The Octopus Grows Tentacles: PROMIS, Maxwell, Mossad, and Epstein’s Network (Part 1) (10/3/25)

Jean-Luc Brunel, the French modeling agent and longtime associate of Jeffrey Epstein, was found dead in his La Santé prison cell in Paris on February 19, 2022, in what authorities immediately labeled a suicide by hanging. Brunel had been under investigation for rape, sexual harassment, and the trafficking of minors, accused by several women—including Virginia Giuffre—of grooming and supplying underage models to Epstein and other powerful men. His death occurred before his case could reach trial, instantly reigniting suspicions about how another key figure in the Epstein network could die under eerily similar circumstances to Epstein himself. Victims expressed outrage, saying Brunel’s death robbed them of justice and silenced a potential witness who might have revealed more about the structure and reach of Epstein’s global operation.The official narrative—that Brunel’s death was a suicide—sparked widespread skepticism and frustration across France and beyond. Reports emerged that Brunel had been on suicide watch previously, prompting questions about prison oversight, security lapses, and whether his death was preventable—or possibly convenient. Critics drew parallels to Epstein’s own jailhouse death in 2019, arguing that both men’s sudden “suicides” effectively closed critical avenues of investigation into elite sex-trafficking networks. French prosecutors confirmed no foul play was “immediately suspected,” but they acknowledged the timing and circumstances raised understandable public concern. To this day, Brunel’s death remains shrouded in doubt, a haunting echo of a global scandal that continues to expose the failures of institutions to deliver full accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

5 Okt 54min

Jeffrey Epstein’s Zorro Ranch in New Mexico was a sprawling 10,000-acre compound in Santa Fe County that became one of the most infamous properties linked to his alleged sex-trafficking network. A portion of the land—roughly 1,200 acres—was not privately owned but leased from the New Mexico State Land Office through Epstein’s shell company, Cypress Inc., under an agricultural land-use contract. State officials later revealed that the lease had been maintained for decades without oversight or genuine agricultural activity, effectively allowing Epstein to use public land as a privacy buffer for his secluded estate. After Epstein’s 2019 arrest and death, the New Mexico State Land Office canceled the lease, citing violations of public trust and misuse of state property. Investigations showed that Epstein’s lease terms, which were intended for grazing, were instead used to create restricted access zones around the compound, preventing entry onto land that technically belonged to the people of New Mexico.Epstein also took advantage of New Mexico’s age of consent laws, which set the legal threshold at 17 years old, to minimize his legal exposure in the state. When he moved operations to Zorro Ranch after his 2008 conviction in Florida, New Mexico officials determined that because his victim in that case had been 17, he did not meet the criteria to register as a sex offender under their state laws. This legal loophole allowed him to reside and travel freely in New Mexico without the stigma or restrictions of public registration. Critics later called the decision “deeply troubling,” noting that Epstein’s influence, wealth, and legal resources enabled him to exploit state-level legal distinctions to shield himself from scrutiny. The combination of public land privilege and lenient age statutes made Zorro Ranch a legal gray zone—one that Epstein used to his advantage until the state finally revoked his land rights years after his death.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

5 Okt 35min

In the now-concluded civil case Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., the USVI sought a partial summary judgment before the case was settled, arguing that the evidence overwhelmingly showed JPMorgan knowingly facilitated Jeffrey Epstein’s sex-trafficking operation. The filing claimed that internal emails, compliance reports, and testimony proved the bank ignored repeated red flags about Epstein’s financial activity—including large cash withdrawals, suspicious wire transfers, and employee warnings linking him to underage abuse. The USVI contended that JPMorgan profited from Epstein’s wealth and social connections while turning a blind eye to clear indicators of criminal conduct, violating the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) by financially enabling a known sex trafficker. In essence, the government asked the court to rule that JPMorgan was civilly liable on key elements of the case before it ever reachedJPMorgan denied wrongdoing and opposed the motion, insisting that there were factual disputes unsuitable for summary judgment, particularly regarding the bank’s knowledge and intent. The court ultimately declined to grant the USVI’s motion, finding that the issues were complex enough to warrant continued litigation—but the case ended shortly thereafter in December 2023, when JPMorgan agreed to a $75 million settlement with the U.S. Virgin Islands. The agreement included commitments for JPMorgan to enhance its compliance and anti-trafficking procedures while denying any admission of liability. Though the USVI didn’t win its partial summary judgment outright, the motion itself played a crucial role in forcing discovery that exposed internal JPMorgan communications and helped push the bank toward settlement.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

5 Okt 24min

In the now-concluded civil case Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., the USVI sought a partial summary judgment before the case was settled, arguing that the evidence overwhelmingly showed JPMorgan knowingly facilitated Jeffrey Epstein’s sex-trafficking operation. The filing claimed that internal emails, compliance reports, and testimony proved the bank ignored repeated red flags about Epstein’s financial activity—including large cash withdrawals, suspicious wire transfers, and employee warnings linking him to underage abuse. The USVI contended that JPMorgan profited from Epstein’s wealth and social connections while turning a blind eye to clear indicators of criminal conduct, violating the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) by financially enabling a known sex trafficker. In essence, the government asked the court to rule that JPMorgan was civilly liable on key elements of the case before it ever reachedJPMorgan denied wrongdoing and opposed the motion, insisting that there were factual disputes unsuitable for summary judgment, particularly regarding the bank’s knowledge and intent. The court ultimately declined to grant the USVI’s motion, finding that the issues were complex enough to warrant continued litigation—but the case ended shortly thereafter in December 2023, when JPMorgan agreed to a $75 million settlement with the U.S. Virgin Islands. The agreement included commitments for JPMorgan to enhance its compliance and anti-trafficking procedures while denying any admission of liability. Though the USVI didn’t win its partial summary judgment outright, the motion itself played a crucial role in forcing discovery that exposed internal JPMorgan communications and helped push the bank toward settlement.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

5 Okt 25min

In the now-concluded civil case Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., the USVI sought a partial summary judgment before the case was settled, arguing that the evidence overwhelmingly showed JPMorgan knowingly facilitated Jeffrey Epstein’s sex-trafficking operation. The filing claimed that internal emails, compliance reports, and testimony proved the bank ignored repeated red flags about Epstein’s financial activity—including large cash withdrawals, suspicious wire transfers, and employee warnings linking him to underage abuse. The USVI contended that JPMorgan profited from Epstein’s wealth and social connections while turning a blind eye to clear indicators of criminal conduct, violating the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) by financially enabling a known sex trafficker. In essence, the government asked the court to rule that JPMorgan was civilly liable on key elements of the case before it ever reachedJPMorgan denied wrongdoing and opposed the motion, insisting that there were factual disputes unsuitable for summary judgment, particularly regarding the bank’s knowledge and intent. The court ultimately declined to grant the USVI’s motion, finding that the issues were complex enough to warrant continued litigation—but the case ended shortly thereafter in December 2023, when JPMorgan agreed to a $75 million settlement with the U.S. Virgin Islands. The agreement included commitments for JPMorgan to enhance its compliance and anti-trafficking procedures while denying any admission of liability. Though the USVI didn’t win its partial summary judgment outright, the motion itself played a crucial role in forcing discovery that exposed internal JPMorgan communications and helped push the bank toward settlement.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

5 Okt 24min

Mark Epstein, the younger brother of Jeffrey Epstein, reacted to the large-scale release of court documents with pointed skepticism. He argued that the so-called transparency amounted to little more than a controlled spectacle. In his view, the bulk release—thousands of pages, many of them repetitive or heavily redacted—ensured the public would be overwhelmed and unable to identify what mattered most. He described the process as an effort to shield the identities of powerful figures tied to his brother while creating the appearance of disclosure.Yet his narrative has drawn criticism for what it omits. By centering his remarks on redactions and the alleged protection of elites, Mark downplays the extensive record already linking Jeffrey Epstein to decades of sexual abuse and exploitation. His framing casts the document dump as another act in a cover-up rather than an extension of the case against his brother, leading many to question whether his comments are motivated by a genuine call for accountability—or by a desire to soften the legacy of a disgraced sibling.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

5 Okt 10min

After Jeffrey Epstein’s death in 2019, the official ruling from the New York City Medical Examiner’s Office was that he died by suicide in his Manhattan jail cell. However, that conclusion came under intense scrutiny when Dr. Michael Baden, a well-known forensic pathologist hired by Epstein’s brother, publicly suggested that the injuries were more consistent with homicide. In response, Barbara Sampson, then–Chief Medical Examiner of New York City, forcefully defended the office’s findings and rejected Baden’s assertions. She stated unequivocally that the autopsy results, combined with the investigation, supported suicide by hanging, not foul play.Sampson’s rebuttal was meant to put to rest the growing wave of speculation, but it also underscored the divide between official conclusions and the swirl of doubt fueled by Epstein’s powerful connections and the suspicious circumstances of his death. By directly countering Baden, she stood by the credibility of her office’s work, stressing that outside opinions could not outweigh the evidence they had gathered. Still, the public’s mistrust lingered, and her statements became part of the broader controversy over whether Epstein’s death was truly a suicide or part of a larger cover-up.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

5 Okt 26min

Ghislaine Maxwell has long been described as a master manipulator, someone who used her social status, charm, and connections to gain the trust of young women and to insulate Jeffrey Epstein from suspicion. As the daughter of publishing tycoon Robert Maxwell, she was raised in wealth and influence, which she later leveraged to move seamlessly within elite circles. Prosecutors and survivors alike have painted her as the key facilitator of Epstein’s trafficking network—someone who recruited, groomed, and normalized abusive behavior under the guise of mentorship, opportunity, and sophistication. Maxwell’s ability to present herself as a glamorous, worldly figure made her effective at disarming victims and convincing them they were entering an exclusive world, when in reality, they were being exploited.Beyond grooming victims, Maxwell’s manipulation extended into how she managed Epstein’s social and professional relationships. She acted as his gatekeeper, connecting him with politicians, business leaders, and royalty, all while projecting the image of a respectable partner and hostess. Survivors testified that her approval carried enormous weight, as she blurred the line between legitimacy and exploitation, often making abuse seem like part of a privileged lifestyle. Even after her arrest, Maxwell tried to portray herself as a scapegoat, shifting blame and framing her actions as those of a loyal companion rather than an active participant. This pattern reinforced her reputation as someone who was not only complicit but uniquely skilled at controlling perceptions and bending reality to protect herself and Epstein.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

4 Okt 16min