In Their Own Words: 'C.L.' Doe And Her Lawsuit Filed Against Jeffrey Epstein

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.

28 Joulu 1h 4min

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.

28 Joulu 13min

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.

28 Joulu 30min

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.

28 Joulu 17min

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.

27 Joulu 14min

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.

27 Joulu 12min

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.

27 Joulu 13min