Plus-Ones to Power: How Epstein and Maxwell Entered a Royal Wedding as Clinton’s Guests (12/18/25)

Andrew Lownie has been blunt and deeply critical about his interactions with British authorities regarding Prince Andrew and the Epstein affair, stating that he provided detailed information and evidence to UK law enforcement and relevant officials—and then heard absolutely nothing back. According to Lownie, he turned over material he believed was directly relevant to potential criminal inquiries, including information tied to Epstein’s network and Prince Andrew’s conduct, only to be met with silence. No follow-up questions. No requests for clarification. No indication the material was even reviewed. For Lownie, this wasn’t a case of bureaucracy moving slowly; it was a complete institutional void that strongly suggested a lack of interest in pursuing the matter at all. He has described the experience as profoundly troubling, particularly given the seriousness of the allegations and the public assurances that “no one is above the law.”What makes Lownie’s account especially damning is what that silence implies. British authorities have repeatedly claimed that investigations into Epstein-linked figures were constrained by jurisdictional or evidentiary limits, yet Lownie’s experience undercuts that narrative. When credible information was voluntarily handed over, the system didn’t stall—it disengaged. Lownie has framed this as emblematic of a broader failure, or refusal, to confront the implications of Epstein’s ties to the British establishment. In his telling, the lack of response is not neutral; it is an answer in itself. It suggests a culture of institutional risk-aversion when power, prestige, and the monarchy are involved, reinforcing the perception that accountability in the Epstein case stops precisely where it becomes uncomfortable for those at the top.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Former Prince Andrew biographer offered new evidence to National Crime Agency - NewsweekBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

18 Dec 15min

Ghislaine Maxwell’s habeas corpus petition is, at its core, a reheated attempt to relitigate issues that were already raised, argued, and rejected at trial and on direct appeal—most notably her fixation on alleged juror misconduct. Maxwell centers her petition on the claim that a juror failed to fully disclose past experiences with sexual abuse during voir dire, arguing this tainted the verdict and violated her Sixth Amendment rights. But courts that have already examined this issue concluded that there was no evidence of intentional deception or bias sufficient to overturn the conviction. Habeas relief is not a “do-over” for defendants unhappy with a jury’s conclusion, and Maxwell’s petition conspicuously ignores the extremely high bar required to show that any alleged juror error had a decisive, unconstitutional impact on the outcome of the trial.Beyond the juror issue, the petition leans heavily on familiar defense talking points—claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and constitutional violations framed in sweeping, conclusory language rather than supported by new, compelling evidence. What’s striking is how little the petition grapples with the overwhelming testimonial and documentary record that led to Maxwell’s conviction for facilitating and participating in the sexual abuse of minors. Instead, it attempts to recast procedural disputes as fundamental injustices while sidestepping the reality that multiple courts have already found the trial to be fair, the evidence to be strong, and the verdict to be sound. In that sense, the habeas filing reads less like a serious constitutional challenge and more like a last-ditch effort to chip away at a lawful conviction by exhausting every remaining procedural avenue—no matter how thin the underlying arguments have become.to contact me:Ghislaine Maxwell files petition challenging sex trafficking convictionBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

18 Dec 11min

The long-running focus on Alex Acosta has obscured a more uncomfortable reality: the Epstein non-prosecution agreement was architected and approved at the highest levels of the Department of Justice, not improvised by a single U.S. Attorney in Florida. Contemporary emails and internal DOJ documentation show that Epstein’s legal team did not treat Acosta as the final decision-maker. Instead, they escalated directly to Main Justice, where Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip exercised authority over the case. Those records make clear that the contours of the deal—federal immunity, secrecy from victims, and an extraordinary carve-out protecting potential co-conspirators—were discussed, vetted, and ultimately sanctioned in Washington. This was not a rogue local plea deal; it was a federal policy decision shaped by DOJ leadership.The paper trail matters because it contradicts years of public narrative and political convenience. Emails show Epstein’s lawyers communicating confidence that DOJ headquarters was receptive, even as the gravity of the allegations was well understood. Mark Filip’s sign-off, coming from the second-highest office in the department, formalized a decision that could not have proceeded without Mukasey’s institutional blessing. That documentation undercuts claims that the NPA was the product of prosecutorial leniency or negligence at the district level. It demonstrates instead a coordinated, top-down intervention that insulated Epstein from federal exposure while sidelining victims’ rights. The emails don’t just revise the story of who was responsible—they confirm that the most powerful figures in the Justice Department knowingly built and approved the framework that allowed Epstein to escape meaningful accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

18 Dec 11min

Jennifer Araoz alleged that Jeffrey Epstein began grooming her when she was just 14 years old, after one of his female recruiters approached her outside her New York City high school. Araoz claimed the recruiter slowly built trust, inviting her to Epstein’s mansion under the guise of mentorship and financial assistance. Over several visits, Araoz says she was manipulated into giving Epstein massages while wearing only her underwear, and eventually, those encounters escalated into full sexual assaults. She described being paid hundreds of dollars after each incident, reinforcing the transactional and coercive nature of the abuse.By the time she was 15, Araoz alleges that Epstein forcibly raped her during one of those visits. She recalls being paralyzed with fear, crying and begging him to stop, while he overpowered her. Afterward, he handed her money and continued to manipulate her into silence, using his power and the threat of isolation to keep her from speaking out. Araoz later dropped out of school due to the emotional toll of the abuse. She eventually filed a lawsuit against Epstein’s estate, his employees, and also named individuals and institutions she believed enabled the abuse by failing to protect her. Her account underscores the deliberate, calculated way Epstein preyed on underage girls—using female recruiters, financial coercion, and institutional neglect to shield himself from consequences for years.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:New Jeffrey Epstein accuser: He raped me when I was 15Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

18 Dec 36min

The lead-up to the closure of the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan was shaped by years of mounting crises that long predated Jeffrey Epstein’s death but were dramatically amplified afterward. MCC had become infamous for chronic staffing shortages, crumbling infrastructure, frequent lockdowns, and extended power outages that left inmates in freezing cells without light, heat, or reliable access to counsel. Judges, defense attorneys, and federal prosecutors repeatedly complained that conditions at MCC interfered with constitutional rights and basic human safety. After Epstein’s death exposed systemic failures—nonfunctioning cameras, falsified guard logs, and gross supervisory breakdowns—scrutiny intensified. Internal Bureau of Prisons audits, DOJ Inspector General reports, and sustained public pressure painted a picture of a facility that was not merely mismanaged but structurally incapable of safe operation, accelerating calls for its permanent shutdown.The actual closure of MCC was announced by the Bureau of Prisons in 2021 and carried out in phases, with detainees gradually transferred to other federal facilities in Brooklyn and across the region. Officials cited the age of the building, extensive maintenance backlogs, and the prohibitive cost of necessary repairs as justification, effectively conceding that the jail was beyond saving. By mid-2021, MCC was fully closed, ending nearly five decades of operation in lower Manhattan. While the Bureau framed the move as an administrative and financial decision, the closure was widely understood as the final consequence of years of neglect and the reputational damage stemming from Epstein’s death. MCC did not close quietly because it was obsolete; it closed because its failures had become impossible to ignore, leaving behind a symbol of institutional collapse at the heart of the federal detention system.to contact me:bobbycapucci!@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

18 Dec 45min

Jeffrey Epstein’s time at the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) in Manhattan was marked by extraordinary irregularities that immediately set his detention apart from that of ordinary federal inmates. After his July 2019 arrest on federal sex trafficking charges, Epstein was placed in the Special Housing Unit, officially for his own protection, but the conditions of that confinement were riddled with contradictions. He was housed in a unit that was understaffed, plagued by malfunctioning cameras, and run by a Bureau of Prisons already under scrutiny for mismanagement. Despite being classified as a high-risk inmate due to the seriousness of the charges, his wealth, and the potential exposure of powerful associates, Epstein was repeatedly removed from standard suicide watch protocols. He was briefly placed on suicide watch after being found injured in his cell in late July, then taken off it under circumstances that were never convincingly explained, returning to a unit where basic safeguards were visibly failing.The failures at MCC culminated in Epstein’s death on August 10, 2019, when he was found unresponsive in his cell, officially ruled a suicide by hanging. On the night of his death, guards assigned to check on him allegedly fell asleep and failed to perform required welfare checks, while security cameras outside his cell were either broken or produced unusable footage. His cellmate had been transferred out shortly before his death, leaving Epstein alone despite prior concerns about self-harm. The combination of staffing shortages, ignored protocols, missing or nonfunctional surveillance, and a pattern of administrative negligence created a perfect storm that has fueled widespread skepticism about the official narrative. Epstein’s death at MCC did not close the case; instead, it intensified public distrust in the federal prison system and reinforced the perception that even in custody, Epstein remained surrounded by institutional failure and unanswered questions.The warden in charge of the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) at the time of Jeffrey Epstein’s death, Lamine N’Diaye, was reassigned and eventually quietly retired amid ongoing scrutiny and federal investigations into the circumstances surrounding the high-profile inmate’s suicide. After Epstein was found dead in August 2019, Attorney General William Barr ordered the warden removed from MCC and reassigned to a Bureau of Prisons regional office while the Department of Justice and Inspector General probed the facility’s lapses. Although there were efforts within the Bureau of Prisons to move him to other posts — including as acting warden at another federal facility — those moves became entangled with the unresolved investigations, and N’Diaye ultimately stepped away from his role quietly as the inquiries continued, with little public explanation or high-profile disciplinary action.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

18 Dec 44min

Senators, primarily through the U.S. Senate Finance Committee under the leadership of Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), launched a lengthy investigation beginning in 2022 into billionaire financier Leon Black’s financial relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and the unusually large payments Black made to Epstein—totaling at least $158 million, and possibly as much as $170 million—between 2012 and 2017 for purported tax and estate planning advice that many lawmakers find dubious given Epstein’s lack of professional credentials. The committee has pressed Black and financial institutions like Bank of America for details about how these funds were managed and why banks did not flag the massive transfers as suspicious in real time, as required under anti-money-laundering regulations. Investigators also noted that Epstein was paid far more than typical advisors and that some of the money may have been used to support Epstein’s wider operations.Wyden’s investigation has expanded to demand transparency from the Department of Justice, Treasury, and Internal Revenue Service, urging those agencies to release Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) tied to Epstein’s finances and to audit the tax and estate planning work Epstein performed for Black. The Senate’s efforts come amid concerns that oversight has been inadequate, and include seeking documents that might show whether Black’s payments helped fund Epstein’s alleged criminal network. Black has publicly denied involvement in Epstein’s crimes and maintains the payments were lawful, and an independent review commissioned by Black’s firm found no criminal activity; nevertheless, the Senate’s scrutiny continues as part of broader efforts to understand how Epstein’s financial networks operated and were used, and whether existing tax and financial laws were properly enforced.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

18 Dec 13min