Podcast appearances and mentions of prince andrew

Watch all of our Lionel videos here:    • Lionel Nation  LIONEL on YT:    / @lionelnation    LIONEL on X https://x.com/LionelMedia  LYNN's WARRIORS on YT    / @lynnswarriors      10% OFF SHUTTERS FACTORY with referral code SHAUN link: https://shuttersfactory.uk/ or CALL 0800 197 8807 SHOPIFY: Sign up for a £1-per-month trial period at https://www.shopify.co.uk/shaun 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

Jeffrey Epstein's so-called “black book” was less a contact list and more a grotesque monument to power shielding power. It wasn't filled with your everyday acquaintances; it was a who's who of billionaires, politicians, royalty, celebrities, and Wall Street heavyweights—names that had no business being in the same Rolodex as a convicted sex offender. The book exposed just how deep Epstein's tentacles reached, how many doors he could knock on, and how many influential people were willing to at least tolerate, if not outright embrace, his presence. Whether every name in there was complicit or simply embarrassed by association, the sheer scale of it laid bare how Epstein weaponized access to the elite as both shield and currency.The real stench of the black book wasn't just who was in it, but what it represented: a roadmap of complicity and cowardice. It proved that Epstein didn't thrive in isolation—he thrived because powerful people answered his calls, opened their homes, and boarded his planes. It's a reminder that the “Epstein problem” wasn't just Epstein; it was the system of enablers, gatekeepers, and opportunists who kept him socially viable long after his crimes were known. The black book is less a curiosity and more a ledger of shame, an artifact that shows how the elite protect each other, even when the cost is justice for survivors.to contact me:    bobbycapucci@protonmail.comSource:https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/10/i-called-everyone-in-jeffrey-epsteins-little-black-book/

The Wall Street Journal reports that the Epstein scandal unleashed a wave of internal turmoil in the Trump administration, as aides scrambled to contain political damage once Trump's name began surfacing in Epstein-related files. What began as attempts to weaponize Epstein connections against rivals morphed into a defensive posture as Trump and his advisers found themselves under pressure from their own base and from Congress. The administration was plagued by missteps: Attorney General Pam Bondi's sudden distribution of “Epstein Files: Phase 1” binders to conservative influencers backfired, communication lines within the White House frayed, and high-level figures — including Bondi, Deputy Director Dan Bongino, and others — clashed over strategy and messaging.As the controversy deepened, conflicting impulses roiled the White House: some sought transparency to placate critics, while others pushed to suppress further disclosures. leaks, finger-pointing, and unforced errors intensified the chaos. In one pivotal moment, Trump himself became defensive, lashing out at supporters who demanded the release of more Epstein documentation even as the DOJ publicly declined further disclosures.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:‘Bomb went off': Report reveals moment Epstein files rocked the White House and why Trump is desperate to keep them secret | The Independent

Jeffrey Epstein claimed that in the early hours of July 23, 2019, his cellmate Nicholas Tartaglione—an ex-cop then awaiting trial for multiple murders—tried to kill him. According to corrections officers' logs, Epstein was found in his cell in a fetal position, barely responsive, with orange fabric tied around his neck. He initially told officers he believed Tartaglione attacked him, alleging threats and pressure to pay up, fear of violence because of his charges, and that Tartaglione had been harassing him. But Epstein later retracted that claim, saying he couldn't remember exactly what happened.Investigations into the incident have raised doubts about what actually took place. The Metropolitan Correctional Center's video system either didn't capture the event or footage was missing. Jail staff and psychologists have considered several possibilities: that Epstein was assaulted, but also that the event could have been a suicide attempt—whether planned, practiced, or accidental—or something else altogether. The lack of clear evidence, conflicting statements from Epstein and Tartaglione, and mislaid video have all contributed to lingering questions.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:The night Jeffrey Epstein claimed his cellmate tried to kill him - CBS News

Putting Nicholas Tartaglione—a former cop facing a serious violent case—into the same cell as Jeffrey Epstein has always looked like a decision that begs for more explanation than the system ever really gave. The official framing leans on routine housing pressures and standard placement decisions at MCC, but that's hard to square with Epstein's status as the most high-profile detainee in the building, under intense scrutiny, with known safety and suicide-risk concerns. What makes it even messier is that after Epstein was found injured in his cell, internal documentation reflects that Epstein told staff his cellmate tried to kill him—a claim that directly contradicts any “nothing to see here” tone about the housing choice. Even if officials later described the episode as murky, disputed, or consistent with self-harm, the fact remains: the inmate at the center of the most sensitive federal custody situation in America ended up in a cell with a man the public would never describe as “low-risk,” and then immediately said he'd been attacked.And that's where the “official narrative” keeps running into its own credibility problem: it asks the public to accept a chain of extraordinary coincidences inside a facility later shown to be riddled with procedural failures. If Epstein's account is taken seriously, then the placement decision and the response protocols become the story—because it would mean the Bureau of Prisons put him in a situation where he could plausibly be harmed, and then had to manage the fallout. If Epstein's account is not taken seriously, then the obvious question is why the system tolerated ambiguity at all—why key surveillance gaps, inconsistent supervision practices, and the broader MCC breakdowns left so much room for competing explanations. Either way, the housing choice looks less like a neutral administrative call and more like a decision that created maximum risk with minimum transparency, followed by a public-facing story that never fully resolved the most basic issue: why was this pairing allowed in the first place, and why did Epstein immediately say he'd been assaulted?to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The downfall of Jes Staley traces back to his long-running professional and personal relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, which resurfaced publicly years after Epstein's crimes became widely known. While serving as CEO of Barclays, regulators began scrutinizing the extent to which Staley had been transparent about the relationship, including email contact that continued after Epstein's 2008 conviction. Staley initially characterized Epstein as a limited professional acquaintance, but subsequent disclosures—particularly emails referring to Epstein as a “trusted friend”—undermined that account and raised concerns about candor and judgment at the highest levels of the bank.In 2021, UK regulators concluded that Staley had mischaracterized the nature of his ties to Epstein, leading to his forced resignation from Barclays and a formal investigation into whether he had misled the board and regulators. The episode effectively ended Staley's career at the top tier of global banking and later followed him into litigation, including a lawsuit by JPMorgan Chase, where he had previously worked and overseen the Epstein relationship. Staley has argued that institutions used him as a scapegoat for broader failures, but the reputational damage proved decisive: his association with Epstein became inseparable from questions of credibility, oversight, and accountability—turning a once-powerful banking executive into one of the most prominent professional casualties of the Epstein scandal.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

On August 22, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice released redacted transcripts and audio recordings of a two-day interview it conducted in July with Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year federal prison sentence for her role in Jeffrey Epstein's sex-trafficking ring. During the interview, Maxwell denied ever seeing any inappropriate behavior by former President Donald Trump, describing him as a “gentleman in all respects,” and insisted she “never witnessed the president in any inappropriate setting in any way.” She also rejected the existence of a so-called “client list,” countering years of speculation, and claimed to have no knowledge of blackmail or illicit recordings tied to Epstein.In addition to defending high-profile figures, Maxwell expressed doubt that Epstein's death was a suicide, while also rejecting the notion of an elaborate conspiracy or murder plot. The release of the transcripts—handled under the Trump-era Justice Department—has stirred sharp political debate. Trump allies have framed her remarks as vindication, while critics and Epstein's survivors question her credibility, pointing to her conviction and suggesting her words may be aimed at influencing potential clemency or political favor.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Interview Transcript - Maxwell 2025.07.24 (Redacted).pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

A newly unsealed document tied to the Jeffrey Epstein case revealed that federal investigators once compiled a far broader roadmap for potential prosecutions than the public had previously been led to believe. The document lays out a sweeping list of individuals identified as possible co-conspirators or facilitators, reflecting prosecutors' internal view that Epstein's crimes operated as a network rather than the actions of a lone predator. According to the filing, investigators examined roles ranging from recruitment and transportation of minors to financial management, scheduling, housing, and legal shielding. The scope of the list underscores that authorities were, at least at one stage, actively considering charges against multiple actors who allegedly enabled or benefited from Epstein's abuse. Its unsealing directly contradicts years of official rhetoric that minimized the breadth of criminal exposure beyond Epstein himself.The most damning aspect of the unsealed document is not merely who appears on the list, but what it exposes about prosecutorial intent quietly evaporating behind closed doors. This wasn't a case where investigators lacked imagination or awareness; the file shows they understood the architecture of Epstein's operation and mapped out how it functioned as a criminal enterprise with interchangeable parts. Yet instead of dismantling that structure, the system narrowed its focus until Epstein became both the beginning and the end of the story. Names were flagged, conduct was outlined, and potential charges were sketched—then the trail simply stops. The silence that follows reads less like oversight and more like retreat, leaving behind a record that suggests justice was not defeated by ignorance, but abandoned by choice.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Newly unearthed Epstein documents reveal long list of potential SDNY prosecutions in wake of pedo's death | New York PostBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

On August 22, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice released redacted transcripts and audio recordings of a two-day interview it conducted in July with Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year federal prison sentence for her role in Jeffrey Epstein's sex-trafficking ring. During the interview, Maxwell denied ever seeing any inappropriate behavior by former President Donald Trump, describing him as a “gentleman in all respects,” and insisted she “never witnessed the president in any inappropriate setting in any way.” She also rejected the existence of a so-called “client list,” countering years of speculation, and claimed to have no knowledge of blackmail or illicit recordings tied to Epstein.In addition to defending high-profile figures, Maxwell expressed doubt that Epstein's death was a suicide, while also rejecting the notion of an elaborate conspiracy or murder plot. The release of the transcripts—handled under the Trump-era Justice Department—has stirred sharp political debate. Trump allies have framed her remarks as vindication, while critics and Epstein's survivors question her credibility, pointing to her conviction and suggesting her words may be aimed at influencing potential clemency or political favor.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Interview Transcript - Maxwell 2025.07.24 (Redacted).pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

On August 22, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice released redacted transcripts and audio recordings of a two-day interview it conducted in July with Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year federal prison sentence for her role in Jeffrey Epstein's sex-trafficking ring. During the interview, Maxwell denied ever seeing any inappropriate behavior by former President Donald Trump, describing him as a “gentleman in all respects,” and insisted she “never witnessed the president in any inappropriate setting in any way.” She also rejected the existence of a so-called “client list,” countering years of speculation, and claimed to have no knowledge of blackmail or illicit recordings tied to Epstein.In addition to defending high-profile figures, Maxwell expressed doubt that Epstein's death was a suicide, while also rejecting the notion of an elaborate conspiracy or murder plot. The release of the transcripts—handled under the Trump-era Justice Department—has stirred sharp political debate. Trump allies have framed her remarks as vindication, while critics and Epstein's survivors question her credibility, pointing to her conviction and suggesting her words may be aimed at influencing potential clemency or political favor.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Interview Transcript - Maxwell 2025.07.24 (Redacted).pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In a videotaped deposition taken in April 2016, Maxwell was questioned under oath about Giuffre's allegations of being groomed and trafficked by Epstein and Maxwell—allegations that she vehemently denied, calling Giuffre an “absolute liar” and asserting she had no involvement in recruiting or abusing her. Maxwell repeatedly refused to answer questions about alleged sexual activity with minors—labeling them as inquiries into “consensual adult sex”—and insisted she had no knowledge of underage abuse. She denied any wrongdoing or participation in Epstein's trafficking network, attempting to distance herself from all aspects of Giuffre's claims.Critics and federal prosecutors later pointed to this deposition as a key piece of evidence in her criminal indictment: they argue Maxwell knowingly made false statements under oath, which became the basis for two counts of perjury in her 2021 criminal charges. Despite her denials, corroborating evidence—including testimony about threesomes with minor girls, flight logs, and recruitment patterns—cast serious doubt on her credibility. Giuffre's suit was ultimately settled in 2017, reportedly for millions of dollars, but the unsealed deposition—and Maxwell's fierce denials—now serve as a stark contrast to the weight of testimony and documentation later vetted in court.source:Ghislaine Maxwell Deposition Transcript - DocumentCloudBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In a videotaped deposition taken in April 2016, Maxwell was questioned under oath about Giuffre's allegations of being groomed and trafficked by Epstein and Maxwell—allegations that she vehemently denied, calling Giuffre an “absolute liar” and asserting she had no involvement in recruiting or abusing her. Maxwell repeatedly refused to answer questions about alleged sexual activity with minors—labeling them as inquiries into “consensual adult sex”—and insisted she had no knowledge of underage abuse. She denied any wrongdoing or participation in Epstein's trafficking network, attempting to distance herself from all aspects of Giuffre's claims.Critics and federal prosecutors later pointed to this deposition as a key piece of evidence in her criminal indictment: they argue Maxwell knowingly made false statements under oath, which became the basis for two counts of perjury in her 2021 criminal charges. Despite her denials, corroborating evidence—including testimony about threesomes with minor girls, flight logs, and recruitment patterns—cast serious doubt on her credibility. Giuffre's suit was ultimately settled in 2017, reportedly for millions of dollars, but the unsealed deposition—and Maxwell's fierce denials—now serve as a stark contrast to the weight of testimony and documentation later vetted in court.source:Ghislaine Maxwell Deposition Transcript - DocumentCloudBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The government of the U.S. Virgin Islands alleged in court filings that Jamie Dimon, as chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, knew—or should have known—about Jeffrey Epstein's sex-trafficking activities while the bank maintained Epstein as a client. The USVI's complaint argued that Epstein's conduct was not hidden from view, citing internal bank communications, compliance warnings, and the volume and nature of transactions that allegedly raised red flags over many years. Prosecutors contended that senior leadership was repeatedly put on notice about Epstein's reputation and risks, and that the bank nonetheless continued the relationship, providing services that enabled Epstein's operations.The allegations framed Dimon's knowledge as part of a broader institutional failure rather than a single lapse, asserting that information about Epstein circulated within JPMorgan at multiple levels, including among executives responsible for risk and compliance. While Dimon and the bank denied the claims—maintaining that Dimon had no direct awareness of Epstein's crimes at the time—the USVI argued that the evidence showed a sustained pattern of warnings ignored or minimized. The dispute became central to the territory's civil case against the bank, sharpening questions about executive accountability and whether Epstein's abuse could have been curtailed had financial institutions acted sooner on what they allegedly knew.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice publicly acknowledged that it had made “mistakes” in its handling of Jeffrey Epstein's survivors, particularly in connection with the 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement in Florida. Federal officials conceded that prosecutors failed to properly notify victims about the deal and misled them about the status of the case, violations that ran afoul of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. The admission followed years of litigation brought by survivors who argued they were deliberately kept in the dark while Epstein secured an extraordinary plea agreement that shielded him from federal prosecution at the time.The DOJ's acknowledgment came after a federal judge ruled that prosecutors had indeed violated victims' rights, forcing the department to publicly reckon with its conduct. While officials expressed regret and described the failures as institutional errors, the admission stopped short of disciplinary action against those involved or a broader accounting of how the deal was approved. For survivors and their advocates, the statement underscored a painful reality: that the justice system not only failed to stop Epstein earlier, but also compounded the harm by excluding victims from decisions that directly affected their safety and legal rights.to  contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Prince Andrew repeatedly refused to cooperate with formal legal requests seeking his testimony about Jeffrey Epstein, denying at least three documented approaches from attorneys representing Epstein victims and, later, U.S. authorities. Lawyers for Virginia Giuffre first sought Andrew's cooperation during civil litigation in the United States, requesting interviews and testimony about his relationship with Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Andrew declined to participate. Subsequent formal requests—renewed as evidence mounted and court deadlines approached—were likewise rejected, with his legal team maintaining that he would not submit to questioning or provide a sworn account.That pattern continued even as pressure escalated. U.S. prosecutors publicly stated they had made repeated efforts to speak with Andrew as part of their Epstein investigation, only to be rebuffed each time. Legal experts noted that while Andrew was under no obligation to voluntarily cooperate as a foreign national, his refusal to engage stood in sharp contrast to public claims that he was eager to help authorities. The denials became a central feature of the case's narrative, reinforcing criticism that Andrew avoided scrutiny not through legal immunity, but through strategic non-cooperation—declining every formal opportunity to explain his role in Epstein's orbit under oath.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In his 2025 congressional deposition, Bill Barr largely reiterated the position he has maintained since leaving office: that Jeffrey Epstein died by suicide and that there was no evidence of homicide or outside interference. Barr emphasized the findings of the medical examiner, the DOJ's internal reviews, and the conclusions reached by the FBI and Bureau of Prisons investigations, framing the failures at MCC as severe negligence rather than conspiracy. He acknowledged the catastrophic breakdowns in staffing, camera coverage, and supervision but resisted claims that those failures pointed to intentional misconduct. Throughout the deposition, Barr portrayed the persistence of alternative theories as driven more by public mistrust and the extraordinary nature of Epstein's crimes than by substantiated evidence uncovered during federal reviews.That explanation, however, did little to quiet long-standing skepticism surrounding Barr's narrative. Lawmakers pressed him on the speed and certainty with which he publicly declared Epstein's death a suicide, the reliance on internal investigations rather than independent inquiries, and the unresolved questions created by missing footage, altered records, and contradictory statements from jail officials. Critics noted that Epstein's unique status, political connections, and intelligence-adjacent history make the “ordinary negligence” explanation difficult for many to accept, especially given the stakes involved. The deposition ultimately underscored a central tension that has followed the case for years: Barr insists the matter is settled by evidence and procedure, while a significant portion of the public—and some members of Congress—remain unconvinced that the full truth about Epstein's death has ever been disclosed.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Dr. Bryan Edelman is a trial consultant and expert on pre-trial publicity who was involved in the Bryan Kohberger trial. Edelman was hired by Kohberger's defense team to conduct a phone survey of potential jurors in Latah County, Idaho. The purpose of the survey was to assess the impact of media coverage on public opinion about the case, which involves Kohberger being charged with the murder of four University of Idaho students.The survey, which contacted 400 residents, faced significant criticism from the prosecution. They argued that the questions were too specific and potentially spread false information, thereby contaminating the jury pool. Some questions included details not found in official affidavits, leading to concerns that the survey was prejudicing potential jurors against Kohberger.Edelman defended his work, stating that his aim was to measure the influence of media coverage on public opinion, regardless of whether the information was true or false. He emphasized that such surveys are standard practice in high-profile cases to determine whether a fair trial can be conducted in the current venue or if a change of venue is necessary.The controversy surrounding the survey led the judge to pause its continuation and to schedule further hearings to decide on the matter.In this episode we take a look at his declaration filed with the court.(commercial at 8:05)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:072224-Memorandum-Support-MCoV.pdf

The 2019 New York federal grand jury transcripts capture the final prosecutorial push that led to the arrest of Jeffrey Epstein on sex-trafficking charges in the Southern District of New York. The transcripts reflect prosecutors laying out a sweeping pattern of alleged conduct, including the recruitment and exploitation of underage girls, the use of intermediaries, and the systematic nature of the abuse network. Witness testimony, documentary evidence, and financial records were presented to establish probable cause, directly contradicting the long-standing narrative that Epstein was a lone offender whose crimes were limited to Florida. These proceedings culminated in the July 2019 indictment, marking the first time federal prosecutors in New York formally moved against Epstein despite years of prior allegations and investigative leads.The transcripts have now been newly unsealed under the Epstein Transparency Act, a move that has reignited scrutiny over what federal authorities knew—and when. Their release sheds light on investigative decisions, evidentiary thresholds, and the scope of information presented to the grand jury, while also highlighting gaps that critics argue point to earlier prosecutorial failures. Survivors and transparency advocates have emphasized that the unsealing is significant not only for what it reveals about Epstein's conduct, but for what it exposes about institutional hesitation, delayed accountability, and the broader protection mechanisms that allowed Epstein to evade federal charges for years. While redactions remain, the disclosure represents a rare window into the mechanics of a case that many believe should have been brought long before 2019.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00008529.pdf

The 2019 New York federal grand jury transcripts capture the final prosecutorial push that led to the arrest of Jeffrey Epstein on sex-trafficking charges in the Southern District of New York. The transcripts reflect prosecutors laying out a sweeping pattern of alleged conduct, including the recruitment and exploitation of underage girls, the use of intermediaries, and the systematic nature of the abuse network. Witness testimony, documentary evidence, and financial records were presented to establish probable cause, directly contradicting the long-standing narrative that Epstein was a lone offender whose crimes were limited to Florida. These proceedings culminated in the July 2019 indictment, marking the first time federal prosecutors in New York formally moved against Epstein despite years of prior allegations and investigative leads.The transcripts have now been newly unsealed under the Epstein Transparency Act, a move that has reignited scrutiny over what federal authorities knew—and when. Their release sheds light on investigative decisions, evidentiary thresholds, and the scope of information presented to the grand jury, while also highlighting gaps that critics argue point to earlier prosecutorial failures. Survivors and transparency advocates have emphasized that the unsealing is significant not only for what it reveals about Epstein's conduct, but for what it exposes about institutional hesitation, delayed accountability, and the broader protection mechanisms that allowed Epstein to evade federal charges for years. While redactions remain, the disclosure represents a rare window into the mechanics of a case that many believe should have been brought long before 2019.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00008529.pdf

The 2019 New York federal grand jury transcripts capture the final prosecutorial push that led to the arrest of Jeffrey Epstein on sex-trafficking charges in the Southern District of New York. The transcripts reflect prosecutors laying out a sweeping pattern of alleged conduct, including the recruitment and exploitation of underage girls, the use of intermediaries, and the systematic nature of the abuse network. Witness testimony, documentary evidence, and financial records were presented to establish probable cause, directly contradicting the long-standing narrative that Epstein was a lone offender whose crimes were limited to Florida. These proceedings culminated in the July 2019 indictment, marking the first time federal prosecutors in New York formally moved against Epstein despite years of prior allegations and investigative leads.The transcripts have now been newly unsealed under the Epstein Transparency Act, a move that has reignited scrutiny over what federal authorities knew—and when. Their release sheds light on investigative decisions, evidentiary thresholds, and the scope of information presented to the grand jury, while also highlighting gaps that critics argue point to earlier prosecutorial failures. Survivors and transparency advocates have emphasized that the unsealing is significant not only for what it reveals about Epstein's conduct, but for what it exposes about institutional hesitation, delayed accountability, and the broader protection mechanisms that allowed Epstein to evade federal charges for years. While redactions remain, the disclosure represents a rare window into the mechanics of a case that many believe should have been brought long before 2019.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00008529.pdf

The Palm Beach police report reads like the opening chapter of a crime saga everyone wishes had ended sooner. In painstaking detail, investigators laid out how Jeffrey Epstein operated a revolving-door abuse scheme out of his Palm Beach mansion—recruiting underage girls, often as young as 14, under the guise of “massages,” then paying them cash after sexual assaults. The report makes clear this was not a one-off or a misunderstanding; it documents dozens of consistent victim statements, matching descriptions of the house, the routine, the money, and Epstein's behavior. Detectives noted the sheer volume of victims, the striking similarities in their accounts, and the methodical nature of the abuse—painting a picture of a predator who acted with confidence, repetition, and a belief he would never face consequences.What makes the report so haunting is not just what Epstein did, but how unmistakably obvious it all was. The Palm Beach Police Department concluded there was overwhelming probable cause for felony sex crimes, emphasizing that Epstein's wealth, influence, and legal maneuvering stood in sharp contrast to the credibility and courage of the girls who came forward. The document reads less like a mystery and more like a warning flare—one that spelled out the scope of the abuse long before the world was forced to confront it. In black and white, the report shows that the truth was there early, detailed, and undeniable—raising the uncomfortable question of why it took so long for justice to even begin catching up.to contact me:bobbycapuccisource:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)

The 2019 New York federal grand jury transcripts capture the final prosecutorial push that led to the arrest of Jeffrey Epstein on sex-trafficking charges in the Southern District of New York. The transcripts reflect prosecutors laying out a sweeping pattern of alleged conduct, including the recruitment and exploitation of underage girls, the use of intermediaries, and the systematic nature of the abuse network. Witness testimony, documentary evidence, and financial records were presented to establish probable cause, directly contradicting the long-standing narrative that Epstein was a lone offender whose crimes were limited to Florida. These proceedings culminated in the July 2019 indictment, marking the first time federal prosecutors in New York formally moved against Epstein despite years of prior allegations and investigative leads.The transcripts have now been newly unsealed under the Epstein Transparency Act, a move that has reignited scrutiny over what federal authorities knew—and when. Their release sheds light on investigative decisions, evidentiary thresholds, and the scope of information presented to the grand jury, while also highlighting gaps that critics argue point to earlier prosecutorial failures. Survivors and transparency advocates have emphasized that the unsealing is significant not only for what it reveals about Epstein's conduct, but for what it exposes about institutional hesitation, delayed accountability, and the broader protection mechanisms that allowed Epstein to evade federal charges for years. While redactions remain, the disclosure represents a rare window into the mechanics of a case that many believe should have been brought long before 2019.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00008529.pdf

The Palm Beach police report reads like the opening chapter of a crime saga everyone wishes had ended sooner. In painstaking detail, investigators laid out how Jeffrey Epstein operated a revolving-door abuse scheme out of his Palm Beach mansion—recruiting underage girls, often as young as 14, under the guise of “massages,” then paying them cash after sexual assaults. The report makes clear this was not a one-off or a misunderstanding; it documents dozens of consistent victim statements, matching descriptions of the house, the routine, the money, and Epstein's behavior. Detectives noted the sheer volume of victims, the striking similarities in their accounts, and the methodical nature of the abuse—painting a picture of a predator who acted with confidence, repetition, and a belief he would never face consequences.What makes the report so haunting is not just what Epstein did, but how unmistakably obvious it all was. The Palm Beach Police Department concluded there was overwhelming probable cause for felony sex crimes, emphasizing that Epstein's wealth, influence, and legal maneuvering stood in sharp contrast to the credibility and courage of the girls who came forward. The document reads less like a mystery and more like a warning flare—one that spelled out the scope of the abuse long before the world was forced to confront it. In black and white, the report shows that the truth was there early, detailed, and undeniable—raising the uncomfortable question of why it took so long for justice to even begin catching up.to contact me:bobbycapuccisource:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)

The Palm Beach police report reads like the opening chapter of a crime saga everyone wishes had ended sooner. In painstaking detail, investigators laid out how Jeffrey Epstein operated a revolving-door abuse scheme out of his Palm Beach mansion—recruiting underage girls, often as young as 14, under the guise of “massages,” then paying them cash after sexual assaults. The report makes clear this was not a one-off or a misunderstanding; it documents dozens of consistent victim statements, matching descriptions of the house, the routine, the money, and Epstein's behavior. Detectives noted the sheer volume of victims, the striking similarities in their accounts, and the methodical nature of the abuse—painting a picture of a predator who acted with confidence, repetition, and a belief he would never face consequences.What makes the report so haunting is not just what Epstein did, but how unmistakably obvious it all was. The Palm Beach Police Department concluded there was overwhelming probable cause for felony sex crimes, emphasizing that Epstein's wealth, influence, and legal maneuvering stood in sharp contrast to the credibility and courage of the girls who came forward. The document reads less like a mystery and more like a warning flare—one that spelled out the scope of the abuse long before the world was forced to confront it. In black and white, the report shows that the truth was there early, detailed, and undeniable—raising the uncomfortable question of why it took so long for justice to even begin catching up.to contact me:bobbycapuccisource:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)

In this civil lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on March 31, 2010, the plaintiff—identified by the initials C.L.—accuses Jeffrey Epstein of sexual abuse and related misconduct. C.L., a resident of Palm Beach County at the time of the alleged incidents, brings this complaint based on events that occurred when she was underage and in vulnerable circumstances. The complaint outlines Epstein's pattern of grooming and exploiting young girls in the Palm Beach area, suggesting that C.L. was one of his many victims targeted during a period when Epstein operated a network designed to recruit and abuse minors under the guise of offering financial help or mentorship.The suit claims Epstein engaged in a deliberate and manipulative scheme to solicit C.L. for sexually exploitative acts and that these acts resulted in significant emotional and psychological trauma. The complaint seeks damages for the abuse endured and accuses Epstein of violating both civil and statutory obligations designed to protect minors. Although this is just the first page, the document is consistent with the broader pattern of civil actions filed against Epstein in the wake of his non-prosecution agreement and subsequent revelations about his long-running sex trafficking operation.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In a videotaped deposition taken in April 2016, Maxwell was questioned under oath about Giuffre's allegations of being groomed and trafficked by Epstein and Maxwell—allegations that she vehemently denied, calling Giuffre an “absolute liar” and asserting she had no involvement in recruiting or abusing her. Maxwell repeatedly refused to answer questions about alleged sexual activity with minors—labeling them as inquiries into “consensual adult sex”—and insisted she had no knowledge of underage abuse. She denied any wrongdoing or participation in Epstein's trafficking network, attempting to distance herself from all aspects of Giuffre's claims.Critics and federal prosecutors later pointed to this deposition as a key piece of evidence in her criminal indictment: they argue Maxwell knowingly made false statements under oath, which became the basis for two counts of perjury in her 2021 criminal charges. Despite her denials, corroborating evidence—including testimony about threesomes with minor girls, flight logs, and recruitment patterns—cast serious doubt on her credibility. Giuffre's suit was ultimately settled in 2017, reportedly for millions of dollars, but the unsealed deposition—and Maxwell's fierce denials—now serve as a stark contrast to the weight of testimony and documentation later vetted in court.source:Ghislaine Maxwell Deposition Transcript - DocumentCloudBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In a videotaped deposition taken in April 2016, Maxwell was questioned under oath about Giuffre's allegations of being groomed and trafficked by Epstein and Maxwell—allegations that she vehemently denied, calling Giuffre an “absolute liar” and asserting she had no involvement in recruiting or abusing her. Maxwell repeatedly refused to answer questions about alleged sexual activity with minors—labeling them as inquiries into “consensual adult sex”—and insisted she had no knowledge of underage abuse. She denied any wrongdoing or participation in Epstein's trafficking network, attempting to distance herself from all aspects of Giuffre's claims.Critics and federal prosecutors later pointed to this deposition as a key piece of evidence in her criminal indictment: they argue Maxwell knowingly made false statements under oath, which became the basis for two counts of perjury in her 2021 criminal charges. Despite her denials, corroborating evidence—including testimony about threesomes with minor girls, flight logs, and recruitment patterns—cast serious doubt on her credibility. Giuffre's suit was ultimately settled in 2017, reportedly for millions of dollars, but the unsealed deposition—and Maxwell's fierce denials—now serve as a stark contrast to the weight of testimony and documentation later vetted in court.source:Ghislaine Maxwell Deposition Transcript - DocumentCloudBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In a videotaped deposition taken in April 2016, Maxwell was questioned under oath about Giuffre's allegations of being groomed and trafficked by Epstein and Maxwell—allegations that she vehemently denied, calling Giuffre an “absolute liar” and asserting she had no involvement in recruiting or abusing her. Maxwell repeatedly refused to answer questions about alleged sexual activity with minors—labeling them as inquiries into “consensual adult sex”—and insisted she had no knowledge of underage abuse. She denied any wrongdoing or participation in Epstein's trafficking network, attempting to distance herself from all aspects of Giuffre's claims.Critics and federal prosecutors later pointed to this deposition as a key piece of evidence in her criminal indictment: they argue Maxwell knowingly made false statements under oath, which became the basis for two counts of perjury in her 2021 criminal charges. Despite her denials, corroborating evidence—including testimony about threesomes with minor girls, flight logs, and recruitment patterns—cast serious doubt on her credibility. Giuffre's suit was ultimately settled in 2017, reportedly for millions of dollars, but the unsealed deposition—and Maxwell's fierce denials—now serve as a stark contrast to the weight of testimony and documentation later vetted in court.source:Ghislaine Maxwell Deposition Transcript - DocumentCloudBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Prince Andrew was not covered by Jeffrey Epstein's 2007–2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), a point that has repeatedly been misunderstood or deliberately obscured. Legal experts have emphasized that the NPA applied narrowly to Epstein himself and, at most, to unnamed U.S.-based co-conspirators under specific jurisdictional limits tied to the Southern District of Florida. Prince Andrew, a British national with alleged conduct occurring outside that jurisdiction—including in the United Kingdom, New York, and the U.S. Virgin Islands—fell entirely outside the agreement's scope. Courts later made clear that the NPA did not grant immunity to foreign nationals, did not bind other federal districts, and did not preempt civil or criminal exposure beyond the deal's precise terms.That legal reality became especially clear during Virginia Giuffre's civil case against Prince Andrew, where judges rejected arguments that Epstein's plea deal insulated Andrew from liability. The settlement Andrew ultimately reached was not a function of legal protection under the NPA, but rather a strategic move to avoid sworn testimony, discovery, and the risk of trial. Attorneys and legal analysts have noted that Andrew's long period of effective insulation stemmed from political deference, diplomatic sensitivity, and institutional hesitation—not from any binding legal shield in Epstein's agreement. In short, Andrew was never legally protected by the Epstein NPA; he was protected by silence, delay, and power, none of which carried the force of law.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Leon Black assembled a formidable, top-tier legal defense team to confront allegations tied to his financial relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, drawing heavily from the highest ranks of elite white-collar defense and former federal prosecutors. Legal observers noted that Black retained attorneys with deep experience in complex financial litigation, internal investigations, and crisis management—lawyers accustomed to navigating SDNY scrutiny, high-stakes reputational risk, and parallel civil and regulatory exposure. The team was structured not only to defend against specific legal claims, but to manage disclosure strategy, negotiate with prosecutors and regulators, and control narrative damage as scrutiny intensified around Black's payments to Epstein and his role at Apollo Global Management.Commentators in the legal community emphasized that the sophistication of Black's defense reflected both the seriousness of the allegations and the scale of potential exposure, particularly in civil litigation and institutional fallout rather than criminal charges. The strategy combined aggressive factual rebuttal with procedural pressure, including motions to dismiss, jurisdictional challenges, and efforts to narrow claims before discovery could expand. While the legal firepower succeeded in limiting some courtroom consequences, analysts pointed out that no amount of legal muscle could fully insulate Black from reputational harm, shareholder backlash, or public scrutiny. In that sense, Black's legal team was widely viewed as one of the most powerful assembled in any Epstein-adjacent case—effective at legal containment, even as broader questions about accountability remained unresolved.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protomail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

After her conviction, Ghislaine Maxwell found herself embroiled in an unflattering postscript to the trial: allegations that she failed to pay her own lawyers. Court filings and reporting showed that at least one defense attorney accused Maxwell of leaving substantial legal bills unpaid after the verdict, despite months of high-stakes work on post-trial and appellate matters. The dispute spilled into public view through formal motions, exposing a rare and uncomfortable rupture between a defendant once backed by elite legal firepower and the lawyers who stood beside her through one of the most notorious sex-trafficking trials in recent history.Legal observers noted that the episode carried an air of irony difficult to ignore. Maxwell had financed a famously expensive defense while maintaining deep secrecy around her finances, yet once the jury returned its guilty verdict, the money appeared to dry up fast. The court treated the matter as a straightforward fee dispute rather than a legal crisis, but the optics were damaging: a convicted trafficker accused of stiffing the very attorneys paid to defend her. For critics, the fallout reinforced a broader portrait of Maxwell's post-trial unraveling—where loyalty, resources, and legal alliances seemed to evaporate as quickly as her freedom.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In a videotaped deposition taken in April 2016, Maxwell was questioned under oath about Giuffre's allegations of being groomed and trafficked by Epstein and Maxwell—allegations that she vehemently denied, calling Giuffre an “absolute liar” and asserting she had no involvement in recruiting or abusing her. Maxwell repeatedly refused to answer questions about alleged sexual activity with minors—labeling them as inquiries into “consensual adult sex”—and insisted she had no knowledge of underage abuse. She denied any wrongdoing or participation in Epstein's trafficking network, attempting to distance herself from all aspects of Giuffre's claims.Critics and federal prosecutors later pointed to this deposition as a key piece of evidence in her criminal indictment: they argue Maxwell knowingly made false statements under oath, which became the basis for two counts of perjury in her 2021 criminal charges. Despite her denials, corroborating evidence—including testimony about threesomes with minor girls, flight logs, and recruitment patterns—cast serious doubt on her credibility. Giuffre's suit was ultimately settled in 2017, reportedly for millions of dollars, but the unsealed deposition—and Maxwell's fierce denials—now serve as a stark contrast to the weight of testimony and documentation later vetted in court.source:Ghislaine Maxwell Deposition Transcript - DocumentCloudBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In a videotaped deposition taken in April 2016, Maxwell was questioned under oath about Giuffre's allegations of being groomed and trafficked by Epstein and Maxwell—allegations that she vehemently denied, calling Giuffre an “absolute liar” and asserting she had no involvement in recruiting or abusing her. Maxwell repeatedly refused to answer questions about alleged sexual activity with minors—labeling them as inquiries into “consensual adult sex”—and insisted she had no knowledge of underage abuse. She denied any wrongdoing or participation in Epstein's trafficking network, attempting to distance herself from all aspects of Giuffre's claims.Critics and federal prosecutors later pointed to this deposition as a key piece of evidence in her criminal indictment: they argue Maxwell knowingly made false statements under oath, which became the basis for two counts of perjury in her 2021 criminal charges. Despite her denials, corroborating evidence—including testimony about threesomes with minor girls, flight logs, and recruitment patterns—cast serious doubt on her credibility. Giuffre's suit was ultimately settled in 2017, reportedly for millions of dollars, but the unsealed deposition—and Maxwell's fierce denials—now serve as a stark contrast to the weight of testimony and documentation later vetted in court.source:Ghislaine Maxwell Deposition Transcript - DocumentCloudBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Donald Trump's day-after-Christmas message about Jeffrey Epstein followed a familiar pattern: loud demands, selective outrage, and a conspicuous narrowing of focus. He framed the scandal almost exclusively as a problem of “Democrat friends,” insisting they be outed while presenting himself as a bystander calling for justice. Coming from Donald Trump, the posture rang hollow, because it leaned heavily on partisan finger-pointing rather than a serious reckoning with how Epstein operated for decades in plain sight. The message read less like a call for transparency and more like a political cudgel, reducing a sprawling, institutional failure into a convenient culture-war talking point. By isolating the scandal to one political camp, Trump sidestepped broader questions about elite protection, federal leniency, and systemic rot that transcend party labels.Critically, Trump's demand also exposed a glaring contradiction: if full exposure is the goal, why limit it to one side while avoiding a comprehensive release of records that would implicate anyone, anywhere? His statement avoided calls for unredacted files, independent oversight, or accountability mechanisms that might actually illuminate the truth. Instead, it recycled grievance politics—casting himself as the truth-teller while implicitly suggesting the problem belongs solely to his opponents. That framing doesn't serve survivors, and it doesn't advance accountability; it simply repackages the Epstein scandal as another partisan weapon. In doing so, Trump's message felt less like moral outrage and more like strategic deflection, substituting noise for substance and outrage for answers.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The newly unsealed New York grand jury materials related to Ghislaine Maxwell provide a clearer window into how federal prosecutors built the case that ultimately led to her conviction. The documents outline the scope of witness testimony, evidentiary focus, and investigative priorities considered by the grand jury, reinforcing that Maxwell was not viewed as a peripheral figure but as a central facilitator within Jeffrey Epstein's trafficking operation. While much of the material aligns with facts already established at trial—including patterns of recruitment, grooming, and abuse—the unsealing confirms that prosecutors presented a structured, victim-centered narrative to the grand jury well before Maxwell's arrest, countering claims that the case was rushed or politically motivated.At the same time, the documents have drawn attention for what they do not contain. The grand jury materials remain narrowly focused on Maxwell's conduct and charges, offering little insight into why broader conspiracy cases against other Epstein associates were never pursued in New York. This has fueled renewed scrutiny of prosecutorial discretion and investigative limits, as the records show a deliberate effort to secure Maxwell's indictment while leaving larger questions about Epstein's network unresolved. For critics and survivors alike, the unsealing represents both a measure of long-delayed transparency and a reminder of how much of the Epstein story remains outside the bounds of criminal accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The newly unsealed New York grand jury materials related to Ghislaine Maxwell provide a clearer window into how federal prosecutors built the case that ultimately led to her conviction. The documents outline the scope of witness testimony, evidentiary focus, and investigative priorities considered by the grand jury, reinforcing that Maxwell was not viewed as a peripheral figure but as a central facilitator within Jeffrey Epstein's trafficking operation. While much of the material aligns with facts already established at trial—including patterns of recruitment, grooming, and abuse—the unsealing confirms that prosecutors presented a structured, victim-centered narrative to the grand jury well before Maxwell's arrest, countering claims that the case was rushed or politically motivated.At the same time, the documents have drawn attention for what they do not contain. The grand jury materials remain narrowly focused on Maxwell's conduct and charges, offering little insight into why broader conspiracy cases against other Epstein associates were never pursued in New York. This has fueled renewed scrutiny of prosecutorial discretion and investigative limits, as the records show a deliberate effort to secure Maxwell's indictment while leaving larger questions about Epstein's network unresolved. For critics and survivors alike, the unsealing represents both a measure of long-delayed transparency and a reminder of how much of the Epstein story remains outside the bounds of criminal accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Before the disgrace came the adoration. In the shadow of his elder brother Charles, Andrew was “the Golden Prince” — dashing, charming, and adored by the press. As a young naval officer and hero of the Falklands War, he embodied confidence and glamour. But even in these glittering early years, the seeds of entitlement were being sown. To his mother, he could do no wrong. To palace insiders, that would prove dangerous.Hear our new show "Crown and Controversy: Prince Andrew" here.Check out "Palace Intrigue Presents: King WIlliam" here.

Jeffrey Epstein's so-called “black book” was less a contact list and more a grotesque monument to power shielding power. It wasn't filled with your everyday acquaintances; it was a who's who of billionaires, politicians, royalty, celebrities, and Wall Street heavyweights—names that had no business being in the same Rolodex as a convicted sex offender. The book exposed just how deep Epstein's tentacles reached, how many doors he could knock on, and how many influential people were willing to at least tolerate, if not outright embrace, his presence. Whether every name in there was complicit or simply embarrassed by association, the sheer scale of it laid bare how Epstein weaponized access to the elite as both shield and currency.The real stench of the black book wasn't just who was in it, but what it represented: a roadmap of complicity and cowardice. It proved that Epstein didn't thrive in isolation—he thrived because powerful people answered his calls, opened their homes, and boarded his planes. It's a reminder that the “Epstein problem” wasn't just Epstein; it was the system of enablers, gatekeepers, and opportunists who kept him socially viable long after his crimes were known. The black book is less a curiosity and more a ledger of shame, an artifact that shows how the elite protect each other, even when the cost is justice for survivors.to contact me:    bobbycapucci@protonmail.comSource:https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/10/i-called-everyone-in-jeffrey-epsteins-little-black-book/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The Wall Street Journal reports that the Epstein scandal unleashed a wave of internal turmoil in the Trump administration, as aides scrambled to contain political damage once Trump's name began surfacing in Epstein-related files. What began as attempts to weaponize Epstein connections against rivals morphed into a defensive posture as Trump and his advisers found themselves under pressure from their own base and from Congress. The administration was plagued by missteps: Attorney General Pam Bondi's sudden distribution of “Epstein Files: Phase 1” binders to conservative influencers backfired, communication lines within the White House frayed, and high-level figures — including Bondi, Deputy Director Dan Bongino, and others — clashed over strategy and messaging.As the controversy deepened, conflicting impulses roiled the White House: some sought transparency to placate critics, while others pushed to suppress further disclosures. leaks, finger-pointing, and unforced errors intensified the chaos. In one pivotal moment, Trump himself became defensive, lashing out at supporters who demanded the release of more Epstein documentation even as the DOJ publicly declined further disclosures.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:‘Bomb went off': Report reveals moment Epstein files rocked the White House and why Trump is desperate to keep them secret | The IndependentBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The DOJ's transcripts with Ghislaine Maxwell read less like a deposition and more like a polite coffee chat, with Todd Blanche treating a convicted trafficker as if she were a misunderstood guest instead of a predator. Rather than pressing her for truth, the exchanges gave Maxwell space to “set the record straight,” validating her narrative and laundering her image into something official. The tone was soft, deferential, and absurd — serving not to expose corruption but to protect it, wrapping the cover-up in the illusion of accountability. Survivors were left silenced while Maxwell was gifted the spotlight, turning justice into propaganda.Worse still, many in the media and commentary class framed this transcript as a form of closure. Podcasters, influencers, and columnists repeated the DOJ's narrative with an air of finality, presenting Maxwell's statements as meaningful contributions to the record. They highlighted her composure, spoke of nuance, and positioned the exchange as a step forward. In practice, this served less as analysis and more as amplification of a managed script. By portraying the transcript as progress, these voices reinforced the perception that the matter was resolved, when in reality it functioned only to shield institutions, minimize scrutiny, and reframe a cover-up as resolution.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Jeffrey Epstein claimed that in the early hours of July 23, 2019, his cellmate Nicholas Tartaglione—an ex-cop then awaiting trial for multiple murders—tried to kill him. According to corrections officers' logs, Epstein was found in his cell in a fetal position, barely responsive, with orange fabric tied around his neck. He initially told officers he believed Tartaglione attacked him, alleging threats and pressure to pay up, fear of violence because of his charges, and that Tartaglione had been harassing him. But Epstein later retracted that claim, saying he couldn't remember exactly what happened.Investigations into the incident have raised doubts about what actually took place. The Metropolitan Correctional Center's video system either didn't capture the event or footage was missing. Jail staff and psychologists have considered several possibilities: that Epstein was assaulted, but also that the event could have been a suicide attempt—whether planned, practiced, or accidental—or something else altogether. The lack of clear evidence, conflicting statements from Epstein and Tartaglione, and mislaid video have all contributed to lingering questions.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:The night Jeffrey Epstein claimed his cellmate tried to kill him - CBS NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Newly released files from the U.S. Justice Department's ongoing Epstein Files Transparency Act disclosures include email exchanges from 2001–2002 between Ghislaine Maxwell, the convicted Epstein accomplice, and an individual identified only as “A” who signs off the messages with “The Invisible Man” and “A”—widely reported by multiple outlets as former Prince Andrew, now Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. In one August 2001 message sent from Balmoral, the British royal family's Scottish residence, the correspondent asks Maxwell whether she has “found me some new inappropriate friends,” a line that has drawn fresh scrutiny because of its phrasing and context. In response, Maxwell wrote she had only been able to find “appropriate friends,” and the exchange also touches on personal matters such as travel plans and the death of a longtime valet.Other documents in the same tranche show Maxwell arranging for introductions or social plans involving “girls” and a supposed friend referred to as “Andrew,” including correspondence related to a planned 2002 trip to Peru in which Maxwell described seeking “friendly and discreet and fun” companions and forwarding contact details to the person signing as “A.” While the emails do not on their own prove criminal conduct and there is no indication that law enforcement has charged Mountbatten-Windsor in connection with this material, the exchanges add to longstanding public and legal scrutiny of his ties to Epstein and Maxwell. Andrew has previously denied wrongdoing and has consistently rejected allegations related to Epstein's network; earlier civil allegations were resolved through a settlement and he has since been stripped of royal titles and duties amid controversy over his association with Epstein.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Newly released documents from the U.S. Department of Justice tied to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation include a previously undisclosed 2001 Palm Beach Police Department complaint concerning Ghislaine Maxwell. According to the report, three female college students said Maxwell approached them about working at a residence in Palm Beach—identified as Epstein's home—answering phones and doing “office work” for about $200 per day. One student described receiving calls regarding when “girls” were to be dropped off at the house, and at least two of the students reported Epstein touching them inappropriately. The women told police Maxwell was secretive about activities in the home and asked for contact information for other women who could be available on short notice. Police attempted follow-up but had trouble reaching the witnesses, though they did recover items from trash that included massage listings and lists of women with ages and descriptions. The report suggests early awareness of unusual and potentially exploitative conduct involving Epstein and Maxwell years before later investigations unfoldedThe existence of the 2001 complaint sheds light on a missed opportunity by law enforcement to intervene well before the broader Epstein sex trafficking ring became public and subject to federal scrutiny. It reveals that local authorities had received troubling firsthand accounts about Maxwell's role in recruiting young women and about troubling behavior inside Epstein's home, but the inquiry did not evolve into a more sustained or higher-level investigation at the time. The newly released documents raise questions about how early warnings were handled and whether more aggressive action might have prevented or curtailed the years of abuse that followed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Years before Epstein came under investigation in Palm Beach, local police got tip about Maxwell - ABC News

One of the biggest mistakes people keep making when they talk about Jeffrey Epstein is flattening everyone in his orbit into the same category. A photo becomes guilt, proximity becomes participation, and suddenly the conversation collapses into noise. That kind of thinking doesn't expose Epstein's operation—it protects it. Not everyone who crossed paths with Epstein was part of his crimes, and pretending otherwise only muddies the water and gives cover to the people who actually mattered. Epstein's power thrived on confusion, and when we refuse to distinguish between social adjacency and real involvement, we're doing his work for him.What the record actually shows is a layered system: people who encountered Epstein socially, people who enabled him by looking away or greasing the wheels, people who helped his operation function day to day, and people directly accused of taking part in the abuse. Those categories are not interchangeable, and pretending they are is how accountability dies. Enablers in finance, law, institutions, and government gave Epstein legitimacy and protection, while operational co-conspirators made the abuse repeatable and enforceable. Now, as scrutiny sharpens, the narrative has shifted to “reputations” and demands to “move on.” That's not accidental. It's a last-ditch effort to blur the lines again. The only way to stop that is precision—knowing who did what, when, and how, and refusing to let facts be laundered into confusion.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

One of the biggest mistakes people keep making when they talk about Jeffrey Epstein is flattening everyone in his orbit into the same category. A photo becomes guilt, proximity becomes participation, and suddenly the conversation collapses into noise. That kind of thinking doesn't expose Epstein's operation—it protects it. Not everyone who crossed paths with Epstein was part of his crimes, and pretending otherwise only muddies the water and gives cover to the people who actually mattered. Epstein's power thrived on confusion, and when we refuse to distinguish between social adjacency and real involvement, we're doing his work for him.What the record actually shows is a layered system: people who encountered Epstein socially, people who enabled him by looking away or greasing the wheels, people who helped his operation function day to day, and people directly accused of taking part in the abuse. Those categories are not interchangeable, and pretending they are is how accountability dies. Enablers in finance, law, institutions, and government gave Epstein legitimacy and protection, while operational co-conspirators made the abuse repeatable and enforceable. Now, as scrutiny sharpens, the narrative has shifted to “reputations” and demands to “move on.” That's not accidental. It's a last-ditch effort to blur the lines again. The only way to stop that is precision—knowing who did what, when, and how, and refusing to let facts be laundered into confusion.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The Palm Beach police report reads like the opening chapter of a crime saga everyone wishes had ended sooner. In painstaking detail, investigators laid out how Jeffrey Epstein operated a revolving-door abuse scheme out of his Palm Beach mansion—recruiting underage girls, often as young as 14, under the guise of “massages,” then paying them cash after sexual assaults. The report makes clear this was not a one-off or a misunderstanding; it documents dozens of consistent victim statements, matching descriptions of the house, the routine, the money, and Epstein's behavior. Detectives noted the sheer volume of victims, the striking similarities in their accounts, and the methodical nature of the abuse—painting a picture of a predator who acted with confidence, repetition, and a belief he would never face consequences.What makes the report so haunting is not just what Epstein did, but how unmistakably obvious it all was. The Palm Beach Police Department concluded there was overwhelming probable cause for felony sex crimes, emphasizing that Epstein's wealth, influence, and legal maneuvering stood in sharp contrast to the credibility and courage of the girls who came forward. The document reads less like a mystery and more like a warning flare—one that spelled out the scope of the abuse long before the world was forced to confront it. In black and white, the report shows that the truth was there early, detailed, and undeniable—raising the uncomfortable question of why it took so long for justice to even begin catching up.to contact me:bobbycapuccisource:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)

The Palm Beach police report reads like the opening chapter of a crime saga everyone wishes had ended sooner. In painstaking detail, investigators laid out how Jeffrey Epstein operated a revolving-door abuse scheme out of his Palm Beach mansion—recruiting underage girls, often as young as 14, under the guise of “massages,” then paying them cash after sexual assaults. The report makes clear this was not a one-off or a misunderstanding; it documents dozens of consistent victim statements, matching descriptions of the house, the routine, the money, and Epstein's behavior. Detectives noted the sheer volume of victims, the striking similarities in their accounts, and the methodical nature of the abuse—painting a picture of a predator who acted with confidence, repetition, and a belief he would never face consequences.What makes the report so haunting is not just what Epstein did, but how unmistakably obvious it all was. The Palm Beach Police Department concluded there was overwhelming probable cause for felony sex crimes, emphasizing that Epstein's wealth, influence, and legal maneuvering stood in sharp contrast to the credibility and courage of the girls who came forward. The document reads less like a mystery and more like a warning flare—one that spelled out the scope of the abuse long before the world was forced to confront it. In black and white, the report shows that the truth was there early, detailed, and undeniable—raising the uncomfortable question of why it took so long for justice to even begin catching up.to contact me:bobbycapuccisource:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)

Mark Epstein has consistently argued that the official account of his brother Jeffrey Epstein's death in federal custody is inadequate and incomplete, repeatedly calling for a far more robust, independent investigation. He has publicly questioned the findings of the New York City medical examiner, emphasizing that the determination of suicide was not unanimous and that at least one prominent forensic pathologist concluded the injuries were more consistent with homicide. Mark Epstein has also pointed to the extraordinary number of failures at the Metropolitan Correctional Center on the night of Jeffrey Epstein's death, including malfunctioning cameras, guards who allegedly fell asleep, and lapses in required welfare checks. In his view, these breakdowns were too numerous and consequential to be dismissed as mere coincidence. He has stressed that his concerns are not rooted in defending his brother's crimes, but in establishing what actually happened in a federal facility that was supposed to be under constant supervision. For Mark Epstein, unanswered questions surrounding the death undermine public trust in the justice system. He has maintained that transparency, not closure, should be the priority.Beyond disputing the medical and custodial conclusions, Mark Epstein has repeatedly criticized the scope and depth of the federal response, arguing that investigations have focused more on ending scrutiny than resolving contradictions. He has called for a fully independent inquiry with subpoena power, one that examines not only the immediate circumstances of the death but also potential external pressures, conflicts of interest, and institutional incentives to avoid embarrassment or liability. Mark Epstein has also questioned why no senior officials faced serious consequences despite the acknowledged failures at MCC, framing this lack of accountability as emblematic of a broader reluctance to confront uncomfortable truths. He has stated that without a comprehensive investigation, suspicions will persist regardless of official statements or reports. His continued advocacy reflects a belief that the case has been prematurely closed rather than thoroughly resolved. In his view, the handling of his brother's death represents a missed opportunity for institutional reckoning. Until those gaps are addressed, Mark Epstein has said, the public will be left with doubt rather than facts.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The 2019 New York federal grand jury transcripts capture the final prosecutorial push that led to the arrest of Jeffrey Epstein on sex-trafficking charges in the Southern District of New York. The transcripts reflect prosecutors laying out a sweeping pattern of alleged conduct, including the recruitment and exploitation of underage girls, the use of intermediaries, and the systematic nature of the abuse network. Witness testimony, documentary evidence, and financial records were presented to establish probable cause, directly contradicting the long-standing narrative that Epstein was a lone offender whose crimes were limited to Florida. These proceedings culminated in the July 2019 indictment, marking the first time federal prosecutors in New York formally moved against Epstein despite years of prior allegations and investigative leads.The transcripts have now been newly unsealed under the Epstein Transparency Act, a move that has reignited scrutiny over what federal authorities knew—and when. Their release sheds light on investigative decisions, evidentiary thresholds, and the scope of information presented to the grand jury, while also highlighting gaps that critics argue point to earlier prosecutorial failures. Survivors and transparency advocates have emphasized that the unsealing is significant not only for what it reveals about Epstein's conduct, but for what it exposes about institutional hesitation, delayed accountability, and the broader protection mechanisms that allowed Epstein to evade federal charges for years. While redactions remain, the disclosure represents a rare window into the mechanics of a case that many believe should have been brought long before 2019.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00008529.pdf

The U.S. Virgin Islands formally ended its civil racketeering (CICO) lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein's estate in late 2022 after reaching a $105 million settlement, marking the close of one of the most aggressive legal efforts to hold his operation accountable. The lawsuit had accused Epstein's estate of operating a criminal enterprise under the federal RICO framework—alleging that his private island, Little St. James, was used as a hub for sex trafficking, coercion, and the movement of victims across international lines. The territory's Attorney General's Office argued that Epstein's vast web of shell companies and real estate holdings were tools to facilitate and conceal illegal activity, effectively turning the U.S. Virgin Islands into the epicenter of his trafficking operation. By ending the case, the territory secured both financial restitution and the right to pursue claims against co-conspirators and associated entities.While the settlement concluded the direct case against the Epstein estate, it left open the possibility of continued investigations into those who helped enable his crimes within the islands' jurisdiction. The deal required the estate to sell Epstein's island properties and distribute funds to survivors, with part of the proceeds going to local anti-trafficking initiatives. In public statements, the U.S. Virgin Islands government characterized the resolution as a “victory for justice,” though critics noted that it avoided full discovery and depositions that might have exposed more about Epstein's powerful network. The case's conclusion symbolized a pragmatic end to litigation—but also reinforced a lingering frustration: even in death, Epstein managed to settle before the full truth ever reached open court.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comThe U.S. Virgin Islands formally ended its civil racketeering (CICO) lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein's estate in late 2022 after reaching a $105 million settlement, marking the close of one of the most aggressive legal efforts to hold his operation accountable. The lawsuit had accused Epstein's estate of operating a criminal enterprise under the federal RICO framework—alleging that his private island, Little St. James, was used as a hub for sex trafficking, coercion, and the movement of victims across international lines. The territory's Attorney General's Office argued that Epstein's vast web of shell companies and real estate holdings were tools to facilitate and conceal illegal activity, effectively turning the U.S. Virgin Islands into the epicenter of his trafficking operation. By ending the case, the territory secured both financial restitution and the right to pursue claims against co-conspirators and associated entities.While the settlement concluded the direct case against the Epstein estate, it left open the possibility of continued investigations into those who helped enable his crimes within the islands' jurisdiction. The deal required the estate to sell Epstein's island properties and distribute funds to survivors, with part of the proceeds going to local anti-trafficking initiatives. In public statements, the U.S. Virgin Islands government characterized the resolution as a “victory for justice,” though critics noted that it avoided full discovery and depositions that might have exposed more about Epstein's powerful network. The case's conclusion symbolized a pragmatic end to litigation—but also reinforced a lingering frustration: even in death, Epstein managed to settle before the full truth ever reached open court.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com