Podcast appearances and mentions of prince andrew

Watch all of our Epstein videos here:    • Epstein  Whitney on X: https://x.com/_whitneywebbWatch Who Is Ghislaine Maxwell? From Prince Andrew to Epstein's Baby Farm - John Sweeney - Podcast    • Who Is Ghislaine Maxwell? From Prince Andr...  WATCH King Charles' Mentor Lord Mountbatten Exposed Andrew Lownie Podcast 780    • King Charles' Mentor Lord Mountbatten Expo...  Watch full EPSTEIN Was INTELLIGENCE! Ari Ben Menashe podcast:    • EPSTEIN Was ISRAELI INTELLIGENCE! Ari Ben ...  UNTOUCHABLE - Jimmy S documentary    • UNTOUCHABLE - Jimmy Savile documentary by ...  ADOPTED KID'S CA HORROR STORY & BOYS TOWN! PASTOR Eddie https://youtube.com/live/vD3SGWpnfyMWatch Used By ELITES From Age 6 - Survivor Kelly Patterson https://youtube.com/live/nkKkIfLkRx0KELLY'S 2 HOUR VIDEO ON VIRGINIA    • Video  Watch all of Shaun's True Crime podcasts:    • Shaun Attwood's True Crime Podcast  Watch all of Shaun's Attwood Unleashed episodes:    • Attwood Unleashed  BOOK LINKS: Who Killed Epstein? Prince Andrew or Bill Clinton by Shaun Attwood UK: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B093QK1GS1 USA: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B093QK1GS1 Worldwide: https://books2read.com/u/bQjGQD All of Shaun's books on Amazon UK: https://www.amazon.co.uk/stores/Shaun...All of Shaun's books on Amazon USA: https://www.amazon.com/stores/Shaun-A...——————————Shaun Attwood's social media:TikTok:   / shaunattwood1  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/shaunattwoo...Twitter:   / shaunattwood  Facebook:   / shaunattwood1  Patreon:   / shaunattwood  Odysee: https://odysee.com/@ShaunAttwood:a#podcast #truecrime #news  #usa #youtube  #people #uk #princeandrew #royal #royalfamily

Watch all of our Steeples videos here:    • Matthew Steeples  Matthew Steeples on YT:    / @mjs2781  Matthew Steeples' links: Steeple Times: http://thesteepletimes.comTwitter:   / m_steeples  AND   / steepletimes  Watch Who Is Ghislaine Maxwell? From Prince Andrew to Epstein's Baby Farm - John Sweeney - Podcast    • Who Is Ghislaine Maxwell? From Prince Andr...  WATCH King Charles' Mentor Lord Mountbatten Exposed Andrew Lownie Podcast 780    • King Charles' Mentor Lord Mountbatten Expo...  Watch full EPSTEIN Was INTELLIGENCE! Ari Ben Menashe podcast:    • EPSTEIN Was ISRAELI INTELLIGENCE! Ari Ben ...  UNTOUCHABLE - Jimmy S documentary    • UNTOUCHABLE - Jimmy Savile documentary by ...  ADOPTED KID'S CA HORROR STORY & BOYS TOWN! PASTOR Eddie https://youtube.com/live/vD3SGWpnfyMWatch Used By ELITES From Age 6 - Survivor Kelly Patterson https://youtube.com/live/nkKkIfLkRx0KELLY'S 2 HOUR VIDEO ON VIRGINIA    • Video  Watch all of Shaun's True Crime podcasts:    • Shaun Attwood's True Crime Podcast  Watch all of Shaun's Attwood Unleashed episodes:    • Attwood Unleashed  BOOK LINKS: Who Killed Epstein? Prince Andrew or Bill Clinton by Shaun Attwood UK: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B093QK1GS1 USA: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B093QK1GS1 Worldwide: https://books2read.com/u/bQjGQD All of Shaun's books on Amazon UK: https://www.amazon.co.uk/stores/Shaun...All of Shaun's books on Amazon USA: https://www.amazon.com/stores/Shaun-A...——————————Shaun Attwood's social media:TikTok:   / shaunattwood1  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/shaunattwoo...Twitter:   / shaunattwood  Facebook:   / shaunattwood1  Patreon:   / shaunattwood  Odysee: https://odysee.com/@ShaunAttwood:a#podcast #truecrime #news  #usa #youtube  #people #uk #princeandrew #royal #royalfamily

Send a textEp 274---, UK Reality Diamon Freddie joins me for the first part of the show to do a deep dive patreons have been begging for — tying together the Epstein files, Russian oligarch murders, and the original Ladies of London cast, just as Bravo announces the reboot premiering March 5th. We start with Annabelle Neilson, the Alexander McQueen muse and ex-wife of Nathaniel Rothschild, who appears in the Lolita Express flight logs and was a direct rival to Ghislaine Maxwell — until a warning email Ghislaine sent about her surfaced in the files. We get into Annabelle's devastating assault in Australia as a teenager by a man who went on to kill other women, and how she, Naomi Campbell, and Ghislaine formed a trio doing something very specific for Epstein involving young models. Then we go deep on Noelle Reno and Scot Young, found impaled on a fence in a "suicide" — but wait until you hear about the Project Moscow scheme, how Putin allegedly stole hundreds of millions from oligarchs, and how EVERY member of Scot's social group ended up dead. A Novichok poison threat Noelle received years later changes everything. Caroline Stanbury dated Prince Andrew right after Fergie — and may have been brought into this circle by Ghislaine herself. Then Freddie walks us through the entire new cast including Lady Emma Thynn with the safari park estate and Meghan Markle drama, Mark-Francis Vandelli from Made in Chelsea, Martha Sitwell dating Charles Saatchi with connections back to the Russian deaths, Missé Beqiri whose brother was shot 10 times on Christmas Eve in a gang hit tied to Albanian drug trafficking, and the American cast members shaking up London society. After Freddie leaves, I dig into actual Epstein emails — Les Wexner's bizarre stream-of-consciousness notes, a judge ordering Wexner to testify in an Ohio abuse case, communications proving Elon Musk's SpaceX visit that he publicly denied, how Epstein's publicist got him access to Natalie Portman and Reese Witherspoon, and Ghislaine arranging for her nephew to meet these actresses. I end with something that will blow your minds — I found what I'm calling the HOLY GRAIL email, a never-published document from a respected journalist close to Epstein that lays out a blueprint of his entire operation with the biggest names involved. I'm saving it for next week — you do NOT want to miss it.Full episode only available at Dishing Drama Dana Patreon,it's only $6.00 a month, join the fun! https://www.patreon.com/cw/DishingDramaWithDanaWilkeySupport the showDana is on Cameo!Follow Dana: @Wilkey_Dana$25,000 Song - Apple Music$25,000 Song - SpotifyTo support the show and listen to full episodes, become a member on PatreonTo send Dana information, show requests and sponsorships reach out to our new email: dishingdramadana@gmail.comDana's YouTube Channel

Jeffrey Epstein's involvement with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is one of the most underexamined yet telling indicators of how deeply entrenched he was in elite policy-making circles. Epstein donated at least $350,000 to the CFR and was listed as a member of its donor roster for years, despite his 2008 conviction for soliciting sex from a minor. His name appeared alongside respected diplomats, corporate executives, and scholars—legitimizing him in the eyes of the foreign policy establishment. Even after his initial conviction, the CFR accepted donations from Epstein-linked foundations and did not publicly distance itself from him until much later, raising questions about whether his presence was overlooked, tolerated, or quietly protected.The CFR has since tried to downplay its connection to Epstein, claiming he was not a formal member, but that distinction does little to shield the institution from criticism. Accepting donations from a convicted sex offender, especially one operating under the guise of philanthropy and elite networking, speaks volumes about the moral compromises often made behind closed doors. Epstein leveraged associations like this to burnish his image and embed himself within global power structures, using institutions like CFR as part of the camouflage that made his crimes harder to scrutinize. The fact that no CFR official raised alarm or demanded accountability at the time remains a stark reflection of how financial influence can insulate even the most depraved figures from scrutiny.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/council-on-foreign-relations-another-beneficiary-of-epstein-largesse-grapples-with-how-to-handle-his-donations/2019/09/10/1d5630e2-d324-11e9-86ac-0f250cc91758_story.html

Leslie Wexner, the billionaire founder of L Brands (which once included Victoria's Secret), has publicly claimed that Jeffrey Epstein betrayed his trust by misappropriating vast sums of money and engaging in unauthorized financial dealings on his behalf. According to Wexner's account, Epstein was given broad authority over parts of his financial and personal affairs in the 1990s and early 2000s, which he later said Epstein exploited for personal gain. Wexner has suggested that Epstein used that trust to essentially enrich himself—reportedly diverting assets and profiting from deals without clear documentation or approval. This purported betrayal, in Wexner's telling, was one of the factors that ultimately ended Epstein's professional relationship with him. Wexner has characterized the financial conduct as deceitful and exploitative, suggesting Epstein's financial acumen was a smokescreen for self-enrichment at Wexner's expense.However, a skeptical reading of this narrative raises several unresolved questions and inconsistencies. For one, some details about the scope and mechanics of the alleged financial misconduct remain vague or unverified in public records, leading observers to wonder whether the claims reflect specific documented thefts or a broader, more generalized sense of “being cheated.” Epstein today is often portrayed as having inflated his financial expertise; this has led some analysts to speculate that any discrepancies in Wexner's accounts might stem less from theft and more from sloppy bookkeeping, mutual misunderstanding, or projection after the relationship soured. Additionally, because Wexner's statements have sometimes appeared defensive or self-serving—emphasizing his own victimization—the possibility arises that the narrative simplifies or amplifies elements of the relationship to deflect scrutiny from his judgment in empowering Epstein in the first place. Until more concrete evidence is produced, the precise nature and extent of any alleged financial misconduct by Epstein toward Wexner remains a subject of debate rather than settled fact.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

After Jeffrey Epstein's death in 2019, the handling of his multi-hundred-million-dollar estate became highly contentious, especially among his victims and prosecutors seeking restitution. In 2022, accusations surfaced that two of Epstein's closest advisors — his longtime lawyer Darren Indyke and his accountant Richard Kahn, who also served as co-executors of the estate — had failed to properly account for nearly $13 million that was transferred out of the estate after his death. Critics and some legal filings alleged that this sum was obscured through trusts and financial maneuvers rather than being disclosed to authorities and victims' representatives as required, raising concerns that funds potentially owed to victims were being diverted or concealedThose allegations played into broader disputes over transparency and control of Epstein's assets. The U.S. Virgin Islands Attorney General and other critics argued that the estate's management had not provided a full inventory of assets, including explaining where all the money went, and that the co-executors' financial activities warranted scrutiny given their roles in Epstein's financial affairs. This purported failure to fully disclose or hand over all assets — including the roughly $13 million in question — fueled accusations that estate insiders were protecting financial interests at the expense of accountability and victim compensation.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Jeffrey Epstein is one of the most high profile human traffickers of all time. There is no disputing that fact. However, there are many, many people out there who are engaging in the same behavior on the same scale as Epstein or, in some cases, even bigger. Today, we take a look at how pervasive this problem is and how it has seeped into every community in the country. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/child-sex-trafficking-from-zorro-ranch-to-the-strip-remember-the-girls

In Case No. 1:23-cv-06418, defendant Leon Black filed a memorandum supporting his motion for sanctions against Wigdor LLP and attorney Jeanne Christensen. Black contends that the plaintiff's legal team pursued baseless claims, lacking factual and legal merit, with the intent to damage his reputation and coerce a settlement. He argues that their actions constitute an abuse of the judicial process, warranting sanctions to deter such conduct and uphold the integrity of the court.Black's memorandum details instances where he believes Wigdor LLP and Christensen failed to conduct adequate investigations before filing the lawsuit, resulting in frivolous and defamatory allegations. He asserts that their behavior violates professional conduct standards and has caused him significant harm. Consequently, Black requests that the court impose appropriate sanctions, including financial penalties and disciplinary measures, to prevent similar misconduct in the future.(commercial at 7:46)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.602764.54.0.pdf

In Case No. 1:23-cv-06418, defendant Leon Black filed a memorandum supporting his motion for sanctions against Wigdor LLP and attorney Jeanne Christensen. Black contends that the plaintiff's legal team pursued baseless claims, lacking factual and legal merit, with the intent to damage his reputation and coerce a settlement. He argues that their actions constitute an abuse of the judicial process, warranting sanctions to deter such conduct and uphold the integrity of the court.Black's memorandum details instances where he believes Wigdor LLP and Christensen failed to conduct adequate investigations before filing the lawsuit, resulting in frivolous and defamatory allegations. He asserts that their behavior violates professional conduct standards and has caused him significant harm. Consequently, Black requests that the court impose appropriate sanctions, including financial penalties and disciplinary measures, to prevent similar misconduct in the future.(commercial at 7:46)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.602764.54.0.pdf

Over the past several years, Bill Gates has embarked on a media tour of sorts, sitting down with outlets like PBS, CNN, and other major networks in an effort to explain why he maintained contact with Jeffrey Epstein even after Epstein's 2008 conviction for soliciting sex from a minor. In interview after interview, Gates acknowledged that meeting with Epstein was a “mistake,” often repeating that he regretted the association and that there was no philanthropic outcome from their discussions. Yet the explanations consistently raised more questions than they answered. Gates initially suggested the meetings were centered around global health and charitable ambitions, but reporting later revealed multiple in-person visits to Epstein's townhouse in New York, including at least one after his divorce announcement. The narrative that Epstein was simply a misguided gateway to philanthropic networking strained credibility, particularly given Epstein's well-known status as a convicted sex offender by the time many of these meetings occurred.What ultimately undermined Gates' attempts to contain the fallout was the shifting tone and evolving details across his public statements. In some interviews, he minimized the frequency of contact; in others, he admitted the meetings occurred several times. He framed the relationship as purely professional, yet he could not convincingly articulate what tangible benefit came from engaging Epstein at all. The repeated refrain of “it was a mistake” began to sound less like transparency and more like damage control. For critics, the issue was not simply that Gates met Epstein—it was that a billionaire with vast resources and global influence could not provide a clear, consistent account of why he chose to align, even briefly, with a man whose crimes were already public knowledge. The interviews, rather than resolving the controversy, reinforced a perception that the full story remains incomplete.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Les Wexner's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was not casual, fleeting, or peripheral. It was foundational. Wexner, the billionaire founder of L Brands and longtime head of Victoria's Secret, handed Epstein extraordinary financial authority in the late 1980s, granting him sweeping power of attorney over his fortune—an almost unheard-of concession for a man with no formal wealth management credentials and a murky background. Epstein was not just an adviser; he was embedded. He controlled Wexner's money, managed properties, and reportedly inserted himself into the culture of Wexner's corporate empire, particularly as it related to the Victoria's Secret modeling world that conveniently overlapped with Epstein's trafficking pipeline. The transfer of a Manhattan townhouse—one of the largest private residences in the city—to Epstein for a nominal sum remains one of the most glaring symbols of that patronage. For years, Wexner allowed Epstein to operate under his name and prestige, giving Epstein the legitimacy that opened doors in finance, academia, politics, and philanthropy. Epstein's entire aura of elite credibility can be traced in large part to the halo effect of Wexner's wealth and status.After Epstein's 2006 arrest and especially following the 2019 federal charges, Wexner abruptly attempted to recast himself as a victim—claiming Epstein had betrayed him, stolen from him, and misled him. He publicly severed ties, issued statements of regret, and emphasized that Epstein had been removed from his financial role years earlier. But that narrative strains credibility. Wexner was not an unsophisticated investor duped by a charming con man; he was one of the most powerful retail magnates in America with access to the best legal and financial minds in the world. The idea that Epstein could operate for years under his authority without scrutiny reflects either willful blindness or a level of negligence that borders on complicity. Wexner's late-stage distancing felt less like moral clarity and more like reputational triage once the full scope of Epstein's crimes became undeniable. His patronage built Epstein's empire. His disavowal came only after the empire collapsed in public view.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell's deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz's defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors' allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein's secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack.The deposition also addresses Dershowitz's accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz's narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified.to contact me:EFTA00594390.pdf

In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell's deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz's defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors' allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein's secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack.The deposition also addresses Dershowitz's accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz's narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified.to contact me:EFTA00594390.pdf

The silence surrounding Stacey Plaskett's lawsuit by Epstein survivors exposes the staggering hypocrisy of both lawmakers and the legacy media. Politicians who pound the table about justice and accountability fall mute when the accusations land inside their own chamber. Journalists who dissect every lurid detail of Epstein's life suddenly find no headlines when survivors point to a sitting member of Congress. This selective outrage isn't oversight—it's complicity. Survivors are abandoned the moment their stories threaten insiders, and the system shows once again that accountability is conditional, not principled.That selective accountability corrodes credibility and turns justice into theater. By politicizing the scandal, lawmakers use survivors as pawns while letting the real villains—Epstein's network of enablers—slip quietly back into the shadows. The result is a collapse of trust: citizens see investigations as performance, predators learn power protects power, and survivors are betrayed all over again. Epstein may be dead and Maxwell imprisoned, but the system that shielded them is alive and well—sustained by cowardice, silence, and the hypocrisy of institutions that pretend to defend justice while practicing selective blindness.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The lawsuits stem from parallel cases in the Southern District of New York: one brought by Jane Doe on behalf of Epstein's victims and another by the Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands, both targeting JPMorgan Chase for its alleged role in enabling Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operation. JPMorgan, in turn, filed third-party claims against former executive James Edward Staley, arguing that he should bear responsibility for any liability tied to Epstein, given his close personal and professional ties to the financier. These cases became highly significant in exposing the financial networks that allegedly allowed Epstein's crimes to flourish.In response, Staley filed a motion to exclude JPMorgan Chase's proffered expert opinions, challenging the credibility and admissibility of the bank's expert witnesses. His brief sought to limit the evidence that could be used against him, aiming to weaken JPMorgan's case for shifting liability onto him. This move reflects Staley's broader defense strategy of resisting being scapegoated as the primary enabler within JPMorgan, while the bank itself faced mounting scrutiny for its role in maintaining Epstein as a client despite numerous red flags.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.342.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

When Alex Acosta, then U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, agreed in 2008 to a plea deal that allowed Jeffrey Epstein to serve just 13 months in county jail despite federal sex-trafficking allegations, the agreement was widely criticized as outrageously lenient. But deeper reviews and federal court filings since have shown Acosta was not acting alone — the controversial non-prosecution agreement was effectively drafted and backed by officials in the main Department of Justice (DOJ), not just his local office. Documents and internal DOJ statements reveal that senior career prosecutors in Washington had negotiated the framework of the agreement, signed off on its unusually broad protections for Epstein and his associates, and limited the scope of charges in a way that prevented future federal prosecution. In this telling, Acosta served more as the frontman implementing a policy shaped and approved at the highest levels — including language that immunized unnamed co-conspirators and blocked state or federal prosecutors from bringing additional charges related to Epstein's trafficking network.Further underscoring that Acosta was not solely responsible, later Department of Justice reviews found that career prosecutors and supervisors in Washington had actively steered the deal's terms, and that many within the DOJ were aware of its extraordinary concessions. Rather than acting on his own judgment, Acosta was executing an agreement that DOJ leadership championed as the best way at the time to secure some form of accountability — a defense that has since been widely rejected. This perspective reframes the narrative: Acosta becomes a middleman who carried out a controversial deal designed, negotiated, and authorized by senior DOJ officials, rather than the lone architect of a lenient settlement that spared Epstein from the full weight of federal prosecution.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jeffrey Epstein received jailhouse visits from prominent figures. These visits highlighted the unusual level of access and influence surrounding Epstein while he was incarcerated, underscoring how deeply connected he remained to powerful individuals even as he served time. The fact that such high-profile legal and social figures maintained ties with him in jail raised broader questions about the reach of Epstein's network and how it may have shaped his treatment within the justice system.At the same time, reports referenced Epstein's continued associations with friends in elite political and business circles, including people connected to former President Bill Clinton, though Clinton himself was not documented as having visited Epstein while he was locked up. These broader connections pointed to the reality that Epstein's influence extended far beyond the walls of any cell he was placed in, sustaining the narrative that his wealth and friendships allowed him privileges not afforded to ordinary inmates.To contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/12/jeffrey-epstein-met-in-jail-with-alan-dershowitz-bill-clinton-pal.htmlBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

A lawsuit filed in Manhattan Supreme Court has brought forward nine new accusers who allege they were sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein over a span of more than two decades, with some claims dating back as far as 1978 — years earlier than previously documented allegations. Among the plaintiffs is a woman who asserts Epstein sexually assaulted her when she was just 11 years old, including repeated abuse and forced sexual acts, according to the court filing. Other accusers in the suit allege they were underage — including a Tennessee woman who claims she was raped repeatedly beginning at age 13 — while additional plaintiffs allege they were abused into adulthood. The lawsuit depicts a pattern of abuse across numerous states and territories, alleging that Epstein and his associates subjected victims to sexual assault and trafficking in New York, Florida, New Mexico, California, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and South Carolina.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.thedailybeast.com/new-jeffrey-epstein-victims-including-11-year-old-girl-come-forward-in-lawsuitBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jes Staley, the former Barclays CEO and longtime JPMorgan executive, admitted during legal proceedings and regulatory scrutiny that he had engaged in consensual sexual relations with one of Jeffrey Epstein's assistants. Staley has maintained that the relationship was consensual and separate from any criminal conduct tied to Epstein's trafficking enterprise. However, the admission became a flashpoint because it directly contradicted earlier public statements in which Staley sought to minimize the depth and nature of his association with Epstein. Court filings and internal communications revealed that Staley's relationship with Epstein was more extensive than initially portrayed, including visits to Epstein properties after Epstein's 2008 conviction. The acknowledgment of a sexual relationship with an employee inside Epstein's orbit has intensified scrutiny over what Staley knew about Epstein's operations and whether he exercised appropriate judgment as a senior banking executive entrusted with safeguarding institutional integrity.In the aftermath of the broader Epstein file revelations, calls have grown louder for regulators and law enforcement to more fully investigate Staley's conduct. Critics argue that his proximity to Epstein, combined with inconsistencies between his private communications and public statements, raises serious questions about transparency and oversight at the highest levels of global finance. UK regulators have already taken action related to how Staley characterized his ties to Epstein, and additional revelations from unsealed documents have fueled renewed demands for deeper inquiry. Advocacy groups and some lawmakers contend that anyone who maintained a close relationship with Epstein—particularly after his first conviction—should face thorough review, not only for potential criminal exposure but for failures of governance and ethical responsibility. The Staley episode has become emblematic of the broader reckoning unfolding across financial and political elites as more information tied to Epstein's network continues to surface.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jeffrey Epstein's “Core 4” consists of Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, Nadia Marcinkova, and Lesley Groff. These four women were described in numerous civil complaints and victim accounts as the closest female aides embedded in Epstein's day-to-day operations. Kellen and Groff handled scheduling, travel coordination, and communication across Epstein's properties, while Marcinkova and Ross were frequently identified by accusers as recruiters or intermediaries who introduced younger girls into Epstein's orbit. Their names appear repeatedly in lawsuits filed in Florida and New York, where survivors alleged they were instrumental in maintaining the structure that allowed Epstein's abuse to continue.All four were reported to have received immunity under the controversial 2008 federal non-prosecution agreement brokered in Florida, a deal that later drew intense national criticism. After Epstein's 2019 arrest and death, scrutiny returned to this inner circle, particularly regarding what they knew and how involved they were in recruitment, scheduling, and financial transactions tied to the operation. None of the four have been criminally convicted in connection to Epstein's trafficking case, and they have denied wrongdoing through legal filings or public statements. Still, in the broader narrative of Epstein's network, this “Core 4” designation reflects how survivors and litigators consistently identified them as central figures in the machinery that surrounded and sustained Epstein for years.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Taken as a whole, the plea conference transcript documents the formal moment when Jeffrey Epstein secured an unusually favorable resolution to serious felony charges, one that was explicitly premised on compliance with strict custodial and supervisory conditions. The court accepted the plea on the understanding that Epstein would serve meaningful jail time, submit to sex-offender designation, comply with supervision, and abide by restrictions meant to prevent further harm. On paper, the agreement was presented as a final, enforceable resolution that balanced punishment with accountability, and the court relied on representations that Epstein would follow those terms in full.With the benefit of hindsight, it is now clear that those assumptions did not hold. Epstein's subsequent treatment and behavior—his hollowed-out incarceration, continued privileges, and apparent disregard for key restrictions—call into question whether the plea terms were ever genuinely satisfied. That breakdown matters because the plea deal and the related non-prosecution agreement were conditional arrangements, dependent on good-faith compliance. When viewed in this broader context, the transcript reads not as a clean conclusion, but as the starting point of a failed enforcement process that allowed the protections of the deal to remain in place despite evidence that its core requirements were not being met.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.463.3.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The latest tranche of documents from the Jeffrey Epstein case includes emails and correspondence suggesting that former Prince Andrew may have shared sensitive UK government information with Epstein while serving as Britain's trade envoy. According to claims circulating online, some correspondence implied that Andrew leaked confidential details from official trade missions and was involved in social engagements arranged by Epstein, including a secret dinner with a Chinese model—events framed by an Epstein boast about having “the UK sewn up.” These revelations have intensified criticism and calls for a formal probe into whether Andrew's actions constituted misconduct, misuse of position, or even breaches of the Official Secrets Act.The latest tranche of documents from the Jeffrey Epstein case includes emails and correspondence suggesting that former Prince Andrew may have shared sensitive UK government information with Epstein while serving as Britain's trade envoy. According to claims circulating online, some correspondence implied that Andrew leaked confidential details from official trade missions and was involved in social engagements arranged by Epstein, including a secret dinner with a Chinese model—events framed by an Epstein boast about having “the UK sewn up.” These revelations have intensified criticism and calls for a formal probe into whether Andrew's actions constituted misconduct, misuse of position, or even breaches of the Official Secrets Act.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Andrew leaked secrets and met Chinese model at secret dinner as Epstein boasted 'I've got the UK sewn up': Damning dossier means there MUST be a probe | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The letter outlines the Department of Justice's obligations under Section 3 of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which mandates that within 15 days of completing its required document release, the DOJ must submit a detailed report to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. That report must identify all categories of records that were released and all categories that were withheld, provide a summary of any redactions made to the released materials along with the legal justification for those redactions, and compile a list of all government officials and politically exposed persons named or referenced in the disclosed documents.In the correspondence, the Department states that it is acting “consistent with Section 3 of the Act” and is now providing the required information to Congress. The letter frames the submission as statutory compliance with the transparency requirements set forth in the law, formally accounting for how records were handled, what information was withheld or redacted, and which public officials appear in the materials tied to the Epstein case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:efta-final-letter.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The DOJ's so-called “list” is being framed as transparency, but it reads like controlled optics rather than a serious accounting of Jeffrey Epstein's network. A genuine disclosure would distinguish between casual mentions and operational roles, provide context, explain methodology, and prioritize the people who facilitated recruitment, logistics, finances, and legal shielding. Instead, the document appears to emphasize ambiguity and volume over clarity, which fuels politicization and confusion. When key operational figures are absent and no structured explanation is offered, it raises legitimate questions about whether the release was designed to inform the public or to exhaust and divide it. Transparency without context isn't transparency—it's misdirection.At its core, the issue is institutional credibility. A trafficking enterprise of this scale required coordination, staffing, money flows, and protection, and any meaningful disclosure should illuminate that infrastructure rather than obscure it. If leadership presents a curated list without methodology, document categories, or clear definitions, the public is left to speculate while officials claim compliance. That dynamic erodes trust and shifts attention away from survivors and toward political infighting. The demand is straightforward: show the work, clarify omissions, and provide structured, auditable disclosure. Anything less invites suspicion that the priority is reputational protection, not accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jeffrey Epstein earned the reputation as the proverbial king of slime because he thrived in the moral runoff of elite power, operating where money, secrecy, and exploitation overlapped. He attached himself to institutions, governments, financiers, academics, and royalty not through merit, but through usefulness, insinuation, and leverage. Epstein cultivated access by positioning himself as a fixer, a gatekeeper, and a discreet problem-solver for powerful people who wanted favors without fingerprints. He trafficked in secrets, introductions, and kompromat, making himself indispensable to those who feared exposure or craved influence. His wealth was opaque, his credentials dubious, yet doors opened for him everywhere because he knew how to flatter egos and exploit appetites. Epstein did not need legitimacy in the traditional sense; he borrowed it from the people and institutions willing to stand next to him. Like slime, he spread quietly, coating everything he touched while remaining difficult to fully grasp or contain. His power came not from respect, but from proximity to those who had everything to lose.What made Epstein especially corrosive was that he survived precisely because so many respectable systems absorbed and normalized him. Banks overlooked red flags, universities accepted donations, politicians took meetings, and law enforcement deferred when pressure was applied. Even after his criminality was publicly exposed, Epstein continued to move freely among elites, protected by legal deals, professional enablers, and a culture that treated him as an inconvenience rather than a threat. He embodied a kind of moral decay where exploitation was tolerated so long as it was profitable or politically inconvenient to confront. Epstein was not an aberration at the edge of society; he was a product of its worst incentives, thriving in spaces where accountability dissolved on contact with power. Like slime, he did not create the rot, but he fed on it and accelerated it. His story endures because it reveals how easily entire systems will debase themselves to protect the powerful, even when the cost is measured in human lives.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Victoria Hervey's insistence that the photograph showing Jeffrey Epstein with Virginia Roberts is fake is not just reckless—it's willfully dishonest in the face of established facts. Hervey has repeatedly floated conspiracy-tinged claims about the image being staged or manipulated, despite having no credible evidence to support that assertion. What makes her commentary particularly absurd is that it ignores sworn statements and documented admissions from the very people involved. This isn't skepticism rooted in evidence; it's denial dressed up as confidence, delivered with the casual arrogance of someone who has decided her opinion outweighs the record. In doing so, Hervey isn't “asking questions”—she's laundering doubt on behalf of a narrative that seeks to undermine victims by attacking proof.Prince Andrew also attempted to cast doubt on the authenticity of the photograph showing Jeffrey Epstein with Virginia Roberts, despite the fact that the image had already been accepted as real by those at the center of the case. In his public denials and later explanations, Andrew leaned into implausible technical objections and vague insinuations rather than confronting the substance of what the photo represented. This strategy fit a broader pattern of evasion—question the evidence just enough to muddy the water, even when the record doesn't support the doubt. What made Andrew's stance especially hollow was that he was questioning a photograph that Ghislaine Maxwell had confirmed as genuine and that Epstein himself never denied. Rather than offering clarity, Andrew's attempt to discredit the image only reinforced the perception that denial, not truth, was his primary defense.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Despite being one of Jeffrey Epstein's most notorious properties, Zorro Ranch was never meaningfully searched, raided, or treated as a serious crime scene by New Mexico authorities. While Epstein's residences in Florida, New York, and the U.S. Virgin Islands drew law-enforcement attention, Zorro Ranch—an isolated, sprawling compound repeatedly named by victims and witnesses—was effectively ignored. There was no comprehensive forensic sweep, no coordinated execution of search warrants during the height of the investigation, and no sustained effort to identify potential victims, associates, or criminal activity tied to the property. This omission is especially striking given the volume of allegations placing Epstein and underage girls at the ranch over multiple years, as well as its remote nature, which would have made it an ideal site for concealed criminal conduct.Equally troubling is the fact that New Mexico never conducted a serious, standalone investigation into Jeffrey Epstein himself. State and local authorities largely deferred, treating Epstein as someone else's problem and relying on federal action that never fully materialized while he was alive. No grand jury was convened in New Mexico, no aggressive victim-outreach campaign was launched, and no public accounting was ever given for why such a high-profile location tied to a serial abuser escaped scrutiny. The result is a glaring accountability gap: a major Epstein crime scene left untouched, potential evidence lost to time, and an entire state effectively opting out of confronting one of the most significant criminal enterprises of the modern era.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The newest tranche of documents from the U.S. Department of Justice's Epstein Files shows that Jeffrey Epstein's reach into academia was wider than previously understood, revealing communications and interactions between the disgraced financier and faculty, administrators, and fundraisers at major universities. Emails and records include discussions about potential donations, academic projects, and introductions to other scholars, with figures at institutions such as Harvard, Yale, and Bard College appearing in the files. At Harvard, for example, correspondence shows some faculty and leaders engaging with Epstein even after his 2008 conviction, while at Yale, two professors were named — one of whom has been removed from teaching while the university reviews his contact with Epstein. The documents illustrate how Epstein positioned himself as a potential benefactor to researchers and institutions, often offering a quicker route to funding than federal grants and prompting criticism about ethical compromises made in pursuit of private money.At Bard College, longtime president Leon Botstein's name appears extensively in the files, with emails showing repeated contact with Epstein over several years regarding fundraising and events; these revelations have sparked student dismay and scrutiny of how the college handled the relationship. Other universities and scholars mentioned in the broader Epstein Files — including faculty ties at Ohio State University indirectly through connections like donors or trustees — reflect the broader trend of elite academic figures maintaining some form of correspondence with Epstein, sometimes long after his criminal conduct was public. Collectively, the disclosures raise questions about the influence of wealthy private donors on higher education and the oversight universities exercised when engaging with Epstein and his network.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Colleges face scrutiny over Epstein connections

In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell's deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz's defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors' allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein's secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack.The deposition also addresses Dershowitz's accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz's narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified.to contact me:EFTA00594390.pdf

In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell's deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz's defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors' allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein's secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack.The deposition also addresses Dershowitz's accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz's narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified.to contact me:EFTA00594390.pdf

Doug Band was one of Bill Clinton's most trusted associates and bag men. He had Intimate knowledge of everything Clinton and this interview he goes on record for the first time detailing the fact that Clinton was, in fact, a guest on Epstein's Island.To contact me:Bobbycapucci@protonmail.comSource:https://nypost.com/2020/12/02/ex-bill-clinton-aide-dishes-on-ties-to-epstein-maxwell/

Jeffrey Epstein's “Core Four” referred to the group of women who played key roles in recruiting and managing his trafficking operation. These four women—Ghislaine Maxwell, Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, and Lesley Groff and Nadia Marcinkova—allegedly helped Epstein lure underage girls into his network, scheduling massages that often turned into abuse. **Ghislaine Maxwell**, the most infamous of the group, acted as Epstein's chief recruiter and was convicted in 2021 for sex trafficking. **Sarah Kellen**, Epstein's personal assistant, was accused of booking and managing the young girls' schedules, sometimes coercing them into compliance. **Lesley Groff**, another longtime assistant, was described as Epstein's "executive secretary," allegedly facilitating travel and communication for the victims. **Adriana Ross**, a former model, reportedly helped remove evidence from Epstein's properties to avoid law enforcement detection.While Maxwell was convicted, Kellen, Groff, and Ross have denied wrongdoing and have not faced criminal charges. Kellen, who changed her name to Sarah Kensington after Epstein's arrest, claimed she was also a victim, groomed into her role from a young age. Groff's legal team has insisted she was unaware of any abuse, despite being named in multiple lawsuits. Ross, who worked as an Epstein housekeeper and was seen in photographs with Maxwell, has remained largely out of the public eye. Prosecutors described these women as essential to Epstein's operations, ensuring a steady supply of victims while maintaining his elaborate trafficking network. However, legal scrutiny has largely focused on Maxwell, leaving questions about whether the other three will ever face consequences.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell's deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz's defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors' allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein's secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack.The deposition also addresses Dershowitz's accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz's narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified.to contact me:EFTA00594390.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jeffrey Epstein's “Core Four” referred to the group of women who played key roles in recruiting and managing his trafficking operation. These four women—Ghislaine Maxwell, Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, and Lesley Groff and Nadia Marcinkova—allegedly helped Epstein lure underage girls into his network, scheduling massages that often turned into abuse. **Ghislaine Maxwell**, the most infamous of the group, acted as Epstein's chief recruiter and was convicted in 2021 for sex trafficking. **Sarah Kellen**, Epstein's personal assistant, was accused of booking and managing the young girls' schedules, sometimes coercing them into compliance. **Lesley Groff**, another longtime assistant, was described as Epstein's "executive secretary," allegedly facilitating travel and communication for the victims. **Adriana Ross**, a former model, reportedly helped remove evidence from Epstein's properties to avoid law enforcement detection.While Maxwell was convicted, Kellen, Groff, and Ross have denied wrongdoing and have not faced criminal charges. Kellen, who changed her name to Sarah Kensington after Epstein's arrest, claimed she was also a victim, groomed into her role from a young age. Groff's legal team has insisted she was unaware of any abuse, despite being named in multiple lawsuits. Ross, who worked as an Epstein housekeeper and was seen in photographs with Maxwell, has remained largely out of the public eye. Prosecutors described these women as essential to Epstein's operations, ensuring a steady supply of victims while maintaining his elaborate trafficking network. However, legal scrutiny has largely focused on Maxwell, leaving questions about whether the other three will ever face consequences.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Ghislaine Maxwell is the youngest child of the late media mogul Robert Maxwell, and she has several sisters who have kept lower profiles compared to her own notoriety. Among them are Isabel and Christine Maxwell, who were once prominent figures in the tech and business world. Christine co-founded the search engine Magellan in the 1990s and has worked in education and technology, while Isabel has also been active in digital enterprises and philanthropy. Both women have largely tried to distance themselves from the criminal scandals surrounding their sister Ghislaine, although their family name inevitably drags them into the broader narrative of the Maxwell legacy.Another Maxwell sister, Anne Maxwell, pursued a career in academia and publishing, living a more private life compared to Christine and Isabel. The sisters grew up in the shadow of their father's controversial empire and the scandal following his death in 1991, when Robert Maxwell drowned under mysterious circumstances after being accused of looting company pension funds. The Maxwell daughters, especially Christine and Isabel, attempted to rebuild the family's reputation through their professional careers, but Ghislaine's ties to Jeffrey Epstein and subsequent conviction further tainted the already troubled Maxwell name.Al Seckel, a former partner of Isabel Maxwell, was a writer and self-styled expert in optical illusions who moved in elite social circles, often connected to science and skepticism communities. Seckel's life ended under murky circumstances—he reportedly died in 2015 after a fall near his home in France, though questions have lingered about the exact details of his death due to his history of financial scandals and fraud allegations. His connection to the Maxwell family through Isabel added another layer of intrigue to the family's saga, intertwining themes of scandal, deception, and mystery that seem to recur throughout the Maxwell story.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jeffrey Epstein, a financier and convicted sex offender, was known to have engaged in illicit activities, including the operation of a vast sex-trafficking network involving underage girls. However, specific details on how he may have navigated or circumvented Title 31 of the U.S. Code, which pertains to money and finance regulations, are not readily available in the provided sources. Title 31 encompasses laws related to financial recordkeeping and reporting, including anti-money laundering (AML) and countering the financing of terrorism (CFT) measures. While Epstein's financial dealings have been scrutinized, particularly concerning his relationships with major financial institutions, the exact mechanisms he employed to potentially bypass Title 31 regulations remain unclear based on current public information.Jeffrey Epstein established several offshore entities to manage his wealth and assets, notably founding the Financial Trust Company in 1996, which he based in the U.S. Virgin Islands to capitalize on favorable tax benefits, reportedly reducing his federal income taxes by up to 90%.  n 2013, he obtained a banking license for Southern Country International, a specialized bank in the U.S. Virgin Islands designed to serve offshore clients. Despite holding this license until 2019, the bank conducted minimal, if any, business operations.   Epstein also utilized a network of shell companies, such as Plan D LLC, Maple Inc., and Great St. Jim LLC, to hold various assets, including his private jet and real estate properties.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Melinda French Gates has described her single meeting with Jeffrey Epstein in 2013 as deeply unsettling, stating that she “regretted it the second [she] walked in the door” and later referred to him as “evil personified.” She said the dinner at his Manhattan residence left her disturbed—uncomfortable with both the setting and her then-husband Bill's decision to associate with Epstein. Her unease was so strong that she made her disapproval known directly to Bill, highlighting how Epstein's presence and ties created significant tension in their marriageMoreover, Melinda has indicated that Epstein's involvement with Bill Gates became one of the contributing factors in her decision to seek a divorce after 27 years of marriage. In her memoir and past interviews, she has attributed part of the breakdown in their relationship to what she viewed as Bill's ill-advised meetings and connection with Epstein. The public resurgence of her comments—calling Epstein abhorrent and acknowledging how the revelations caused nightmares—has underscored her continuing disapproval of that association.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comTo contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10573431/Melinda-Gates-slams-Bills-friendship-pedophile-Jeffrey-Epstein-CBS-interview.htmlBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Rumors and reporting that circulate about Ghislaine Maxwell's role in introducing Prince Andrew to Jeffrey Epstein stem from the close personal relationships all three shared in the early-to-mid 1990s. Maxwell, the British socialite daughter of media magnate Robert Maxwell, was widely described in media and investigative accounts as one of Epstein's closest associates and key recruiters, particularly of young women into Epstein's social and sexual orbit. According to numerous reports, Maxwell and Prince Andrew moved in overlapping social circles in London and the U.K. elite world in the 1990s and early 2000s, and it was through this environment that Maxwell is said to have facilitated the initial meeting between the prince and Epstein. Many accounts suggest that Maxwell served as the social connector — hosting dinners, introducing high-profile contacts, and effectively “vouching” for Epstein within aristocratic and wealthy British networks — which eventually led to Epstein and Prince Andrew becoming acquaintances, and later, associates. These narratives are based on journalistic investigations, books, and recountings by those familiar with the trio's social milieu, though they remain in the realm of reported claims rather than independently verified fact.Once Prince Andrew and Epstein were introduced, their relationship became a subject of intense scrutiny. The prince was photographed with Epstein and Maxwell on multiple occasions, and he stayed at Epstein's properties, including his New York townhouse and private island, engagements that fueled ongoing public and legal attention. Maxwell's central role in Epstein's network — both social and operational — made her a key figure in speculation about how Epstein cultivated powerful friends, with many observers pointing to her as the linchpin connecting Epstein to circles that might otherwise have kept their distance.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jeffrey Epstein's “Core Four” referred to the group of women who played key roles in recruiting and managing his trafficking operation. These four women—Ghislaine Maxwell, Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, and Lesley Groff and Nadia Marcinkova—allegedly helped Epstein lure underage girls into his network, scheduling massages that often turned into abuse. **Ghislaine Maxwell**, the most infamous of the group, acted as Epstein's chief recruiter and was convicted in 2021 for sex trafficking. **Sarah Kellen**, Epstein's personal assistant, was accused of booking and managing the young girls' schedules, sometimes coercing them into compliance. **Lesley Groff**, another longtime assistant, was described as Epstein's "executive secretary," allegedly facilitating travel and communication for the victims. **Adriana Ross**, a former model, reportedly helped remove evidence from Epstein's properties to avoid law enforcement detection.While Maxwell was convicted, Kellen, Groff, and Ross have denied wrongdoing and have not faced criminal charges. Kellen, who changed her name to Sarah Kensington after Epstein's arrest, claimed she was also a victim, groomed into her role from a young age. Groff's legal team has insisted she was unaware of any abuse, despite being named in multiple lawsuits. Ross, who worked as an Epstein housekeeper and was seen in photographs with Maxwell, has remained largely out of the public eye. Prosecutors described these women as essential to Epstein's operations, ensuring a steady supply of victims while maintaining his elaborate trafficking network. However, legal scrutiny has largely focused on Maxwell, leaving questions about whether the other three will ever face consequences.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Bill Clinton's repeated use of Jeffrey Epstein's private jet remains one of the most glaring and troubling aspects of their association, undercutting every attempt by the former president to minimize the depth of their relationship. Flight logs reveal that Clinton flew on Epstein's plane dozens of times, traveling to destinations across the globe under the guise of humanitarian work tied to the Clinton Foundation. Yet the sheer number of trips—some of them occurring without Secret Service protection—raises uncomfortable questions about what, exactly, Clinton was doing on these flights and why secrecy seemed necessary. Reports that Clinton was such a frequent passenger that he even had a preferred seat on the plane only reinforce the impression that this was not a casual or incidental relationship, but a sustained and comfortable arrangement. For a man of Clinton's stature and experience, the defense that he simply didn't know who he was associating with strains credibility to the breaking point.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell's deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz's defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors' allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein's secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack.The deposition also addresses Dershowitz's accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz's narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified.to contact me:EFTA00594390.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell's deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz's defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors' allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein's secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack.The deposition also addresses Dershowitz's accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz's narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified.to contact me:EFTA00594390.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

According to reporting by The Sun, Prince Andrew was warned by a longtime friend to immediately sever all ties with Jeffrey Epstein following Epstein's 2008 conviction for soliciting sex from a minor. The friend reportedly viewed continued association with a convicted sex offender as both morally indefensible and reputationally reckless, particularly for a senior member of the Royal Family. Rather than accepting the advice, Andrew allegedly dismissed the warning outright, characterizing his concerned friend as “a puritan” for suggesting that he distance himself. The exchange reportedly took place at a time when Epstein's crimes were already widely known and public scrutiny of his associates was intensifying.The account adds to the broader narrative that Andrew was not unaware of the controversy surrounding Epstein but instead chose to minimize or ignore it. Despite mounting public and private pressure to cut contact, Andrew maintained the relationship, including a widely criticized 2010 visit to Epstein in New York after his release from jail. The reported reaction to his friend's warning underscores how concerns about optics and judgment were raised early on, only to be brushed aside. In hindsight, the alleged dismissal of that advice is now viewed by critics as a pivotal moment in a scandal that would later engulf Andrew and severely damage his public standing.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Our friend Rashone joins the show, a new Nancy Guthrie suspect video, US Olympians getting screwed, Nicole Curtis n-word fallout, a new bonerline, and Jim's Picks: Top 10 Rap Songs Using Rock Samples. Nancy Guthrie Update: Everyone wants Savannah Guthrie's chair. There's a new video out of some dope 5 miles down the road. James Van Der Beek GoFundMe is up to $1.5M. Katie Holmes & Stacy Kiebler miss him terribly and want all of the internet to know it. 2026 Olympics: USA Figure Skaters screwed. USA snowboarder rocks...And then doesn't. Gay Per View. Amber Glenn is mad about all the online hate. The Epstein Files are getting better than ever. Prince Andrew is in trouble...AGAIN. Yet no one seems to be getting in real trouble. Karyna Shuliak was Epstein's main squeeze. Now she's a dentist. And somehow she got her degree from Columbia. Casey Wasserman's clients are just starting to leave after his connection to Epstein. More from The Fighter & The Kid. Who is dumber...Bryan Callen or Brendan Schaub? Chris Watts' side piece that he killed his wife and kids for, Nichol Kessinger, is tough to find. I wonder if it has anything to do with how she looks now. Rashone is in the building. Check out The Sneakerbox Podcast. We ask Rashone what he thinks about Nicole Curtis saying the N-Word. Ryan Reynolds & Blake Lively are the devil. New Bonerline. More Super Bowl Halftime talk. Electric cars...Good or bad? Which black guy is going down next? What does Rashone think about Diddy? Jim's Black History Month Picks: Top 10 Rap Songs Using Rock Samples Merch can still be purchased. Click here to see what we have to offer for a limited time. If you'd like to help support the show… consider subscribing to our YouTube Channel, Facebook, Instagram and Twitter (Drew Lane, Marc Fellhauer, Trudi Daniels, Jim Bentley and BranDon)

Watch part 1 with Marina here    • EPSTEIN VICTIM #1'S SHOCKING STORY! - MARI...  Watch all of our Epstein videos here:    • Epstein  Marina Lacerda joins Shaun Attwood for a powerful and important conversation about the DOJ hearings with Maxwell andPam Bondi; as recent as today. So get ready to hear what she has to say about the mounting evidence allegedly against AMERICA'S President. Marina Lacerda was the first victim to bring a civil suit against Jeffrey Epstein, seeking justice not only for herself, but in the search for justice for all victims. In this candid discussion, Marina speaks about her journey, her advocacy, and why continuing to speak out matters for survivors everywhere.This is a respectful, survivor-focused conversation aimed at truth, accountability, and awareness.⸻ 

Watch all of our Epstein videos here:    • Epstein  Watch all our Kirby videos here    • Kirby Sommers  Kirby ON YouTube:     / kirbysommers  Kirby's links: Website:  https://kirbysommers.com X:   / landlordlinks  Patreon:   / kirbysommers  KIRBYS Substack: https://kirbysommers.substack.com/ watch david i on epstein files    • David I - Epstein Files! Freemasons & King...  Welcome author, journalist, and historian Kirby Sommers back for an exciting follow up show. Ms Sommers is an activist and a survivor. Published works include investigations into Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, the Franklin scandal, crime, and espionage. Author of the memoir Billionaire's Woman.  Kirby plans to share information on a ritual sacrifice witnessed by one of the victims.Watch another podcast with Kirby: https://youtube.com/live/LiKvBKq54McWatch Kirby's latest 1+ hour update    • April 27 2025 Update on the death of Virgi...  Watch the new info video on Kirby's channel:    • Update April 28 STARTLING NEW INFORMATION ...  UNTOUCHABLE - Jimmy Savile documentary    • UNTOUCHABLE - Jimmy Savile documentary by ...  ADOPTED KID'S CA HORROR STORY & BOYS TOWN! PASTOR Eddie https://youtube.com/live/vD3SGWpnfyMWatch Used By ELITES From Age 6 - Survivor Kelly Patterson https://youtube.com/live/nkKkIfLkRx0KELLY'S 2 HOUR VIDEO ON VIRGINIA    • Video  BOOK LINKS: Who Killed Epstein? Prince Andrew or Bill Clinton by Shaun Attwood UK: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B093QK1GS1 USA: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B093QK1GS1 Worldwide: https://books2read.com/u/bQjGQD All of Shaun's books on Amazon UK: https://www.amazon.co.uk/stores/Shaun...All of Shaun's books on Amazon USA: https://www.amazon.com/stores/Shaun-A...——————————Shaun Attwood's social media:TikTok:   / shaunattwood1  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/shaunattwoo...Twitter:   / shaunattwood  Facebook:   / shaunattwood1  Patreon:   / shaunattwood  Odysee: https://odysee.com/@ShaunAttwood:a#podcast #truecrime #news  #usa #youtube  #people #uk #princeandrew #royal #royalfamily

Bill Clinton's repeated use of Jeffrey Epstein's private jet remains one of the most glaring and troubling aspects of their association, undercutting every attempt by the former president to minimize the depth of their relationship. Flight logs reveal that Clinton flew on Epstein's plane dozens of times, traveling to destinations across the globe under the guise of humanitarian work tied to the Clinton Foundation. Yet the sheer number of trips—some of them occurring without Secret Service protection—raises uncomfortable questions about what, exactly, Clinton was doing on these flights and why secrecy seemed necessary. Reports that Clinton was such a frequent passenger that he even had a preferred seat on the plane only reinforce the impression that this was not a casual or incidental relationship, but a sustained and comfortable arrangement. For a man of Clinton's stature and experience, the defense that he simply didn't know who he was associating with strains credibility to the breaking point.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Donald Trump has repeatedly compounded his Epstein-related problems not through unavoidable association, but through a pattern of denial, contradiction, and selective amnesia that has unraveled under scrutiny. Publicly, Trump has claimed he barely knew Jeffrey Epstein, that he cut ties early, and that Epstein was never a meaningful part of his world. Yet those claims have been undermined by contemporaneous statements, social connections, flight and contact records, photographs, and witness accounts showing a closer and longer-running relationship than Trump has acknowledged. Each new inconsistency has shifted the focus away from what might have been explainable proximity in elite social circles and toward the credibility of Trump's own narrative.The damage has deepened because Trump has not simply denied—he has actively muddied the record, minimized Epstein's crimes when convenient, and avoided transparency when disclosure could clarify timelines and contacts. Rather than allowing documents, testimony, and facts to speak for themselves, his approach has mirrored classic damage control: deflect, downplay, and attack investigators or the press. In doing so, Trump transformed manageable political exposure into a credibility problem, where the issue is no longer just Epstein, but why so many statements required revision or quiet retreat. The result is a self-inflicted escalation: lies layered on top of omissions, ensuring that every new document release or witness account reopens questions that honesty might have closed years ago.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell's deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz's defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors' allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein's secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack.The deposition also addresses Dershowitz's accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz's narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified.to contact me:EFTA00594390.pdf

British police, specifically Thames Valley Police, are currently assessing a complaint alleging that Prince Andrew, now Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, may have shared confidential government and trade information with the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The inquiry was triggered by newly released U.S. Department of Justice documents showing email exchanges from 2010, while Andrew was serving as a UK trade envoy, in which he appears to have forwarded official reports on trade missions — including sensitive commercial and investment data — to Epstein shortly after receiving them. These actions have prompted a complaint from anti-monarchy campaigners alleging misconduct in public office and potential breaches of Britain's Official Secrets Act. Thames Valley Police have confirmed they are “assessing the information in line with our established procedures” and have held discussions with the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether the case should advance into a full criminal investigation. Meanwhile, Buckingham Palace has stated that King Charles III and the royal family will support and cooperate with any legitimate police inquiry into the matter, and senior royals including Prince William and Princess Catherine have expressed deep concern over the ongoing revelations.The scope of the police inquiry extends beyond the alleged transmission of confidential trade reports: reports suggest authorities are also examining broader aspects of Andrew's relationship with Epstein, including claims regarding how that relationship persisted after Epstein's 2008 conviction. The inquiry remains in its early phases, with no formal charges filed yet, but the involvement of prosecutors and senior investigators underscores its seriousness. Andrew, who was stripped of his royal titles and duties in 2025 amid longstanding criticism over his ties to Epstein, denies wrongdoing, and the police have not committed to a timeline for a decision on whether to launch a formal investigation. The developments have intensified public scrutiny of both the former royal's conduct and the wider implications of the Epstein files for British public figures.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Andrew probed by criminal prosecutors over Epstein scandal as police issue major update after latest file bombshell