffre — apparently to dig up “dirt” on her. These new allegations arise from leaked emails and Giuffre's recently published posthumous memoir, and they have reignited calls for a full criminal inquiry in the UK after previous investigations by the Met opted not to open one. Sources suggest that if evidence is found that the royal improperly sought to direct or influence police resources, then the offence of misconduct in public office could be in play.Meanwhile, in the United States and in political circles, pressure is building for action — though no formal prosecution has yet been confirmed. U.S. lawmakers such as Nancy Mace have publicly demanded that any potential crimes by Prince Andrew on U.S. soil be pursued, and parliamentarians in the UK are calling for a mechanism to strip him of titles and privileges as accountability ramps up. The combination of renewed documentary claims, political uproar, and active investigation means that this may no longer be purely a reputational or civil matter — the threshold for possible criminal exposure appears to be closer than at any time in recent years.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Could Prince Andrew ever be prosecuted over his links to Jeffrey Epstein? | The Independent

In regard to Maxwell, Edwards described her role as central and monstrous — saying she “fed a monster” and that “without Ghislaine's help, Jeffrey Epstein could never have abused more than 500 victims.” He said that Maxwell ought to answer questions fully about her business relationship with Epstein, “to the victims, to law enforcement and to the public,” not simply hide behind her reputation. After her conviction, Edwards hailed the outcome as a sign that “our system works,” noting it was a “major victory” for survivors and that it showed “nobody is above the law.” At the same time he pointed out that her courtroom remarks amounted only to a passive acknowledgement of pain, rather than full accountability.Turning to Prince Andrew, Edwards has been sharper and more accusatory — though he also notes legal constraints around saying more. He has asserted that Andrew's connections to Epstein's network are undeniable and warrant deeper scrutiny, saying Andrew does have information and that the settlement in the civil case does not equate to truth or innocence. In one interview he went as far as suggesting the Prince is “living a life of ridicule for his stupidity” in the way he handled the allegations and the fallout. He emphasized that while the settlement avoided a trial, it still leaves serious questions unanswered about complicity, accountability, and the broader ecosystem of abuse.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Prince Andrew's Royal Lodge controversy stems from the fallout of his disastrous ties to Jeffrey Epstein and the long shadow of that scandal. After his 2019 BBC Newsnight interview, which spectacularly backfired, Andrew was stripped of his public roles, military titles, and royal patronages. Once a senior working royal, he became an isolated figure whose financial situation—and entitlement to royal housing—were both thrown into question. Yet, despite his exile from public life, Andrew has continued to occupy the lavish Royal Lodge estate, sparking outrage among critics and frustration within the royal family.The Royal Lodge, a 30-room Georgian mansion sitting on nearly 100 acres in Windsor Great Park, is leased to Andrew on a 75-year agreement for a token rent. Reports suggest the property has fallen into disrepair, needing millions in renovation costs, while King Charles III has allegedly pushed his brother to relocate to the smaller Frogmore Cottage as part of a broader cost-cutting effort. Andrew's refusal to move has become symbolic of his stubborn detachment from reality—clinging to royal privilege while his reputation crumbles. The “Royal Lodge fiasco,” as it's now called, represents not just a housing dispute but a broader public debate over accountability, privilege, and the monarchy's handling of its most disgraced member.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In early 2021, the Maxwell family launched a website called RealGhislaine.com, which they described as a factual information hub designed to counter what they called “media distortions” about their sister. The family positioned the site as a defense against “character assassination,” featuring photos, statements, and claims that Ghislaine Maxwell was being unfairly treated in U.S. custody. The website portrayed her as a wrongfully targeted woman enduring “cruel and unusual” prison conditions, denied fair bail, and vilified because of her association with Jeffrey Epstein. The site also included a section where her siblings—most vocally Ian and Kevin Maxwell—asserted that she was being used as a scapegoat for the failures of U.S. authorities to properly monitor Epstein before his death. It was a deliberate PR strategy meant to shift attention away from the charges of sex trafficking and conspiracy that had already led to her conviction, reframing her image from enabler to victim.The family's broader campaign extended far beyond the website. They conducted coordinated interviews, published op-eds, and gave statements to outlets like the BBC, The Independent, and The Telegraph, all echoing similar talking points: that Ghislaine's trial was “tainted by media bias,” that she was “denied due process,” and that she was “paying the price for Epstein's crimes.” Critics, including lawyers for Epstein's victims, slammed the PR campaign as tone-deaf and manipulative, accusing the family of whitewashing her crimes and retraumatizing survivors by trying to rewrite the narrative. Victim advocates said the site and interviews were an attempt to maintain Maxwell's social reputation and influence elite opinion, especially in Britain, where the family retained connections in media and politics. Even after her conviction, the family kept the site active and continued issuing statements insisting that her appeal would “expose systemic injustice” rather than re-examine her crimes.to contact me:bobbycapucci@Protonmail.com

Background of the LawsuitDefendants:Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn: Both are lawyers who were appointed as co-executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate following his death in August 2019. They have been responsible for managing the estate's affairs, including financial assets and legal claims against Epstein.Plaintiffs:Danielle Benskey: An alleged victim of Jeffrey Epstein who, along with other plaintiffs, has brought forward claims against the estate.Jane Doe 3: Another individual who has accused Epstein of abuse and is seeking justice through the legal system.Allegations and ClaimsMismanagement and Negligence:Estate Administration: The plaintiffs allege that Indyke and Kahn have mishandled the administration of Epstein's estate. This includes accusations of mismanagement of financial assets, failure to properly address claims from victims, and overall negligence in managing the estate's affairs.Financial Irregularities: There are claims that the executors may have engaged in or failed to address financial irregularities that negatively impacted the estate's value and its ability to settle claims.Failure to Address Victims' Claims:Inadequate Settlements: The lawsuit argues that Indyke and Kahn did not adequately handle or settle claims made by Epstein's victims. This includes allegations that they were unresponsive or failed to provide fair compensation to survivors like Benskey and Jane Doe 3.Lack of Transparency: The plaintiffs accuse the executors of being opaque about the handling of the estate's assets and the status of the victims' claims.Legal ProceedingsFiling and Court Actions:Lawsuit Details: The lawsuit has been filed in a civil court, where the plaintiffs seek financial damages and other remedies for the alleged mismanagement and failures in addressing their claims.Court Hearings: There have been ongoing court hearings and legal maneuvers as the case progresses, including motions, evidence submissions, and testimonies.Recent Developments:Settlement Talks: There have been discussions and negotiations regarding potential settlements, though the specifics of these talks are not always publicly disclosed.Court Orders: The court has issued various orders related to the case, including directives on evidence disclosure and procedural matters.Broader ContextEpstein's Estate:Complexity: Jeffrey Epstein's estate is highly complex, involving significant financial assets, multiple claims from survivors, and legal disputes. The estate's management has been under scrutiny, given Epstein's criminal activities and the large number of victims involved.Public Scrutiny: The handling of Epstein's estate, including the actions of Indyke and Kahn, has attracted considerable public and media attention, adding to the pressure on the executors to address the allegations and claims appropriately.Victims' Advocacy:Support for Survivors: The lawsuit is part of broader efforts by victims and their advocates to seek justice and accountability for the abuse they endured. It reflects ongoing challenges in achieving fair compensation and redress for survivors of Epstein's abuse.(commercial at 8:16)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 2024.02.16 Kahn Indyke Complaint (FINAL) (wallstreetonparade.com)

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

In a televised interview aired in Australia, Bill Gates was pressed about his past association with Jeffrey Epstein and asked whether he regretted having that connection. During the exchange, he acknowledged that he “shouldn't have had dinners” with Epstein, but he adamantly denied there was ever any deeper partnership or formal alignment between Epstein and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Gates maintained that his interactions with Epstein were limited and opportunistic rather than indicative of any ongoing relationship.The interview drew attention because it forced Gates into a defensive posture over years-old ties at a moment when Epstein's legacy remains deeply controversial. He was challenged repeatedly on whether his ex-wife, Melinda, had warned him about Epstein's intentions and whether any philanthropic deals had been discussed—questions he deflected by restating his regret while pushing back on accusations of deeper involvement.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Two individuals who had accused Jeffrey Epstein of sexual abuse have dropped their civil lawsuits against his associate Ghislaine Maxwell — specifically, one being identified as Jennifer Araoz and another as “Jane Doe VII”. The timing and nature of their dismissals suggest that they may have accepted payments from a victim-compensation fund related to Epstein's estate rather than pursuing their full civil claims in court. The article notes this pattern of dismissals may indicate a broader expectation that claimants who opt into the fund must relinquish the right to sue Maxwell or others connected to Epstein's network.to  contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Jeffrey Epstein's network went far beyond trafficking and exploitation—it also included a sophisticated campaign to discredit, intimidate, and obstruct those investigating him. From the mid-2000s through 2019, Epstein and his lawyers waged a relentless public relations and legal offensive designed to undermine victims, stall prosecutors, and silence the press. Court documents and leaked communications reveal that Epstein's inner circle—including Ghislaine Maxwell and his attorneys at firms like Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf—used intimidation tactics, private investigators, and smear campaigns to paint accusers as liars or gold diggers. In one series of emails revealed by Bloomberg, Maxwell and Epstein discussed deploying damaging personal rumors to discredit accusers as “unstable” or “untrustworthy,” while threatening defamation suits against media outlets that covered the story. This coordinated effort to manipulate public perception was part of a larger strategy to delegitimize investigations, protect powerful allies, and preserve his social status within elite circles.Epstein also relied on legal obstruction and financial manipulation to blunt scrutiny. He deployed non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), secret settlements, and strategic donations to law enforcement-connected charities to curry favor. Defense teams repeatedly sought to seal or suppress evidence, arguing that revealing details would “prejudice ongoing investigations.” In some cases, Epstein's team even hired former intelligence and law enforcement officials to monitor reporters and intimidate witnesses. His influence extended into the judicial system through his now-infamous 2008 non-prosecution agreement, which effectively shut down a federal probe and silenced dozens of victims. Even after his death, the DOJ and courts have continued to restrict access to key records, citing privacy or “ongoing investigations”—a fact many observers see as a continuation of Epstein's disinformation playbook, protecting those who benefited from his silence.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In her interview with The Times, Denise George portrayed herself as the lone crusader working for the people of the U.S. Virgin Islands who would not be intimidated by the legacy of Jeffrey Epstein. She described the private island known as “Hell Island” and the systemic abuse of young women that took place there, and explained how her office pursued justice for the victims even while facing massive political and financial pressure.In her Bloomberg interview, George reflected on her aggressive legal strategy, including suing JPMorgan Chase & Co. for allegedly enabling Epstein's trafficking network, and how her termination as Attorney General followed soon after. She discussed the settlement reached by the Virgin Islands in connection with Epstein's estate, stressed the importance of holding financial institutions accountable, and made clear that her firing was closely tied to the high-stakes legal battles she waged.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Prince Andrew's Royal Lodge controversy stems from the fallout of his disastrous ties to Jeffrey Epstein and the long shadow of that scandal. After his 2019 BBC Newsnight interview, which spectacularly backfired, Andrew was stripped of his public roles, military titles, and royal patronages. Once a senior working royal, he became an isolated figure whose financial situation—and entitlement to royal housing—were both thrown into question. Yet, despite his exile from public life, Andrew has continued to occupy the lavish Royal Lodge estate, sparking outrage among critics and frustration within the royal family.The Royal Lodge, a 30-room Georgian mansion sitting on nearly 100 acres in Windsor Great Park, is leased to Andrew on a 75-year agreement for a token rent. Reports suggest the property has fallen into disrepair, needing millions in renovation costs, while King Charles III has allegedly pushed his brother to relocate to the smaller Frogmore Cottage as part of a broader cost-cutting effort. Andrew's refusal to move has become symbolic of his stubborn detachment from reality—clinging to royal privilege while his reputation crumbles. The “Royal Lodge fiasco,” as it's now called, represents not just a housing dispute but a broader public debate over accountability, privilege, and the monarchy's handling of its most disgraced member.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

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

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

Prince Andrew first earned the nickname “Randy Andy” back in the late 1970s and 1980s when British tabloids latched onto his reputation as the monarchy's playboy prince. His love life became constant tabloid fodder — actresses, models, and socialites were all part of his orbit, and the press leaned into it with sensational headlines. Andrew seemed to enjoy the attention at the time, often photographed at nightclubs or on yachts surrounded by women. The nickname stuck because it fit the image — the young, charming, fun-loving royal who couldn't stay out of the gossip pages. But over time, that harmless-seeming label evolved into something darker as reports of crude behavior, entitlement, and questionable company — particularly with Jeffrey Epstein — started to surface.By the 2000s, the tone around “Randy Andy” shifted entirely, with former palace staffers, massage therapists, and associates describing him in terms far removed from the old cheeky playboy image. Several women claimed he made inappropriate comments or advances, while others described him as arrogant and overly familiar in private settings — earning him a far less flattering reputation as a “sex pest.” Tabloids that once praised his charm began publishing exposés about his conduct, and the nickname that once symbolized royal glamour came to represent disgrace. Between the legal settlement with Virginia Giuffre, the Epstein scandal, and countless lurid media reports, the transformation from “Randy Andy” to “sex pest” was complete — a cautionary portrait of privilege unchecked and reputation destroyed.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

October 24th, 2025, 5pm: Today, Pete Hegseth has ordered the Navy's most advanced aircraft carrier to the Caribbean; this comes as Donald Trump muses that his administration could soon plan land strikes in Venezuela. Alicia Menendez — in for Nicolle Wallace — along with a panel of political and military experts discuss Trump's planned expansion of military presence in the Caribbean. Plus, the Pentagon announcing their new, mostly right-winged press corps and a new memoir detailing harrowing abuse from Jeffrey Epstein.For more, follow us on Instagram @deadlinewhTo listen to this show and other MSNBC podcasts without ads, sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

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

When Judge Alison Nathan ordered the defense to submit its potential witness roster before trial, Maxwell's lawyers presented a sprawling list of over 30 witnesses, some of them overseas, including former assistants, social friends, employees, and at least one member of Epstein's inner circle like Eva Andersson-Dubin (the former Miss Sweden and wife of billionaire Glenn Dubin). The list even included several individuals who had been named in press reports or depositions as having seen Epstein's conduct firsthand. The defense also proposed “character witnesses” meant to paint Maxwell as a victim of selective prosecution and an unfair press, and they floated calling experts in psychology, law enforcement procedure, and even media ethics. But when the trial began, almost the entire roster evaporated. Out of more than 30 potential names, only nine actually took the stand, and many of those offered procedural or character evidence rather than firsthand accounts.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Epstein is reported to have advised clients on deploying GRATs (Grantor Retained Annuity Trusts)—an estate planning vehicle that lets ultra-wealthy individuals pass appreciating assets to heirs while minimizing gift and estate taxes. Analysts say Epstein used his proximity to billionaires and his aura of financial wizardry to pitch these sophisticated tax-avoidance schemes. The strategy exploits a loophole in U.S. tax law: during the trust's term, the grantor retains annuity payments, and if the trust's investments outperform the assumed IRS rate, the excess passes to beneficiaries tax-free. Epstein's involvement with GRATs even drew Senate scrutiny after it emerged he helped clients like Leon Black and possibly Sergey Brin structure trust arrangements.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In his analysis for the Autopsy television special, Dr. Hunter concluded that Epstein's injuries were consistent with suicide, not homicide, though he emphasized that the case was riddled with anomalies that “rightfully raise suspicion.” Hunter reviewed the autopsy photos, injury reports, and toxicology findings released by New York officials and determined that the hyoid bone fractures—which Dr. Michael Baden claimed were more typical of strangulation—could also occur in older men who hang themselves, particularly given Epstein's age and the height of his cell bunk. Hunter said the blood pooling, ligature marks, and asphyxial patterning on the neck aligned with hanging but acknowledged the environment and timing of Epstein's death made it “one of the most poorly managed high-profile incarcerations in modern American history.”to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The morning Jeffrey Epstein was found dead in his Metropolitan Correctional Center cell, nearly every major jail protocol was broken. He was supposed to be checked every 30 minutes under suicide-watch procedures, yet the guards on duty failed to make their rounds for hours. His cellmate had been transferred out the night before and was never replaced, directly violating Bureau of Prisons policy that required Epstein to never be left alone. Both guards assigned to his unit were reportedly working extreme overtime shifts—one on their fifth consecutive day—and later admitted to falsifying log entries to make it look like they had conducted checks. Meanwhile, several of the security cameras near Epstein's cell were malfunctioning, leaving investigators without clear footage of the crucial time window when he died.When investigators arrived, they discovered the cell in complete disarray—evidence had been moved, and the body had already been removed before FBI agents could process the scene. Crime scene procedures weren't followed, key documentation was missing, and autopsy findings later added to the controversy surrounding his death. The Inspector General's report described a “cascade of failures,” from negligent oversight to ignored warnings, concluding that the Bureau of Prisons' incompetence created the perfect environment for Epstein's death to occur unchecked.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In 2024, Netflix announced Scoop, a dramatization of Prince Andrew's disastrous 2019 BBC Newsnight interview with Emily Maitlis, which infamously backfired and forced him to withdraw from royal duties. The film, directed by Philip Martin and based on BBC producer Sam McAlister's memoir Scoops: Behind the Scenes of the BBC's Most Shocking Interviews, explores how the interview was negotiated and produced behind the scenes. Gillian Anderson stars as Emily Maitlis, while Rufus Sewell portrays Prince Andrew. The movie aims to capture the tension, arrogance, and fallout surrounding the televised disaster that became a defining moment in the Epstein scandal's royal chapter.Released globally on April 5, 2024, Scoop revisits the royal crisis in cinematic form—offering both dramatization and commentary on the media circus that followed Andrew's disastrous attempt to clear his name. Critics have described it as a sharp, tightly paced political drama that exposes the hubris and disconnect inside the Palace during one of the monarchy's most humiliating modern scandals. The film has reignited public discussion about Andrew's ties to Epstein and the royal family's response to his disgrace, ensuring the fallout of that single interview continues to haunt Buckingham Palace years later.Before his infamous BBC Newsnight interview in November 2019, Prince Andrew, Duke of York was explicitly warned by senior advisers that the session could irreparably damage both his personal reputation and the standing of the Royal Household. The warning emphasised that his links to Jeffrey Epstein—especially given the allegations of sexual misconduct and trafficking—or appearing indifferent to the experience of alleged victims, would likely trigger major public backlash and lead to institutional fallout.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In 2024, Netflix announced Scoop, a dramatization of Prince Andrew's disastrous 2019 BBC Newsnight interview with Emily Maitlis, which infamously backfired and forced him to withdraw from royal duties. The film, directed by Philip Martin and based on BBC producer Sam McAlister's memoir Scoops: Behind the Scenes of the BBC's Most Shocking Interviews, explores how the interview was negotiated and produced behind the scenes. Gillian Anderson stars as Emily Maitlis, while Rufus Sewell portrays Prince Andrew. The movie aims to capture the tension, arrogance, and fallout surrounding the televised disaster that became a defining moment in the Epstein scandal's royal chapter.Released globally on April 5, 2024, Scoop revisits the royal crisis in cinematic form—offering both dramatization and commentary on the media circus that followed Andrew's disastrous attempt to clear his name. Critics have described it as a sharp, tightly paced political drama that exposes the hubris and disconnect inside the Palace during one of the monarchy's most humiliating modern scandals. The film has reignited public discussion about Andrew's ties to Epstein and the royal family's response to his disgrace, ensuring the fallout of that single interview continues to haunt Buckingham Palace years later.Before his infamous BBC Newsnight interview in November 2019, Prince Andrew, Duke of York was explicitly warned by senior advisers that the session could irreparably damage both his personal reputation and the standing of the Royal Household. The warning emphasised that his links to Jeffrey Epstein—especially given the allegations of sexual misconduct and trafficking—or appearing indifferent to the experience of alleged victims, would likely trigger major public backlash and lead to institutional fallout.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Sam McAlister — former BBC Newsnight producer and author of Scoops: Behind the Scenes of the BBC's Most Shocking Interviews — has given extensive behind-the-scenes commentary on how the infamous interview with Prince Andrew, Duke of York came to be. She recounts how her original approach was for a routine charity-profile, but as the scandal involving Jeffrey Epstein intensified, she persuaded the palace to agree to a sit-down that would include “the news issues that were pertinent” — including Epstein. She says she was shocked at how open and responsive Andrew seemed during the negotiations, which gave her confidence the interview would proceed.McAlister also states that, in the direct lead-up to the interview's broadcast, Andrew believed he had succeeded — he reportedly gave the BBC interviewing team a tour of Buckingham Palace, smiled and seemed upbeat, giving the impression he expected the exposure to vindicate him. She observes that his tone shifted dramatically as the fallout emerged, noting: “He was in fine spirits!” after filming, even as the answers rolled out in the final cut that would crash his reputation.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Journalist and political author Michael Wolff has filed a lawsuit in the New York Supreme Court against Melania Trump, alleging that she threatened him with a $1 billion lawsuit over remarks he made about her alleged connections to Jeffrey Epstein. According to Wolff's filing, Melania's legal team sent him multiple warnings and demands for retractions after he suggested that she and Donald Trump once moved within Epstein's social orbit. Wolff's suit claims that the threats were intended to intimidate him and suppress reporting on the Epstein network, arguing that his comments were protected speech and not defamatory.The lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment that Wolff's statements were lawful expressions of opinion and requests discovery that could compel both Melania and Donald Trump to testify under oath about their past ties to Epstein and his associates. In response, Melania's representatives called Wolff's comments “false, defamatory, and lewd,” saying the First Lady would continue to defend her reputation against “malicious fabrications.” The case marks another high-profile intersection between the Epstein scandal, media coverage, and the powerful figures caught in its gravitational pull.to contact me:bobycapucci@protonmail.com

New claims from royal biographer Andrew Lownie's book Entitled: The Rise and Fall of the House of York allege that Prince Andrew had a “network” of aides and friends who helped arrange young women for him. According to the book, the Duke of York frequently relied on palace staff and security officers to organize introductions, often specifying his “type” — reportedly favoring blondes and ballet dancers. Lownie claims Andrew would sometimes stay in hotels instead of royal residences while abroad to maintain privacy for these encounters. These allegations suggest a pattern of behavior that extended across his time as a trade envoy and well into his social life as a royal, long before his public fall from grace.The revelations have reignited outrage over Andrew's long association with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, raising new questions about how much palace officials knew and ignored. Though Buckingham Palace has refused to comment, the claims paint a picture of entitlement and impunity—one where royal privilege shielded deeply questionable conduct. Critics note the timing of the release comes as Andrew attempts to stage a quiet re-entry into public life, making the biography's allegations a major setback.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Exclusive | Prince Andrew had network of staff, pals to 'arrange girls' for sex -- and he had a type: biographer

Prince Andrew's downfall is one of the most humiliating collapses in modern royal history. Once celebrated as the Queen's proud, battle-tested son, he's now the monarchy's biggest embarrassment—stripped of his titles, frozen out of public life, and quietly told to stop using “Duke of York” in any official capacity. His friendship with Jeffrey Epstein destroyed his reputation, and that infamous BBC interview finished the job. The “I don't sweat” defense, the “Pizza Express in Woking” excuse, and the tone-deaf denial turned him into a global punchline. Now, even within his own family, he's a ghost—technically still a prince, but one without purpose, honor, or credibility. The palace's silence speaks louder than any statement: Andrew is done.Historically, plenty of dukes have fallen from grace—some lost their heads, some lost their thrones—but none have been publicly humiliated like Andrew. His disgrace didn't come from war or treason but from arrogance and entitlement in the age of social media, where every lie is immortal and every excuse becomes a meme. The monarchy has erased him one step at a time, preserving the crown while letting him fade into oblivion. He's not the Duke of York anymore—he's the Duke of Nowhere, condemned to live out his days as a cautionary tale about power, privilege, and the price of believing you're untouchable.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Virginia Giuffre refused to stay silent — even when the cost was her peace. In this Hidden Killers special, Tony Brueski dives into the explosive story behind Giuffre's posthumous memoir Nobody's Girl: A Memoir of Surviving Abuse and Fighting for Justice — a book that's shaking the foundations of power, exposing how predators thrive when the world looks away. At just sixteen, Virginia was working at Mar-a-Lago when Ghislaine Maxwell approached her with promises of opportunity. Those promises led her into Jeffrey Epstein's orbit — a network of billionaires, politicians, and global elites who treated girls like currency. Epstein's homes were wired for sound and video, his leverage built on blackmail, and his power maintained through silence. In Nobody's Girl, Giuffre details the unimaginable: being “lent out” to the powerful, threatened into obedience, and watched by a system that protected wealth over humanity. She fought back anyway — naming names in court, taking on Prince Andrew, and building an advocacy movement for survivors of trafficking worldwide. Months after her death in 2025, her words live on. Through this episode, we examine not only her courage but the machinery that kept her abusers safe — from sealed FBI files to the culture of complicity that lets predators in power walk free. Because this isn't just a story about Epstein. It's about the institutions that enable him — and the people still hiding behind their influence today. Subscribe for more investigative true-crime analysis from Hidden Killers with Tony Brueski. #VirginiaGiuffre #Epstein #HiddenKillers #TonyBrueski #TrueCrime #PredatorsInPower #GhislaineMaxwell #PrinceAndrew #Nobodysgirl #JusticeForSurvivors

Virginia Giuffre refused to stay silent — even when the cost was her peace. In this Hidden Killers special, Tony Brueski dives into the explosive story behind Giuffre's posthumous memoir Nobody's Girl: A Memoir of Surviving Abuse and Fighting for Justice — a book that's shaking the foundations of power, exposing how predators thrive when the world looks away. At just sixteen, Virginia was working at Mar-a-Lago when Ghislaine Maxwell approached her with promises of opportunity. Those promises led her into Jeffrey Epstein's orbit — a network of billionaires, politicians, and global elites who treated girls like currency. Epstein's homes were wired for sound and video, his leverage built on blackmail, and his power maintained through silence. In Nobody's Girl, Giuffre details the unimaginable: being “lent out” to the powerful, threatened into obedience, and watched by a system that protected wealth over humanity. She fought back anyway — naming names in court, taking on Prince Andrew, and building an advocacy movement for survivors of trafficking worldwide. Months after her death in 2025, her words live on. Through this episode, we examine not only her courage but the machinery that kept her abusers safe — from sealed FBI files to the culture of complicity that lets predators in power walk free. Because this isn't just a story about Epstein. It's about the institutions that enable him — and the people still hiding behind their influence today. Subscribe for more investigative true-crime analysis from Hidden Killers with Tony Brueski. #VirginiaGiuffre #Epstein #HiddenKillers #TonyBrueski #TrueCrime #PredatorsInPower #GhislaineMaxwell #PrinceAndrew #Nobodysgirl #JusticeForSurvivors Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

Reports indicate that Steve Bannon conducted roughly 15 hours of recorded interviews with Jeffrey Epstein in 2019, just months before Epstein's death. According to journalist Michael Wolff's book Too Famous, Bannon was allegedly coaching Epstein for a planned 60 Minutes interview that never materialized. Wolff claims Bannon advised Epstein on how to appear more sympathetic to the public and frame his crimes as “misunderstood” rather than predatory. Bannon, however, has denied coaching Epstein, insisting the footage was meant for a documentary project exposing Epstein's “darkness” and the elites around him. Portions of the recordings reportedly show Bannon questioning Epstein about his social network and political ties, adding to speculation about how closely the two interacted during that period.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

According to her post-humous memoir, Virginia Giuffre says that Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell didn't just subject her to physical and sexual abuse — they executed what she describes as a calculated psychological war. She recounts that from the moment she was recruited, Maxwell and Epstein worked step-by-step to “break down” her self-worth, isolate her, and cultivate obedience: undermining her comfort with subtle threats, leveraging promises of luxury, and conditioning her into compliance.Giuffre writes that Maxwell in particular played the role of both mentor and tormentor — grooming her under the guise of opportunity, then using humiliation and fear to erode her sense of agency. According to her book, the worst damage wasn't the physical acts, but the ongoing manipulation that left her unable to trust her own reactions, afraid to revolt, and deeply haunted by the “ghosts” of her abusers.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In her memoir Nobody's Girl: A Memoir of Surviving Abuse and Fighting for Justice, Virginia Roberts Giuffre describes how Jeffrey Epstein often spoke about preserving his body through cryogenic freezing after death. She recalls him saying his remains would be stored in a cryogenic chamber until science advanced enough to bring him back to life. Giuffre presents this as more than just a bizarre fixation—it reflected Epstein's obsession with control, power, and his delusional belief that his wealth could make him immortal. She wrote that Epstein seemed convinced he could escape mortality itself, treating the concept as another form of domination over nature and other people.Giuffre further used this story to expose Epstein's narcissistic worldview, portraying him as a man who genuinely believed himself to be above consequence or morality. She explained that his talk of cryogenic preservation wasn't idle fantasy—it fit into a broader ideology of transhumanism that he pushed onto his inner circle. Epstein saw himself as a self-made god, someone destined to transcend ordinary human limits through science and money. Giuffre included the anecdote as evidence of how his psychopathy extended beyond his crimes against women, showing the megalomania that drove his entire life.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jeffrey Epstein Planned to Cryogenically Freeze Body After Death: Book - Business Insider

U.S. lawmakers have reportedly invited Prince Andrew to testify before Congress as part of their ongoing investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's criminal network and the decades-long failure of institutions to hold powerful figures accountable. This follows the unsealing of Epstein's private schedules and flight logs, which confirmed numerous interactions between the disgraced financier and the Duke of York. While British officials have made no indication that they would compel Andrew's cooperation, several members of Congress have made it clear that his testimony is essential to understanding the scope of Epstein's network and the political protection that shielded it. Lawmakers have said survivors deserve to hear from every person who was in Epstein's circle — especially those like Andrew, who were directly accused of participating in the abuse.Prince Andrew remains one of the most notorious figures tied to the Epstein scandal. He was directly accused by Virginia Giuffre of raping her when she was 17 — an accusation he has repeatedly denied but which led to an out-of-court settlement in 2022 widely reported to be worth millions. Despite his public denials, the photographic evidence of him with Giuffre and Ghislaine Maxwell remains damning.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Prince Andrew set to be summoned to the US to give evidence on Jeffrey Epstein

Jeffrey Epstein's relationship with Prince Andrew was a calculated social maneuver designed to elevate Epstein's standing among the world's elite. By befriending the Duke of York — a senior member of the British royal family — Epstein gained access to circles of wealth and influence that would have otherwise been closed to him. The two men traveled together, attended exclusive parties, and were photographed at high-society events from New York to Palm Beach. Epstein reportedly viewed Andrew as a prized connection, describing him as a “trophy friendship” that opened doors to financiers, politicians, and royals. Their association lent Epstein an air of legitimacy, helping him appear as more than a mere financier and instead as a man trusted by royalty — a perception he used to recruit and manipulate others within his growing network of power.Prince Andrew's now-infamous claim that he was unable to sweat became one of the most ridiculed moments in modern royal history. During his 2019 BBC Newsnight interview with Emily Maitlis, Andrew attempted to discredit Virginia Giuffre's account that she danced with him at London's Tramp nightclub in 2001, saying she was mistaken because he “didn't sweat at the time.” He insisted this was due to a “peculiar medical condition” caused by an “adrenaline overdose” from his service in the Falklands War, which supposedly made it impossible for him to perspire. The explanation was immediately met with disbelief and mockery worldwide — even medical experts publicly questioned its plausibility, noting there was little evidence to support his story. For the public, it wasn't just the absurdity of the excuse — it was how clearly it reeked of desperation, further eroding what little credibility the prince had left.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The infamous photograph showing Prince Andrew with his arm around Virginia Giuffre (then Roberts), with Ghislaine Maxwell smiling in the background, became one of the most scrutinized pieces of evidence in the Epstein scandal. Giuffre has maintained that the photo, taken in 2001 at Maxwell's London townhouse, is proof she met the prince and was trafficked to him as a teenager. Andrew and his lawyers have long disputed its authenticity, suggesting the image may have been doctored or that he has “no recollection” of ever meeting Giuffre. This claim sparked years of forensic analysis, public skepticism, and media pressure, with the photo evolving into a symbol of Andrew's denials and Giuffre's accusations—each side using it to bolster their narrative in the court of public opinion.The legal battle between Prince Andrew and Virginia Giuffre intensified when she filed a civil lawsuit in 2021 under New York's Child Victims Act, accusing him of sexual assault and emotional distress tied to Jeffrey Epstein's trafficking network. Andrew's team fought to dismiss the case, arguing that Giuffre's 2009 settlement with Epstein barred her from suing others connected to the financier. After months of discovery threats and international headlines, the case ended in February 2022 with a confidential out-of-court settlement. Reports suggest Andrew paid millions and issued a statement expressing regret for Epstein's victims but admitted no wrongdoing. The settlement's secrecy and the unresolved questions surrounding the photograph have kept the controversy alive, ensuring the scandal continues to shadow both figures and the monarchy itself.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In his now-infamous 2019 BBC Newsnight interview, Prince Andrew claimed he was unable to sweat at the time Virginia Giuffre alleged they danced together at a London nightclub in 2001. He attributed this to a “peculiar medical condition” caused by “an overdose of adrenaline in the Falklands War.” However, photographs later surfaced showing Andrew attending parties in Saint-Tropez during the early 2000s, visibly perspiring under the Mediterranean sun. These images directly undercut his bizarre defense and reignited skepticism about his credibility—especially as they appeared to date from the same general period when he claimed to be physiologically incapable of sweating.In January 2022, Andrew's legal team sought permission to depose Giuffre's husband Robert Giuffre and her psychologist Dr Judith Lightfoot by video link in Australia. Their aim was to probe two key areas: first, whether Giuffre might “suffer from false memories,” in which context they requested details of any medications prescribed by Lightfoot; and second, the nature of Robert Giuffre's relationship with his wife and their shared finances, including how and when he met Giuffre.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The government argues that the 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) with Jeffrey Epstein remains legally binding and cannot be “scrubbed” because it was negotiated and approved by federal prosecutors acting within their discretion, and thus no valid basis exists to void it. Under internal standards, the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility found that although the deal may have been “poor judgment,” it did not constitute professional misconduct because the Prosecutor had the “plenary authority” to resolve the federal case via a state plea, and none of the terms violated clear and unambiguous Department standards.Moreover, the government emphasises that the language of the NPA itself explicitly provides immunity from federal prosecution for “any potential co-conspirators of Epstein,” including unnamed individuals.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

John Brockman, a prominent literary agent and founder of the Edge Foundation (a prestigious salon for scientists and thinkers), had longstanding ties to Epstein's intellectual and social circle. Brockman's Edge dinners, salons and invite-only events created a powerful “third culture” network of elite scientists, technologists, and wealthy patrons — and Epstein was deeply embedded in this milieu. Brockman's agency and Edge network provided a bridge between Epstein's money and the science/tech world: one piece of evidence is an email, dated September 2013, in which Brockman writes to a writer that “Jeffrey Epstein … showed up at this weekend's event by helicopter (with his beautiful young assistant from Belarus). He'll be in Cambridge in a couple of weeks … I told him I would send some links.”to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Henry & Eddie bring you this week's biggest stories and wildest news - Ghost Adventures puts Aaron Goodwin's personal life on blast in haunting new episode footage, The Louvre on lockdown after elaborate hundred-million-dollar "Crowned Jewel heist", Trio of Upstate NY teens use boat to allegedly raid & vandalize amusement park before making off with 200 stuffed animals, new leaks reveal shady transfers and cover-up activity surrounding Ghislaine Maxwell in prison, Private Contractor claims responsibility for series of New Jersey drone sightings, "Non-offending pedophile" storms stage, points gun at own head during NYC Wikipedia conference, 2 tragic deaths rock the Rock & Roll world, UFO The Movie LIVES, Listener E-Mails that amuse, and MORE! For Live Shows, Merch, and More Visit: www.LastPodcastOnTheLeft.comKevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 Licensehttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Subscribe to SiriusXM Podcasts+ to listen to new episodes of Last Podcast on the Left ad-free, plus get Friday episodes a whole week early. Start a free trial now on Apple Podcasts or by visiting siriusxm.com/podcastsplus. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In her posthumously published memoir that hit shelves this morning, Virginia Giuffre exposes details of the horrors she endured at the hands of Jeffrey Epstein, his accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell, and their powerful friends. Plus, President Trump is demanding $230 million from his own Justice Department.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Lionel is joined by his wife, Lynn Shaw, founder of Lynn's Warriors, for a powerful call to action against the culture that normalizes exploitation and desensitizes a generation. Lynn exposes the unholy alliance between Big Tech, broken laws, and bureaucratic indifference in the war for our children. This week, the focus is on the posthumously released book, Nobody's Girl, a memoir by Virginia Giuffre about surviving Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, highlighting her critical role as a truth-teller. We dive into the political push to decriminalize the sex trade and confront the heartbreaking reality of digital predation, including the shocking preferred age range for Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM)—infancy (zero to three years old).Discover why child safety is not partisan, but patriotic. Silence equals being complicit. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The lawsuits filed against Leon Black in connection with Jeffrey Epstein are among the most graphic and disturbing to emerge from Epstein's orbit. Several women, including Cheri Pierson and a plaintiff identified as Jane Doe, accuse Black of violent sexual assaults that allegedly took place inside Epstein's Manhattan townhouse. Pierson claims Black raped her in 2002 after Epstein arranged what was supposed to be a massage appointment, describing the encounter as brutal and coercive. Another lawsuit alleges Black sexually assaulted a 16-year-old girl with autism and Down syndrome, leaving her bleeding and traumatized. Both cases portray Black as a predator who exploited Epstein's network to target vulnerable women, echoing the broader pattern of abuse associated with Epstein's inner circle. Black's legal team has vehemently denied all allegations, dismissing the claims as false and opportunistic.Compounding the scandal is Black's series of high-dollar settlements and legal maneuvering. In 2023, he quietly paid $62.5 million to the U.S. Virgin Islands to avoid potential litigation tied to Epstein's trafficking operations there. He also succeeded in getting parts of other lawsuits dismissed on procedural grounds, including a defamation case brought by former model Guzel Ganieva, which was thrown out in early 2025. Still, the volume and nature of the claims — combined with his massive financial ties to Epstein and the Senate Finance Committee's scrutiny of his payments — have left Black mired in controversy. The lawsuits' explicit, violent allegations and the perception of systemic leniency have solidified his position as one of the most controversial figures to emerge from Epstein's shadow.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

When Jeffrey Epstein was first found semi-conscious in his Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) cell in July 2019, the Bureau of Prisons claimed it was a suicide attempt — but Epstein told his lawyers he'd been attacked by his cellmate, Nicholas Tartaglione, a former cop awaiting trial for four murders. That decision alone — to house Epstein, arguably the most high-profile inmate in the country, with a man accused of killing four people — defied logic and protocol. Tartaglione was a massive, physically imposing inmate with a violent reputation, yet the MCC placed him in the same small cell as a known sex offender and public target. When Epstein was discovered with bruising around his neck, Tartaglione told officials he'd “helped” Epstein and had nothing to do with the incident. Within days, the MCC cleared Tartaglione, declared there was “no foul play,” and went right back to business — an astonishingly fast turnaround for what should have been a high-level criminal investigation inside a federal lockup.Critics have since pointed out how convenient that outcome was for everyone involved: Epstein's claims were buried, Tartaglione was quietly removed from the narrative, and no meaningful inquiry into the alleged attack was ever made public. The Department of Justice later admitted the MCC had malfunctioning cameras during both incidents involving Epstein — the first with Tartaglione, and the second when Epstein was found dead. Given Epstein's later “suicide” just weeks after being left alone in his cell, the speed and silence surrounding Tartaglione's clearance look less like routine procedure and more like deliberate damage control. The question remains why a quadruple-murder defendant was ever in the same cell as the most notorious inmate in federal custody — and why every step of the investigation that followed seemed designed to erase accountability rather than uncover the truth.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

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

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

During Ghislaine Maxwell's trial, Jeffrey Epstein's longtime Palm Beach house manager Juan Alessi testified that Maxwell kept multiple photo albums containing pictures of young girls — some topless — who frequented Epstein's estate. He said Maxwell often used a high-end camera and was “constantly taking photographs,” many of which featured these girls by the pool or sunbathing without tops. Alessi told jurors that he came across these albums while cleaning the house and described them as being filled with “very young-looking girls.” He recalled that Maxwell appeared to enjoy showing the albums to guests, suggesting she took pride in her role managing Epstein's social and private life.Alessi's testimony painted Maxwell as an active participant in Epstein's day-to-day operations, not merely an assistant. He said she controlled the staff with a 58-page household manual that dictated everything from staff behavior to how Epstein's phone calls were to be handled. Prosecutors used his account of the photo albums to underscore the pervasive sexualization of minors within Epstein's homes and to establish that Maxwell was not only aware of but contributed to creating an environment that enabled abuse. His statements about the albums became one of the most visually disturbing depictions of how normalized exploitation had become inside the Epstein household.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Prince Andrew's downfall has accelerated sharply in the wake of fresh allegations tied to Jeffrey Epstein and the explosive release of Virginia Giuffre's memoir, Nobody's Girl. The book recounts new details about Andrew's alleged sexual encounters with Giuffre while she was being trafficked as a minor by Epstein. These revelations reignited public outrage and renewed scrutiny over Andrew's long-denied relationship with both Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Buckingham Palace has reportedly been forced into damage control, with King Charles III supporting Andrew's decision to give up his “Duke of York” title and remaining royal honors. The palace has publicly stated that the new allegations must be fully investigated, signaling growing institutional distance from Andrew as pressure mounts for full transparency and accountability.Adding to his disgrace, newly surfaced claims allege that Andrew attempted to orchestrate an online smear campaign against Giuffre to salvage his reputation. According to The Guardian's coverage of the memoir, the prince and his aides tried to hire internet trolls to harass Giuffre online and even sought access to her private information, including her Social Security number. Reports indicate that the Metropolitan Police have opened an inquiry into whether Andrew misused his royal security detail or other public resources during this smear campaign. Parliamentarians are also reportedly pushing to strip him of any remaining titles and privileges, as his reputation continues to collapse under the weight of new evidence and public disgust over his conduct.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsources:Prince Andrew tried to hire 'internet trolls' to 'hassle' his sex accuser Virginia Giuffre, her posthumous memoir reveals | Daily Mail Online

Prince Andrew's downfall has accelerated sharply in the wake of fresh allegations tied to Jeffrey Epstein and the explosive release of Virginia Giuffre's memoir, Nobody's Girl. The book recounts new details about Andrew's alleged sexual encounters with Giuffre while she was being trafficked as a minor by Epstein. These revelations reignited public outrage and renewed scrutiny over Andrew's long-denied relationship with both Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Buckingham Palace has reportedly been forced into damage control, with King Charles III supporting Andrew's decision to give up his “Duke of York” title and remaining royal honors. The palace has publicly stated that the new allegations must be fully investigated, signaling growing institutional distance from Andrew as pressure mounts for full transparency and accountability.Adding to his disgrace, newly surfaced claims allege that Andrew attempted to orchestrate an online smear campaign against Giuffre to salvage his reputation. According to The Guardian's coverage of the memoir, the prince and his aides tried to hire internet trolls to harass Giuffre online and even sought access to her private information, including her Social Security number. Reports indicate that the Metropolitan Police have opened an inquiry into whether Andrew misused his royal security detail or other public resources during this smear campaign. Parliamentarians are also reportedly pushing to strip him of any remaining titles and privileges, as his reputation continues to collapse under the weight of new evidence and public disgust over his conduct.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsources:Prince Andrew tried to hire 'internet trolls' to 'hassle' his sex accuser Virginia Giuffre, her posthumous memoir reveals | Daily Mail Online

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

Sam Mangel, a former Federal prison inmate and current prison consultant, takes the Beast's Joanna Coles inside Ghislaine Maxwell's unusual life in a Texas prison camp. Sentenced to 20 years for sex trafficking, Maxwell is receiving unprecedented privileges and security. Mangel explains how other inmates react, the strict lockdowns during secret visits, and why her celebrity inmate treatment is frustrating staff and fellow prisoners. He also explores speculation about her potential early release via a possible deal with the Trump administration. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.