Jeffrey Epstein's Core 4: The Adriana Ross Deposition (Part 1) (11/15/25)

For years, Prince Andrew acted like the high-flying royal who couldn’t see the minefield he was walking into: cozying up with ­Jeffrey Epstein, showing up in dubious photographs, giving an infamous 2019 BBC interview that looked more like a clown show than a credible defence (including his claim to have been at Pizza Express while accusations rained down). Ultimately his behavior came across as shamelessly indifferent, tone-deaf, and foolish—he didn’t just stumble; he waltzed through the wreckage.Then everything collapsed. The monarchy pulled the plug: he relinquished titles, had military honours stripped, was told to leave his royal residence, and in late 2025 he was formally stripped of his “Prince” title and other styles, becoming simply Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. These aren’t small demotions—they mark the end of his public roles and any real stature in the institution he once embodied. He gambled his privilege, association, and reputation—and lost it all.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

16 Marras 21min

In late 2019, Prince Andrew publicly stated that he was “willing to help any appropriate law-enforcement agency” in relation to Epstein’s criminal activities. However, on 27 January 2020 the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York announced that the prince had provided “zero cooperation” to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) despite repeated requests to interview him as part of the investigation.Since then, although at times Prince Andrew has asserted he remains open to cooperating, U.S. investigators maintain he has not voluntarily submitted to interview or question-and-answer sessions regarding the Epstein network.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

16 Marras 23min

In a fact-finding report released by Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in January 2020, conducted by the law firm Goodwin Procter LLP, it was found that Epstein donated a total of about $850,000 to MIT between 2002 and 2017, with approximately $225,000 going directly to Lloyd. The report concluded that Lloyd “purposefully failed to inform MIT” that Epstein—a convicted sex offender—was the source of certain donations in 2012 and that Lloyd allowed the gifts to be processed through administrators without formal discussion or full vetting. The report also stated that Lloyd accepted a personal gift of around $60,000 from Epstein in 2005 or 2006, deposited to his personal bank account and not reported to MIT.Lloyd publicly rejected key aspects of the report. He stated that the accusations were “completely false” and maintained that MIT administrators “knew that the donor was Epstein and fully approved the donation with this knowledge.” He also said he did not concede any breach of professional duty despite the report’s language implying he did. Lloyd pointed to email evidence showing MIT staff’s direct acknowledgment of Epstein’s donation.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

16 Marras 12min

In earlier reporting, much of the media framed the Jeffrey Epstein case largely as fuel for conspiracy theorists. The narrative around his death, the secretive networks, and the alleged “client list” often got labeled as fringe speculation, with the focus on odd memes and internet chatter rather than systemic investigation. The lack of transparency — the sealed records, the unanswered questions about his connections and how he died — created an environment where speculation thrived, and the mainstream coverage treated it as detached from serious journalism.More recently though, the tone has shifted. The piece acknowledges that what was once mostly dismissed as conspiracy talk is now being seen by some outlets as, at minimum, a reflection of genuine institutional failures — gaps in oversight, accountability and transparency that allowed the story to be mishandled or ignored. The reinterpretation means the media is slowly moving from “crazy fringe theory” toward “legitimate unanswered questions,” recognizing that the earlier dismissal may have been premature and that the conditions that spawned those theories often stemmed from real structural problems.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

15 Marras 25min

In a move widely criticized as politically motivated and structurally compromised, former SEC chairman Jay Clayton—who previously worked closely with Apollo Global Management, the private-equity firm led for decades by Jeffrey Epstein associate Leon Black—was appointed to oversee an investigation into Epstein’s alleged ties to Donald Trump’s political adversaries. Critics argue that placing someone so closely connected to a firm entangled in Epstein’s financial orbit fundamentally undermines the credibility of the inquiry. While the announcement was framed as a push for transparency, the decision raised immediate concerns about conflicts of interest and selective scrutiny. Observers note that when Trump publicly demanded investigations into his opponents, he conspicuously avoided referencing Black or Les Wexner, another figure long linked to Epstein, fueling allegations that the appointment was designed to protect insiders rather than expose them.The broader controversy highlights what many see as a calculated effort to contain the fallout from newly surfaced Epstein-related communications that could implicate individuals across both political parties. Rather than pursuing a comprehensive accounting, the administration’s strategy appears focused on limiting exposure and reframing the narrative toward partisan targets. Survivors of Epstein’s abuse and their advocates have expressed frustration that those with direct proximity to Epstein—financially and personally—continue to remain shielded while public attention is redirected. Critics contend that the government’s approach resembles damage control rather than a legitimate pursuit of justice, reinforcing suspicions that political and financial interests, rather than accountability, are driving decisions at the highest levels.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

15 Marras 16min

In the aftermath of another chaotic political week, the illusion of control around the Epstein scandal is collapsing. The same figures who once strutted with confidence now look frantic, sweating through their defenses as newly exposed emails and shifting alliances expose cracks in the narrative. What was once spun as strategy has curdled into panic—raw, unfiltered fear from people who know the truth is getting too close. Their sudden demand for a new “investigation” isn’t a pursuit of justice; it’s an act of self-preservation, a last-ditch effort to stall the release of the files and prevent the flood from breaking through the dam. If there were nothing to hide, transparency would have happened years ago.Instead, we’re watching a system in its death throes—loyalists turning on each other, excuses being manufactured in real time, and political theater rebranded as leadership. But silence has an expiration date, and the louder the denials become, the more obvious the fear behind them is. When the truth finally detonates, it won’t spare anyone: not the politicians, not the billionaires, not the media, and certainly not the man clawing at the controls while the stage collapses under his feet. The reckoning isn’t theoretical anymore—it’s approaching, fast, and the footsteps are getting louder.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

15 Marras 17min

Here's what I predicted would happen back in Feb. 2025:The latest hype surrounding the supposed "Jeffrey Epstein client list" is yet another round of recycled speculation with little substantive backing. While reports claim that U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi is reviewing documents that may include names of high-profile individuals, the idea of a singular, definitive "client list" has always been more of a conspiracy-fueled fantasy than a verified reality. Past unsealed documents have revealed connections between Epstein and well-known figures, but nothing has  ever  been  done. The notion that some secret ledger exists, ready to blow open a vast network of elite predators, is more wishful thinking than hard fact. If such a list existed, why hasn't it surfaced in the years of legal battles, document dumps, and investigative reporting?More likely, this "impending release" is another instance of strategic leaks, sensationalism, and political maneuvering meant to stoke public outrage without delivering meaningful justice. Previous Epstein-related releases have been riddled with redactions, context-free name-dropping, and vague associations that fuel more speculation than they resolve. The real issue isn't whether a list exists—it’s whether those with actual influence will ever face real consequences. Until we see ironclad evidence, take any breathless claims about a damning "client list" with the skepticism they deserve.Here's what ended up happening:In early 2025, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi publicly suggested that a definitive “Epstein client list” was under review, saying it was “sitting on my desk” and hinting that names of powerful people might be revealed. Over the following months, pressure mounted for the release of a large trove of documents connected to Epstein’s sex-trafficking network and possible co-conspirators. But then on July 7, 2025 a two-page memo jointly issued by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) concluded that “no credible evidence” was found that Epstein maintained a list of high-profile clients or that he engaged in a blackmail scheme against prominent individuals. The memo also reiterated that Epstein died by suicide, rejecting murder theories. At the same time the DOJ stated no further disclosure of records would be appropriate or warranted.Despite that official determination, the reaction was volatile. Many supporters of the claim that a hidden list existed—especially on the right—felt betrayed and accused the administration of a cover-up. At the same time victims, researchers and journalists pointed to the fact that many Epstein-related documents remain sealed or heavily redacted, meaning the public still lacks full transparency into the network he operated. The DOJ’s decision not to push further investigations into uncharged third parties fed frustration. Further revelations complicated the matter: a transcript released in August 2025 showed that convicted associate Ghislaine Maxwell told federal officials she was unaware of any such list.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

15 Marras 36min