Mark Epstein Expresses His Doubts About The DOJ's New Found Interest In Ghislaine Maxwell

In September 2023, a federal judge in Manhattan granted former JPMorgan executive Jes Staley permission to depose one of the unnamed Jeffrey Epstein accusers who had sued JPMorgan Chase & Co. alleging the bank benefited from Epstein’s crimes. The ruling allowed Staley’s legal team to question the woman—identified in filings only as Jane Doe—in person in the city where she lives, despite her previously expressed concerns about facing what her attorneys described as potentially intrusive questioning. This order came in the context of a broader settlement between JPMorgan and Epstein’s victims, and situated within the ongoing pretrial litigation over the bank’s liability and Staley’s role in the bank’s relationship with Epstein.The judge’s decision followed arguments from Staley’s lawyers that questioning the accuser was necessary to challenge key factual assertions about what she knew and when, which bear on claims against Staley personally in JPMorgan’s third-party complaint. Staley’s request was distinct from and in addition to his own scheduled deposition in the broader litigation involving the U.S. Virgin Islands and other plaintiffs, and the judge’s order set logistical parameters for how that deposition of the accuser would be conducted before fact discovery closed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

25 Des 13min

In the wake of civil allegations that Leon Black engaged in sexual misconduct with a former Russian model, Guzel Ganieva, Black responded strongly to the claims, which she initially publicized on social media and later formalized in a lawsuit alleging harassment and abuse during their relationship. Black publicly denied any wrongdoing, stating the relationship was consensual, and characterized Ganieva’s accusations as part of an extortion attempt to extract money and damage his reputation. He and his legal team filed counter-pleadings and defamation actions, asserting that the claims were baseless and suggesting that Ganieva was acting with ulterior motives, though they did not specifically label her a “Russian spy.”A New York judge later dismissed Ganieva’s lawsuit on procedural grounds because of a nondisclosure agreement she had signed with Black, and Black has continued to deny all allegations of abuse. The broader legal and public dispute has intertwined with scrutiny of Black’s past association with Jeffrey Epstein, but there is no credible reporting that Black formally accused his accuser of being a Russian spy; such characterizations have appeared only in speculative or fringe commentary rather than in verified court filings or mainstream news coverage.to contact me:bobbyapucci@protomail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

25 Des 17min

In filings in 2023, former Jes Staley asked a federal judge in Manhattan to dismiss JPMorgan Chase’s lawsuit against him related to the bank’s handling of its relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. JPMorgan sued Staley seeking to recover compensation and losses tied to two lawsuits the bank faces over its work with Epstein, alleging Staley misled the bank about Epstein’s character and conduct and failed to address internal concerns about keeping Epstein as a client. In response, Staley argued that the bank’s claims lacked both legal and factual basis, and he urged the judge to throw out the case because the bank was unfairly trying to pin blame on him for broader institutional decisions made by JPMorgan. Staley specifically accused the bank of using him as a “public relations shield” to deflect criticism and responsibility for its own alleged failures in managing its relationship with Epstein rather than focusing on substantive legal issues.A federal judge later denied Staley’s motion to dismiss, saying the case would proceed and that explanations would follow in written orders. Staley’s defense centered on the idea that JPMorgan could not plausibly hold him solely responsible for decisions made by the bank years earlier, especially when there were no clear allegations that he directly facilitated Epstein’s criminal activities or knew of them firsthand. His contention was that JPMorgan was attempting to deflect scrutiny from its own policies and practices by placing him at the center of high-profile litigation, turning him into a scapegoat for reputational purposes. The legal dispute was part of broader litigation tied to Epstein’s network and the bank’s role in enabling his financial activities.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

24 Des 13min

The 2019 New York federal grand jury transcripts capture the final prosecutorial push that led to the arrest of Jeffrey Epstein on sex-trafficking charges in the Southern District of New York. The transcripts reflect prosecutors laying out a sweeping pattern of alleged conduct, including the recruitment and exploitation of underage girls, the use of intermediaries, and the systematic nature of the abuse network. Witness testimony, documentary evidence, and financial records were presented to establish probable cause, directly contradicting the long-standing narrative that Epstein was a lone offender whose crimes were limited to Florida. These proceedings culminated in the July 2019 indictment, marking the first time federal prosecutors in New York formally moved against Epstein despite years of prior allegations and investigative leads.The transcripts have now been newly unsealed under the Epstein Transparency Act, a move that has reignited scrutiny over what federal authorities knew—and when. Their release sheds light on investigative decisions, evidentiary thresholds, and the scope of information presented to the grand jury, while also highlighting gaps that critics argue point to earlier prosecutorial failures. Survivors and transparency advocates have emphasized that the unsealing is significant not only for what it reveals about Epstein’s conduct, but for what it exposes about institutional hesitation, delayed accountability, and the broader protection mechanisms that allowed Epstein to evade federal charges for years. While redactions remain, the disclosure represents a rare window into the mechanics of a case that many believe should have been brought long before 2019.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00008529.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

24 Des 11min

Newly released files from the U.S. Justice Department’s ongoing Epstein Files Transparency Act disclosures include email exchanges from 2001–2002 between Ghislaine Maxwell, the convicted Epstein accomplice, and an individual identified only as “A” who signs off the messages with “The Invisible Man” and “A”—widely reported by multiple outlets as former Prince Andrew, now Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. In one August 2001 message sent from Balmoral, the British royal family’s Scottish residence, the correspondent asks Maxwell whether she has “found me some new inappropriate friends,” a line that has drawn fresh scrutiny because of its phrasing and context. In response, Maxwell wrote she had only been able to find “appropriate friends,” and the exchange also touches on personal matters such as travel plans and the death of a longtime valet.Other documents in the same tranche show Maxwell arranging for introductions or social plans involving “girls” and a supposed friend referred to as “Andrew,” including correspondence related to a planned 2002 trip to Peru in which Maxwell described seeking “friendly and discreet and fun” companions and forwarding contact details to the person signing as “A.” While the emails do not on their own prove criminal conduct and there is no indication that law enforcement has charged Mountbatten-Windsor in connection with this material, the exchanges add to longstanding public and legal scrutiny of his ties to Epstein and Maxwell. Andrew has previously denied wrongdoing and has consistently rejected allegations related to Epstein’s network; earlier civil allegations were resolved through a settlement and he has since been stripped of royal titles and duties amid controversy over his association with Epstein.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

24 Des 13min

The recent news linking Larry Nassar and Jeffrey Epstein stems from a document that appeared in a large federal release of Epstein-related records, described as a handwritten letter from Epstein to Nassar. Almost immediately, officials said the letter was not authentic, citing technical issues with handwriting, mailing details, and dates. On paper, that explanation is straightforward. But given the long history of mishandled evidence, delayed disclosures, and shifting narratives in the Epstein case, it is not unreasonable that the appearance of such a document—however brief—triggered questions before being dismissed.The government’s position is that there is no verified connection between Epstein and Nassar beyond this disputed item, and no evidence the two ever corresponded. Still, the episode highlights a recurring problem with how Epstein material has been released: documents surface without context, provenance, or explanation, leaving the public to parse authenticity after the fact. Even if the letter is exactly what authorities say it is, the way it entered the public record reinforces skepticism—not about any specific claim, but about a process that repeatedly introduces confusion into a case where clarity and credibility have already been in short supply.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Letter to Larry Nassar, signed by ‘J. Epstein,’ cites “our president” | CNN PoliticsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

24 Des 15min

One of the biggest mistakes people keep making when they talk about Jeffrey Epstein is flattening everyone in his orbit into the same category. A photo becomes guilt, proximity becomes participation, and suddenly the conversation collapses into noise. That kind of thinking doesn’t expose Epstein’s operation—it protects it. Not everyone who crossed paths with Epstein was part of his crimes, and pretending otherwise only muddies the water and gives cover to the people who actually mattered. Epstein’s power thrived on confusion, and when we refuse to distinguish between social adjacency and real involvement, we’re doing his work for him.What the record actually shows is a layered system: people who encountered Epstein socially, people who enabled him by looking away or greasing the wheels, people who helped his operation function day to day, and people directly accused of taking part in the abuse. Those categories are not interchangeable, and pretending they are is how accountability dies. Enablers in finance, law, institutions, and government gave Epstein legitimacy and protection, while operational co-conspirators made the abuse repeatable and enforceable. Now, as scrutiny sharpens, the narrative has shifted to “reputations” and demands to “move on.” That’s not accidental. It’s a last-ditch effort to blur the lines again. The only way to stop that is precision—knowing who did what, when, and how, and refusing to let facts be laundered into confusion.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource: bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

24 Des 20min

One of the biggest mistakes people keep making when they talk about Jeffrey Epstein is flattening everyone in his orbit into the same category. A photo becomes guilt, proximity becomes participation, and suddenly the conversation collapses into noise. That kind of thinking doesn’t expose Epstein’s operation—it protects it. Not everyone who crossed paths with Epstein was part of his crimes, and pretending otherwise only muddies the water and gives cover to the people who actually mattered. Epstein’s power thrived on confusion, and when we refuse to distinguish between social adjacency and real involvement, we’re doing his work for him.What the record actually shows is a layered system: people who encountered Epstein socially, people who enabled him by looking away or greasing the wheels, people who helped his operation function day to day, and people directly accused of taking part in the abuse. Those categories are not interchangeable, and pretending they are is how accountability dies. Enablers in finance, law, institutions, and government gave Epstein legitimacy and protection, while operational co-conspirators made the abuse repeatable and enforceable. Now, as scrutiny sharpens, the narrative has shifted to “reputations” and demands to “move on.” That’s not accidental. It’s a last-ditch effort to blur the lines again. The only way to stop that is precision—knowing who did what, when, and how, and refusing to let facts be laundered into confusion.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource: bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

24 Des 12min