Gone But Not Forgotten: Adrien McNaughton

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein’s alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims’ Rights Act’s principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein’s associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors’ discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

1 Marras 27min

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein’s alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims’ Rights Act’s principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein’s associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors’ discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

1 Marras 26min

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein’s alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims’ Rights Act’s principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein’s associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors’ discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

1 Marras 30min

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein’s alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims’ Rights Act’s principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein’s associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors’ discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

1 Marras 26min

Prince Andrew has faced mounting scrutiny over multiple visits to Jeffrey Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse, particularly the infamous 2010 trip captured in photos and surveillance footage showing him waving goodbye to Epstein at the door. Andrew has admitted to staying there for several days after Epstein’s release from jail, calling it a “mistake” but insisting the purpose was to end their friendship. However, numerous reports, including witness accounts and court filings, indicate his visits were far more frequent and intimate than publicly acknowledged. Epstein’s staff, including housekeeper Juan Alessi, alleged that Andrew was seen receiving massages and spending extended time with Epstein and his associates. Other witnesses described Andrew being present during gatherings where underage girls were allegedly trafficked.Despite his repeated denials, the optics of those visits have haunted the Duke of York. The 2010 stay, in particular, took place years after Epstein’s 2008 conviction, leading many to question why Andrew would maintain contact with a known sex offender. His 2019 BBC Newsnight interview only intensified criticism after his bizarre claim that he stayed at Epstein’s home simply because it was “convenient.” Public outrage grew as court documents tied Andrew’s name to Epstein’s flight logs, and Virginia Giuffre accused him of sexual abuse at both Epstein’s townhouse and other properties — allegations Andrew continues to deny. The scandal has since resulted in his expulsion from royal duties and permanent damage to his public reputation.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

1 Marras 13min

For decades, the FBI sat on a mountain of evidence implicating Jeffrey Epstein in the trafficking and abuse of underage girls—evidence that could have led to his prosecution long before his 2019 arrest. Victim statements, flight logs, financial records, photographs, and corroborating witnesses were all available in various forms as early as the mid-1990s. Multiple law enforcement agencies, including local police in Palm Beach, had already compiled damaging information and flagged Epstein’s pattern of recruiting minors for sex acts. Despite this, federal authorities consistently failed to act, allowing him to maintain his wealth, freedom, and influence while continuing to victimize girls with impunity.The inaction wasn’t due to a lack of evidence—it was a deliberate choice. The FBI not only delayed meaningful investigation, but in some cases appeared to retreat altogether, especially after Epstein’s 2008 sweetheart plea deal in Florida. Rather than pursuing the obvious interstate and international dimensions of his crimes, the Bureau allowed the case to go cold, even as new allegations emerged. Whether out of institutional cowardice, political interference, or worse, the result was the same: the most powerful federal law enforcement agency in the country turned a blind eye to one of the most prolific sex traffickers of the modern era while survivors were left unheard, and Epstein’s network remained intact.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/fbi-had-dirt-that-could-have-unraveled-jeffrey-epsteins-entire-network-more-than-a-decade-ago/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

1 Marras 22min

Epstein is reported to have advised clients on deploying GRATs (Grantor Retained Annuity Trusts)—an estate planning vehicle that lets ultra-wealthy individuals pass appreciating assets to heirs while minimizing gift and estate taxes. Analysts say Epstein used his proximity to billionaires and his aura of financial wizardry to pitch these sophisticated tax-avoidance schemes. The strategy exploits a loophole in U.S. tax law: during the trust’s term, the grantor retains annuity payments, and if the trust’s investments outperform the assumed IRS rate, the excess passes to beneficiaries tax-free. Epstein’s involvement with GRATs even drew Senate scrutiny after it emerged he helped clients like Leon Black and possibly Sergey Brin structure trust arrangements.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

31 Loka 26min

As with most entities or people involved with Jeffrey Epstein, Deutsche Bank is claiming that they are protected from lawsuits by the same old tired reason the rest of the enablers were protected: Technicalities. With the pressure now being turned up against several financial institutions by the surivvors, the banks are looking for anyway to deny their relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The problem? All of the receipts are available and what they show us is damning.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Deutsche Bank tries to toss Jeffrey Epstein survivors case (lawandcrime.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

31 Loka 11min