Mega Edition: The OIG Report Into The Death And Circumstances Of Epstein's Death (Part 3) (11/26/25)

Reports indicate that newly unsealed court records reveal Jeffrey Epstein’s estate discovered a previously unknown cache of videos and photographs that may contain highly sensitive or potentially illegal material. According to the filings, the estate alerted federal authorities and legal representatives for survivors once the cache was located, and the material is now being reviewed under restricted access. The revelation has raised immediate questions about how such evidence remained undiscovered during prior raids and investigations, and why it is only surfacing years after Epstein’s death, despite the public insistence that all relevant materials were already collected by law enforcement.These reports also note that the discovery aligns with long-standing claims from survivors and insiders that Epstein systematically recorded activities inside his properties, allegedly capturing compromising encounters involving high-profile individuals. Advocates have argued for years that Epstein used surveillance as leverage and protection, and the existence of a hidden archive intensifies speculation about who may be depicted on the recovered media. The finding further fuels concerns about transparency, chain of custody, and the possibility that critical evidence was concealed, misplaced, or withheld, leaving the public once again questioning whether the full truth surrounding Epstein’s network has ever genuinely been revealed.Former Barclays CEO Jes Staley and his legal team forcefully rejected allegations made by JPMorgan Chase, describing them as “slanderous” and “baseless but serious.” The dispute emerged during litigation in Manhattan, where lawsuits filed by the U.S. Virgin Islands and a survivor identified as Jane Doe 1 accused Staley of having closely associated with Jeffrey Epstein’s trafficking network, including claims that he exchanged hundreds of emails with Epstein containing disturbing content. Staley’s lawyers argued that the accelerated trial schedule was unnecessary and unfair, insisting that he had been given insufficient time to prepare an adequate defense. JPMorgan, in turn, pursued legal action against Staley, seeking to recover compensation and asserting that he was central to decisions that allowed Epstein to operate as a client for years. The bank maintained that Staley was “inextricably linked” to the case, pointing to his long relationship with Epstein dating back to his tenure at JPMorgan in the early 2000s. Staley ultimately resigned as CEO of Barclays in 2021 amid scrutiny from UK regulators over his Epstein ties, and the legal confrontation highlighted the reputational fallout and lingering uncertainty surrounding the financial institutions and executives connected to Epstein’s network.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

26 Marras 16min

Prosecutors allege that during a video-conference session with her lawyers at MDC Brooklyn, Maxwell used a large cart loaded with legal documents to block the door of a dedicated conference room, effectively preventing prison staff from entering. The filing states she was permitted to bring the cart into the video‐teleconference (VTC) room for meetings, but then “used that cart to barricade the door to the room” when staff attempted to gain access.In response, Maxwell’s legal team denied the barricade claim, arguing the government was “gratuitously casting” her in a negative light to justify stricter limits on her legal material access. Following the incident, prison authorities removed and banned the use of the cart during her meetings, directing that she instead carry her documents by hand and make multiple trips if needed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

25 Marras 18min

James Comer, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, issued a sharp warning to Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton that they must comply with in-person deposition subpoenas in the committee’s investigation of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell—and not simply offer written statements. He emphasized that the Clintons’ personal relationships with Epstein and Maxwell are precisely the reason why in-person testimony is required, and that declining to appear would amount to defiance of a lawful subpoena.Comer made clear that if the Clintons fail to show up for their scheduled depositions (Bill on December 17 and Hillary on December 18), the committee will initiate contempt-of-Congress proceedings. Such a move could lead to criminal referrals and potential legal consequences, akin to previous contempt cases in Congress.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Bill and Hillary Clinton told to appear for depositions in Jeffrey Epstein probe | New York PostBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

25 Marras 15min

People scrambling to defend Jeffrey Epstein’s enablers are acting like the public demanding accountability is some sort of pitchfork mob obsessed with cancel culture. They’re pretending that exposing the people who protected a serial predator is the same thing as ruining someone’s career over an old joke or a bad tweet. It’s a deliberate distortion—an attempt to blur the line between trivial social punishment and the long-overdue reckoning that comes when power is abused, evidence piles up, and silence is no longer an option. These defenders are confused—maybe intentionally—because they know admitting the truth means admitting years of complicity, negligence, and willful blindness.What’s happening now isn’t vindictive. It isn’t impulsive. It isn’t moral grandstanding. It’s consequence culture—the natural outcome when survivors fight for justice, evidence resurfaces, and institutions can no longer bury the truth under NDAs, sealed records, and PR cleanup squads. Consequences are not the same as cancellation. Consequences are what happen when people who held power used it to protect a predator, silence victims, and keep a criminal empire running. If you’re terrified that facing scrutiny equals cancellation, maybe that says more about what you’ve been hiding than anything else.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

25 Marras 15min

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed a motion in federal court in the Southern District of Florida requesting that grand-jury transcripts (and related protective orders) from the investigations of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell be unsealed. The motion cites the newly enacted Epstein Files Transparency Act, which mandates the release of unclassified DOJ materials related to Epstein within 30 days, arguing that grand-jury transcripts should not be exempt from disclosure simply because of their status. The DOJ said it will make appropriate redactions for victim-identifying information and asks that any pre-existing protective orders be lifted so the records can be made public.In its filings, the DOJ highlighted that the transcripts in question stem from earlier investigations — including grand-jury sessions from 2005 and 2007 in Florida — and asserted that the public interest in transparency around Epstein’s crimes and network is compelling. The motion requests an expedited ruling to meet the 30-day deadline set by the Transparency Act. At the same time, the DOJ acknowledges that the law does not explicitly mention grand-jury material, but argues that court precedent allows unsealing where justified and that the transcripts do not contain “new” information that would pose unusual harm, when properly redacted.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

25 Marras 12min

The renewed release of information surrounding Jeffrey Epstein’s network has highlighted a striking shift among groups that previously positioned themselves as vocal crusaders against child exploitation and elite corruption. During the height of Epstein’s second arrest in 2019, many of the loudest online voices—particularly those aligned with the QAnon movement—used Epstein’s case as a rallying point, framing it as proof of a hidden global cabal and leveraging public outrage to fuel a sprawling conspiracy narrative. However, as real legal developments, survivor testimony, and documented links to high-profile individuals have resurfaced in recent months, those same factions have largely retreated from the discussion, offering little public support for transparency or accountability.Critics argue that the earlier conflation of the Epstein case with sensationalized conspiracy content served to obscure legitimate evidence and undermine public focus at a critical moment, ultimately benefiting the powerful figures and institutions implicated in the scandal. Today, instead of calling for investigations or defending survivors, many former activists have shifted to skepticism about Epstein’s crimes or have echoed narratives minimizing Ghislaine Maxwell’s role. The contrast between their previous public posture and their current silence has raised questions about motives, credibility, and whether the distraction generated at the peak of the case was accidental or strategic.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Infamous pro-Trump conspiracy theorists have been 'strangely muted' on the Epstein scandal - Alternet.orgBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

25 Marras 17min

Starmer, speaking en route to the G20 summit in Johannesburg, made clear that although he would not comment on Andrew’s individual case, his long‐held general principle is straightforward: anyone who possesses relevant information in investigations of serious wrongdoing should step forward and give that evidence. He emphasised that cooperation with investigators is the correct stance when one is in possession of material that might help.At the same time, Starmer added that whether Andrew chooses to follow that principle is “a decision for him” — indicating that he was not issuing a direct instruction or demand, but rather expressing what he considers to be the correct ethical posture. He thereby signalled political support for the notion of accountability (irrespective of title or status) while also avoiding a more forceful or legally binding statement about Andrew’s cooperation.to comment:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:UK PM Starmer says Prince Andrew should testify in Jeffrey Epstein probe | Fox NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

25 Marras 12min

In private remarks, President Trump is reported—based on accounts from Rolling Stone citing two insiders—to have described some of Jeffrey Epstein’s survivors, particularly those who appeared in the media, as being “clearly of a ‘Democrat’ political affiliation.” He allegedly suggested that these individuals might be trying “to make him look bad” or implying wrongdoing during his past association with Epstein. The report further notes Trump speculated that they may be working with “prominent liberal attorneys or groups” to damage his reputation.The White House formally denied the report, labeling it false. A spokesperson dismissed the claims as a “desperate attempt by the failing Rolling Stone” to influence public perception..to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Trump has privately pondered if Epstein accusers are just ‘Democrats’ trying to make him look bad, report claims | The IndependentBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

25 Marras 28min