Happy New Year! (Now Release the Epstein Files!) (1/1/26)

Legal analysts have long noted that Ghislaine Maxwell never seriously pursued a cooperation deal in part because prosecutors had little incentive to offer one. The government’s case against Maxwell was unusually narrow and tightly framed, focusing on a defined time window, a limited number of victims, and a clean narrative of recruitment and grooming that could be proven without relying on broader conspiracy testimony. By structuring the indictment this way, prosecutors minimized risk, avoided intelligence sensitivities, and ensured a conviction without opening doors to sprawling discovery fights over Epstein’s finances, political connections, or institutional enablers. In that context, Maxwell’s value as a cooperator was sharply limited: the government already had what it needed to win.That has fueled speculation—shared quietly by defense lawyers and former prosecutors—that Maxwell’s refusal or inability to cut a deal may have stemmed from the case being deliberately engineered to not require her to talk about the wider network. Any cooperation that meaningfully reduced her sentence would likely have required testimony implicating powerful third parties or exposing systemic failures beyond Epstein himself. Such disclosures may have been inconvenient, destabilizing, or outside the scope prosecutors wanted to litigate. As a result, Maxwell faced a stark reality: cooperate and offer information the government did not appear to want—or go to trial in a case designed to convict her alone. The outcome suggests the prosecution prioritized certainty and containment over a broader reckoning, leaving Maxwell with no off-ramp and the larger structure surrounding Epstein largely untouched.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

2 Tammi 15min

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-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

2 Tammi 19min

How does a man like Jeffrey Epstein—a serial predator accused by multiple underage victims, operating in plain sight for years—walk into one of the most grotesquely lenient plea deals in modern American legal history? How does federal prosecution quietly vanish, victims get lied to, and a man facing life-altering charges instead secure a sweetheart agreement that lets him serve time in a private wing, leave jail six days a week, and continue living like a billionaire? This wasn’t a paperwork error or a one-off lapse in judgment. Deals like that do not happen by accident. They require power, protection, and people inside the system willing to bend, break, or outright ignore the law.So the real question isn’t how did Epstein do it—it’s who cleared the runway. Who decided the victims didn’t need to know? Who signed off on shielding unnamed co-conspirators? Who looked at the evidence, the scale of abuse, the number of girls, and said, “Let’s make this go away”? Because no ordinary defendant gets that kind of mercy. That kind of deal screams institutional fear, leverage, or complicity. And until every hand that touched that agreement is named, questioned, and held to account, the Epstein case isn’t a failure of justice—it’s proof of how selectively justice is applied.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

2 Tammi 18min

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has repeatedly drawn criticism for missed opportunities, delayed action, and opaque decision-making throughout the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. As early as the 1990s, the FBI received detailed complaints alleging abuse and trafficking, yet those warnings failed to trigger decisive intervention. Victim reports were documented but not meaningfully pursued, evidence languished without aggressive follow-up, and coordination with other agencies appeared inconsistent at best. These early failures allowed Epstein to continue operating for years, expanding both his network and the scale of harm while federal scrutiny remained fragmented and sluggish.Even after Epstein’s 2008 non-prosecution agreement ignited public outrage, the Bureau’s performance continued to raise alarms. Records battles with survivors, slow or incomplete document releases, and revelations that key investigative leads were deprioritized have reinforced perceptions of institutional breakdown. Critics argue the FBI repeatedly defaulted to narrow interpretations of jurisdiction and authority rather than pressing forward with a comprehensive enterprise-level investigation. The cumulative effect has been devastating: a case marked not by a lack of information, but by a pattern of hesitation and retreat that undermined accountability and deepened mistrust in the Bureau’s handling of one of the most consequential criminal investigations of its era.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

1 Tammi 11min

The Wall Street Journal published an exclusive account revealing what it says was the specific incident that led Donald Trump to ban Jeffrey Epstein from Mar-a-Lago’s spa in 2003. According to the report, Mar-a-Lago had been sending spa employees to provide services at Epstein’s nearby Palm Beach mansion for years, even as staff privately warned one another about Epstein’s increasingly inappropriate behavior. The practice continued until an 18-year-old beautician returned from a house call and reported that Epstein had pressured her for sex; a manager then sent Trump a fax about the allegation, and Trump responded by ordering Epstein banned from the club’s spa. The Journal’s account also notes that Epstein wasn’t a formal club member yet was treated “like one” on Trump’s instruction.The report situates that episode as the first clear break in Trump and Epstein’s relationship, though the two continued to be seen together socially for a time afterward. Mar-a-Lago staffers told the WSJ that Epstein’s companion Ghislaine Maxwell regularly coordinated the spa visits — including recruiting young employees — and that concerns about Epstein’s conduct were known internally before the 2003 complaint. Trump’s current White House has disparaged the WSJ story as politically motivated, with spokespeople saying he acted appropriately in banning Epstein for alleged misconduct toward employees.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:New report digs in on details of the incident that reportedly caused Trump to ban Epstein from Mar-a-Lago | The IndependentBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

1 Tammi 13min

The Department of Justice has responded to mounting pressure over the Epstein records by claiming it still has more than five million additional files to review, a figure that sounds less like transparency and more like institutional stalling. After nearly two decades of investigations, plea deals, prosecutions, civil litigation, and internal reviews, the idea that the DOJ is only now discovering the sheer scale of its Epstein archive strains credibility. This is not a new case, not a cold file pulled from a forgotten warehouse, but one of the most litigated, scrutinized, and publicly exposed criminal scandals in modern history. The implication that millions of documents remain unexamined suggests either catastrophic incompetence or a deliberate strategy to slow-walk disclosure until public attention fades. Either way, it reinforces the perception that the DOJ has never had a coherent or urgent plan to fully confront Epstein’s network.Critically, the DOJ’s “five million files” explanation functions as a bureaucratic shield rather than a meaningful update, offering volume as a substitute for accountability. Survivors, journalists, and lawmakers are not asking the DOJ to skim every scrap of paper in real time; they are demanding targeted transparency about known co-conspirators, prosecutorial decisions, and prior investigative failures. Invoking an overwhelming backlog conveniently avoids answering why so many leads were ignored, why federal charges were abandoned in 2007, and why key figures were never seriously pursued. At this point, the DOJ’s reliance on scale sounds less like diligence and more like delay, reinforcing a long-standing pattern in the Epstein case: when clarity is demanded, the department responds with process; when accountability is required, it pleads administrative burden.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

1 Tammi 11min

Jeffrey Epstein’s legal team didn’t just negotiate within the normal bounds of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in South Florida—they deliberately went over Alex Acosta’s head and straight to Department of Justice leadership in Washington. When local prosecutors appeared resistant to the sweeping immunity Epstein wanted, his lawyers escalated the matter to Main Justice, reframing the case as a broader federal concern rather than a local sex-crimes prosecution. That pressure campaign paid off. Senior DOJ officials ultimately signed off on the notorious Non-Prosecution Agreement, an extraordinary deal that shielded Epstein from federal charges and quietly immunized unnamed co-conspirators—a move that short-circuited what could have been a devastating national prosecution and locked victims out of the process.In this episode, newly surfaced correspondence pulls back the curtain on how that deal was engineered at the highest levels, including emails and letters involving Kenneth Starr, one of Epstein’s most powerful defense attorneys. The exchanges show Starr communicating directly with DOJ brass, using his institutional clout and legal gravitas to press Epstein’s case far beyond ordinary advocacy. Rather than a routine plea negotiation, the correspondence reveals a coordinated, top-down lobbying effort that treated Epstein as a problem to be managed, not prosecuted—raising disturbing questions about favoritism, backchannel influence, and how justice was quietly bent to accommodate one of the most well-connected defendants in modern American criminal history.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00013989.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

1 Tammi 15min