Mega Edition: The Legal Battle Between Rina Oh And Virginia Roberts (9/20/25)
Virginia Roberts, passed away in April 2025 at her home in Western Australia, but her legal battles continue posthumously. Before her death, she and Rina Oh were locked in dueling lawsuits: Oh had filed a defamation suit accusing Giuffre of falsely portraying her as an Epstein recruiter and fraud, while Giuffre counter-sued alleging that Oh had physically and sexually abused her in Epstein’s presence, leaving lasting scarsto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
21 Sep 22min
Ghislaine Maxwell Gets A Rare Win Inside Of The Courtroom
Ghislaine Maxwell was handed a big win in court by Judge Preska, rejecting an attempt by the Miami Herald and Julie K. Brown to have documents unsealed and released for public consumption.In our next article we talk about the investigation into Epstein's role within the Wexner foundation and what sort of part he might have played in the day to day operations.In a conclusion that shocked nobody, the "independent " law firm, Kegler Brown found that Epstein played no significant role in the foundation.To contact me:Bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/judge-rules-for-ghislaine-maxwell-in-huge-setback-to-victims-and-boon-to-epstein-accomplices/Source:https://www.dispatch.com/business/20200227/epstein-had-no-day-to-day-role-in-wexner-foundation-report-findsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
21 Sep 31min
Les Wexner And The Attempt To Sidestep A Subpoena By Alan Dershowitz
Les Wexner was subpoenaed by Alan Dershowitz as part of Dershowitz’s counterclaims in the defamation suit brought by Virginia Giuffre. Dershowitz issued subpoenas in April 2020 demanding that Wexner and his attorney John Zeiger produce documents and give deposition testimony concerning Giuffre’s allegations, including those related to Jeffrey EpsteinWexner’s legal side objected to the subpoenas, arguing that many of the requested records are protected by attorney-client privilege or otherwise confidential. They also claimed Dershowitz’s request was designed primarily to attack Giuffre’s credibility rather than uncover relevant facts, and that much of what Dershowitz seeks is inadmissible or irrelevant to the core issues of the case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comSource:https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-dershowitz-wexner-epstein-giuffre-20200810-d56q3emu2rhsrpt3ennvmp4vru-story.htmlBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
21 Sep 14min
The Attempt To White Wash Les Wexner's Deep Ties To Jeffrey Epstein
Les Wexner is a billionaire businessman known for founding L Brands, the parent company of Victoria's Secret and Bath & Body Works. His relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, a financier and convicted sex offender, has drawn attention due to their close association.Wexner and Epstein's relationship dates back to the 1980s, when Wexner entrusted Epstein with managing his finances. Epstein also served as Wexner's financial advisor and was given power of attorney over Wexner's affairs. Through this connection, Epstein gained significant influence and access to Wexner's wealth.Wexner reportedly granted Epstein control over his vast fortune, including properties and assets, which Epstein allegedly used to enhance his own wealth and lifestyle. Epstein's association with Wexner also provided him with credibility and connections within elite circles.Their relationship came under scrutiny after Epstein's arrest and subsequent conviction on charges of sex trafficking of minors. Epstein reportedly used his association with Wexner to gain access to wealthy and influential individuals, which contributed to the controversy surrounding their connection.Wexner has since claimed that he severed ties with Epstein in the early 2000s and denounced him following Epstein's criminal charges. However, questions remain about the extent of their relationship and the nature of Wexner's involvement with Epstein's activities, namely the credible accusations leveled against him.In this episode we dive into the white washing of Wexners relationship and how many in the legacy media still continue to miss the bigger picture.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Will Ohio State cut ties with Les Wexner's over Jeffrey Epstein scandal? (dispatch.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
20 Sep 14min
Did Jeffrey Epstein Really Steal Millions Of Dollars From Les Wexner?
The allegations that Jeffrey Epstein “stole” vast sums of money from Les Wexner—often claimed to be in the hundreds of millions—rest on shaky ground at best. The core of the story is that Wexner, the billionaire founder of L Brands, granted Epstein sweeping power of attorney in the late 1980s and early 1990s, allowing him to control bank accounts, sign checks, and move assets. Later, when Epstein’s crimes came under scrutiny, reports circulated that he had misappropriated funds, especially tied to properties like the Manhattan townhouse that Wexner originally purchased but never lived in. Yet the narrative of Epstein as a con man who somehow duped one of the most seasoned and ruthless retail moguls into parting with a fortune seems questionable. Wexner is no naïve novice; he built a multibillion-dollar empire, commanded armies of lawyers and accountants, and had access to every safeguard a billionaire could deploy. To suggest he simply “didn’t notice” Epstein siphoning off hundreds of millions strains credulity.It’s far more likely that the theft story serves as a retroactive smokescreen, a convenient way for Wexner to distance himself from a relationship that became toxic once Epstein’s name was synonymous with sex trafficking. Claiming to be a victim of fraud casts Wexner as a dupe rather than an enabler, while muddying the public record about how deep their financial ties really ran. If Epstein truly “stole” such staggering amounts, why weren’t there lawsuits, asset recovery actions, or criminal referrals at the time? The silence speaks volumes. A billionaire losing hundreds of millions without raising alarms is an improbable scenario. What seems more plausible is that Epstein was entrusted with money and power because he served a purpose—whether as a fixer, a gatekeeper, or a handler—and that only after Epstein became radioactive did the theft narrative emerge as a convenient form of damage control.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9668449/How-Jeffrey-Epstein-squeezed-financial-advisor-Les-Wexner.htmlBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
20 Sep 21min
Transcripts From The Bill Barr Epstein Related Congressional Deposition (Part 6) (9/20/25)
Bill Barr’s deposition before Congress on Jeffrey Epstein was a masterclass in calculated deflection. While Barr insisted that Epstein’s death was “absolutely” suicide, he conceded that the prison surveillance system had “blind spots”—a detail that conveniently leaves just enough room for speculation without providing definitive answers. His reliance on flawed or incomplete camera footage, combined with his dismissal of alternative forensic perspectives, came off less like transparency and more like institutional damage control. Instead of holding the Bureau of Prisons accountable, Barr’s narrative positioned the failures as unfortunate but inconsequential, a stance that fails to satisfy the public demand for clarity.Just as troubling was Barr’s evasiveness when pressed about Donald Trump’s knowledge of Epstein. He admitted to having spoken with Trump about Epstein’s death but couldn’t recall when one of those conversations occurred—an astonishing lapse considering the gravity of the matter. His reasoning that “if there were more to it, it would have leaked” was not only flippant but dismissive of the very real history of suppression, obstruction, and selective disclosure that has defined the Epstein saga. By leaning on institutional trust in a case defined by betrayal of that very trust, Barr’s testimony did little more than reinforce suspicions that the Department of Justice has long been more concerned with containment than accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Barr-Transcript.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
20 Sep 12min
Transcripts From The Bill Barr Epstein Related Congressional Deposition (Part 5) (9/20/25)
Bill Barr’s deposition before Congress on Jeffrey Epstein was a masterclass in calculated deflection. While Barr insisted that Epstein’s death was “absolutely” suicide, he conceded that the prison surveillance system had “blind spots”—a detail that conveniently leaves just enough room for speculation without providing definitive answers. His reliance on flawed or incomplete camera footage, combined with his dismissal of alternative forensic perspectives, came off less like transparency and more like institutional damage control. Instead of holding the Bureau of Prisons accountable, Barr’s narrative positioned the failures as unfortunate but inconsequential, a stance that fails to satisfy the public demand for clarity.Just as troubling was Barr’s evasiveness when pressed about Donald Trump’s knowledge of Epstein. He admitted to having spoken with Trump about Epstein’s death but couldn’t recall when one of those conversations occurred—an astonishing lapse considering the gravity of the matter. His reasoning that “if there were more to it, it would have leaked” was not only flippant but dismissive of the very real history of suppression, obstruction, and selective disclosure that has defined the Epstein saga. By leaning on institutional trust in a case defined by betrayal of that very trust, Barr’s testimony did little more than reinforce suspicions that the Department of Justice has long been more concerned with containment than accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Barr-Transcript.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
20 Sep 13min
Slinky Spine, Empty Chair: Alex Acosta’s Day Before Congress (9/20/25)
Alexander “Alex” Acosta served as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida in 2005-2009, during which time his office negotiated a highly controversial non-prosecution agreement in 2008 with Jeffrey Epstein. This deal allowed Epstein to plead guilty only to state charges (solicitation of prostitution), avoid federal prosecution, spend about a year in jail (with generous work release privileges), register as a sex offender, and receive restitution, rather than face broader trafficking charges that many believe were warranted. Acosta later served as Secretary of Labor under Donald Trump, resigning in 2019 amid public outcry over his role in the Epstein plea deal.On September 19, 2025, Acosta testified under oath in a closed-door deposition before the House Oversight Committee, answering questions about the 2008 agreement. He defended his actions by saying there were “evidentiary issues” at the time — for example, concerns about whether the witnesses would be consistent and whether the federal case could have been proven at trial. He also asserted he had received assurances that Epstein would not be granted work release, but said local authorities in Palm Beach nonetheless allowed it. Acosta expressed regret over how victims were treated and acknowledged that if today’s knowledge had been available then, the deal likely would have been handled differently. He also emphasized that no documents he handled mentioned Donald Trump in relation to Epstein.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
20 Sep 13min
