The FBI Had A Mountain Of Evidence Against Jeffrey Epstein And Refused To Act On It

The third amended complaint filed in the Southern District of New York involves six plaintiffs—Jane Does 1 through 6—who have brought claims against Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, acting as co-executors of the estate of Jeffrey Epstein, as well as the estate itself and other unnamed defendants. The case, docketed as No. 1:19-cv-07675-GBD, seeks a jury trial and continues the broader wave of litigation aimed at holding Epstein’s estate accountable for his long history of alleged sexual abuse and exploitationThe complaint underscores the plaintiffs’ pursuit of justice against Epstein’s estate following his death, placing responsibility on those managing his assets to provide restitution for the harm they allege they suffered. By naming “Roes 2–10,” the filing also leaves room for additional defendants who may later be identified as complicit in Epstein’s crimes or responsible for enabling his conduct. This legal action highlights the ongoing efforts by Epstein’s victims to find accountability in civil court, given that his death cut short criminal proceedings.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.521195.45.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

17 Aug 12min

The third amended complaint filed in the Southern District of New York involves six plaintiffs—Jane Does 1 through 6—who have brought claims against Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, acting as co-executors of the estate of Jeffrey Epstein, as well as the estate itself and other unnamed defendants. The case, docketed as No. 1:19-cv-07675-GBD, seeks a jury trial and continues the broader wave of litigation aimed at holding Epstein’s estate accountable for his long history of alleged sexual abuse and exploitationThe complaint underscores the plaintiffs’ pursuit of justice against Epstein’s estate following his death, placing responsibility on those managing his assets to provide restitution for the harm they allege they suffered. By naming “Roes 2–10,” the filing also leaves room for additional defendants who may later be identified as complicit in Epstein’s crimes or responsible for enabling his conduct. This legal action highlights the ongoing efforts by Epstein’s victims to find accountability in civil court, given that his death cut short criminal proceedings.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.521195.45.0.pdfIf you'd like to help support my work:https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support

17 Aug 11min

In his detailed 43‑page written opinion issued on January 12, 2022, Judge Kaplan firmly denied Prince Andrew’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Central to Andrew’s defense was a previously sealed 2009 settlement between Epstein and Giuffre, which his lawyers argued broadly released "any and all potential defendants" from liability. Judge Kaplan rejected this, calling the phrasing ambiguous and noting that it was unclear whether “potential defendants” truly included Andrew. He emphasized that only Epstein could clarify what he meant by that language, and without such clarity, the court could not extend the release to Andrew. Kaplan also rebuffed Andrew’s remaining attempts to dismiss, including claims regarding Giuffre’s residency and classification of her allegations under New York law. At this pre‑trial stage, he affirmed that all of Giuffre’s factual claims must be accepted as true and thus the case could proceed.With dismissal refused, Judge Kaplan cleared the path for full discovery and, if necessary, a civil trial. He set a preliminary deposition schedule, signaling that both parties would be required to exchange documents and take sworn testimony—including from Prince Andrew. This decisively moved the case beyond preliminary legal wrangling and closer towards litigating its factual merits. Ultimately, though, in February 2022, the parties reached an out‑of‑court settlement, and the case was subsequently dismissed with prejudice, preventing refiling, once the settlement was finalized.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:21CV6702 JAN 11 2022 0900.pdf (uscourts.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

17 Aug 32min

In his detailed 43‑page written opinion issued on January 12, 2022, Judge Kaplan firmly denied Prince Andrew’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Central to Andrew’s defense was a previously sealed 2009 settlement between Epstein and Giuffre, which his lawyers argued broadly released "any and all potential defendants" from liability. Judge Kaplan rejected this, calling the phrasing ambiguous and noting that it was unclear whether “potential defendants” truly included Andrew. He emphasized that only Epstein could clarify what he meant by that language, and without such clarity, the court could not extend the release to Andrew. Kaplan also rebuffed Andrew’s remaining attempts to dismiss, including claims regarding Giuffre’s residency and classification of her allegations under New York law. At this pre‑trial stage, he affirmed that all of Giuffre’s factual claims must be accepted as true and thus the case could proceed.With dismissal refused, Judge Kaplan cleared the path for full discovery and, if necessary, a civil trial. He set a preliminary deposition schedule, signaling that both parties would be required to exchange documents and take sworn testimony—including from Prince Andrew. This decisively moved the case beyond preliminary legal wrangling and closer towards litigating its factual merits. Ultimately, though, in February 2022, the parties reached an out‑of‑court settlement, and the case was subsequently dismissed with prejudice, preventing refiling, once the settlement was finalized.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:21CV6702 JAN 11 2022 0900.pdf (uscourts.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

17 Aug 32min

In Case No. 1:23-cv-06418, defendant Leon Black filed a memorandum supporting his motion for sanctions against Wigdor LLP and attorney Jeanne Christensen. Black contends that the plaintiff's legal team pursued baseless claims, lacking factual and legal merit, with the intent to damage his reputation and coerce a settlement. He argues that their actions constitute an abuse of the judicial process, warranting sanctions to deter such conduct and uphold the integrity of the court.Black's memorandum details instances where he believes Wigdor LLP and Christensen failed to conduct adequate investigations before filing the lawsuit, resulting in frivolous and defamatory allegations. He asserts that their behavior violates professional conduct standards and has caused him significant harm. Consequently, Black requests that the court impose appropriate sanctions, including financial penalties and disciplinary measures, to prevent similar misconduct in the future.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.602764.54.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

17 Aug 23min

In Case No. 1:23-cv-06418, defendant Leon Black filed a memorandum supporting his motion for sanctions against Wigdor LLP and attorney Jeanne Christensen. Black contends that the plaintiff's legal team pursued baseless claims, lacking factual and legal merit, with the intent to damage his reputation and coerce a settlement. He argues that their actions constitute an abuse of the judicial process, warranting sanctions to deter such conduct and uphold the integrity of the court.Black's memorandum details instances where he believes Wigdor LLP and Christensen failed to conduct adequate investigations before filing the lawsuit, resulting in frivolous and defamatory allegations. He asserts that their behavior violates professional conduct standards and has caused him significant harm. Consequently, Black requests that the court impose appropriate sanctions, including financial penalties and disciplinary measures, to prevent similar misconduct in the future.(commercial at 7:46)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.602764.54.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

17 Aug 24min

On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.eclBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

17 Aug 12min

On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.eclBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

17 Aug 10min