Podcast appearances and mentions of Ghislaine Maxwell

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

Jeffrey Epstein was more than just the wealthy financier with a knack for elite connections—his ascent was shadowed by serious financial fraud. In the late 1980s, he was hired as a consultant at Towers Financial Corporation, a company run by his mentor Steven Hoffenberg. That firm turned out to be one of the largest Ponzi schemes in U.S. history, defrauding investors of over $450 million. Hoffenberg later claimed Epstein was “intimately involved,” even calling him the “architect” and “mastermind” behind complex schemes and manipulations, despite Epstein escaping legal charges. Those stolen funds allegedly served as seed capital for Epstein's later financial ventures—his own hedge fund, foundations, and private empire. That's not rumor—it's his legacy in plain sight.What's worse, Epstein's role wasn't ancillary. Court documents and Hoffenberg's testimony paint Epstein as a central player who helped design and scale the scheme using his network. He may have walked free, but make no mistake: his wealth, influence, and the veneer of legitimacy he built were built on the bones of investor ruin. It wasn't clean money; it was stolen. And those shadowy beginnings illuminate the true cost of his rise—not just in dollars lost, but in the destruction of trust, victims, and the systems he exploited so ruthlessly.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://radaronline.com/p/jeffrey-epstein-ponzi-scheme-money-book-dead-man-tell-no-tales/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

While most federal inmates across the country were barred from in-person visits because of COVID restrictions, I learned that Ghislaine Maxwell was granted an exception inside the federal detention center in New York. Despite strict pandemic rules that kept families, attorneys, and even clergy away from prisoners, officials approved a personal visit for Maxwell, fueling accusations that she was receiving privileges unavailable to other inmates. Sources inside the facility described how the visit was conducted in a room separate from the general population and under unusual accommodation, reinforcing suspicions that she was being treated differently from everyone else inside the Metropolitan Detention Center.The decision outraged prisoners' families and advocates who had been campaigning for months to restore basic visitation rights, only to watch Maxwell receive access that others were denied. As her legal team continued to claim harsh and unfair treatment, the revelation that she had been given a rare private visit painted a starkly different picture of her conditions and raised deeper questions about preferential handling, institutional favoritism, and the degree of influence that still surrounds her name. For many observing from the outside, it was another reminder that the rules appear to bend when the defendant is wealthy, connected, and notorious enough.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jenny from Red Room (podcast and patreon) returns to Fluently Forward for a deep dive into the latest conversations surrounding the Epstein files. Together we break down the newest theories and online discussions, including why references to “jerky” keep appearing in the documents, what those coded mentions could mean, and how the internet is going nuts trying to understand the files. We also discuss ongoing speculation about whether Jeffrey Epstein could still be alive, the conspiracy theories surrounding Ghislaine Maxwell's imprisonment, and why these cases continue to fuel so many unanswered questions years later. Visit ⁠OliveandJune.com/fluently⁠ for 20% off your first manicure system! This year, hit your goals without giving up your favorite bready dishes. Hero Bread is offering 10% off your order. Go to ⁠⁠hero.co⁠⁠ and use code FLUENTLY at checkout.

The Lincoln Project’s Rick Wilson joins us to discuss the DOJ deleting a file from the Epstein files detailing Ghislaine Maxwell’s alleged blackmail of Donald Trump. Michigan Democratic Senate primary candidate Mallory McMorrow about her run for Michigan’s U.S. Senate seat.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Time for another reunion! Sarah Haider, Meghan's co-host on the late, great A Special Place In Hell, has a lot to say about the Epstein files, so she visited the podcast to unload. After opening the episode with an homage to the classic intro from our former podcast, the ladies talk about how everyone's a pedophile now, why Ghislaine Maxwell was drawn to such bad boyfriends, and why Epstein's favorite muffins (yes, literal muffins) were so delicious they inspired poetry. Because it's Sarah, they also discuss the latest in Fertility Crisis Discourse, including new nostalgia about teenage motherhood and Sarah's idea of a GI Bill for mothers. Finally, they reveal the only conditions under which we would revive A Special Place In Hell. The answer may (not) surprise you.

The Department of Justice has brazenly disregarded the clear mandates of the Epstein Files Transparency Act (EFTA), particularly the disclosure requirements and statutory deadlines laid out in Section 3. The law required the DOJ to release defined categories of records, provide detailed explanations for every redaction, and identify all government officials and politically exposed persons named in the materials. Instead of complying in full, the department released a narrow, heavily redacted collection of documents while withholding a vast volume of responsive records. The unredacted disclosure deadline came and went without meaningful compliance. What was produced lacked the comprehensive index and specificity the statute demanded. Millions of pages reportedly remain unreleased, despite Congress mandating transparency. The Section 3 report failed to deliver the granularity required by law, particularly in identifying who was named and on what basis redactions were made. Broad exemptions were invoked without the level of explanation the Act contemplated. Rather than submitting to the spirit and letter of the law, the DOJ controlled the scope of disclosure on its own terms. The result is selective transparency under a statute that was written to prevent exactly that outcome.The EFTA was designed to remove executive discretion from this equation and impose a binding transparency framework in a case defined by secrecy and institutional failure. By withholding large categories of material and failing to meet statutory deadlines, the DOJ has treated a congressional mandate as optional guidance. The department has cited privacy, investigative integrity, and classification concerns, but the Act anticipated those issues and required structured justification for each redaction. Instead, the response has been partial compliance coupled with procedural delay. When a federal agency declines to meet a legislated transparency deadline in a case involving powerful figures and systemic misconduct, it deepens public distrust. The failure to provide a full accounting of withheld records leaves Congress and the public unable to assess the completeness of the release. Courts traditionally defer to executive agencies on classification and disclosure decisions, limiting immediate judicial remedies. That places enforcement squarely back in the hands of Congress, which must decide whether to escalate through oversight powers. At its core, this is no longer just a records dispute; it is a constitutional test of whether statutory transparency mandates carry real enforcement power. The DOJ's approach has transformed the EFTA from a promised reckoning into a prolonged institutional standoff.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Bill Gates, the co-founder of Microsoft and a leading global philanthropist, withdrew from delivering his scheduled keynote address at the India AI Impact Summit in New Delhi just hours before he was set to speak. The Gates Foundation issued a statement saying the decision was made “to ensure the focus remains on the AI Summit's key priorities,” and Ankur Vora, president of the foundation's Africa and India offices, delivered the address in his place. Gates had been initially confirmed and was in India ahead of the event, which was designed to position India as a hub for artificial intelligence development and governance.The sudden cancellation came amid heightened scrutiny over Gates's past interactions with the late financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein after recently released U.S. Justice Department documents included emails involving Gates Foundation staff and Epstein. Although Gates denies any impropriety and says he regretted associating with Epstein, the controversy drew significant attention in Indian media and public debate in the lead-up to the summit. Some commentators linked the timing of his withdrawal to that controversy, even as summit organizers and Indian officials did not directly tie the decision to the Epstein files.to c ontact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Bill Gates cancels AI summit keynote address amid scrutiny over Epstein links | CNN

The newly released U.S. Department of Justice files on Jeffrey Epstein have laid bare not just the scale of his abuse network but the years of inaction and institutional negligence that preceded his 2019 arrest. Documents show that detailed victim testimony was provided to federal authorities long before Epstein was finally held — including an extensive 2011 interview with an accuser that echoed the later claims made by Virginia Giuffre — yet the FBI and DOJ failed to aggressively pursue meaningful investigation or prosecution based on that information. Other early reports, such as a 1996 complaint about Epstein stealing intimate photographs from a victim, were likewise ignored by federal agents. The significance of these missed opportunities is staggering: authorities had the evidence and detailed accounts of trafficking and abuse but repeatedly failed to act, allowing Epstein's predatory activities to continue unchecked for years.The files also reveal how the FBI's handling of victims' disclosures was not just passive but alarming. The accuser interviewed in 2011 reported attempts to intimidate her after she spoke with agents, including phone calls purportedly from law enforcement figures, yet investigators still did not follow up with urgency. Epstein's long history of abuse and trafficking — documented in these newly revealed internal materials — underscores systemic lapses at the highest levels of federal enforcement. Rather than treating victims' testimony as actionable leads, the DOJ and FBI sat on crucial information, failed to connect the dots between early reports and patterns of abuse, and let Epstein's network flourish for decades. The release of these files therefore doesn't just illuminate Epstein's crimes — it highlights a profound institutional failure by the agencies charged with bringing him and his enablers to justice.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein files place renewed attention on US authorities' failure to stop him | Jeffrey Epstein | The Guardian

Les Wexner has stated publicly that he was never interviewed, subpoenaed, or formally questioned by the FBI or the Department of Justice in connection with the federal investigations into Jeffrey Epstein. According to Wexner, despite being Epstein's most prominent financial patron for years and granting him sweeping authority over portions of his personal fortune, no federal agents ever sat him down for a substantive interview about Epstein's activities. He has maintained that he would have cooperated fully had he been contacted and has expressed surprise that investigators did not seek his account. Given that Epstein managed vast sums tied to Wexner and operated within Wexner's orbit for years, the absence of a formal federal interview has raised questions about investigative scope and priorities. Wexner has emphasized that he severed ties with Epstein after discovering alleged financial misconduct and has portrayed himself as a victim of deception. He has also said he had no knowledge of Epstein's criminal behavior while they were associated. His assertion centers on a single point: federal authorities never directly approached him during their inquiries. That claim has become a focal issue in broader discussions about how thoroughly Epstein's network was examined. The fact that Epstein's closest financial benefactor was not formally questioned, according to Wexner, stands out given the scale of the case. It underscores continuing debate about whether every relevant avenue was pursued.The relationship between Les Wexner and Jeffrey Epstein was foundational to Epstein's rise, with Epstein serving as Wexner's financial adviser and exercising extraordinary control over assets for years. Epstein obtained power of attorney and access that few outsiders ever received, positioning himself at the center of Wexner's financial world. Because of that proximity, Wexner's claim that neither the FBI nor the DOJ interviewed him has drawn sustained scrutiny. Critics argue that any comprehensive investigation into Epstein's operations would logically include direct questioning of his principal benefactor. Wexner has insisted that he was never treated as a subject or target and that he was not asked to provide detailed testimony. He has reiterated that he cut off Epstein once he became aware of alleged irregularities involving finances. The absence of documented federal questioning, if accurate, highlights gaps many observers believe remain unresolved. It also feeds broader concerns about whether powerful individuals connected to Epstein were examined with equal intensity. Wexner's statement places the burden back on federal authorities to explain investigative decisions. As long as questions about the thoroughness of the Epstein investigation persist, Wexner's claim of never being interviewed will remain central to that debate.t ocontact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.scrippsnews.com/us-news/crime/epstein-files/wexner-tells-congress-he-was-never-contacted-by-fbi-about-jeffrey-epstein-ties

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

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

Jane Doe #2's 2007 statement to Marie Villafaña and federal investigators described a pattern of recruitment, abuse, and normalization inside Jeffrey Epstein's operation, beginning when she was a minor. She said she was introduced to Epstein under the guise of paid “massage” work and quickly realized the encounters involved sexual acts, including being directed to perform sexual contact on Epstein. According to her account, the environment was controlled and transactional, with Epstein dictating the terms and presenting the abuse as routine, while payments were made in cash after each encounter.Jane Doe #2 also told investigators that she was not isolated, explaining that other young girls were present or discussed openly, reinforcing the impression that this was an organized and recurring operation rather than a one-off incident. She described how Epstein's behavior was methodical and rehearsed, suggesting long-standing patterns rather than impulsive misconduct.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:.gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.403.3.pdf

Jane Doe #2's 2007 statement to Marie Villafaña and federal investigators described a pattern of recruitment, abuse, and normalization inside Jeffrey Epstein's operation, beginning when she was a minor. She said she was introduced to Epstein under the guise of paid “massage” work and quickly realized the encounters involved sexual acts, including being directed to perform sexual contact on Epstein. According to her account, the environment was controlled and transactional, with Epstein dictating the terms and presenting the abuse as routine, while payments were made in cash after each encounter.Jane Doe #2 also told investigators that she was not isolated, explaining that other young girls were present or discussed openly, reinforcing the impression that this was an organized and recurring operation rather than a one-off incident. She described how Epstein's behavior was methodical and rehearsed, suggesting long-standing patterns rather than impulsive misconduct.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:.gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.403.3.pdf

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

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

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

A renewed investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's potential trafficking activities involving his private jet – the “Lolita Express” – has hit a significant roadblock because key official records no longer exist. UK police examining whether Epstein transported victims into Britain through Royal Air Force bases and commercial airports have discovered that critical flight documentation has been destroyed by routine data retention policies: RAF passenger manifests are only kept for three months, and air traffic control logs are purged after about two years, leaving investigators with large gaps in the flight history they hoped to trace. With no preserved official records, detectives may be forced to rely on emails, civil aviation files, and witness testimony to reconstruct the pattern of movements linked to the jet.The development comes amid heightened scrutiny of whether flights to the UK – including at bases such as RAF Northolt – were tied to human trafficking and whether high-profile figures, including Prince Andrew (Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor), had any involvement or benefitted from these movements. Former Prime Minister Gordon Brown has urged six police forces to look deeper into the matter and press for interviews with airport staff and other potential sources of flight data that might not have been destroyed. A BBC investigation previously identified nearly 90 flights associated with Epstein's aircraft between the 1990s and 2018, some of which allegedly involved British women, underscoring the public interest in uncovering evidence now lost due to routine data destruction.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Cops reopen investigation into Epstein UK flights... but evidence ‘has been destroyed'Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

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

Jeffrey Epstein cultivated a long relationship with Harvard University by donating nearly $9 million between 1998 and 2007, including $6.5 million to establish the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics. Despite lacking the qualifications typical of the role, he was even made a visiting fellow in the psychology department in 2005. His gifts and connections bought him influence and proximity to prominent faculty, while also boosting Harvard's fundraising ties to other wealthy donors he introduced.Even after his 2008 conviction, Epstein continued to access Harvard's campus, particularly the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics, where he visited dozens of times and had his own office space. Harvard later acknowledged that its oversight and policies were too weak to prevent his continued presence and influence. The university eventually stopped accepting his money but only after years of enjoying the benefits of his donations and connections.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The long-running battle to remove Prince Andrew from Royal Lodge has been less about real estate and more about status, optics, and consequence. Royal Lodge, a sprawling property in Windsor Great Park, became a symbol of Andrew's continued proximity to royal privilege even after he stepped back from public duties following the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. As public pressure mounted and his formal roles were stripped away, questions intensified over why he continued to occupy one of the most prestigious royal residences. Reports indicated that King Charles sought to streamline royal finances and reduce the footprint of working royals, which in practice meant reassessing Andrew's position at Royal Lodge. The property carries substantial upkeep costs, and critics argued that a non-working royal facing serious reputational damage should not retain such a high-profile residence funded, directly or indirectly, through royal resources.The dispute reportedly stretched over years, marked by negotiations, financial maneuvering, and quiet but persistent pressure to relocate Andrew to smaller accommodations, such as Frogmore Cottage. Andrew resisted, citing the long-term lease he holds on Royal Lodge and asserting that he had privately funded renovations and maintenance. The standoff became a proxy war over accountability: whether symbolic consequences would match the gravity of the scandal that engulfed him. While Andrew maintained his right to remain under the lease terms, the broader monarchy faced reputational strain so long as he continued residing there. The struggle over Royal Lodge ultimately reflected the tension between legal entitlement and public legitimacy, underscoring how deeply the Epstein fallout reshaped Andrew's standing within both the Royal Family and public life.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

After Queen Elizabeth II's death in September 2022, Prince Andrew and his ex-wife Sarah Ferguson took responsibility for her beloved corgis, Muick and Sandy. The pair had been gifts from Andrew to his mother during the pandemic, meant to provide companionship and comfort. They were moved to Royal Lodge in Windsor, where Sarah Ferguson has since embraced the role of caretaker, publicly calling the dogs “national treasures” and even remarking that she feels the Queen's presence through them. The arrangement was presented as a fitting continuation of the late monarch's bond with the breed, with Ferguson openly expressing gratitude for the chance to keep the Queen's memory alive through the animals.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/prince-andrew-set-look-after-7570649Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In a Telegraph interview highlighted by the New York Post, Ian Maxwell — brother of convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell — launched a forceful defense of his sister and an attack on Virginia Giuffre, one of Jeffrey Epstein's most prominent accusers. Ian labeled Giuffre a “monster,” insisting her accusations had “devastating ramifications” for Ghislaine and framing his sister as a “scapegoat” for Epstein's crimes. He argued that Ghislaine's 20-year sentence was unfair and politically motivated, suggested the trial was flawed, and claimed that if Epstein were still alive he would be imprisoned while Ghislaine would be free. He attempted to compare her punishment to what he regarded as lighter sentences in other federal cases and lamented what he described as harsh treatment by the justice system and media.Maxwell also responded to Giuffre's death by saying he “didn't shed a tear” when she died by suicide in April, and portrayed his sister as the true victim in the broader scandal. He asserted that the government and media chose Ghislaine to pay the price for Epstein's actions, defended her treatment in prison, and reiterated his family's support for her. His remarks sparked controversy because they recast a widely recognized victim of trafficking as the antagonist and echoed broader debates over accountability and narrative control in the Epstein case.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Ian Maxwell calls Virginia Giuffre a ‘monster' in defense of GhislaineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

We sit down with Agent X for a second time — not to rehash what was already said, but to dig deeper, press harder, and follow the paper trail farther into the parts of the story that were previously redacted or obscured. This follow-up conversation picks up where the first left off, sharpening lines of inquiry about who is being protected, how institutional mechanisms have worked to bury key records, and what concrete steps might finally force meaningful disclosure and accountability.The conversation with Agent X traced the Epstein investigation across its major fault lines: the current state of play, the suffocating role of politics, the systemic cover-up, and the powerful figures still being shielded. Agent X detailed how congressional hearings and DOJ disclosures amount to theater, offering redacted documents and staged outrage instead of prosecutions. Survivors have forced banks and institutions into settlements, but payouts have replaced accountability, and every redaction is another betrayal. The money trail — offshore accounts, banks turning a blind eye, hush payments disguised as philanthropy — remains the most dangerous evidence, one the system is determined to bury.Agent X described the machinery of the cover-up: the 2008 non-prosecution deal, sealed court filings, confidentiality clauses, compliant judges, cowardly prosecutors, political grandstanding, and media complicity. The likelihood of indictments for the most powerful players is slim without whistleblowers or leaks; the public should brace for more managed exposure and controlled disclosures. The core message was blunt — this case is a mirror showing that the system does not fail by accident but is structured to protect power. The only path to true accountability is relentless pressure: force the cracks wider, document by document, name by name.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Survivor testimonies and legal documents confirm that Jeffrey Epstein meticulously installed hidden cameras throughout his properties, especially at his Manhattan mansion, Palm Beach home, and New Mexico ranch. Maria Farmer—one of the first women to report Epstein to authorities—described walking into a “media room” where monitors replayed footage from pinhole cameras placed in bathrooms, bedrooms, and common areas. She recalled seeing repeated images of beds and toilets, and witnessing technicians actively monitoring these spaces—suggesting Epstein spied on his guests during intimate or private moments to gather leverage or blackmail material.Further evidence supports that Epstein stored binders of CD‑ROMs, hard drives, and labeled video files containing recordings of underage survivors and powerful individuals. One document reportedly includes “young [name] + [name]” written on discs locked in his New York safe. Virginia Giuffre's posthumously released diary claims she was filmed being assaulted and that footage was used to extort influential figures—directly contradicting an FBI memo that stated no credible blackmail existed.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

We sit down with Agent X for a second time — not to rehash what was already said, but to dig deeper, press harder, and follow the paper trail farther into the parts of the story that were previously redacted or obscured. This follow-up conversation picks up where the first left off, sharpening lines of inquiry about who is being protected, how institutional mechanisms have worked to bury key records, and what concrete steps might finally force meaningful disclosure and accountability.The conversation with Agent X traced the Epstein investigation across its major fault lines: the current state of play, the suffocating role of politics, the systemic cover-up, and the powerful figures still being shielded. Agent X detailed how congressional hearings and DOJ disclosures amount to theater, offering redacted documents and staged outrage instead of prosecutions. Survivors have forced banks and institutions into settlements, but payouts have replaced accountability, and every redaction is another betrayal. The money trail — offshore accounts, banks turning a blind eye, hush payments disguised as philanthropy — remains the most dangerous evidence, one the system is determined to bury.Agent X described the machinery of the cover-up: the 2008 non-prosecution deal, sealed court filings, confidentiality clauses, compliant judges, cowardly prosecutors, political grandstanding, and media complicity. The likelihood of indictments for the most powerful players is slim without whistleblowers or leaks; the public should brace for more managed exposure and controlled disclosures. The core message was blunt — this case is a mirror showing that the system does not fail by accident but is structured to protect power. The only path to true accountability is relentless pressure: force the cracks wider, document by document, name by name.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

New Mexico has formally established a truth and accountability commission to examine Jeffrey Epstein's activities within the state, focusing particularly on what occurred at his Zorro Ranch property near Santa Fe. Lawmakers and state officials moved to create the commission after years of criticism that allegations tied to the ranch were never aggressively pursued while Epstein was alive. The commission's mandate includes reviewing law enforcement records, victim complaints, prosecutorial decisions, and inter-agency communications to determine whether investigative opportunities were missed. It is also tasked with evaluating whether local, state, or federal authorities failed to act on credible reports connected to Epstein's presence in New Mexico. The formation of the commission reflects growing pressure from victims and advocacy groups who argue that the ranch was a significant operational hub that never received the scrutiny it warranted. Unlike prior fragmented reviews, this body is intended to conduct a comprehensive and public-facing examination. Its scope includes subpoena authority, witness testimony, and document analysis tied to Epstein's time in the state. Officials have framed the effort as an overdue reckoning rather than a symbolic gesture. The commission represents an acknowledgment that prior oversight may have been inadequate. At its core, it is an attempt to reconstruct what authorities knew, when they knew it, and why enforcement did not escalate.The creation of the commission stems directly from the perception that there was a profound lack of investigation both during Epstein's active years in New Mexico and in the immediate aftermath of his death. Despite persistent allegations and the visibility of Zorro Ranch, there were no sweeping state-level prosecutions tied specifically to conduct on the property. Critics argue that jurisdictional ambiguity between federal and local authorities allowed responsibility to diffuse rather than concentrate. After Epstein's 2019 arrest and subsequent death, calls intensified for a state-level inquiry into whether earlier complaints had been documented but not pursued. The commission is therefore positioned not only to examine Epstein's conduct but also to scrutinize institutional response failures. Its work may reveal whether resource limitations, deference to federal authorities, or other systemic weaknesses contributed to inaction. By reopening the record, New Mexico is signaling that unanswered questions about the ranch cannot remain dormant. The effort also reflects broader national skepticism about whether Epstein's network was fully examined anywhere it operated. In practical terms, the commission seeks to close investigative gaps that persisted for decades. In symbolic terms, it represents a state acknowledging that accountability mechanisms previously fell short.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

A new investigation reported that convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein covertly rented at least six storage units across the United States from as early as 2003 up until his death in 2019, allegedly using them to stash computers, CDs, photographs, and other materials linked to his homes and his private island Little Saint James. Financial records and emails reviewed by The Telegraph indicate Epstein paid private investigators tens of thousands of dollars to move equipment from his properties into these units ahead of police raids, raising the possibility that law enforcement never searched them and that they may still contain never-before-seen evidence connected to his sex trafficking network.Some of the emails suggest private detectives copied or “cloned” data from drives before storing them, and in one instance discussed holding potentially responsive computer materials requested by attorneys for a survivor of Epstein's abuse. Other correspondence shows Epstein instructed aides to transfer items out of his Florida home when tipped off about impending warrants, and discussed the location of storage contents even while incarcerated in 2009. Because these external storage lockers appear never to have been searched by authorities, there is concern among journalists and investigators that crucial evidence – including digital files predating the trove released by the Department of Justice – could still be hidden from public view.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jeffrey Epstein stashed secret files in storage units across US that may include unseen evidence: reportBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Former royal Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor — stripped of his titles and now under criminal investigation — is facing fresh scrutiny over alleged misuse of public funds during his decade-long tenure (2001–2011) as the United Kingdom's trade envoy. According to whistleblowers who spoke with the BBC, Andrew submitted expense claims that included the cost of massage services and excessive travel while on official trade trips, including a controversial visit to the Middle East. Several civil servants reportedly raised concerns at the time, with one saying he objected to paying for “massage services,” only to be overruled by senior colleagues. Critics say Andrew's entitlements were obscured across different budgets, making oversight difficult and enabling a culture in which questionable expenses went unchallenged.These allegations come amid a broader set of controversies enveloping the disgraced royal, including his recent arrest on suspicion of misconduct in public office tied to his relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. While there's no confirmed legal finding that Andrew unlawfully charged taxpayers for massages, the Department for Business and Trade declined to dispute the claims when asked, referring instead to the ongoing police probe. Meanwhile, parliamentary scrutiny is increasing, with discussions underway about formal inquiries into his conduct as envoy, and speculation in the Commonwealth about removing him from the royal line of succession entirely.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Ex-Prince Andrew charged taxpayers for massages during his stint as UK trade envoy: reportsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

I veckans huvudepisod pratar vi den monumentala arresteringen av den före detta prins Andrew, den första gången en engelsk monark har gripits på över 400 år. Kan han bli den första sedan Ghislaine Maxwell att få några rättsliga påföljder för inblandningen i den vidriga Jeffrey Epstein-härvan?I den andra halvan snackar vi den nya Netflix-serien ”Reality Check: America's Next Top Model”. Vad var vår egen relation till programmet? Vilket var det värsta övertrampet? Hur galen är Tyra Banks? Och är det verkligen rättvist att hon ensam får ta skulden för Top Models många skandaler?Enjoy! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on his opinion how the latest filings and conduct by Ghislaine Maxwell point to a secret plan with Trump to cover up his dark past in exchange for clemency.  Visit https://meidasplus.com for more! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

February, 22 2026, 7AM; Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will meet with committee members on Thursday, and former President Bill Clinton will testify a day later. The depositions will take place behind closed doors, but they will be filmed and transcribed. Both have denied any wrongdoing, and Hillary Clinton has said that neither of them has links to the late sex offender. Rep. James Walkinshaw, who will be in the room for both depositions, joins The Weekend to discuss the depositions and his decision to bring Jeffrey Epstein survivor Jess Michaels as his guest to President Trump's State of the Union address on Tuesday. For more, follow us on social media: Bluesky: @theweekendmsnow.bsky.social Instagram: @theweekendmsnow TikTok: @theweekendmsnow To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW 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.

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

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

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

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

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

The New York Times has reported that Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein shared a much closer relationship in the late 1980s through the 1990s and early 2000s than Trump has publicly acknowledged. According to the Times, Epstein described Trump as his “best friend,” and the two socialized frequently at parties, spoke often by phone, and were part of the same high-society circles, particularly bonding over women. Epstein's former employees told the Times that Trump often discussed sex with him rather than business, and Epstein was described as Trump's “most reliable wingman” in that era. While Trump has denied involvement in Epstein's criminal conduct, the Times cited newly released emails and interviews suggesting Trump was aware of Epstein's sexual abuse of girls, though no evidence has surfaced that Trump was directly involved in those crimes.The reporting also highlighted specific incidents and firsthand accounts that paint a picture of their social interactions: Epstein introduced several women to Trump, including at least one who was a minor at the time, and an email referenced Epstein “giving” Trump a 20-year-old woman. Former employees recounted Trump sending modeling cards to Epstein “like a menu,” and one woman's story described Epstein directing her to social events where Trump was present. Although Trump and Epstein's friendship reportedly soured by the mid-2000s, and Trump has repeatedly sought to distance himself from Epstein—saying they had a falling-out long before Epstein's legal troubles—the Times reporting underscores a deeper and more personal connection than Trump has acknowledged.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/18/us/jeffrey-epstein-donald-trump.html

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

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

Jeffrey Epstein's relationship with elements of the Saudi royal family has long hovered in the background of the scandal, rarely explored with the seriousness it deserves. Epstein moved easily within elite Gulf circles during the 1990s and early 2000s, cultivating relationships with Saudi businessmen, royals, and intelligence-adjacent figures under the same vague cover he used everywhere else: finance, philanthropy, and “advising” powerful people. His access was not casual. Epstein traveled repeatedly to Saudi Arabia, hosted Saudi nationals at his properties, and was known to facilitate introductions between Middle Eastern elites and Western political and financial figures. As with many of his relationships, the exact nature of the services he provided remains opaque, but the pattern is familiar: proximity to power, insulation from scrutiny, and an ability to operate across borders with little interference from U.S. authorities.The most disturbing and concrete piece of evidence tying Epstein to Saudi state-level protection surfaced after his 2019 arrest, when law enforcement discovered he was in possession of a Saudi passport. The passport listed a false name but included his photograph, raising immediate red flags about who issued it, why it existed, and how Epstein obtained it. This was not a novelty item or souvenir. Saudi passports are tightly controlled state documents, and possession of one by a non-citizen under an alias strongly suggests official facilitation rather than private forgery. Epstein claimed he used it for travel in the Middle East, yet no serious public accounting has ever been given for how a convicted sex offender and alleged intelligence-linked financier ended up holding sovereign identity documents from a foreign monarchy. Like so much of the Epstein story, the discovery was quickly noted, then quietly sidelined, leaving unanswered questions about foreign intelligence ties, diplomatic cover, and how deep Epstein's international protection network truly went.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the lead-up to Ghislaine Maxwell's indictment and eventual arrest, a wide range of law enforcement agents representing multiple agencies were brought before the grand jury to lay out the evidentiary foundation of the case. Their testimony reflected a coordinated federal effort that had been building quietly for years, drawing on investigative work from different jurisdictions, timelines, and investigative lanes. Agents walked jurors through financial records, travel logs, victim accounts, electronic communications, and corroborating witness statements, showing how Maxwell functioned not as a peripheral figure, but as a central facilitator in Jeffrey Epstein's trafficking operation. The cumulative effect of this testimony was to establish pattern, intent, and continuity—demonstrating that Maxwell's actions were not isolated or accidental, but deliberate, repeated, and essential to the enterprise prosecutors were preparing to charge.In this episode, we take a close, methodical look at that grand jury testimony and what it reveals about how the case against Maxwell was constructed. By examining how different agencies' witnesses reinforced one another's findings, the episode highlights how prosecutors built a layered narrative designed to withstand both legal scrutiny and defense attacks. The testimony shows how long-standing investigative threads were finally pulled together after Epstein's death, transforming years of fragmented information into a cohesive criminal case. Rather than focusing on speculation or hindsight, this episode zeroes in on the mechanics of the prosecution itself—how law enforcement presented the evidence, why the grand jury ultimately moved forward, and how that testimony paved the way for Maxwell's arrest and indictment.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00008744.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the lead-up to Ghislaine Maxwell's indictment and eventual arrest, a wide range of law enforcement agents representing multiple agencies were brought before the grand jury to lay out the evidentiary foundation of the case. Their testimony reflected a coordinated federal effort that had been building quietly for years, drawing on investigative work from different jurisdictions, timelines, and investigative lanes. Agents walked jurors through financial records, travel logs, victim accounts, electronic communications, and corroborating witness statements, showing how Maxwell functioned not as a peripheral figure, but as a central facilitator in Jeffrey Epstein's trafficking operation. The cumulative effect of this testimony was to establish pattern, intent, and continuity—demonstrating that Maxwell's actions were not isolated or accidental, but deliberate, repeated, and essential to the enterprise prosecutors were preparing to charge.In this episode, we take a close, methodical look at that grand jury testimony and what it reveals about how the case against Maxwell was constructed. By examining how different agencies' witnesses reinforced one another's findings, the episode highlights how prosecutors built a layered narrative designed to withstand both legal scrutiny and defense attacks. The testimony shows how long-standing investigative threads were finally pulled together after Epstein's death, transforming years of fragmented information into a cohesive criminal case. Rather than focusing on speculation or hindsight, this episode zeroes in on the mechanics of the prosecution itself—how law enforcement presented the evidence, why the grand jury ultimately moved forward, and how that testimony paved the way for Maxwell's arrest and indictment.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00008744.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the lead-up to Ghislaine Maxwell's indictment and eventual arrest, a wide range of law enforcement agents representing multiple agencies were brought before the grand jury to lay out the evidentiary foundation of the case. Their testimony reflected a coordinated federal effort that had been building quietly for years, drawing on investigative work from different jurisdictions, timelines, and investigative lanes. Agents walked jurors through financial records, travel logs, victim accounts, electronic communications, and corroborating witness statements, showing how Maxwell functioned not as a peripheral figure, but as a central facilitator in Jeffrey Epstein's trafficking operation. The cumulative effect of this testimony was to establish pattern, intent, and continuity—demonstrating that Maxwell's actions were not isolated or accidental, but deliberate, repeated, and essential to the enterprise prosecutors were preparing to charge.In this episode, we take a close, methodical look at that grand jury testimony and what it reveals about how the case against Maxwell was constructed. By examining how different agencies' witnesses reinforced one another's findings, the episode highlights how prosecutors built a layered narrative designed to withstand both legal scrutiny and defense attacks. The testimony shows how long-standing investigative threads were finally pulled together after Epstein's death, transforming years of fragmented information into a cohesive criminal case. Rather than focusing on speculation or hindsight, this episode zeroes in on the mechanics of the prosecution itself—how law enforcement presented the evidence, why the grand jury ultimately moved forward, and how that testimony paved the way for Maxwell's arrest and indictment.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00008744.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

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

The Department of Justice has brazenly disregarded the clear mandates of the Epstein Files Transparency Act (EFTA), particularly the disclosure requirements and statutory deadlines laid out in Section 3. The law required the DOJ to release defined categories of records, provide detailed explanations for every redaction, and identify all government officials and politically exposed persons named in the materials. Instead of complying in full, the department released a narrow, heavily redacted collection of documents while withholding a vast volume of responsive records. The unredacted disclosure deadline came and went without meaningful compliance. What was produced lacked the comprehensive index and specificity the statute demanded. Millions of pages reportedly remain unreleased, despite Congress mandating transparency. The Section 3 report failed to deliver the granularity required by law, particularly in identifying who was named and on what basis redactions were made. Broad exemptions were invoked without the level of explanation the Act contemplated. Rather than submitting to the spirit and letter of the law, the DOJ controlled the scope of disclosure on its own terms. The result is selective transparency under a statute that was written to prevent exactly that outcome.The EFTA was designed to remove executive discretion from this equation and impose a binding transparency framework in a case defined by secrecy and institutional failure. By withholding large categories of material and failing to meet statutory deadlines, the DOJ has treated a congressional mandate as optional guidance. The department has cited privacy, investigative integrity, and classification concerns, but the Act anticipated those issues and required structured justification for each redaction. Instead, the response has been partial compliance coupled with procedural delay. When a federal agency declines to meet a legislated transparency deadline in a case involving powerful figures and systemic misconduct, it deepens public distrust. The failure to provide a full accounting of withheld records leaves Congress and the public unable to assess the completeness of the release. Courts traditionally defer to executive agencies on classification and disclosure decisions, limiting immediate judicial remedies. That places enforcement squarely back in the hands of Congress, which must decide whether to escalate through oversight powers. At its core, this is no longer just a records dispute; it is a constitutional test of whether statutory transparency mandates carry real enforcement power. The DOJ's approach has transformed the EFTA from a promised reckoning into a prolonged institutional standoff.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Les Wexner has stated publicly that he was never interviewed, subpoenaed, or formally questioned by the FBI or the Department of Justice in connection with the federal investigations into Jeffrey Epstein. According to Wexner, despite being Epstein's most prominent financial patron for years and granting him sweeping authority over portions of his personal fortune, no federal agents ever sat him down for a substantive interview about Epstein's activities. He has maintained that he would have cooperated fully had he been contacted and has expressed surprise that investigators did not seek his account. Given that Epstein managed vast sums tied to Wexner and operated within Wexner's orbit for years, the absence of a formal federal interview has raised questions about investigative scope and priorities. Wexner has emphasized that he severed ties with Epstein after discovering alleged financial misconduct and has portrayed himself as a victim of deception. He has also said he had no knowledge of Epstein's criminal behavior while they were associated. His assertion centers on a single point: federal authorities never directly approached him during their inquiries. That claim has become a focal issue in broader discussions about how thoroughly Epstein's network was examined. The fact that Epstein's closest financial benefactor was not formally questioned, according to Wexner, stands out given the scale of the case. It underscores continuing debate about whether every relevant avenue was pursued.The relationship between Les Wexner and Jeffrey Epstein was foundational to Epstein's rise, with Epstein serving as Wexner's financial adviser and exercising extraordinary control over assets for years. Epstein obtained power of attorney and access that few outsiders ever received, positioning himself at the center of Wexner's financial world. Because of that proximity, Wexner's claim that neither the FBI nor the DOJ interviewed him has drawn sustained scrutiny. Critics argue that any comprehensive investigation into Epstein's operations would logically include direct questioning of his principal benefactor. Wexner has insisted that he was never treated as a subject or target and that he was not asked to provide detailed testimony. He has reiterated that he cut off Epstein once he became aware of alleged irregularities involving finances. The absence of documented federal questioning, if accurate, highlights gaps many observers believe remain unresolved. It also feeds broader concerns about whether powerful individuals connected to Epstein were examined with equal intensity. Wexner's statement places the burden back on federal authorities to explain investigative decisions. As long as questions about the thoroughness of the Epstein investigation persist, Wexner's claim of never being interviewed will remain central to that debate.t ocontact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.scrippsnews.com/us-news/crime/epstein-files/wexner-tells-congress-he-was-never-contacted-by-fbi-about-jeffrey-epstein-tiesBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The newly released U.S. Department of Justice files on Jeffrey Epstein have laid bare not just the scale of his abuse network but the years of inaction and institutional negligence that preceded his 2019 arrest. Documents show that detailed victim testimony was provided to federal authorities long before Epstein was finally held — including an extensive 2011 interview with an accuser that echoed the later claims made by Virginia Giuffre — yet the FBI and DOJ failed to aggressively pursue meaningful investigation or prosecution based on that information. Other early reports, such as a 1996 complaint about Epstein stealing intimate photographs from a victim, were likewise ignored by federal agents. The significance of these missed opportunities is staggering: authorities had the evidence and detailed accounts of trafficking and abuse but repeatedly failed to act, allowing Epstein's predatory activities to continue unchecked for years.The files also reveal how the FBI's handling of victims' disclosures was not just passive but alarming. The accuser interviewed in 2011 reported attempts to intimidate her after she spoke with agents, including phone calls purportedly from law enforcement figures, yet investigators still did not follow up with urgency. Epstein's long history of abuse and trafficking — documented in these newly revealed internal materials — underscores systemic lapses at the highest levels of federal enforcement. Rather than treating victims' testimony as actionable leads, the DOJ and FBI sat on crucial information, failed to connect the dots between early reports and patterns of abuse, and let Epstein's network flourish for decades. The release of these files therefore doesn't just illuminate Epstein's crimes — it highlights a profound institutional failure by the agencies charged with bringing him and his enablers to justice.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein files place renewed attention on US authorities' failure to stop him | Jeffrey Epstein | The GuardianBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In a now-publicized email from 2015, Prince Andrew wrote to Ghislaine Maxwell inquiring specifically about Virginia Roberts (now Virginia Giuffre), the woman who had publicly accused him of sexual abuse tied to Jeffrey Epstein's trafficking operation. The email, sent shortly after Roberts' allegations were made public, read: “Let me know when we can talk. Got some specific questions to ask you about Virginia Roberts.” The tone was casual, but the implication was clear—he was seeking information or clarification from Maxwell, who had long served as Epstein's close associate and alleged co-conspirator in grooming underage girls.This email undermined Prince Andrew's later claims of having no meaningful recollection of Virginia Roberts or the events she described. It showed that he not only knew of her existence, but was actively discussing her with Maxwell behind the scenes as legal scrutiny mounted. The correspondence was used to highlight inconsistencies in his public denials and cast further doubt on his defense, suggesting a coordinated effort to manage damage and control the narrative around Roberts' accusations.To contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comSource:https://www.tatler.com/article/prince-andrew-asked-ghislaine-maxwell-for-information-about-virginia-roberts-giuffre-newly-released-depositionBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Les Wexner, the longtime founder and chief executive of L Brands—the retail company that once owned Victoria's Secret and Bath & Body Works—began stepping back from day-to-day leadership amid mounting scrutiny over his connection to Jeffrey Epstein. In February 2020, after nearly six decades at the helm, Wexner announced he was resigning as CEO of L Brands and transitioning to chairman emeritus, as the company pursued a restructuring that included selling a majority stake in Victoria's Secret to private equity. Although company statements framed the change as part of a broader corporate evolution, it came against the backdrop of growing public criticism of Wexner's long friendship and financial relationship with Epstein, who had once served as his personal advisor and money manager.Wexner's departure from operational leadership was followed by further distancing from the company: in March 2021, both he and his wife, Abigail, announced they would not seek reelection to L Brands' board of directors, effectively ending his formal role in governance after nearly six decades. While Wexner and his representatives have repeatedly denied that his resignation was directly caused by the Epstein controversy, critics and some investors saw the timing and cumulative pressure over the Epstein ties—and internal culture criticisms at Victoria's Secret—as key factors in his exit from the company he built.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.