The Mega Edition: Sara Rivers And Her Allegations Against Diddy (Parts 11-12) (10/13/25)

Following his announcement that he would step back from public royal roles in late 2019/early 2020, the House of Commons and its members began to publicly question the accountability and oversight of members of the royal family. Several MPs raised concerns over Prince Andrew’s continued benefits from the Crown Estate, his security protection funded by taxpayers, and the lack of transparency around his finances and relationships—especially given his links to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The Commons, traditionally reticent to query royal affairs, saw backbenchers and opposition figures press for measures such as parliamentary debate on his conduct and the possibility of formal motions to strip his titles.While the government repeatedly declined to initiate formal debate or legislation at that time, citing constitutional convention and the royal family’s desire to handle internal matters, the pressure in the Commons continued to build. MPs from multiple parties proposed or supported private-member bills aimed at enabling Parliament to remove titles and honours from royalty, and select-committee scrutiny was mooted around his lease of the 30-room Windsor residence, Royal Lodge. In essence, the Commons signalled a shift: even if direct action was deferred, the principle that royals should not be completely shielded from political accountability had gained ground.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

27 Marras 18min

While most federal inmates across the country were barred from in-person visits because of COVID restrictions, I learned that Ghislaine Maxwell was granted an exception inside the federal detention center in New York. Despite strict pandemic rules that kept families, attorneys, and even clergy away from prisoners, officials approved a personal visit for Maxwell, fueling accusations that she was receiving privileges unavailable to other inmates. Sources inside the facility described how the visit was conducted in a room separate from the general population and under unusual accommodation, reinforcing suspicions that she was being treated differently from everyone else inside the Metropolitan Detention Center.The decision outraged prisoners’ families and advocates who had been campaigning for months to restore basic visitation rights, only to watch Maxwell receive access that others were denied. As her legal team continued to claim harsh and unfair treatment, the revelation that she had been given a rare private visit painted a starkly different picture of her conditions and raised deeper questions about preferential handling, institutional favoritism, and the degree of influence that still surrounds her name. For many observing from the outside, it was another reminder that the rules appear to bend when the defendant is wealthy, connected, and notorious enough.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

27 Marras 16min

Maxwell and her team mounted a broad PR offensive to humanize her and create a sympathetic narrative ahead of her $28.5 million bail proposal. Her court filings included letters from her undisclosed husband and more than a dozen friends and family members describing her as a “wonderful and loving person” and insisting she posed no flight risk. Her husband’s letter acknowledged her relationship with Jeffrey Epstein but claimed she “had nothing to do” with the crimes—setting the stage for her bail package by positioning her as a loyal spouse and stable individual awaiting trial.At the same time, the bail submission outlined a lavish support structure: Maxwell’s husband offered to co-sign the majority of the bond, friends and family committed additional millions, and she proposed to live under 24-hour house confinement, electronic monitoring, and secure home location while awaiting trial. The presentation was heavily choreographed to demonstrate stability and control over her assets rather than the “extreme flight risk” the prosecution emphasized. The timing of the marketing push immediately before the holiday season and its thorough documentation reflect an obvious strategy to shift public and judicial perception before the court reviewed her release motion.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

27 Marras 36min

In her filings and public statements, Ghislaine Maxwell asserted dire and inhumane conditions during her pre-trial detention at the Metropolitan Detention Center Brooklyn and later facilities. She claimed she was subject to excessive strip-searches, extremely poor food, sleep deprivation via constant lighting, raw sewage in her cell, missing legal paperwork, confiscation of attorney communications, and suffered weight loss and hair loss because of these conditions. These complaints were used to argue for her release or improved conditions, painting a picture of a woman under oppressive and degrading incarceration.However, prosecutors and facility records challenge many of Maxwell’s claims, labeling some as “falsehoods” advanced to generate public sympathy. They note that, unlike most detainees in her situation, she had access to a desktop computer, regular lawyer visits, phone and television access, and was housed in a special unit separate from the general population. Observers say the contrast between her allegations and documented privileges has raised doubts about the credibility of her narrative and suggests a strategic attempt to portray herself as a victim of unjust treatment rather than a convicted conspirator.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

27 Marras 16min

Settlement agreements reached with Jeffrey Epstein’s estate included a little-noticed carveout that allowed some survivors to continue pursuing claims against powerful figures connected to Epstein, even after accepting compensation. These provisions weren’t accidental; they were crafted to preserve the ability to target individuals believed to have played a role beyond Epstein himself. At least one survivor signaled plans to use that pathway to bring legal action against high-profile Wall Street executives Leon Black and Jes Staley, asserting that accountability should extend to those who enabled, protected, or benefitted from Epstein’s operations.The existence of these carveouts shifted the landscape of post-Epstein litigation. Instead of closing the book on the case, the settlements effectively opened new fronts — placing influential financiers back under scrutiny and raising the possibility of additional lawsuits that could broaden public understanding of the network surrounding Epstein. It reflected a larger sentiment among survivors: Epstein may be gone, but the system that supported him was far from dismantled, and there remained unfinished business in pursuit of the truth.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 14min

In the case Does 1-6 vs. Gov. John de Jongh, Jr., et al., the defense counsel for Gov. John de Jongh, Jr. submitted a supplemental briefing in compliance with the court’s order to address topics discussed during a prior conference and highlight relevant cases or arguments raised by both parties. While primarily focusing on venue-related arguments, the defendant also joins and incorporates the arguments made by co-defendants in their respective submissions. The defense reiterates its position that the Second Amended Complaint (SAC) should be dismissed based on prior arguments made by the defendant and co-defendants.Should the SAC not be dismissed, including for reasons of improper venue, the defense asserts that the case should be transferred to the District of the Virgin Islands (D.V.I.), where it would be more appropriately handled.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.610915.178.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

26 Marras 19min

James Comer whining that nobody will believe his upcoming Epstein report is the most unintentionally honest thing he’s ever said. Public trust in Congress has evaporated after years of empty investigations, hollow promises, and political theater that never produces consequences. Comer acts shocked that people won’t blindly accept whatever narrative he puts out, comparing the response to the Warren Commission like that’s some badge of honor instead of a historic failure. He’s mad not because people are irrational, but because the old playbook—grandstanding, dramatic press conferences, and meaningless “bombshells”—doesn’t work anymore. The American public isn’t buying “trust me bro” politics, and they’re not applauding another expensive report destined to collect dust while the powerful walk free.Comer’s outrage is nothing more than a tantrum from a politician terrified of losing control of the narrative. Instead of delivering real accountability, Congress consistently delivers nothing but smoke and excuses, and then blames the public for refusing to cheer. The reason nobody trusts Comer or his colleagues isn’t conspiracy—it’s track record. We’ve watched them talk a tough game, promise justice, and produce absolutely nothing, from Russiagate to every other so-called investigation that fizzled into nothing. The era of blind obedience is dead. If Comer wants belief, he needs results—not another worthless performance. Until that day, the disbelief he’s crying about is just the country telling him the truth: he earned it.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:‘Nobody will ever believe it’: James Comer airs doubts about his own Epstein investigation - POLITICOBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

26 Marras 26min

Jeffrey Epstein’s influence over elected officials in the U.S. Virgin Islands has been severely underreported, and what little has surfaced paints a disturbing picture of a predator who understood exactly how to weaponize wealth and access. Epstein embedded himself deeply into the political fabric of the territory, using his private islands as both a physical and symbolic base of power. He exploited the region’s tax-benefit programs through entities like Southern Trust and Financial Trust, turning the USVI into a financial stronghold that allowed him to move money with minimal scrutiny. Along the way, he courted and financially supported political figures, cultivating the kind of access that most lobbyists would kill for — but without any of the transparency or accountability required of legitimate political influence.It wasn’t just checks changing hands; it was strategy, direction, and coordination. Private emails and lawsuit filings have shown that prominent political figures in the USVI sought Epstein’s approval and assistance, with some even consulting him on how to secure campaign support and manage political relationships. Epstein allegedly pushed for changes to laws and regulations that would directly benefit him — including adjustments to sex-offender requirements — and he kept a stable of officials close enough to act as buffers and facilitators. Yet despite the magnitude of this corruption, the national media largely ignored it for years, focusing instead on the glamour and scandal surrounding his high-profile associates. The story of how Epstein essentially operated as an unelected power broker within a U.S. territory remains one of the most neglected and revealing components of the broader cover-up.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 11min