Mega Edition: The Court Apologizes To Epstein Survivors And Who Is Bruce Reinhart? (11/13/25)

In 2020, I traveled to Jeffrey Epstein’s Zorro Ranch in New Mexico to investigate the extent of his presence there. Over the course of three days, I spoke with multiple sources—some willing to go on the record, others only comfortable speaking off it—about Epstein’s activities in the region. The property itself was striking in its desolation, set deep in the New Mexico desert with no real neighbors for miles in any direction. The isolation gave it an almost fortress-like quality, a place where anything could happen without drawing unwanted eyes. That remoteness underscored the eerie sense that whatever occurred behind those gates was deliberately shielded from scrutiny.Locals I spoke with admitted they had always suspected something strange was going on at the ranch, but secrecy surrounded the property like a second fence. Few people had ever been inside, and even fewer felt comfortable talking about it openly. The whispers were there—rumors of high-profile guests and unexplained comings and goings—but they rarely broke the surface in a town where silence often felt safer. My reporting also led me to the Santa Fe Institute, an academic hub that Epstein had cultivated with donations and personal ties. My visit there was brief. The moment I made clear why I had come and who I was asking about, I was swiftly asked to leave. That abrupt dismissal only reinforced what I had sensed at the ranch itself: Epstein’s influence in New Mexico had always thrived on distance, secrecy, and the unspoken understanding that questions were best left unasked.Ito contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

30 Elo 1h 32min

In response to Ghislaine Maxwell's Rule 56.1 Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, Virginia Giuffre (formerly known as Virginia Roberts) submitted a detailed counterstatement challenging Maxwell's assertions. Giuffre disputed Maxwell's denials of involvement in Jeffrey Epstein's alleged sexual abuse and trafficking operations, providing specific instances and evidence to support her claims. She contended that Maxwell's public statements dismissing her allegations as false were themselves defamatory and aimed at discrediting her experiences as a victim. Giuffre's response emphasized the existence of genuine disputes over material facts, arguing that these issues necessitated a trial to resolve the conflicting accounts.Giuffre's counterstatement also highlighted inconsistencies and omissions in Maxwell's narrative, aiming to demonstrate that Maxwell's involvement with Epstein was more extensive than acknowledged. By presenting corroborative testimonies and documentary evidence, Giuffre sought to undermine Maxwell's credibility and reinforce the legitimacy of her own allegationsto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

30 Elo 39min

In response to Ghislaine Maxwell's Rule 56.1 Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, Virginia Giuffre (formerly known as Virginia Roberts) submitted a detailed counterstatement challenging Maxwell's assertions. Giuffre disputed Maxwell's denials of involvement in Jeffrey Epstein's alleged sexual abuse and trafficking operations, providing specific instances and evidence to support her claims. She contended that Maxwell's public statements dismissing her allegations as false were themselves defamatory and aimed at discrediting her experiences as a victim. Giuffre's response emphasized the existence of genuine disputes over material facts, arguing that these issues necessitated a trial to resolve the conflicting accounts.Giuffre's counterstatement also highlighted inconsistencies and omissions in Maxwell's narrative, aiming to demonstrate that Maxwell's involvement with Epstein was more extensive than acknowledged. By presenting corroborative testimonies and documentary evidence, Giuffre sought to undermine Maxwell's credibility and reinforce the legitimacy of her own allegationsto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

30 Elo 26min

In response to Ghislaine Maxwell's Rule 56.1 Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, Virginia Giuffre (formerly known as Virginia Roberts) submitted a detailed counterstatement challenging Maxwell's assertions. Giuffre disputed Maxwell's denials of involvement in Jeffrey Epstein's alleged sexual abuse and trafficking operations, providing specific instances and evidence to support her claims. She contended that Maxwell's public statements dismissing her allegations as false were themselves defamatory and aimed at discrediting her experiences as a victim. Giuffre's response emphasized the existence of genuine disputes over material facts, arguing that these issues necessitated a trial to resolve the conflicting accounts.Giuffre's counterstatement also highlighted inconsistencies and omissions in Maxwell's narrative, aiming to demonstrate that Maxwell's involvement with Epstein was more extensive than acknowledged. By presenting corroborative testimonies and documentary evidence, Giuffre sought to undermine Maxwell's credibility and reinforce the legitimacy of her own allegationsto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

30 Elo 25min

In response to Ghislaine Maxwell's Rule 56.1 Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, Virginia Giuffre (formerly known as Virginia Roberts) submitted a detailed counterstatement challenging Maxwell's assertions. Giuffre disputed Maxwell's denials of involvement in Jeffrey Epstein's alleged sexual abuse and trafficking operations, providing specific instances and evidence to support her claims. She contended that Maxwell's public statements dismissing her allegations as false were themselves defamatory and aimed at discrediting her experiences as a victim. Giuffre's response emphasized the existence of genuine disputes over material facts, arguing that these issues necessitated a trial to resolve the conflicting accounts.Giuffre's counterstatement also highlighted inconsistencies and omissions in Maxwell's narrative, aiming to demonstrate that Maxwell's involvement with Epstein was more extensive than acknowledged. By presenting corroborative testimonies and documentary evidence, Giuffre sought to undermine Maxwell's credibility and reinforce the legitimacy of her own allegationsto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

30 Elo 25min

In 1997, Jeffrey Epstein quietly became part-owner of a luxurious ski-in, ski-out Euro-style chalet in Vail, Colorado. The property—located at 375 Mill Creek Circle—was transferred to him via a trust he controlled, following an earlier purchase by an heiress of Johnson & Johnson, Elizabeth Ross “Libet” Johnson. This arrangement, formalized in 1998, granted Epstein significant control over the chalet, though the ownership wasn’t reflected in official estate disclosures after his death. The property stayed under this trust until it sold for $24 million in July 2020. The deal included provisions allowing Epstein—or his estate—to benefit financially, but the destination of those proceeds remains unclear.The chalet stood out not only for its opulence but also for being one of Epstein’s most significant undisclosed assets. The property featured multiple bedrooms and bathrooms, a pool, elevator, and ski slope access—one of his few high-profile holdings left out of publicly detailed estate inventories. Its secrecy helped Epstein maintain a shadowy network of elite properties, raising lingering questions about the full scope of his financial footprint and whether investigators or victims ever recovered the funds from its sale.To contact me:Bobbycapucci@protonmail.comSource:https://okmagazine.com/exclusives/jeffrey-epstein-colorado-ski-chalet/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

30 Elo 16min

With each batch of Jeffrey Epstein documents that surfaces—from court filings to unsealed transcripts and FBI files—Prince Andrew’s name is once again thrust into the spotlight. These releases often contain references to him, such as listings among associates or detailed accounts of his time at Epstein’s properties. For instance, newly unsealed documents highlighted Andrew’s extended stays at Epstein’s Palm Beach home; hearings and filings regularly cite his presence alongside Epstein, ensuring he remains intertwined in evolving narratives. Even when he isn’t the focus, his proximity to Epstein continues to resurface in the broader revelations.Furthermore, recent DOJ transcripts featuring Ghislaine Maxwell’s remarks have revived scrutiny of Andrew’s role in the affair. Maxwell directly addressed—and dismissed—allegations against him, including claims involving Virginia Giuffre, and even contested the authenticity of widely circulated photos. Her denials, despite their disputed nature, reignite public and media debate and keep Andrew at the center of each new chapter in the Epstein saga.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

30 Elo 11min

The 2007 NPA granted Epstein immunity from federal prosecution, explicitly including “any potential co-conspirators.” However, courts have ruled that this immunity only applied within the jurisdiction of the Southern District of Florida, which negotiated the deal. The Second Circuit Court held that the agreement did not bind other U.S. Attorney’s Offices, such as the Southern District of New York (SDNY), where Ghislaine Maxwell was later tried—and upheld her prosecution despite the NPA’s language. This is because prosecutors in different districts are not automatically constrained by deals made in Florida.Prosecutors themselves have highlighted the absurdity of a scenario where Epstein could potentially still face prosecution in another district, while his co-conspirators remain untouchable nationwide. In a Supreme Court filing, the Justice Department stressed how logically inconsistent—and legally bizarre—it would be if a defendant could be pursued in District A, but their collaborators remain immune everywhere else due to an out-of-state agreement. The broader principle endorsed by courts is that NPAs do not grant blanket immunity beyond their originating district.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/sdny-rejects-absurd-notion-that-jeffrey-epsteins-non-prosecution-agreement-still-protects-ghislaine-maxwell/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

29 Elo 15min