Podcasts about New Story

Lady Victoria Hervey, a former friend of Prince Andrew, has repeatedly claimed that the now-famous photograph showing Prince Andrew with Virginia Giuffre at Ghislaine Maxwell's London home is doctored. She has alleged in interviews and on social media that the image is “fake,” suggesting Andrew's head was photoshopped onto someone else's body or that it was otherwise digitally altered to create a false impression. Hervey even visited the location where the picture was allegedly taken to argue that certain features didn't match the photo. These assertions echo Prince Andrew's own denials about the photo's authenticity and have become part of the broader dispute over evidence linking him to Epstein's network.In her book The Palace Papers, journalist Tina Brown alleges that Prince Andrew's behavior during a 1993 visit to Sunnylands — the lavish Palm Springs estate of philanthropists Walter and Lee Annenberg — shocked his hosts. According to Brown's account, Andrew arrived as part of a formal delegation but quickly separated himself from the group, retreating to his private suite where he allegedly spent two full days watching pornography on cable television. Lee Annenberg was said to be horrified by what she described as the prince's juvenile and inappropriate behavior, an episode that reportedly became a point of embarrassment among those who managed his U.S. visits at the time.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

From the very beginning, confusion wasn't a byproduct of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal—it was the blueprint. The overlapping jurisdictions, sealed filings, contradictory statements, and conveniently “lost” evidence weren't mistakes; they were smoke screens. Every agency, from the DOJ to the FBI, played its part in creating a legal labyrinth so dense that the public would lose track of who was responsible for what. The result? A tangled web of “ongoing investigations” and “confidential agreements” that made it nearly impossible to follow the truth to its source. Epstein's sweetheart plea deal, the destruction of surveillance footage, and the endless redactions were all gears in the same machine: controlled chaos that guaranteed plausible deniability at every level.And it worked. The public got dizzy trying to track timelines, jurisdictions, and shifting narratives, while those who pulled the strings quietly slipped out of view. Every layer of confusion—who prosecuted, who didn't, who was “technically” covered by a deal—bought more time for the system to protect itself. Epstein's death only deepened the fog, allowing the media, courts, and power players to endlessly recycle distraction while the core question—who else was involved—got buried under noise. The cover-up was never about clarity or closure; it was about exhaustion. Make it confusing enough, make people doubt their own understanding, and eventually, most stop asking. That's not incompetence—that's strategy.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In the now-concluded civil case Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., the USVI sought a partial summary judgment before the case was settled, arguing that the evidence overwhelmingly showed JPMorgan knowingly facilitated Jeffrey Epstein's sex-trafficking operation. The filing claimed that internal emails, compliance reports, and testimony proved the bank ignored repeated red flags about Epstein's financial activity—including large cash withdrawals, suspicious wire transfers, and employee warnings linking him to underage abuse. The USVI contended that JPMorgan profited from Epstein's wealth and social connections while turning a blind eye to clear indicators of criminal conduct, violating the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) by financially enabling a known sex trafficker. In essence, the government asked the court to rule that JPMorgan was civilly liable on key elements of the case before it ever reachedJPMorgan denied wrongdoing and opposed the motion, insisting that there were factual disputes unsuitable for summary judgment, particularly regarding the bank's knowledge and intent. The court ultimately declined to grant the USVI's motion, finding that the issues were complex enough to warrant continued litigation—but the case ended shortly thereafter in December 2023, when JPMorgan agreed to a $75 million settlement with the U.S. Virgin Islands. The agreement included commitments for JPMorgan to enhance its compliance and anti-trafficking procedures while denying any admission of liability. Though the USVI didn't win its partial summary judgment outright, the motion itself played a crucial role in forcing discovery that exposed internal JPMorgan communications and helped push the bank toward settlement.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In the now-concluded civil case Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., the USVI sought a partial summary judgment before the case was settled, arguing that the evidence overwhelmingly showed JPMorgan knowingly facilitated Jeffrey Epstein's sex-trafficking operation. The filing claimed that internal emails, compliance reports, and testimony proved the bank ignored repeated red flags about Epstein's financial activity—including large cash withdrawals, suspicious wire transfers, and employee warnings linking him to underage abuse. The USVI contended that JPMorgan profited from Epstein's wealth and social connections while turning a blind eye to clear indicators of criminal conduct, violating the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) by financially enabling a known sex trafficker. In essence, the government asked the court to rule that JPMorgan was civilly liable on key elements of the case before it ever reachedJPMorgan denied wrongdoing and opposed the motion, insisting that there were factual disputes unsuitable for summary judgment, particularly regarding the bank's knowledge and intent. The court ultimately declined to grant the USVI's motion, finding that the issues were complex enough to warrant continued litigation—but the case ended shortly thereafter in December 2023, when JPMorgan agreed to a $75 million settlement with the U.S. Virgin Islands. The agreement included commitments for JPMorgan to enhance its compliance and anti-trafficking procedures while denying any admission of liability. Though the USVI didn't win its partial summary judgment outright, the motion itself played a crucial role in forcing discovery that exposed internal JPMorgan communications and helped push the bank toward settlement.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

A reporter asked Trump if he'd pardon Ghislaine Maxwell now that the Supreme Court killed her last appeal, and he immediately went into his usual “Who? Never heard of her” routine like he was auditioning for Men in Black. It was pure comedy—he acted like Ghislaine was some random lady who wandered into his photos by accident, not someone who used to orbit the same high-society circles as him and Epstein. The man delivered his line so confidently you'd think he really believed it: “I don't know her, but I hear she's doing well.” Yeah, sure, Don—she's “doing well” in prison. Real cozy setup between chow line and lockdown. The guy could be caught holding a selfie stick with her and still swear it's Photoshop and “fake news.”Trump's selective amnesia is practically a stage show at this point. Every time one of his old pals gets indicted, he suddenly turns into a witness protection participant. “Never met them, don't know them, wish them well.” It's become a brand. The funniest part is how he says it with total confidence, like he's daring the world to remember what he's pretending to forget. When asked about a pardon, you could see the wheels spin—“What's in it for me?”—but in true Trump fashion, he skipped the answer and rewrote history instead. Because in his world, he doesn't need to pardon anyone; he just deletes them from existence. One minute you're clinking glasses at Mar-a-Lago, the next you're “Ghislaine who?”to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:

In the now-concluded civil case Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., the USVI sought a partial summary judgment before the case was settled, arguing that the evidence overwhelmingly showed JPMorgan knowingly facilitated Jeffrey Epstein's sex-trafficking operation. The filing claimed that internal emails, compliance reports, and testimony proved the bank ignored repeated red flags about Epstein's financial activity—including large cash withdrawals, suspicious wire transfers, and employee warnings linking him to underage abuse. The USVI contended that JPMorgan profited from Epstein's wealth and social connections while turning a blind eye to clear indicators of criminal conduct, violating the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) by financially enabling a known sex trafficker. In essence, the government asked the court to rule that JPMorgan was civilly liable on key elements of the case before it ever reachedJPMorgan denied wrongdoing and opposed the motion, insisting that there were factual disputes unsuitable for summary judgment, particularly regarding the bank's knowledge and intent. The court ultimately declined to grant the USVI's motion, finding that the issues were complex enough to warrant continued litigation—but the case ended shortly thereafter in December 2023, when JPMorgan agreed to a $75 million settlement with the U.S. Virgin Islands. The agreement included commitments for JPMorgan to enhance its compliance and anti-trafficking procedures while denying any admission of liability. Though the USVI didn't win its partial summary judgment outright, the motion itself played a crucial role in forcing discovery that exposed internal JPMorgan communications and helped push the bank toward settlement.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The Supreme Court's refusal to hear Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal effectively upheld lower court rulings that the 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) Jeffrey Epstein signed in Florida does not extend protection to alleged co-conspirators outside that district. This leaves the NPA confined to the Southern District of Florida and strips it of the national immunity once implied by Epstein's legal team. As a result, prosecutors in other jurisdictions—such as New York, New Mexico, or the U.S. Virgin Islands—are now free to pursue fresh indictments against individuals connected to Epstein's trafficking network without fearing dismissal on immunity grounds. The Court's silence sends a clear message: the NPA was local, not global, and its co-conspirator clause does not bind the rest of the United States.This outcome marks a pivotal shift in the Epstein saga. For years, the Florida deal acted as a roadblock to federal accountability, shielding those who helped facilitate Epstein's crimes from prosecution elsewhere. But the Supreme Court's inaction on Maxwell's appeal erodes that shield, creating new prosecutorial opportunities for cases tied to interstate trafficking, financial transfers, and recruitment that took place beyond Florida's borders. It sets a precedent that the law can reach further than a secret plea deal brokered nearly two decades ago—signaling a potential reckoning for others who, until now, have remained beyond the reach of justice.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) was supposed to guarantee fairness and transparency for victims—making sure they were informed, included, and respected in the legal process. But when Jeffrey Epstein came along, that promise evaporated. Federal prosecutors secretly cut a Non-Prosecution Agreement that protected not only Epstein but also his “potential co-conspirators,” violating the very law designed to stop such backroom deals. The victims weren't told; they found out months later from the press. The same Department of Justice that preaches accountability deliberately hid the deal, broke federal law, and then argued that the CVRA didn't apply because no federal charges were filed—an argument so twisted it turned their own crime into a loophole.Instead of punishment, Epstein got 13 months in county jail with daily work release, while the prosecutors who betrayed the victims got promotions. The courts sided with the government, ruling that since the feds never formally charged Epstein, the survivors technically weren't “victims” under the CVRA. The result was a legal farce that showed how easily the system bends for the powerful. The law that was supposed to protect victims ended up protecting predators, proving once again that in America, justice isn't blind—it just looks away when the wrong people are involved.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) was supposed to guarantee fairness and transparency for victims—making sure they were informed, included, and respected in the legal process. But when Jeffrey Epstein came along, that promise evaporated. Federal prosecutors secretly cut a Non-Prosecution Agreement that protected not only Epstein but also his “potential co-conspirators,” violating the very law designed to stop such backroom deals. The victims weren't told; they found out months later from the press. The same Department of Justice that preaches accountability deliberately hid the deal, broke federal law, and then argued that the CVRA didn't apply because no federal charges were filed—an argument so twisted it turned their own crime into a loophole.Instead of punishment, Epstein got 13 months in county jail with daily work release, while the prosecutors who betrayed the victims got promotions. The courts sided with the government, ruling that since the feds never formally charged Epstein, the survivors technically weren't “victims” under the CVRA. The result was a legal farce that showed how easily the system bends for the powerful. The law that was supposed to protect victims ended up protecting predators, proving once again that in America, justice isn't blind—it just looks away when the wrong people are involved.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Jean-Luc Brunel, the French modeling agent and longtime associate of Jeffrey Epstein, was found dead in his La Santé prison cell in Paris on February 19, 2022, in what authorities immediately labeled a suicide by hanging. Brunel had been under investigation for rape, sexual harassment, and the trafficking of minors, accused by several women—including Virginia Giuffre—of grooming and supplying underage models to Epstein and other powerful men. His death occurred before his case could reach trial, instantly reigniting suspicions about how another key figure in the Epstein network could die under eerily similar circumstances to Epstein himself. Victims expressed outrage, saying Brunel's death robbed them of justice and silenced a potential witness who might have revealed more about the structure and reach of Epstein's global operation.The official narrative—that Brunel's death was a suicide—sparked widespread skepticism and frustration across France and beyond. Reports emerged that Brunel had been on suicide watch previously, prompting questions about prison oversight, security lapses, and whether his death was preventable—or possibly convenient. Critics drew parallels to Epstein's own jailhouse death in 2019, arguing that both men's sudden “suicides” effectively closed critical avenues of investigation into elite sex-trafficking networks. French prosecutors confirmed no foul play was “immediately suspected,” but they acknowledged the timing and circumstances raised understandable public concern. To this day, Brunel's death remains shrouded in doubt, a haunting echo of a global scandal that continues to expose the failures of institutions to deliver full accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear Ghislaine Maxwell's final appeal, effectively ending her legal battle to overturn her 2021 conviction for sex trafficking minors alongside Jeffrey Epstein. Maxwell's attorneys had argued that a 2007 non-prosecution agreement between Epstein and federal prosecutors in Florida should have shielded her from prosecution in New York, claiming she was unfairly targeted after Epstein's death. The justices, however, refused to take up the case, leaving intact the lower court rulings that upheld her 20-year sentence and dismissed her arguments as meritless.Following the rejection, Maxwell remains imprisoned at the Federal Prison Camp in Bryan, Texas, a low-security facility where she was transferred after previously being housed at FCI Tallahassee. Her only remaining avenue of relief now lies outside the judicial system—through executive clemency, such as a presidential pardon—though such outcomes are exceedingly rare.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In the months and years leading up to his death, Robert Maxwell became increasingly distrustful and paranoid, convinced that those closest to him were plotting behind his back. He had his offices secretly wired so he could eavesdrop on his employees and even his own family members, creating an atmosphere of fear within his empire. Once known as a charismatic and domineering media tycoon, Maxwell's behavior grew erratic—he would lash out at staff, accuse them of betrayal, and micromanage even the smallest details of his companies. His paranoia extended to his financial affairs, where he grew obsessed with hiding the truth about his massive debts and pension fund manipulations, leading him to retreat further into secrecy and denial.By the final months of his life, Maxwell had become almost delusional in his distrust. He isolated himself aboard his yacht, the Lady Ghislaine, surrounded by loyalists and bodyguards while cutting off communication with anyone he didn't fully control. Reports and tapes from that period show a man consumed by suspicion, believing that enemies in government, media, and even within his own business circle were conspiring to bring him down. His death at sea—officially ruled accidental but still clouded in mystery—seemed to encapsulate the final unraveling of a man trapped in his own web of lies, surveillance, and fear.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

There is a strong argument that royals like Prince Andrew live under a separate set of rules compared to ordinary citizens. In the UK, the Freedom of Information Act provides special protections: correspondence involving the monarch, the heir, and the second in line is completely exempt from disclosure, and communications involving other royals are covered by a qualified exemption. This means that information which would normally be made public for politicians or officials can remain permanently hidden when it involves the royal family. Similarly, judges have ruled that the security costs for royals cannot be made public, ensuring that vast sums of taxpayer money spent on their protection are kept secret in a way no ordinary public figure could expect.contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Lady Victoria Hervey, a former friend of Prince Andrew, has repeatedly claimed that the now-famous photograph showing Prince Andrew with Virginia Giuffre at Ghislaine Maxwell's London home is doctored. She has alleged in interviews and on social media that the image is “fake,” suggesting Andrew's head was photoshopped onto someone else's body or that it was otherwise digitally altered to create a false impression. Hervey even visited the location where the picture was allegedly taken to argue that certain features didn't match the photo. These assertions echo Prince Andrew's own denials about the photo's authenticity and have become part of the broader dispute over evidence linking him to Epstein's network.In her book The Palace Papers, journalist Tina Brown alleges that Prince Andrew's behavior during a 1993 visit to Sunnylands — the lavish Palm Springs estate of philanthropists Walter and Lee Annenberg — shocked his hosts. According to Brown's account, Andrew arrived as part of a formal delegation but quickly separated himself from the group, retreating to his private suite where he allegedly spent two full days watching pornography on cable television. Lee Annenberg was said to be horrified by what she described as the prince's juvenile and inappropriate behavior, an episode that reportedly became a point of embarrassment among those who managed his U.S. visits at the time.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In his memoir One Damn Thing After Another, former Attorney General Bill Barr reaffirmed his belief that Jeffrey Epstein died by suicide, dismissing widespread speculation of foul play. Barr described Epstein's death as “a perfect storm of screw-ups,” blaming systemic incompetence at the Metropolitan Correctional Center rather than conspiracy. He detailed how the facility's guards failed to perform mandatory checks, cameras malfunctioned, and protocols broke down at every level. Barr said that after personally viewing the surveillance footage and autopsy results, he concluded Epstein had indeed hanged himself, though he admitted the timing and circumstances were “unbelievably coincidental.” He also recounted informing then-President Trump, who reacted with disbelief that such a high-profile prisoner could die in federal custody.Journalist Michael Wolff took a sharply different angle in his reporting and in his book Too Famous. Wolff portrayed Epstein's death not as mere bureaucratic failure but as a politically charged event involving figures like Bill Barr. He claimed Epstein boasted before his death that Barr, not Trump, was “really in charge” in Washington—an assertion that Wolff framed as symbolic of Epstein's manipulative arrogance and deep connections. Wolff insinuated that Barr's Justice Department may have had incentives to control the fallout surrounding Epstein's demise, emphasizing how quickly official narratives were accepted and how conveniently they buried lingering questions. His depiction suggested Epstein's end fit a long pattern of elite protection and strategic silence rather than pure misfortune.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Prince Andrew has shown repeatedly an inclination to push past initial rejections or objections—one of the more glaring examples was his decision to proceed with the controversial Newsnight interview, despite widespread advice against it. Royal aides and media advisors reportedly cautioned that such a public confrontation would be fraught, but Andrew moved ahead anyway, showing a willingness to press on even when many thought he should decline.Another instance lies in the public and media scrutiny of whether Andrew would express regret over his association with Epstein. During the interview, he was twice asked if he would call his friendship a “mistake,” and he declined both times—rather than accepting a simpler path to remorse or damage control, he held firm.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jonathan Oddi's allegations against Sean "Diddy" Combs stem from a resurfaced 2018 interrogation video, where Oddi claimed to have been a "sex slave" for Diddy and singer Cassie Ventura. These claims, which include Oddi's allegations of drug use (such as "liquid cocaine") and sexually abusive behavior, have re-emerged amidst Diddy's ongoing legal troubles, although they were never substantiated, and no legal action was taken based on Oddi's accusations.Oddi, a former adult film star, made these claims following his arrest for a violent incident at the Trump National Doral Golf Club, where he engaged in a gunfight with police. While his accusations have been dismissed by many as delusional, they continue to draw attention, especially given Diddy's recent legal battles, which include other serious allegations involving sexual misconduct and abuse​.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Vicky Ward is a British-born journalist and author who became an early reporter on Jeffrey Epstein's world of power and privilege. In 2003, while working for Vanity Fair, she was assigned a profile on Epstein that initially included accounts from two sisters alleging he had sexually abused them. However, those allegations were ultimately removed from the published story, reportedly under pressure from Epstein himself and after intervention from then–editor Graydon Carter. Ward has since spoken publicly about her frustration over this editorial decision, arguing that her reporting was undermined and that critical early warnings about Epstein's predatory behavior were muted, which allowed him to maintain his veneer of legitimacy and influence.In the years following Epstein's arrest and death, Ward has continued to speak out about her experiences and the difficulties of reporting on powerful figures like him. She has positioned herself as someone who tried to expose troubling aspects of Epstein's life long before the scandal reached public consciousness, but who was thwarted by a media culture too willing to protect elites. While some critics have questioned her handling of the original reporting, Ward's role remains significant in the broader narrative of how Epstein managed to evade scrutiny for so long, highlighting the ways media institutions, editorial decisions, and the influence of money and power intersected in shielding him.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Ann Coulter has repeatedly gone after Donald Trump for what she calls his “swamp-like” silence on the Jeffrey Epstein files. In an interview with The Spectator, she gave Trump a “9 out of 10” for his presidency but docked him a point for refusing to release the Epstein records—implying that he may be shielding wealthy donors or allies. She argued that the refusal to unseal those files reeks of political protectionism and hypocrisy, especially from someone who built his brand on “draining the swamp.” Coulter went even further, suggesting that Epstein's financial backing may have involved powerful foreign interests, including Israel and Saudi Arabia, insinuating that this may explain the continued secrecy around Epstein's operations and network.She has also accused both Trump and mainstream media outlets of conspiring—consciously or not—to downplay Epstein's crimes and the powerful figures involved. In her Townhall column, Coulter blasted the collective disinterest in uncovering Epstein's full client list, saying the silence “reeks of fear and complicity.” On social media, she described Trump's behavior as a “cover-up,” calling it one of the biggest betrayals of his supporters who once believed he'd expose elite corruption. For Coulter, the Epstein scandal has become the ultimate test of whether the political right is truly against the “deep state” or simply another part of it.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:'It's a conspiracy': Ann Coulter​ slams Trump's 'Swamp'-like Epstein cover-up - Alternet.org

In a recent interview, aspiring singer-songwriter Tanea Wallace recounted her experience at a 2018 party hosted by Sean "Diddy" Combs, which she described as unsettling and traumatic. She claimed that upon arrival, guests were required to surrender their phones, and the atmosphere was marked by loud music and individuals engaging in various explicit activities. Wallace alleged that certain attendees, including herself, were invited to a more exclusive area of the party, where she observed behavior that left her feeling uncomfortable and concerned for her safety.Wallace further described seeing individuals she referred to as "little people" dressed provocatively, which led her to question the appropriateness of their presence at the event. She implied that some attendees might have been minors, though she refrained from making explicit accusations. These revelations have surfaced amid ongoing legal challenges faced by Combs, including allegations of sexual misconduct and abuse.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Woman claims she saw minors dressed as 'Harajuku Barbies' at Sean 'Diddy' Combs' Freak Off party

In the now-concluded civil case Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., the USVI sought a partial summary judgment before the case was settled, arguing that the evidence overwhelmingly showed JPMorgan knowingly facilitated Jeffrey Epstein's sex-trafficking operation. The filing claimed that internal emails, compliance reports, and testimony proved the bank ignored repeated red flags about Epstein's financial activity—including large cash withdrawals, suspicious wire transfers, and employee warnings linking him to underage abuse. The USVI contended that JPMorgan profited from Epstein's wealth and social connections while turning a blind eye to clear indicators of criminal conduct, violating the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) by financially enabling a known sex trafficker. In essence, the government asked the court to rule that JPMorgan was civilly liable on key elements of the case before it ever reachedJPMorgan denied wrongdoing and opposed the motion, insisting that there were factual disputes unsuitable for summary judgment, particularly regarding the bank's knowledge and intent. The court ultimately declined to grant the USVI's motion, finding that the issues were complex enough to warrant continued litigation—but the case ended shortly thereafter in December 2023, when JPMorgan agreed to a $75 million settlement with the U.S. Virgin Islands. The agreement included commitments for JPMorgan to enhance its compliance and anti-trafficking procedures while denying any admission of liability. Though the USVI didn't win its partial summary judgment outright, the motion itself played a crucial role in forcing discovery that exposed internal JPMorgan communications and helped push the bank toward settlement.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

After Jeffrey Epstein's death in 2019, the official ruling from the New York City Medical Examiner's Office was that he died by suicide in his Manhattan jail cell. However, that conclusion came under intense scrutiny when Dr. Michael Baden, a well-known forensic pathologist hired by Epstein's brother, publicly suggested that the injuries were more consistent with homicide. In response, Barbara Sampson, then–Chief Medical Examiner of New York City, forcefully defended the office's findings and rejected Baden's assertions. She stated unequivocally that the autopsy results, combined with the investigation, supported suicide by hanging, not foul play.Sampson's rebuttal was meant to put to rest the growing wave of speculation, but it also underscored the divide between official conclusions and the swirl of doubt fueled by Epstein's powerful connections and the suspicious circumstances of his death. By directly countering Baden, she stood by the credibility of her office's work, stressing that outside opinions could not outweigh the evidence they had gathered. Still, the public's mistrust lingered, and her statements became part of the broader controversy over whether Epstein's death was truly a suicide or part of a larger cover-up.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Mark Epstein, the younger brother of Jeffrey Epstein, reacted to the large-scale release of court documents with pointed skepticism. He argued that the so-called transparency amounted to little more than a controlled spectacle. In his view, the bulk release—thousands of pages, many of them repetitive or heavily redacted—ensured the public would be overwhelmed and unable to identify what mattered most. He described the process as an effort to shield the identities of powerful figures tied to his brother while creating the appearance of disclosure.Yet his narrative has drawn criticism for what it omits. By centering his remarks on redactions and the alleged protection of elites, Mark downplays the extensive record already linking Jeffrey Epstein to decades of sexual abuse and exploitation. His framing casts the document dump as another act in a cover-up rather than an extension of the case against his brother, leading many to question whether his comments are motivated by a genuine call for accountability—or by a desire to soften the legacy of a disgraced sibling.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the now-concluded civil case Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., the USVI sought a partial summary judgment before the case was settled, arguing that the evidence overwhelmingly showed JPMorgan knowingly facilitated Jeffrey Epstein's sex-trafficking operation. The filing claimed that internal emails, compliance reports, and testimony proved the bank ignored repeated red flags about Epstein's financial activity—including large cash withdrawals, suspicious wire transfers, and employee warnings linking him to underage abuse. The USVI contended that JPMorgan profited from Epstein's wealth and social connections while turning a blind eye to clear indicators of criminal conduct, violating the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) by financially enabling a known sex trafficker. In essence, the government asked the court to rule that JPMorgan was civilly liable on key elements of the case before it ever reachedJPMorgan denied wrongdoing and opposed the motion, insisting that there were factual disputes unsuitable for summary judgment, particularly regarding the bank's knowledge and intent. The court ultimately declined to grant the USVI's motion, finding that the issues were complex enough to warrant continued litigation—but the case ended shortly thereafter in December 2023, when JPMorgan agreed to a $75 million settlement with the U.S. Virgin Islands. The agreement included commitments for JPMorgan to enhance its compliance and anti-trafficking procedures while denying any admission of liability. Though the USVI didn't win its partial summary judgment outright, the motion itself played a crucial role in forcing discovery that exposed internal JPMorgan communications and helped push the bank toward settlement.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the now-concluded civil case Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., the USVI sought a partial summary judgment before the case was settled, arguing that the evidence overwhelmingly showed JPMorgan knowingly facilitated Jeffrey Epstein's sex-trafficking operation. The filing claimed that internal emails, compliance reports, and testimony proved the bank ignored repeated red flags about Epstein's financial activity—including large cash withdrawals, suspicious wire transfers, and employee warnings linking him to underage abuse. The USVI contended that JPMorgan profited from Epstein's wealth and social connections while turning a blind eye to clear indicators of criminal conduct, violating the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) by financially enabling a known sex trafficker. In essence, the government asked the court to rule that JPMorgan was civilly liable on key elements of the case before it ever reachedJPMorgan denied wrongdoing and opposed the motion, insisting that there were factual disputes unsuitable for summary judgment, particularly regarding the bank's knowledge and intent. The court ultimately declined to grant the USVI's motion, finding that the issues were complex enough to warrant continued litigation—but the case ended shortly thereafter in December 2023, when JPMorgan agreed to a $75 million settlement with the U.S. Virgin Islands. The agreement included commitments for JPMorgan to enhance its compliance and anti-trafficking procedures while denying any admission of liability. Though the USVI didn't win its partial summary judgment outright, the motion itself played a crucial role in forcing discovery that exposed internal JPMorgan communications and helped push the bank toward settlement.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Focusing the entire Jeffrey Epstein scandal on Donald Trump is a trap because it narrows a sprawling, decades-long criminal conspiracy into a single political talking point. Epstein's network reached across party lines, continents, and industries—Wall Street, academia, Silicon Valley, Hollywood, royal families, and multiple presidential administrations. Reducing that to “Trump and Epstein” not only misrepresents the scale of the system that enabled Epstein but also gives cover to the countless other powerful figures who benefited from his operations or protected him. By making Trump the centerpiece, the conversation stops being about systemic corruption and becomes yet another partisan grudge match, which is exactly how real accountability gets buried.It's also a trap because it polarizes the public into camps before any real investigation even begins. Once the scandal is framed as “Epstein = Trump,” critics and defenders dig in along predictable political lines, and survivors' voices get drowned out in the noise of culture-war talking points. This allows institutions—from banks to universities to intelligence agencies—to skate by without scrutiny because everyone's busy arguing over one man's photo ops or flight logs. Epstein's story is not a Trump story; it's a story about a global blackmail network operating with impunity. Making it about Trump alone hands the very system that enabled Epstein the easiest out imaginable.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jean-Luc Brunel, the French modeling agent and longtime associate of Jeffrey Epstein, was found dead in his La Santé prison cell in Paris on February 19, 2022, in what authorities immediately labeled a suicide by hanging. Brunel had been under investigation for rape, sexual harassment, and the trafficking of minors, accused by several women—including Virginia Giuffre—of grooming and supplying underage models to Epstein and other powerful men. His death occurred before his case could reach trial, instantly reigniting suspicions about how another key figure in the Epstein network could die under eerily similar circumstances to Epstein himself. Victims expressed outrage, saying Brunel's death robbed them of justice and silenced a potential witness who might have revealed more about the structure and reach of Epstein's global operation.The official narrative—that Brunel's death was a suicide—sparked widespread skepticism and frustration across France and beyond. Reports emerged that Brunel had been on suicide watch previously, prompting questions about prison oversight, security lapses, and whether his death was preventable—or possibly convenient. Critics drew parallels to Epstein's own jailhouse death in 2019, arguing that both men's sudden “suicides” effectively closed critical avenues of investigation into elite sex-trafficking networks. French prosecutors confirmed no foul play was “immediately suspected,” but they acknowledged the timing and circumstances raised understandable public concern. To this day, Brunel's death remains shrouded in doubt, a haunting echo of a global scandal that continues to expose the failures of institutions to deliver full accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) was supposed to guarantee fairness and transparency for victims—making sure they were informed, included, and respected in the legal process. But when Jeffrey Epstein came along, that promise evaporated. Federal prosecutors secretly cut a Non-Prosecution Agreement that protected not only Epstein but also his “potential co-conspirators,” violating the very law designed to stop such backroom deals. The victims weren't told; they found out months later from the press. The same Department of Justice that preaches accountability deliberately hid the deal, broke federal law, and then argued that the CVRA didn't apply because no federal charges were filed—an argument so twisted it turned their own crime into a loophole.Instead of punishment, Epstein got 13 months in county jail with daily work release, while the prosecutors who betrayed the victims got promotions. The courts sided with the government, ruling that since the feds never formally charged Epstein, the survivors technically weren't “victims” under the CVRA. The result was a legal farce that showed how easily the system bends for the powerful. The law that was supposed to protect victims ended up protecting predators, proving once again that in America, justice isn't blind—it just looks away when the wrong people are involved.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) was supposed to guarantee fairness and transparency for victims—making sure they were informed, included, and respected in the legal process. But when Jeffrey Epstein came along, that promise evaporated. Federal prosecutors secretly cut a Non-Prosecution Agreement that protected not only Epstein but also his “potential co-conspirators,” violating the very law designed to stop such backroom deals. The victims weren't told; they found out months later from the press. The same Department of Justice that preaches accountability deliberately hid the deal, broke federal law, and then argued that the CVRA didn't apply because no federal charges were filed—an argument so twisted it turned their own crime into a loophole.Instead of punishment, Epstein got 13 months in county jail with daily work release, while the prosecutors who betrayed the victims got promotions. The courts sided with the government, ruling that since the feds never formally charged Epstein, the survivors technically weren't “victims” under the CVRA. The result was a legal farce that showed how easily the system bends for the powerful. The law that was supposed to protect victims ended up protecting predators, proving once again that in America, justice isn't blind—it just looks away when the wrong people are involved.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Prince Andrew has struggled to adapt to civilian life since his disgrace, with biographers and commentators suggesting he was never equipped for it. His entire adult identity was shaped by status, ceremonial duty, and military association, leaving him ill-prepared to navigate a life without privilege. The biography Entitled: The Rise and Fall of the House of York paints him as adrift, without the motivation or skills to pursue meaningful work outside the royal framework. Reports describe his days as mostly empty, filled with golf, television, and private routines that underscore a lack of purpose or direction.Critics emphasize that Andrew's sense of identity remains tied to the royal status he lost, making civilian reinvention especially difficult. Sources close to him say he is frustrated and resentful over being permanently stripped of his titles and public duties, with some observers noting he appears “spent” without a formal role. His diminished finances, shrinking public relevance, and tense family dynamics compound the problem, reinforcing the image of a man unable to carve out a path beyond the privileges of monarchy.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jeffrey Epstein's Zorro Ranch in New Mexico was a sprawling 10,000-acre compound in Santa Fe County that became one of the most infamous properties linked to his alleged sex-trafficking network. A portion of the land—roughly 1,200 acres—was not privately owned but leased from the New Mexico State Land Office through Epstein's shell company, Cypress Inc., under an agricultural land-use contract. State officials later revealed that the lease had been maintained for decades without oversight or genuine agricultural activity, effectively allowing Epstein to use public land as a privacy buffer for his secluded estate. After Epstein's 2019 arrest and death, the New Mexico State Land Office canceled the lease, citing violations of public trust and misuse of state property. Investigations showed that Epstein's lease terms, which were intended for grazing, were instead used to create restricted access zones around the compound, preventing entry onto land that technically belonged to the people of New Mexico.Epstein also took advantage of New Mexico's age of consent laws, which set the legal threshold at 17 years old, to minimize his legal exposure in the state. When he moved operations to Zorro Ranch after his 2008 conviction in Florida, New Mexico officials determined that because his victim in that case had been 17, he did not meet the criteria to register as a sex offender under their state laws. This legal loophole allowed him to reside and travel freely in New Mexico without the stigma or restrictions of public registration. Critics later called the decision “deeply troubling,” noting that Epstein's influence, wealth, and legal resources enabled him to exploit state-level legal distinctions to shield himself from scrutiny. The combination of public land privilege and lenient age statutes made Zorro Ranch a legal gray zone—one that Epstein used to his advantage until the state finally revoked his land rights years after his death.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Since the scandal over his ties to Jeffrey Epstein erupted, Prince Andrew has lived largely as a recluse, stripped of his military titles, patronages, and official royal duties. After his disastrous 2019 Newsnight interview, he stepped back from public life and by 2022 had lost the right to use his “HRH” styling in any official capacity. His social media presence was erased, his royal engagements ceased, and he was effectively removed from the core activities of the monarchy. Once regarded as an active working royal, he has since become a sidelined figure whose only appearances are private or incidental.Today, Andrew lives quietly at the Royal Lodge in Windsor, where he shares the residence with his ex-wife Sarah Ferguson. Reports describe him as withdrawn and rarely seen in public, spending most of his time behind the walls of his estate, receiving occasional family visits and engaging in routine, low-key activities. Though the royal family has worked to distance itself, Andrew has retained his residence rights and security arrangements, though both have fueled ongoing controversy and speculation over how long such privileges can continue.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jeffrey Epstein was protected by many, many different people throughout his life. From politicians to law enforcement, it seems that no matter where the dice landed for Epstein, he never crapped out. One of the offices that should have been all over Epstein and his behavior is the New York State Prosecutors office that was led by Cy Vance. Yet Epstein was able to dictate his terms and do as he pleased. The question is...why? (commercial at 6:50)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.vox.com/2019/7/11/20690320/jeffrey-epstein-new-york-manhattan-nypd

A provocative billboard in New York criticized Prince Andrew by mocking his alleged involvement in the Epstein scandal. The billboard, erected by a Manhattan storage company, used a tongue-in-cheek approach to highlight the sex abuse allegations and the multimillion-dollar settlement he reached with Virginia Giuffre. Its message forced the public and media to confront a topic that many prefer to evade: the intersection of royalty, privilege, and alleged trafficking.The billboard's appearance illustrates how public activism and visual protest can pierce institutional silence. It turned a whisper campaign into a street-level accusation, making it harder for powerful actors to ignore or downplay. In doing so, it reinforced the idea that accountability and justice won't always come from elite institutions—that sometimes the most effective pressure comes from the margins demanding attention.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The New York Times filed a lawsuit against the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) seeking access to sealed records related to Jeffrey Epstein's death, arguing that the public has a right to know what happened inside the Metropolitan Correctional Center in the lead-up to his demise. The lawsuit specifically demanded internal documents, surveillance logs, and other materials that could shed light on why such a high-profile inmate was left vulnerable despite warnings about his safety. By pushing the case, the Times framed the government's secrecy as part of a broader transparency crisis, suggesting that withholding the records only fuels suspicion surrounding Epstein's death.The BOP, however, resisted releasing the files, citing privacy and security concerns, which only deepened criticism that the federal government was stonewalling. For many, the case symbolized the ongoing fight to pierce the veil of silence that has surrounded Epstein since his arrest, and the Times' lawsuit became another flashpoint in the debate over whether institutions are protecting the truth—or covering up negligence and complicity. The outcome of the battle was seen as critical not just for understanding Epstein's final hours, but for testing how much accountability the public could actually demand from the agencies charged with overseeing justice.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The release of the 2006 Florida grand jury records tied to Jeffrey Epstein's first arrest had a very specific date: July 1, 2024. That date was not chosen at random — it was the exact day that Florida's new law, HB 117, went into effect. This law created the first-ever pathway to unseal grand jury materials in cases involving sexual offenses with minors if the subject of the investigation was deceased. Palm Beach Circuit Judge Luis Delgado signed the release order the same morning the law became active, marking a coordinated legal and legislative milestone after years of stonewalling. By that afternoon, Palm Beach County Clerk Joe Abruzzo confirmed that the documents were officially public.The release of the 2006 Florida grand jury records tied to Jeffrey Epstein's first arrest had a very specific date: July 1, 2024. That date was not chosen at random — it was the exact day that Florida's new law, HB 117, went into effect. This law created the first-ever pathway to unseal grand jury materials in cases involving sexual offenses with minors if the subject of the investigation was deceased. Palm Beach Circuit Judge Luis Delgado signed the release order the same morning the law became active, marking a coordinated legal and legislative milestone after years of stonewalling. By that afternoon, Palm Beach County Clerk Joe Abruzzo confirmed that the documents were officially public.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The effort to unseal the 2006 Florida state grand jury records tied to Jeffrey Epstein's first arrest moved slowly but eventually inched closer to the finish line after years of stalled petitions. A turning point came in 2023 when an appellate court in CA Florida Holdings LLC v. Aronberg ruled that lower courts did have discretion to release grand jury materials under certain conditions — a break from earlier rulings that had kept the records fully sealed. This legal shift paved the way for renewed pressure to disclose the documents, particularly as public outrage over Epstein's past leniency grew.Momentum accelerated in early 2024 when Florida lawmakers passed HB 117, a bill signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis, that explicitly allowed disclosure of grand jury records in cases involving sexual activity with minors if the subject was deceased. With this statute in place, Palm Beach Circuit Judge Luis Delgado ordered the release of roughly 150 pages of transcripts in July 2024. The disclosure — while still redacted in places — marked the closest the process had come to full transparency, reflecting a slow but steady march toward exposing how the 2006 case against Epstein was handled.to contat me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

For years, the transcripts and evidence from the 2006 Palm Beach County grand jury — convened to investigate Epstein's alleged sexual exploitation of minors — remained sealed under Florida's strict grand jury secrecy rules. Media organizations (notably the Palm Beach Post) and public interest groups repeatedly sought access, arguing that the public needed transparency about why only a single solicitation-of-prostitution charge was returned despite far more serious allegations. These petitions were denied by lower courts, which held that under existing law, judges lacked authority to override the secrecy protections. That changed when Florida's Legislature in 2024 passed HB 117, a law tailored to allow disclosure of grand jury materials in cases involving sexual activity with minors and deceased defendants. Gov. Ron DeSantis signed it into law, making it possible (beginning July 1, 2024) for a judge to order release of those previously sealed transcripts.In July 2024, Palm Beach Circuit Judge Luis Delgado ordered the release of about 150 pages of those transcripts. The unsealed records showed that prosecutors had presented testimony from two alleged underage victims, police officers, and others — but rather than focusing squarely on Epstein's alleged abuse, the questioning at times shifted toward whether the victims themselves could face criminal liability. The transcripts also confirmed prosecutors had been aware of rape and trafficking allegations well before Epstein's 2008 plea deal, fueling arguments that the case was deliberately undercharged to shield him. Even after this release, large portions of the records remained redacted, leaving critics to argue that the state had still not provided full accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Localized journalism played a pivotal role in breaking through the silence and inertia that surrounded the Epstein investigation for years. National outlets often overlooked or downplayed the story, but local reporters—particularly in Florida—kept pushing. The Miami Herald's investigative series “Perversion of Justice” became a turning point, laying bare the sweetheart deal Epstein received and how officials swept his crimes under the rug. By digging into court records, interviewing survivors, and pressing local authorities, these journalists exposed the corruption and failures of law enforcement in a way that reverberated nationally. Survivors later credited these local stories with giving them a voice when no one else would.Localized journalism played a pivotal role in breaking through the silence and inertia that surrounded the Epstein investigation for years. National outlets often overlooked or downplayed the story, but local reporters—particularly in Florida—kept pushing. The Miami Herald's investigative series “Perversion of Justice” became a turning point, laying bare the sweetheart deal Epstein received and how officials swept his crimes under the rug. By digging into court records, interviewing survivors, and pressing local authorities, these journalists exposed the corruption and failures of law enforcement in a way that reverberated nationally. Survivors later credited these local stories with giving them a voice when no one else would.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) was meant to guarantee Epstein's survivors a voice in the legal process, but in practice their rights were ignored during the 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement between Epstein's legal team and federal prosecutors in Florida. Survivors were never told about the deal in advance, even though the CVRA required that they be notified of and consulted on major decisions in the case. Instead, prosecutors secretly arranged a sweetheart plea bargain that allowed Epstein to avoid federal charges and serve minimal county jail time under highly privileged conditions. The survivors only learned of the agreement after it had already been finalized, stripping them of their chance to object or even weigh in.Federal courts later acknowledged that prosecutors had violated the CVRA by keeping survivors in the dark, but the rulings stopped short of overturning the deal. This left survivors furious, as the law meant to protect them had been functionally useless in one of the most high-profile sex trafficking cases in U.S. history. Instead of being treated with the dignity and participation promised by the CVRA, they were sidelined to protect Epstein and the powerful figures around him. The episode stands as one of the clearest examples of how prosecutorial discretion and political pressure can render victims' rights laws toothless when influential defendants are involved.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jeffrey Epstein was protected by many, many different people throughout his life. From politicians to law enforcement, it seems that no matter where the dice landed for Epstein, he never crapped out. One of the offices that should have been all over Epstein and his behavior is the New York State Prosecutors office that was led by Cy Vance. Yet Epstein was able to dictate his terms and do as he pleased. The question is...why? to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.vox.com/2019/7/11/20690320/jeffrey-epstein-new-york-manhattan-nypdBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The New York Times filed a lawsuit against the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) seeking access to sealed records related to Jeffrey Epstein's death, arguing that the public has a right to know what happened inside the Metropolitan Correctional Center in the lead-up to his demise. The lawsuit specifically demanded internal documents, surveillance logs, and other materials that could shed light on why such a high-profile inmate was left vulnerable despite warnings about his safety. By pushing the case, the Times framed the government's secrecy as part of a broader transparency crisis, suggesting that withholding the records only fuels suspicion surrounding Epstein's death.The BOP, however, resisted releasing the files, citing privacy and security concerns, which only deepened criticism that the federal government was stonewalling. For many, the case symbolized the ongoing fight to pierce the veil of silence that has surrounded Epstein since his arrest, and the Times' lawsuit became another flashpoint in the debate over whether institutions are protecting the truth—or covering up negligence and complicity. The outcome of the battle was seen as critical not just for understanding Epstein's final hours, but for testing how much accountability the public could actually demand from the agencies charged with overseeing justice.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The rumor mill has churned out one of its juiciest royal tidbits: that King Charles once gave Prince Andrew such a scathing rebuke that the disgraced duke actually cried. Supposedly, Charles told him—point blank—that he would never be allowed back into royal life, and Andrew, who still harbored fantasies of a comeback, was so “utterly bereft” he broke down in tears. Think about it: a grown man, a prince of the realm, sobbing because his big brother told him his days of cutting ribbons and pretending to be useful were over. It's like watching the office screw-up finally get fired and realizing he's the only one surprised.Of course, this “Andrew cried” story comes with the usual royal rumor disclaimers: tabloid sources, unnamed insiders, and just enough dramatic flair to sound like a soap opera script. There's no official confirmation from the palace, because let's be real—they'd never admit something so humiliating. But whether it's literally true or just tabloid fan-fiction, the image of Andrew bawling while Charles tells him he's persona non grata fits almost too neatly. If nothing else, it paints a perfect picture of just how far Andrew has fallen—from strutting prince to pitiful footnote.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Les Wexner, billionaire founder of L Brands and longtime Epstein associate, has poured significant money into Republican politics over the years. He was a high-profile donor in the 2012 presidential race, hosting fundraisers for Mitt Romney and giving $250,000 to the pro-Romney “Restore Our Future” super PAC. In 2015, he chipped in another $500,000 to Jeb Bush's “Right to Rise” PAC, solidifying his reputation as one of Ohio's most influential GOP financiers. For decades, Wexner's name appeared in donor rolls tied to party machinery, think tanks, and candidates who benefited from his wealth.Then came the dramatic “I quit the GOP” moment in 2018, when Wexner loudly declared he was leaving the Republican Party, citing differences with its modern direction. But, irony alert—despite the public distancing act, he was back in the donor headlines in 2022, cutting a $250,000 check to the Republican Governors Association. So much for walking away. It seems that, like many billionaires, Wexner can't quite resist keeping his influence alive where it counts—inside the political cash pipeline.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Leon Black, billionaire cofounder of Apollo Global Management, was for years a heavyweight political donor, spreading money to both Democrats and Republicans. In 2016 alone, he poured in more than $590,000 across campaigns and committees, with large sums going to both parties' super PACs—$250,000 to the Democratic-aligned Senate Majority PAC and $150,000 to the Republican-aligned Congressional Leadership Fund. His donations continued into later cycles, but the amounts dropped sharply once his connections to Jeffrey Epstein became public, with watchdogs noting a steep decline in his political spending after 2020.When it came to his personal scandals, Black has claimed he was the one being targeted rather than the perpetrator. After Guzel Ganieva filed her 2021 lawsuit alleging sexual assault and coercion, Black fired back that the allegations were “fiction” and part of an extortion scheme. He launched counterclaims of defamation, insisted he had proof in the form of texts and calls, and argued that he was the victim of a calculated conspiracy meant to “destroy” him through litigation and media pressure. Black's stance has consistently been that he was set up—framed as both a financial and reputational hit job orchestrated by opportunists who saw him as a target.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jeffrey Epstein was a steady political donor for years, spreading money across both parties while cultivating influence. From 1989 to 2003, he gave more than $139,000 to Democrats and over $18,000 to Republicans, often in relatively small increments that added up over time. His contributions included donations to figures like Chuck Schumer in the 1990s and a $50,000 check to Bill Richardson's 2002 gubernatorial campaign in New Mexico. Beyond politics, Epstein also positioned himself as a benefactor in academic and cultural circles, with his foundations giving more than $30 million to universities and institutions, furthering his attempts to launder legitimacy and credibility through philanthropy.Epstein's financial ties also reached organizations connected to the United Nations. The International Peace Institute (IPI), a think tank closely tied to the UN, received donations from his network, prompting scandal years later when it was revealed the contributions were not fully disclosed. In 2020, IPI president Terje Rød-Larsen resigned after admitting to accepting Epstein-linked funds, even as he claimed they represented only a small portion of IPI's budget. Reports also show Epstein helped facilitate or influence funding for UN-affiliated projects alongside other wealthy donors, such as through connections with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. While these donations may not have gone directly to the UN itself, they highlight how Epstein used philanthropy and political giving to maintain access to power.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Ann Coulter has repeatedly gone after Donald Trump for what she calls his “swamp-like” silence on the Jeffrey Epstein files. In an interview with The Spectator, she gave Trump a “9 out of 10” for his presidency but docked him a point for refusing to release the Epstein records—implying that he may be shielding wealthy donors or allies. She argued that the refusal to unseal those files reeks of political protectionism and hypocrisy, especially from someone who built his brand on “draining the swamp.” Coulter went even further, suggesting that Epstein's financial backing may have involved powerful foreign interests, including Israel and Saudi Arabia, insinuating that this may explain the continued secrecy around Epstein's operations and network.She has also accused both Trump and mainstream media outlets of conspiring—consciously or not—to downplay Epstein's crimes and the powerful figures involved. In her Townhall column, Coulter blasted the collective disinterest in uncovering Epstein's full client list, saying the silence “reeks of fear and complicity.” On social media, she described Trump's behavior as a “cover-up,” calling it one of the biggest betrayals of his supporters who once believed he'd expose elite corruption. For Coulter, the Epstein scandal has become the ultimate test of whether the political right is truly against the “deep state” or simply another part of it.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:'It's a conspiracy': Ann Coulter​ slams Trump's 'Swamp'-like Epstein cover-up - Alternet.orgBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Vicky Ward is a British-born journalist and author who became an early reporter on Jeffrey Epstein's world of power and privilege. In 2003, while working for Vanity Fair, she was assigned a profile on Epstein that initially included accounts from two sisters alleging he had sexually abused them. However, those allegations were ultimately removed from the published story, reportedly under pressure from Epstein himself and after intervention from then–editor Graydon Carter. Ward has since spoken publicly about her frustration over this editorial decision, arguing that her reporting was undermined and that critical early warnings about Epstein's predatory behavior were muted, which allowed him to maintain his veneer of legitimacy and influence.In the years following Epstein's arrest and death, Ward has continued to speak out about her experiences and the difficulties of reporting on powerful figures like him. She has positioned herself as someone who tried to expose troubling aspects of Epstein's life long before the scandal reached public consciousness, but who was thwarted by a media culture too willing to protect elites. While some critics have questioned her handling of the original reporting, Ward's role remains significant in the broader narrative of how Epstein managed to evade scrutiny for so long, highlighting the ways media institutions, editorial decisions, and the influence of money and power intersected in shielding him.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Ghislaine Maxwell has long been described as a master manipulator, someone who used her social status, charm, and connections to gain the trust of young women and to insulate Jeffrey Epstein from suspicion. As the daughter of publishing tycoon Robert Maxwell, she was raised in wealth and influence, which she later leveraged to move seamlessly within elite circles. Prosecutors and survivors alike have painted her as the key facilitator of Epstein's trafficking network—someone who recruited, groomed, and normalized abusive behavior under the guise of mentorship, opportunity, and sophistication. Maxwell's ability to present herself as a glamorous, worldly figure made her effective at disarming victims and convincing them they were entering an exclusive world, when in reality, they were being exploited.Beyond grooming victims, Maxwell's manipulation extended into how she managed Epstein's social and professional relationships. She acted as his gatekeeper, connecting him with politicians, business leaders, and royalty, all while projecting the image of a respectable partner and hostess. Survivors testified that her approval carried enormous weight, as she blurred the line between legitimacy and exploitation, often making abuse seem like part of a privileged lifestyle. Even after her arrest, Maxwell tried to portray herself as a scapegoat, shifting blame and framing her actions as those of a loyal companion rather than an active participant. This pattern reinforced her reputation as someone who was not only complicit but uniquely skilled at controlling perceptions and bending reality to protect herself and Epstein.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In their impact statement to the court, Cassaundra “Cassie” Ventura and her parents described the profound emotional toll that the alleged abuse had on Cassie's life. They portrayed her as having lived under constant fear and pressure, feeling “trapped” in the relationship, and suffering from long-lasting trauma, anxiety, and emotional harm. They emphasized that the effects of the abuse did not end with the alleged event(s), but reverberated through her daily life, relationships, mental health, and sense of safety.They also urged the court to acknowledge not just the harm done to Cassie, but the ripple effects on her family — how watching her suffer, navigating legal and public scrutiny, and supporting her recovery have deeply impacted them emotionally and psychologically. Their statement sought to convey that justice is not merely about punishment of the alleged perpetrator but validation and recognition of the lasting damage that must be addressed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.516.1_3.pdfgov.uscourts.nysd.628425.516.2_4.pdf