Podcast appearances and mentions of prince andrew

Watch Mary Part 1 here: https://youtube.com/live/XSvt743dGaQ Watch Mary part 2 here https://youtube.com/live/zHmUVqyEj_4 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 Lauren on YT:    / @laurenlunnfarrowmedia  Lauren on Insta:   / laurenlunnfarrow  Lauren on X https://x.com/laurenKLfarrow 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  #youtube  #people #uk #princeandrew #royalfamily #royal #australia

During a House Judiciary Committee hearing in September 2025, Ranking Member Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) moved to subpoena the CEOs of four major banks—JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Bank of New York Mellon, and Deutsche Bank—for “suspicious activity reports” these banks allegedly filed related to Jeffrey Epstein and his associates. The motion claimed that roughly $1.5 billion in transactions tied to Epstein had been flagged as suspicious.However, in a narrow vote (20-19), Republicans on the committee led by Chairman Jim Jordan moved to table the motion—effectively killing it—so the subpoena did not proceed. Only Rep. Thomas Massie broke ranks with his party to support the subpoena. The blocking of the subpoena came amid broader efforts by Democrats to force more disclosure about Epstein's financial transactions through banks, as well as the handling of Epstein files by law enforcement.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:GOP shuts down House Democrats' move to subpoena Jeffrey Epstein banks

Carolyn Margaret Andriano was one of the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking ring, who testified in the 2021 trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. According to accounts, she was recruited into Epstein's Palm Beach mansion around 2001 when she was about 14 years old, and later waived her anonymity in speaking publicly about her experiences. She described how abuse and trauma during her teenage years led to struggles with addiction.She died on May 23, 2023, in a hotel room in West Palm Beach, Florida, at age 36. The medical examiner ruled her death an accidental overdose, citing a combination of fentanyl, methadone, and alprazolam.  Her mother has raised questions about the official findings, disputing that Carolyn was continuing to struggle with substance abuse at the time, and has called for greater transparencyto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Jeffrey Epstein was able to evade real justice in Florida through a combination of wealth, connections, and a deeply compromised legal system that bent over backward to accommodate him. In 2008, despite overwhelming evidence that he had sexually abused dozens of underage girls, Epstein secured a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) with DOJ. This sweetheart deal allowed him to plead guilty to minor state charges—soliciting prostitution from a minor—while avoiding federal charges that could have put him away for life. The deal was struck in secrecy, without informing Epstein's victims, in blatant violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Instead of facing true consequences, Epstein was sentenced to just 18 months in a county jail, where he was granted work release for 12 hours a day, six days a week, allowing him to return to his office and continue his life of luxury. Even within jail, he received special treatment, reportedly having his own private wing and access to amenities most inmates could only dream of.Beyond the legal system's corruption, Epstein's ability to avoid justice was reinforced by his powerful network, which included high-profile politicians, business moguls, and celebrities. Florida prosecutors initially identified at least 36 underage victims, yet law enforcement's pursuit of him was deliberately stifled. Acosta later admitted that he was told to “back off” because Epstein “belonged to intelligence,” a cryptic remark that only fueled speculation about deeper government entanglements. The failure of the justice system was not just a legal oversight but a calculated betrayal of Epstein's victims. Law enforcement, prosecutors, and the courts all played a role in ensuring he walked free, sending a clear message that power and money could override even the most heinous crimes. It wasn't until over a decade later—after mounting public pressure and investigative journalism—that Epstein was arrested again in 2019. But by then, he had already spent years laughing at a justice system that had been complicit in shielding him from real accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

​Denise George, a seasoned attorney from the U.S. Virgin Islands, served as the territory's Attorney General from 2019 until her dismissal in December 2022. During her tenure, she was recognized for her unwavering commitment to justice, notably leading significant legal actions against the estate of Jeffrey Epstein.In early 2020, George filed a civil enforcement lawsuit against Epstein's estate under the Virgin Islands' Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (CICO). This legal action aimed to hold Epstein's estate accountable for alleged criminal activities, including human trafficking and sexual exploitation within the Virgin Islands. Her efforts culminated in a settlement in November 2022, wherein the estate agreed to pay the Virgin Islands over $105 million and half of the proceeds from the sale of Little St. James, Epstein's private island.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The cases of Jeffrey Epstein and Sean “Diddy” Combs highlight the complexities of holding powerful individuals accountable for systemic abuse and exploitation. Epstein, a financier with global connections, operated an international sex trafficking network for decades, leveraging his wealth and influence to evade scrutiny. Despite overwhelming evidence, a controversial 2008 plea deal allowed him to escape significant consequences, sparking outrage and exposing flaws in the justice system. His 2019 arrest, fueled by survivor advocacy and public outcry, marked a turning point, but his subsequent death in custody left many questions unanswered and denied survivors the full justice they sought. Epstein's case exposed systemic failures, from complicit enablers to legal loopholes, and has since become a symbol of how privilege can distort accountability.Diddy's case, though distinct in scope, reveals similar dynamics of power and impunity within the entertainment industry. Accused of sexual abuse, physical violence, and intimidation, Diddy allegedly used his status as a music mogul to exploit and silence victims for decades. His remand to custody in 2023 reflects a growing cultural shift toward accountability in an industry often criticized for its culture of silence and complicity. Both cases underscore the systemic structures that enable abuse, challenging society to confront these power dynamics and demand reform. While their outcomes remain pivotal, Epstein and Diddy's cases serve as stark reminders that justice must be blind to status, and that societal complicity must be dismantled to protect the vulnerable.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Bill Barr's deposition before Congress on Jeffrey Epstein was a masterclass in calculated deflection. While Barr insisted that Epstein's death was “absolutely” suicide, he conceded that the prison surveillance system had “blind spots”—a detail that conveniently leaves just enough room for speculation without providing definitive answers. His reliance on flawed or incomplete camera footage, combined with his dismissal of alternative forensic perspectives, came off less like transparency and more like institutional damage control. Instead of holding the Bureau of Prisons accountable, Barr's narrative positioned the failures as unfortunate but inconsequential, a stance that fails to satisfy the public demand for clarity.Just as troubling was Barr's evasiveness when pressed about Donald Trump's knowledge of Epstein. He admitted to having spoken with Trump about Epstein's death but couldn't recall when one of those conversations occurred—an astonishing lapse considering the gravity of the matter. His reasoning that “if there were more to it, it would have leaked” was not only flippant but dismissive of the very real history of suppression, obstruction, and selective disclosure that has defined the Epstein saga. By leaning on institutional trust in a case defined by betrayal of that very trust, Barr's testimony did little more than reinforce suspicions that the Department of Justice has long been more concerned with containment than accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Barr-Transcript.pdf

Bill Barr's deposition before Congress on Jeffrey Epstein was a masterclass in calculated deflection. While Barr insisted that Epstein's death was “absolutely” suicide, he conceded that the prison surveillance system had “blind spots”—a detail that conveniently leaves just enough room for speculation without providing definitive answers. His reliance on flawed or incomplete camera footage, combined with his dismissal of alternative forensic perspectives, came off less like transparency and more like institutional damage control. Instead of holding the Bureau of Prisons accountable, Barr's narrative positioned the failures as unfortunate but inconsequential, a stance that fails to satisfy the public demand for clarity.Just as troubling was Barr's evasiveness when pressed about Donald Trump's knowledge of Epstein. He admitted to having spoken with Trump about Epstein's death but couldn't recall when one of those conversations occurred—an astonishing lapse considering the gravity of the matter. His reasoning that “if there were more to it, it would have leaked” was not only flippant but dismissive of the very real history of suppression, obstruction, and selective disclosure that has defined the Epstein saga. By leaning on institutional trust in a case defined by betrayal of that very trust, Barr's testimony did little more than reinforce suspicions that the Department of Justice has long been more concerned with containment than accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Barr-Transcript.pdf

Former Attorney General William Barr resurfaced in the Epstein debate this week, testifying before Congress that Jeffrey Epstein's 2019 death was “undoubtedly suicide.” Barr acknowledged severe lapses in prison security, including broken cameras and inattentive guards, but maintained that these amounted to negligence, not conspiracy. His certainty, however, reignited public skepticism, as many critics argue the unanswered questions surrounding Epstein's death make any definitive conclusion premature.Meanwhile, FBI Director Kash Patel faced heated questioning in a separate congressional hearing about the bureau's handling of Epstein's files. Patel insisted the FBI has complied with all legal obligations but admitted he had not personally reviewed the materials, a revelation that angered lawmakers and survivor advocates. Democrats accused him of stonewalling to shield powerful figures, while Republicans defended his position that releasing certain documents could compromise ongoing cases.Adding further intrigue, Patel confirmed the FBI is open to investigating whether a disputed 2003 signature in Epstein's “birthday book” belongs to Donald Trump. Trump has denied its authenticity, calling it a forgery, but Democrats quickly demanded an independent forensic review. With Barr closing the door on further questions about Epstein's death, Patel hedging on transparency, and the Trump signature stirring new controversy, the scandal remains unresolved—continuing to haunt America's political, legal, and social institutions six years after Epstein's death.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

During his deposition, former Attorney General Bill Barr confirmed that Prince Andrew was always someone the Southern District of New York wanted to question in connection with the Jeffrey Epstein case. Barr explained that Andrew was regarded as a witness the DOJ hoped to interview, given the allegations raised by Virginia Giuffre and the supporting evidence investigators had compiled, such as travel and hotel records. He noted there was an ongoing “dispute” regarding Andrew's cooperation, highlighting how prosecutors publicly stated he wasn't cooperating, while Andrew's camp insisted otherwise.Barr also clarified that, despite the SDNY's interest, he did not recall ever being informed that Andrew had been officially elevated to the level of a “subject” or “target” of the investigation. In Barr's account, Andrew remained in that gray zone of being a “person of interest” — someone the DOJ wanted information from, but not someone the department was actively moving to prosecute or extradite. This distinction reinforced how Andrew's royal status and wealth seemed to keep him shielded from the more aggressive legal pursuit others in Epstein's orbit faced.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Prince Andrew was 'at least' a witness in the Jeffrey Epstein investigation, reveals former chief US prosecutor as he recalls 'zero cooperation' press conference in newly-released Epstein files | Daily Mail Online

LIONEL on YT:    / @lionelnation    LIONEL on X https://x.com/LionelMedia  LYNN's WARRIORS on YT    / @lynnswarriors      MY 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 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  #youtube  #people #uk #royal #fbi  #usa #musk #trump #epstein #maxwell #kirk

Prince Andrew came under scrutiny after documents revealed he told bankers to call Buckingham Palace when they questioned a £750,000 payment tied to him. The transaction raised compliance concerns, prompting officials to seek clarity on whether it was legitimate. Instead of offering a straightforward explanation, Andrew reportedly directed them to his Palace office, effectively leaning on his royal status to quell the inquiry.The payment's origins and purpose stirred suspicions, especially given Andrew's already controversial financial dealings and public scandals. The move highlighted how he allegedly relied on the prestige of the monarchy to shield himself from financial accountability, deepening concerns about his judgment and raising questions over whether he abused his royal position for personal protection.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Courtney Wild and Haley Robson, two women who say they were abused by Jeffrey Epstein, filed a defamation lawsuit against journalist Julie K. Brown in 2022. They argue Brown's book Perversion of Justice contained false claims that harmed their reputations. Wild says the book wrongly described her as having had intercourse with Epstein and being raped, allegations she denies. Robson, meanwhile, claims Brown portrayed her as complicit in Epstein's operations after she refused to be interviewed for the book.According to the lawsuit, Brown's reporting left both women branded in ways that distorted their roles in the Epstein saga, causing reputational damage and emotional distress. The plaintiffs allege that Brown pressured them and misrepresented facts for dramatic effect, leaving them to suffer fallout in their personal and professional lives. The case underscores the tensions between journalistic storytelling and survivor testimony in high-profile abuse investigations.Courtney Wild and Haley Robson, both survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse, wrote powerful letters to top executives at JPMorgan—among them CEO Jamie Dimon—accusing the bank of enabling Epstein's conduct by keeping him as a client for many years, despite knowing or having reason to know that there were serious abuse allegations. They ask JPMorgan to acknowledge that it benefited from the relationship (through transactions, accounts, etc.), to admit wrongdoing or mistakes, and to take steps to make amends—both to them and to other survivors. Wild and Robson frame their demand not just in moral terms but in legal and institutional accountability: that the bank should own up, not hide behind fine print or internal policies.They also stress that JPMorgan's public statements and depositions (including Jamie Dimon's) have downplayed or denied knowledge of Epstein's abuse or minimized the bank's role. In their letters, they challenge that narrative: they maintain that JPMorgan had ample warning of red flags and thus cannot claim complete ignorance. They call for transparency—release of internal documents, full cooperation, and concrete reforms—to ensure what happened with Epstein doesn't happen again under the bank's watch.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In his opening statement, Patel described what he called the “original sin” of the Epstein investigation as being how Alex Acosta handled the case back in 2006. He criticized the limited search warrants used then and said they did not seize as much investigative material as they should have. Patel argued that significant portions of the case were restrained by the original non-prosecution agreement, which included provisions protecting some documents via court orders and limiting later prosecutorial or investigative access.Patel also addressed whether there is credible evidence that Epstein trafficked underage girls to other individuals (i.e. beyond himself). He said there is no credible information that such trafficking to third parties has been proven. He asserted that if he had seen such evidence, he would have pursued those charges. He emphasized that under his administration, the FBI is working to release all “credible information … legally able to do so,” while acknowledging legal limits.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Kash Patel claims no evidence Jeffrey Epstein trafficked girls to anyone but himself | Daily Mail Online

Ghislaine Maxwell's proffer session with the DOJ was less about truth and accountability and more about performance and deceit. The entire premise of a proffer is simple: you trade truth for a chance at leniency. But Maxwell didn't come to the table with intelligence, evidence, or leads that could help dismantle Epstein's far-reaching web. She came armed with a rehearsed script of lies and character assassinations. She weaponized her time in that room not to aid justice, but to smear survivors who had already borne the crushing weight of humiliation in courtrooms and the press. The newly released emails now strip away any doubt about what happened—they show that Maxwell didn't stumble or misremember. She perjured herself over and over, carefully contradicting her own sworn statements. This was deliberate, malicious dishonesty. And yet, instead of being dragged back to court with perjury charges and buried under the consequences, she was inexplicably rewarded with cushier accommodations. Sitting across from her during this travesty was none other than Deputy Director Todd “Baby Billy” Blanche, a man who should have cut the session short the moment the lies started, but who instead sat back, nodded, and let justice be mocked.The fallout from this disaster stretches far beyond Maxwell herself. For survivors, it was another betrayal layered on top of years of indifference and ridicule. They were once again slandered, this time under the very nose of the government agency tasked with protecting them. Their truth, earned through blood and tears, was tossed aside so Maxwell could preserve her own skin. For the public, the message couldn't be clearer: the Department of Justice is not an impartial arbiter of the law, but a stage where the rich and connected get to rewrite the script in their favor. Accountability was promised, but what America got instead was a rigged performance where lies were treated as cooperation, and perjury was treated as a perk. A real justice department would have treated her dishonesty as a direct assault on the rule of law, stacking charges on her until her arrogance collapsed. But instead, Blanche and his colleagues chose complicity over courage, shielding Maxwell from consequences and exposing to everyone watching that in America, justice isn't blind—it looks the other way when power is in the room.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In Britain, a state visit by Donald Trump was jolted when activists projected massive images of Trump and Jeffrey Epstein onto the walls of Windsor Castle. The stunt, which British police quickly shut down, resulted in four arrests on charges of “malicious communications.” Photos of the projection spread globally within minutes, hijacking the carefully staged optics of a royal ceremony and forcing Epstein's name back into headlines through spectacle and shock.Across the Atlantic, a federal judge in Manhattan ruled against unsealing the identities of two women once described as potential co-conspirators in Epstein's network. Prosecutors never charged the women, and the court argued disclosure would expose them to unnecessary harm. The decision reignited frustration among survivors and transparency advocates, who see secrecy as another barrier to accountability, ensuring that questions about who enabled Epstein remain unanswered.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Todd Blanche's CNN interview about his sit-down with Ghislaine Maxwell has been met with skepticism for good reason. Blanche framed his conversation with her as an exercise in transparency, but his insistence that it was “impossible” to determine if she was credible rang hollow, especially given the mountain of contradictions and lies Maxwell has already told under oath. Instead of pressing her on the details of Epstein's network, Blanche largely leaned into a narrative that it was up to the “public” to decide, effectively punting the DOJ's responsibility to establish facts. For someone in his position, such hedging looks less like neutrality and more like avoidance.What makes it worse is Blanche's background and the circumstances. As a former Trump lawyer, his presence raises red flags about conflicts of interest, and the softball nature of his questions only fuels suspicion that this interview was more about optics than accountability. Maxwell's transfer to a cushier, low-security facility right after this sit-down only adds to the perception that she is still receiving special treatment in exchange for selective cooperation. The entire spectacle looks less like a hard-nosed inquiry into one of the biggest sex-trafficking conspiracies of the modern era, and more like a carefully stage-managed charade designed to protect the powerful.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Blanche breaks silence on meeting with Ghislaine Maxwell: 'Impossible' to say if she was credible - ABC News

In this 2008 case, Jane Doe No. 1 v. Jeffrey Epstein, Haley Robson, and Sarah Kellen, the plaintiff sought to have her lawsuit returned to state court after the defendants removed it to federal court. Epstein and his co-defendants argued for keeping the case at the federal level, while the plaintiff maintained that state jurisdiction was proper. The motion to remand, filed on August 18, 2008, was fully briefed with responses and replies from both sides, giving the court a complete record for review.After considering the arguments and reviewing the filings, the court issued its opinion and order remanding the matter back to state court. The judge determined that federal jurisdiction was not appropriate in this instance, meaning the claims against Epstein, Robson, and Kellen would proceed through the state court system rather than in federal court. This ruling ensured that the case would be handled under state-level legal procedures rather than federal oversight.to conctact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:USCOURTS-flsd-9_08-cv-80804-0.pdf (govinfo.gov)

Mark Epstein, brother of Jeffrey Epstein, has consistently expressed skepticism regarding the official account of his brother's death. He has questioned the swift conclusion by authorities that Jeffrey's death was a suicide, pointing to initial death certificates listing the cause as "pending" and highlighting irregularities in the investigation. Mark has referenced observations from forensic pathologist Dr. Michael Baden, who noted unusual fractures in Jeffrey's neck more consistent with homicidal strangulation than suicide. These concerns have led Mark to believe that the investigation into his brother's death was insufficient and that the possibility of foul play was prematurely dismissed. Additionally, Mark Epstein has criticized statements from officials, such as then-Attorney General William Barr, who labeled the death a suicide shortly after it occurred. He argues that despite acknowledged lapses in prison protocols and the presence of irregularities, attributing the death solely to bureaucratic failures is inadequate. Mark's persistent doubts have been fueled by the lack of comprehensive answers from the Department of Justice and other authorities, leaving him and the public with unresolved questions about the true circumstances surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's death.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Kirby ON YouTube:     / kirbysommers  Kirby's links: Website:  https://kirbysommers.com X:   / landlordlinks  Patreon:   / kirbysommers  KIRBYS Substack: https://kirbysommers.substack.com/ 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. Watch another podcast with Kirby: https://youtube.com/live/LiKvBKq54Mc Watch 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/vD3SGWpnfyM Watch Used By ELITES From Age 6 - Survivor Kelly Patterson https://youtube.com/live/nkKkIfLkRx0 KELLY'S 2 HOUR VIDEO ON VIRGINIA    • Virginia Giuffre: What Really Happened? Mi...  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

Survivors and victims allege that 301 East 66th Street, a New York City condominium building tied to Jeffrey Epstein, was used as a hub in his trafficking network. Various witnesses say that people involved in coordinating, recruiting, or facilitating abuse—like Sarah Kellen, Nadia Marcinkova, Adriana Ross, and others—had access to or worked out of units in that building. They've also claimed that underage girls were housed in multiple apartments there, sometimes several girls to a unit, and that the building served not merely as living quarters but as a location for parts of the abuse to take place.Victims also say the building was part of a broader system of control and deception. It's alleged the ownership structure was opaque, providing a way to obscure who precisely was responsible for what went on inside. Some have claimed they were brought there under false pretenses (job offers or modeling opportunities), groomed, and then coerced into sexual activity. The claims include that Epstein—or people in his orbit—used the building to conceal the scale of the abuse and maintain oversight (staff, security, transport) so that the trafficking could continue with fewer questions.Teresa Helm gave an exclusive interview the Mirror recently and in the interview she talks about the time she stayed at Jeffrey Epstein's building at 301 E. 66th street. This building has long been rumored to be a place where Jeffrey Epstein and Jean Luc Brunel house trafficked girls, but very little has been disclosed about the inner workings.to contact me:In our second article...Thersa Helm is one of the women who was abused by Jeffrey Epstein. She is also one of the most vocal when it comes to his associates getting away with their alleged crimes. Now, in the wake of the document dump she is once again speaking out.In this episode, we hear from Theresa Helm about the document dump and how this new found interest in Epstein and his horrible crimes could catapult us closer to justice.bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Theresa Helm has alleged that Epstein's estate has been uncooperative with survivors in terms of transparency, accountability, and compensation. She and other claimants have brought civil lawsuits against the estate, accusing it of rape, sexual battery, false imprisonment, and of perpetuating a system that allowed Epstein and his enablers to continue abusing and trafficker women and minors. Helm has called for the release of federal documents related to Epstein's cases, arguing that they are essential for understanding the full scope of what happened, who was involved, and how much oversight (or negligence) there was.She has also alleged that many survivors were recruited under false pretenses (e.g. “job interviews,” modeling, legitimate opportunities), and that the estate has not done enough to address the harms done or to compensate victims fairly. Some of the lawsuits in which she is involved (including Teresa Helm et al v. Epstein's estate) seek not only monetary damages but acknowledgment of wrongdoing, accountability for enablers, and public disclosure of records. Helm emphasizes that this is about more than money—it's about exposing structural wrongdoing and ensuring survivors' voices are heard.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:DisplayFile.aspx (vicourts.org)

Sarah Ransome alleged that Jeffrey Epstein kept or claimed to keep sex tapes involving powerful men such as Prince Andrew, Bill Clinton, Richard Branson, and Donald Trump. In emails and exhibits later unsealed in court, she claimed that recordings existed of sexual acts on Epstein's properties, and that these tapes were used for leverage or blackmail. She suggested she either had access to some of this material or believed it existed, and pointed out that people in Epstein's orbit lived in fear that such videos could surface.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Republicans in Congress are intensifying pressure to fully expose the government's files on Jeffrey Epstein, with some now privately conceding that it is only a matter of time before legislation compels Attorney General Pam Bondi to release everything the DOJ holds. Lawmakers have already pushed through partial disclosures — including Epstein's “birthday book,” financial records, and his controversial non-prosecution agreement — but many argue these piecemeal releases fall short of true transparency. Behind closed doors, Republicans increasingly acknowledge that a complete unsealing is inevitable, even if it risks implicating powerful names and institutions.At the same time, Donald Trump has been trying to contain the fallout, publicly resisting demands from MAGA activists and members of his own party to make all Epstein materials public. For weeks he has dismissed the issue as a distraction, but GOP lawmakers admit privately that Trump is losing that argument. The pressure from inside his own ranks reflects not only the enduring political toxicity of Epstein's network, but also the calculation that continued stonewalling may damage the party more than full disclosure would.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:GOP momentum grows to fore release of Jeffrey Epstein files

The Epstein scandal continues to resurface through new waves of headlines, each one pulling different corners of power back into the spotlight. Donald Trump has filed a $15 billion defamation lawsuit against The New York Times, accusing it of maliciously tying him to Epstein through disputed documents and reporting. At the same time, Melania Trump secured a rare retraction and apology from The Daily Beast after it published claims—based on Michael Wolff's commentary—that she was introduced to Donald through Epstein's world. Both stories underscore how volatile and litigious the Epstein narrative remains, especially when it brushes against the Trump family.Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, Congressman James Comer has vowed to release any Department of Justice or Epstein estate documents tied to Prince Andrew, promising the American public full transparency. The files are said to include correspondence, travel logs, and testimonies that could reignite scrutiny of Andrew's dealings with Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Buckingham Palace, which has spent years shielding Andrew from the worst fallout, is bracing for renewed scandal, while survivor advocates welcome the promise of sunlight after decades of secrecy. The potential publication of these files signals that the Epstein story remains unfinished and still capable of shaking global institutions.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The House Oversight Committee has received hundreds of pages of new material from Jeffrey Epstein's estate following congressional subpoenas. These include Epstein's will, the infamous 2008 non-prosecution agreement, entries from his longtime address book, and a heavily redacted “birthday book” that Ghislaine Maxwell compiled for Epstein's 50th birthday in 2003. The book contained messages, photos, and drawings from associates, sparking scrutiny because of one note signed “Donald” alongside a crude sketch, which Democrats say points to Donald Trump. Trump has flatly denied it, calling the note fake and politically motivated.The estate said it redacted names and identifying details of minors and private individuals to protect victims. It also emphasized it does not possess a so-called “client list” of people involved in Epstein's sex-trafficking crimes, despite years of speculation. The handover reflects growing congressional pressure, led by Rep. James Comer and the House Oversight Committee, to uncover what Epstein's records reveal about his finances, associates, and possible political connections.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jeffrey Epstein estate turns over more documents to House committee

Many critics inside and outside Parliament argue that Starmer showed poor political judgment by appointing Mandelson as UK Ambassador to the US despite known associations with Jeffrey Epstein. Leaked emails revealed Mandelson had defended or supported Epstein after his 2008 conviction, and expressed views questioning that conviction. Although some of these connections had long been reported, additional content and its extent were only fully disclosed after Mandelson's appointment. Opponents say Starmer should have immediately known that such red flags made the appointment untenable. The delay in reacting — first defending Mandelson, then firing him once the media published further revelations — has amplified the accusations of weak oversight and lack of risk assessment.Within the Labour Party, there's growing frustration over what many see as Starmer's misreading of both optics and substance. Backbenchers and senior MPs have called for full transparency about the vetting process: what he was told, when, and by whom. Opposing parties are demanding apologies to Epstein's victims, and some suggest that if Starmer cannot adequately account for these failures, his position could become unsustainable — especially if the controversy damages Labour's standing in upcoming local elections. The controversy feeds into a broader narrative among critics that Starmer has repeatedly made questionable appointments, and lacks decisiveness and political sharpness when warning signs emerge.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Keir Starmer breaks silence over Mandelson sacking: ‘Had I known then what I know now, I'd have never appointed him' | The Independent

Jeffrey Epstein's operation cannot be understood through the lens of a traditional sex trafficking ring. Unlike figures such as Heidi Fleiss, Epstein wasn't in it for monetary gain or running a transactional enterprise. His network operated on two levels: the first was driven by his personal compulsions, where he targeted vulnerable high school girls in Palm Beach and New York to satisfy his own deviance. The second level was more strategic—trafficked women, often brought in by Ghislaine Maxwell or Jean-Luc Brunel, were used as leverage, positioned before powerful men in Epstein's properties to entangle them in compromise and silence.This dual structure transformed his crimes into something far more insidious than prostitution or trafficking-for-profit. Epstein weaponized abuse itself, turning victims not only into prey but into tools of influence. The men who participated weren't mere clients—they became co-conspirators, drawn into a system where their indulgence bound them to Epstein's web of secrecy and power. In this sense, Epstein's empire was less about sex as commerce and more about sex as control, creating a machinery of corruption that blurred every line between victim, perpetrator, and accomplice.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Haley Robson, one of Jeffrey Epstein's survivors, appeared on The Dr. Oz Show in 2020 and said she actually felt “happier” knowing Ghislaine Maxwell was behind bars than she did when Epstein was arrested. She explained that while Epstein was the abuser, Maxwell played a central role in recruiting and grooming girls, and that accountability for her actions was just as important. For Robson, seeing Maxwell finally face consequences offered a stronger sense of closure, because Maxwell had long been viewed as untouchable despite her deep involvement in Epstein's network.to contact mebobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein survivor says she's 'happier' Maxwell is behind barsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Epstein scandal continues to resurface through new waves of headlines, each one pulling different corners of power back into the spotlight. Donald Trump has filed a $15 billion defamation lawsuit against The New York Times, accusing it of maliciously tying him to Epstein through disputed documents and reporting. At the same time, Melania Trump secured a rare retraction and apology from The Daily Beast after it published claims—based on Michael Wolff's commentary—that she was introduced to Donald through Epstein's world. Both stories underscore how volatile and litigious the Epstein narrative remains, especially when it brushes against the Trump family.Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, Congressman James Comer has vowed to release any Department of Justice or Epstein estate documents tied to Prince Andrew, promising the American public full transparency. The files are said to include correspondence, travel logs, and testimonies that could reignite scrutiny of Andrew's dealings with Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Buckingham Palace, which has spent years shielding Andrew from the worst fallout, is bracing for renewed scandal, while survivor advocates welcome the promise of sunlight after decades of secrecy. The potential publication of these files signals that the Epstein story remains unfinished and still capable of shaking global institutions.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Alan Dershowitz made an appearance on News Nation this week where he attempted to defend the associates of Jeffrey Epstein who were about to be unmasked using the same old excuse that...nobody knew. Nobody had a CLUE who or what Jeffrey Epstein was. In this episode we take a look at what Dershowitz had to say in the interview about Jeffrey Epstein and the newly unsealed names and what we might expect as things continue to move forward. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Alan Dershowitz: Don't Blame Men on Jeffrey Epstein's List (mediaite.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In his opening statement, Patel described what he called the “original sin” of the Epstein investigation as being how Alex Acosta handled the case back in 2006. He criticized the limited search warrants used then and said they did not seize as much investigative material as they should have. Patel argued that significant portions of the case were restrained by the original non-prosecution agreement, which included provisions protecting some documents via court orders and limiting later prosecutorial or investigative access.Patel also addressed whether there is credible evidence that Epstein trafficked underage girls to other individuals (i.e. beyond himself). He said there is no credible information that such trafficking to third parties has been proven. He asserted that if he had seen such evidence, he would have pursued those charges. He emphasized that under his administration, the FBI is working to release all “credible information … legally able to do so,” while acknowledging legal limits.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Kash Patel claims no evidence Jeffrey Epstein trafficked girls to anyone but himself | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The two guards on duty at the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) the night Jeffrey Epstein died, Tova Noel and Michael Thomas, claimed to have fallen asleep and failed to check on him for several hours, despite being required to conduct routine checks every 30 minutes. Instead, they falsified records to cover up their negligence, leading to widespread speculation about whether their inaction was due to incompetence or something more sinister. Adding to the controversy, the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) report from the scene raised further doubts, as first responders reportedly found Epstein in a condition inconsistent with immediate resuscitation efforts, with rigor mortis already setting in, suggesting he had been dead for longer than officially stated. The conflicting accounts, missing surveillance footage, and the guards' suspicious behavior have fueled theories that Epstein's death was not simply a suicide, but rather a silencing operation orchestrated to protect powerful individuals implicated in his crimes.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

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

In this 2008 case, Jane Doe No. 1 v. Jeffrey Epstein, Haley Robson, and Sarah Kellen, the plaintiff sought to have her lawsuit returned to state court after the defendants removed it to federal court. Epstein and his co-defendants argued for keeping the case at the federal level, while the plaintiff maintained that state jurisdiction was proper. The motion to remand, filed on August 18, 2008, was fully briefed with responses and replies from both sides, giving the court a complete record for review.After considering the arguments and reviewing the filings, the court issued its opinion and order remanding the matter back to state court. The judge determined that federal jurisdiction was not appropriate in this instance, meaning the claims against Epstein, Robson, and Kellen would proceed through the state court system rather than in federal court. This ruling ensured that the case would be handled under state-level legal procedures rather than federal oversight.to conctact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:USCOURTS-flsd-9_08-cv-80804-0.pdf (govinfo.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jes Staley, the former CEO of Barclays, saw roughly £22 million in bonuses and deferred compensation frozen in 2022 as regulators dug into his ties to Jeffrey Epstein. The freeze included unvested share payouts and long-term incentive plans that Staley had been promised but had not yet received. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) launched their review after concerns emerged over how Staley characterized his personal relationship with Epstein, a man whose reputation was already well-tarnished by his 2008 sex-offense conviction. The decision marked a significant step for Barclays, signaling just how seriously the bank's board and regulators were taking any whiff of reputational risk tied to Epstein.The matter didn't end with the freeze. In 2023, the FCA moved to ban Staley from holding senior positions in the UK financial industry, citing his misleading accounts of the Epstein connection. Alongside the ban, regulators initially proposed a £1.8 million fine, which was later reduced to about £1.1 million. Staley ultimately forfeited around £18 million in bonuses and deferred pay. For a man who had once been a Wall Street heavyweight, it was a public and financial fall from grace that demonstrated the long shadow Epstein's scandal continues to cast over those in his orbit.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.wsj.com/articles/barclays-profit-falls-on-slowdown-in-investment-banking-11645603658Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Many critics inside and outside Parliament argue that Starmer showed poor political judgment by appointing Mandelson as UK Ambassador to the US despite known associations with Jeffrey Epstein. Leaked emails revealed Mandelson had defended or supported Epstein after his 2008 conviction, and expressed views questioning that conviction. Although some of these connections had long been reported, additional content and its extent were only fully disclosed after Mandelson's appointment. Opponents say Starmer should have immediately known that such red flags made the appointment untenable. The delay in reacting — first defending Mandelson, then firing him once the media published further revelations — has amplified the accusations of weak oversight and lack of risk assessment.Within the Labour Party, there's growing frustration over what many see as Starmer's misreading of both optics and substance. Backbenchers and senior MPs have called for full transparency about the vetting process: what he was told, when, and by whom. Opposing parties are demanding apologies to Epstein's victims, and some suggest that if Starmer cannot adequately account for these failures, his position could become unsustainable — especially if the controversy damages Labour's standing in upcoming local elections. The controversy feeds into a broader narrative among critics that Starmer has repeatedly made questionable appointments, and lacks decisiveness and political sharpness when warning signs emerge.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Keir Starmer breaks silence over Mandelson sacking: ‘Had I known then what I know now, I'd have never appointed him' | The IndependentBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The House Oversight Committee has received hundreds of pages of new material from Jeffrey Epstein's estate following congressional subpoenas. These include Epstein's will, the infamous 2008 non-prosecution agreement, entries from his longtime address book, and a heavily redacted “birthday book” that Ghislaine Maxwell compiled for Epstein's 50th birthday in 2003. The book contained messages, photos, and drawings from associates, sparking scrutiny because of one note signed “Donald” alongside a crude sketch, which Democrats say points to Donald Trump. Trump has flatly denied it, calling the note fake and politically motivated.The estate said it redacted names and identifying details of minors and private individuals to protect victims. It also emphasized it does not possess a so-called “client list” of people involved in Epstein's sex-trafficking crimes, despite years of speculation. The handover reflects growing congressional pressure, led by Rep. James Comer and the House Oversight Committee, to uncover what Epstein's records reveal about his finances, associates, and possible political connections.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jeffrey Epstein estate turns over more documents to House committeeBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In the days leading up to his death, Jeffrey Epstein exhibited a complex and seemingly contradictory state of mind. Despite facing serious charges and the prospect of a prolonged prison sentence, Epstein reportedly denied having suicidal thoughts and appeared confident about his situation. He described his life as "wonderful" and expressed no intention of self-harm, even while under suicide watch.   So, how did he end up dead?Following Jeffrey Epstein's highly suspicious death in August 2019, Attorney General William Barr became the subject of intense scrutiny, with many alleging he played a role in a cover-up to protect powerful individuals linked to Epstein. As the head of the Justice Department, Barr oversaw the Bureau of Prisons, which was responsible for Epstein's detention at the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC). Critics questioned how such a high-profile inmate, who had reportedly been on suicide watch just days prior, was able to die under such dubious circumstances, including the alleged malfunctioning of security cameras and the guards' failure to conduct routine checks. The rapid declaration of suicide as the official cause of death, despite forensic inconsistencies such as Epstein's hyoid bone fracture—a common indicator of strangulation—led to widespread skepticism. Given Barr's history, including his father's connection to Epstein through hiring him at the Dalton School, and his prior role in minimizing scrutiny over elite figures, suspicions grew that his Justice Department deliberately mishandled the investigation to suppress damaging revelations.In response to these allegations, Barr publicly condemned the failures at MCC, calling them a “perfect storm of screw-ups” rather than an orchestrated cover-up. He ordered internal investigations by the FBI and the Justice Department's Inspector General, which ultimately upheld the suicide ruling. However, many found Barr's explanation unconvincing, particularly given his previous role in facilitating leniency for powerful figures in legal matters. His insistence that Epstein's death was a result of incompetence rather than conspiracy did little to quell speculation, especially as key evidence, such as security footage, was either missing or unusable. Some critics pointed to the swift dismissal of the guards involved as a means to close the case without deeper scrutiny. Barr's handling of the case remains a subject of controversy, with many believing that his role was not just oversight but active damage control to protect Epstein's powerful associates from exposure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jeffrey Epstein was reportedly terrified of his former cellmate, Nicholas Tartaglione, a former police officer facing charges for multiple murders. Epstein's fear stemmed from an alleged violent encounter between the two while they were housed together at the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) in New York. Shortly before Epstein's first apparent suicide attempt in July 2019, he was found injured in his cell, and he reportedly accused Tartaglione of assaulting him. However, Tartaglione denied any involvement, claiming that he had actually tried to help Epstein and refuted allegations that he had harmed him. Given Tartaglione's background—charged with killing four men in a drug-related crime—Epstein's fear of him fueled speculation that his life was in danger behind bars, adding to the broader concerns and theories surrounding his eventual death.​Documents obtained by the Associated Press under the Freedom of Information Act reveal detailed insights into Jeffrey Epstein's final days at the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) before his death in August 2019. These records indicate that Epstein was increasingly distressed, experiencing difficulty sleeping, and expressing fears about his safety within the facility. Despite a prior suicide attempt, he was removed from suicide watch and placed in a regular cell, a decision now scrutinized for its appropriateness. The documents also highlight significant lapses in protocol, including guards failing to perform routine checks and falsifying records to cover their negligence. Additionally, there were reports of malfunctioning surveillance cameras outside Epstein's cell, further complicating the circumstances surrounding his death. These revelations have intensified public skepticism and fueled ongoing debates about the adequacy of the measures taken to prevent Epstein's suicide.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Prince Andrew is the ultimate cautionary tale of wasted privilege. He was born with every advantage imaginable—castles, titles, taxpayer-funded luxury, and a job description so easy it bordered on parody: wave, cut ribbons, attend parades, and stay out of scandal. That's all it would have taken to coast quietly into old age as a harmless relic of the monarchy. But instead, Andrew chose arrogance, sleaze, and stupidity. From clinging to Jeffrey Epstein after his conviction, to babbling about sweat conditions and Pizza Express alibis on Newsnight, to humiliating himself with excuses that became memes, he torched his reputation with breathtaking incompetence. Where A Bronx Tale's Sonny mourned wasted talent, Andrew embodies wasted privilege—proving that even the most cushioned life can collapse when handled by a fool.Now stripped of duties and titles, Andrew haunts royal estates like a ghost, exiled by the very institution built to protect him. He isn't remembered as a naval officer, a duke, or even “the Queen's favorite son”—he's remembered as a global punchline. His disgrace isn't Shakespearean tragedy but slapstick farce: a man who could have lived in effortless dignity but instead chose degeneracy and delusion. His legacy is forever tied to sweatless denials, pizza defenses, and the Epstein scandal—his crown of privilege melted down into a crown of mockery.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The feud between Prince Andrew and King Charles III has been a long-standing and complex issue, rooted in personal, financial, and public relations matters.Key Points of the Feud:Differing Personalities and Roles:Prince Andrew, the younger brother of King Charles III, has always had a more flamboyant and controversial personality compared to Charles, who has been more reserved and focused on his duties as heir to the throne. Their differing approaches to royal life have often put them at odds.Disputes Over Roles and Titles:After Charles became King, tensions rose regarding the roles and titles within the royal family. Andrew, who had been stripped of many of his public roles due to his association with Jeffrey Epstein and the ensuing scandal, reportedly felt sidelined and sought to retain certain privileges and positions, which Charles was unwilling to grant.Financial Issues:Financial disputes have also been a significant source of tension. As King, Charles controls the purse strings of the royal family, and there have been reports of Andrew seeking financial assistance, which has been met with resistance. The issue of funding Andrew's lifestyle has been a point of contention, especially given his diminished public role.Public Scandals:Prince Andrew's involvement in the Jeffrey Epstein scandal significantly damaged his reputation and, by extension, that of the royal family. King Charles III, along with other senior royals, has been keen to distance the monarchy from this controversy, leading to further estrangement between the brothers.Family Dynamics:Beyond their public roles, the feud is also fueled by longstanding family dynamics, with reports suggesting that Andrew feels overshadowed by his elder brother and resentful of his reduced status within the family hierarchy.Recent Developments:Since Charles became King, he has been focused on slimming down the monarchy, which has further alienated Andrew. The King has reportedly been firm in his stance that Andrew should not return to public duties, leading to a cold relationship between the brothers.(commercial at 9:27)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:King Charles, Prince Andrew had 'desk-pounding shouting match' over monarch's idea to downgrade nieces: author | Fox News

Nadia Marcinkova's role in Jeffrey Epstein's world is complicated, and her story is more nuanced than the headlines often suggest. Recruited as a teenager, she was quickly absorbed into Epstein's circle and presented to some victims as his “sex slave” — even referred to by Epstein as his “Yugoslavian sex slave” in a disturbingly casual way. Multiple survivors alleged that she both participated in and facilitated abuse, which paints her as a perpetrator in some accounts. Yet at the same time, the age at which she was first brought under Epstein's influence raises serious questions about whether she was herself a victim — manipulated, groomed, and coerced into normalizing abuse until she became part of the machinery.This dual role — simultaneously appearing as both a survivor of exploitation and, later, as someone implicated in perpetuating it — has made her story one of the most difficult to untangle. Unlike others who were clearly in positions of power, Marcinkova's trajectory blurs the line between agency and coercion. After Epstein's death, she reinvented herself professionally, founding an aviation company, distancing her public image from the scandal. But the unresolved questions about her early recruitment, her complicity, and whether her actions were those of a willing participant or someone shaped by years of grooming highlight the tragic complexity of Epstein's network, where victimhood and culpability were often forced to coexist.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Sarah Kellen Vickers has long been described as one of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell's closest lieutenants, playing a role that survivors say went far beyond that of an assistant. Court testimony and depositions portray her as the gatekeeper at Epstein's Palm Beach home — the person who scheduled appointments, ushered girls in and out, and kept meticulous records of who was coming and going. Several survivors alleged that she not only arranged their encounters but also prepared massage tables, handed out oils, and sometimes participated in abuse herself. This has led many to view her as a key facilitator in Epstein's operation, someone who knew exactly what was happening and actively smoothed the process.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Queen Elizabeth II's unwavering loyalty to Prince Andrew became one of the most glaring blind spots of her reign. Even as the Epstein scandal engulfed her son, forcing him out of royal duties and dragging the monarchy into global humiliation, she continued to shield him with public and private support. From quietly allowing him to keep privileges to reportedly helping fund legal settlements, her steadfastness toward Andrew stood in sharp contrast to the measured distance the palace often kept with other family controversies. For many observers, it was a sign of maternal instinct overriding political judgment — the Queen's deep affection for her son blinding her to the damage his behavior inflicted on the Crown's reputation.This loyalty, however, created friction within the family, especially with then-Prince Charles. Charles, ever mindful of the monarchy's survival and public image, saw Andrew as a liability who needed to be sidelined swiftly and decisively. His push for a tougher line clashed with the Queen's reluctance to cast her son adrift, causing a rift between mother and heir. The tension revealed an underlying difference in their approaches to the institution: the Queen led with loyalty to family, while Charles prioritized protecting the Crown at any cost. The fallout from Andrew's disgrace exposed not only Andrew's recklessness but also the strain it placed on the monarchy's leadership during a critical moment of transition.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Bill Richardson's ties to Jeffrey Epstein highlight the grotesque double standard that protects the powerful. Despite being named under oath by Virginia Giuffre as one of the men she was trafficked to, Richardson—former New Mexico governor, U.N. ambassador, and establishment insider—faced almost no scrutiny. His denials were delivered with the bland, calculated tone of a man confident that his reputation and connections would shield him. The media, which treats lesser figures with endless outrage, politely buried his name, turning what should have been a career-ending scandal into a forgotten footnote. That silence was not oversight—it was a deliberate choice by the same machine that has long protected Epstein's orbit of elites.Richardson's case is especially damning because Epstein's Zorro Ranch, rumored to be a hub of trafficking and secrecy, sat in New Mexico under his watch as governor. The coincidence is staggering, yet no questions were asked, no investigations launched, and no accountability pursued. His inclusion in Virginia's sworn testimony wasn't random—it fit a consistent pattern of Epstein surrounding himself with powerful, insulated men unlikely to face consequences. Richardson's polished career may remain intact in polite circles, but his name is forever entwined with the Epstein scandal, serving as a perfect example of how justice bends when it brushes up against the untouchables.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

George Mitchell, the former Senate Majority Leader and respected peace negotiator, was named under oath by Virginia Giuffre as one of the men Jeffrey Epstein trafficked her to. Despite the gravity of the allegation, Mitchell's name was quietly pushed aside, his denial accepted without serious challenge, and the story faded from public discourse. Unlike figures such as Prince Andrew or Donald Trump, who were relentlessly scrutinized, Mitchell received soft handling from the media and political class, his ties to Epstein treated as an uncomfortable detail best ignored. His presence at Epstein's townhouse and social connection to the disgraced financier raised obvious questions, but few dared to pursue them. The result was a glaring double standard that exposed how power and prestige protect certain names from accountability.This selective amnesia reveals how the Epstein scandal has been weaponized rather than fully exposed. Survivors' testimony is amplified when it serves partisan purposes, but buried when it implicates figures like Mitchell who belong to the establishment's “safe” circles. The hypocrisy is stark: those screaming about “the other team's” monsters go silent when their own are implicated. Mitchell's erasure from the mainstream narrative shows how survivors were betrayed not just by their abusers, but by a system that cherry-picks justice. His story underscores the bipartisan rot at the core of the Epstein saga—proof that truth has been traded for theater, and survivors' voices have been muffled in service of political convenience.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Peter Mandelson's removal as Britain's ambassador to the United States has become one of the most high-profile political casualties linked to Jeffrey Epstein in years. Newly surfaced emails showed Mandelson referring to Epstein as his “best pal” and encouraging him to fight his 2008 conviction, undercutting his earlier claims of minimal contact. The backlash was swift: Prime Minister Keir Starmer dismissed him within days, while his consultancy, Global Counsel, severed ties amid fears of reputational damage. Survivors and advocates say the emails highlight how elite figures defended and normalized Epstein even after his conviction, reinforcing concerns that political and business networks actively shielded him. The scandal left the UK scrambling to fill a key diplomatic post and reignited debate over how thoroughly Epstein's ties to power have been scrutinized.At the same time, Washington is battling over transparency around Epstein's records. The House Oversight Committee has released hundreds of estate documents, including Epstein's “birthday book,” while the Treasury Department has agreed to provide suspicious activity reports flagging his financial transactions. Survivors say only full disclosure will deliver accountability, but Senate Republicans blocked efforts to force wider releases, fueling accusations of ongoing protectionism. The disclosures coincide with renewed scrutiny of JPMorgan Chase, which processed more than $1 billion for Epstein despite repeated compliance warnings. While the bank has paid massive settlements, critics argue financial institutions and regulators enabled Epstein's operation by ignoring red flags. Together, Mandelson's downfall, the transparency fight, and JPMorgan's exposure illustrate how the Epstein saga continues to reverberate, forcing political, financial, and regulatory institutions to confront their roles in one of the most notorious scandals of modern times.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Woody Allen, a filmmaker whose personal history is already mired in controversy over his marriage to Soon-Yi Previn and long-standing abuse allegations, managed to sink his credibility even further when discussing Jeffrey Epstein. Instead of acknowledging the grotesque reality of Epstein's trafficking network, Allen bizarrely chose to describe Epstein as a “nice guy” and downplayed any evidence of underage girls in his presence. Coming from a man whose own personal life has been a lightning rod for accusations of exploitation, the comments land less like naïveté and more like willful denial—or worse, an attempt at reputation laundering for a known predator. The sheer tone-deafness of calling Epstein “nice” in any capacity betrays either a profound lack of moral clarity or an unsettling affinity for normalizing criminality among the elite.Allen's remarks are not just tasteless; they are revealing. They expose the insular world of celebrity and power where predators are granted the benefit of the doubt simply because of shared social circles and mutual interests. For Allen to stand behind Epstein, even in the softest terms, is to spit in the face of survivors who have spent years fighting to be heard. His choice of words reeks of privilege and self-preservation, signaling to the public that, in his view, the comfort and reputations of men like him matter more than the trauma inflicted on countless young women. These comments confirm what many critics already believe: that Allen remains indifferent, insulated, and dangerously dismissive of crimes that should never be excused, let alone minimized.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Inside Epstein's 'House of Depravity' dinner party with Prince Andrew and Woody Allen: Duke of York was 'a dullard' at star-studded event held after paedophile financier's release from jail | Daily Mail Online

Peter Mandelson's removal as Britain's ambassador to the United States has become one of the most high-profile political casualties linked to Jeffrey Epstein in years. Newly surfaced emails showed Mandelson referring to Epstein as his “best pal” and encouraging him to fight his 2008 conviction, undercutting his earlier claims of minimal contact. The backlash was swift: Prime Minister Keir Starmer dismissed him within days, while his consultancy, Global Counsel, severed ties amid fears of reputational damage. Survivors and advocates say the emails highlight how elite figures defended and normalized Epstein even after his conviction, reinforcing concerns that political and business networks actively shielded him. The scandal left the UK scrambling to fill a key diplomatic post and reignited debate over how thoroughly Epstein's ties to power have been scrutinized.At the same time, Washington is battling over transparency around Epstein's records. The House Oversight Committee has released hundreds of estate documents, including Epstein's “birthday book,” while the Treasury Department has agreed to provide suspicious activity reports flagging his financial transactions. Survivors say only full disclosure will deliver accountability, but Senate Republicans blocked efforts to force wider releases, fueling accusations of ongoing protectionism. The disclosures coincide with renewed scrutiny of JPMorgan Chase, which processed more than $1 billion for Epstein despite repeated compliance warnings. While the bank has paid massive settlements, critics argue financial institutions and regulators enabled Epstein's operation by ignoring red flags. Together, Mandelson's downfall, the transparency fight, and JPMorgan's exposure illustrate how the Epstein saga continues to reverberate, forcing political, financial, and regulatory institutions to confront their roles in one of the most notorious scandals of modern times.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.