The OIG Report Into Jeffrey Epstein's Non Prosecution Agreement (Part 45-46) (11/4/25)

In the years following Jeffrey Epstein’s death, one of the more disturbing revelations about his compensation fund emerged when a self-identified recruiter — referred to in court documents only as “Jane Doe” — attempted to claim money from it. This woman openly admitted that she had helped Epstein recruit underage girls but simultaneously described herself as a victim, saying she had been sexually abused and trafficked by Epstein for more than a decade. Instead of continuing her federal lawsuit against his estate, she withdrew it and pursued a payout through the Epstein Victims’ Compensation Program, a fund specifically intended to compensate those exploited by Epstein’s network. The move ignited outrage among other victims and their attorneys, who saw it as a grotesque inversion of justice: a recruiter trying to profit from a fund meant to heal the very wounds she helped inflict.The controversy underscored the moral and legal murk that has long surrounded Epstein’s empire. His trafficking operation relied on a pyramid-like system in which victims were sometimes coerced into recruiting others, blurring the line between participant and prey. But many advocates argued that this woman’s decade-long role as an active recruiter made her claim fundamentally illegitimate. Though her application highlighted the psychological manipulation and coercion Epstein used to control his circle, critics countered that intent doesn’t erase culpability. In the end, the episode became another reminder of how Epstein’s network corrupted everything it touched — even the very mechanisms meant to deliver justice to his victims.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

11 Nov 1h 19min

For years, Queen Elizabeth II acted as Prince Andrew’s unwavering shield against the fallout of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. Even as allegations mounted, she reportedly resisted internal and external pressure to sideline her son, allowing him to retain royal privileges, honors, and public duties long after the public tide had turned. Her personal loyalty was said to eclipse political and institutional logic—Andrew remained a fixture at Balmoral and Windsor, even as palace staff urged the Queen to distance herself. Royal insiders and biographers have described her as deeply maternal in her defense of him, believing he was being unfairly vilified and refusing to entertain discussions about exile or disownment. This protective stance allowed Andrew to delay accountability for years while the rest of the royal household absorbed the reputational damage.But by early 2022, under overwhelming public and institutional pressure, even the Queen’s protection could no longer hold back the storm. She reluctantly approved the removal of Andrew’s military titles, royal patronages, and the use of his HRH style—a move seen as both a last resort and a symbolic cutting of ties to preserve the monarchy. Still, until her death later that year, she continued to privately support him, hosting him at Balmoral and reportedly helping fund parts of his legal settlement with Virginia Giuffre. It was the ultimate act of maternal loyalty—protecting her son from disgrace even as the monarchy fought to survive the wreckage his scandals had created.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

11 Nov 38min

Donald Trump has been dogged by the Jeffrey Epstein scandal for years, as resurfaced documents, photos, and court filings keep linking his name to the disgraced financier’s social orbit. Trump and Epstein were well-acquainted throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, sharing appearances at Mar-a-Lago, social gatherings in Palm Beach, and the same circles of models, moguls, and politicians. While Trump has repeatedly claimed to have cut Epstein off years before his arrest, newly surfaced “Epstein files” — a collection of deposition records, contact lists, and sealed court documents — have reignited speculation about how close their relationship really was. The release of a so-called “birthday book” signed by Trump and letters allegedly exchanged between the two have only deepened the public’s curiosity and the media’s fixation.Within these documents, online investigators and media outlets have pointed to references to a “John Doe 174,” alleging that this pseudonym refers to Donald Trump. The claim stems from court redactions in Epstein-related filings where certain high-profile individuals were anonymized, fueling widespread debate over who each “Doe” represents. The theory surrounding Trump’s alleged designation as John Doe 174 has spread rapidly since several European and U.S. outlets drew connections between the redacted entries and Trump’s known interactions with Epstein. Whether or not the identification can be proven in court, the allegation alone has amplified political fallout, revived old questions about his social connections, and ensured that the Epstein scandal continues to shadow his public image well into 2025.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

11 Nov 35min

The evidence against Bryan Kohberger that has been presented thus far has been very strong as far as circumstational evidence goes. However, that doesn't mean that there is no room for the defense to try to punch holes in the evidence, especially if the only DNA turns out to be the DNA left on the sheath.In this episode, we hear from Tracy Walder who discusses what the DNA found on the sheath tells us and doesn't tell us and how the defense might attempt to attack this evidence.(commercial at 7:59)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Why Bryan Kohberger's DNA Presents Problem for Prosecution (newsweek.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

11 Nov 15min

The dive into the court documents continues in this episode as we take a look at the affidavit of Leah Larkin, a genealogy expert who has been brought on board by Bryan Kohberger's team to help try to punch holes in the official narrative. (commercial at 11:12)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:080923-Notice-Filing-Affidavit-Leah-Larkin-Support-Defendants-3rd-Motion-Compel.pdf (amazonaws.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

11 Nov 16min

Prince Andrew’s attempts to maneuver his way out of disgrace were always doomed, a tragic farce masquerading as strategy. From the moment the Epstein connection came to light, every move he made only dug the hole deeper. His insistence on maintaining innocence while refusing transparency, his ill-fated Newsnight interview, and his reliance on royal privilege rather than accountability painted him as a man utterly detached from reality. Andrew seemed to believe that royal insulation and denial could outlast public outrage, yet every deflection—every "no recollection" and every attempt to hide behind Buckingham Palace—only amplified his guilt in the court of public opinion. By the time he settled with Virginia Giuffre, his options were no longer strategic—they were survivalist.The truth is, Andrew’s exile wasn’t a punishment; it was an inevitability. His downfall wasn’t the result of a single mistake, but a lifelong pattern of entitlement colliding with modern accountability. His efforts to cling to status—whether by trying to stage a “comeback,” whispering about new roles, or leaning on family ties—were like a drowning man grasping at fog. The monarchy, desperate to preserve itself, eventually realized that Andrew was a liability too radioactive to rehabilitate. His downfall was written the moment he mistook impunity for immunity. Now, stripped of titles, dignity, and relevance, Prince Andrew stands as the embodiment of how arrogance and denial can turn royal blood into social poison.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

11 Nov 11min

In July 2007, Prince Andrew attended a lavish party in Saint-Tropez hosted by Anglo-French billionaire Tony Murray alongside his daughter Princess Beatrice (then around 18–19 years old). At the event, he was seen socializing closely with Canadian model and singer Pascale Bourbeau—photos reportedly show the Duke with his hand on her rear, and the pair in a “nose-to-nose” pose. The article highlights that while his daughter was present at the same event, Andrew appeared absorbed in the party atmosphere with younger women.Witnesses at the gathering described it as part of a wild streak for the Prince, who was divorced, in his late 40s and apparently embracing an attention-seeking social life. One observer said: “These were really crazy years for Andrew… He was clearly having a full-blown midlife crisis.” According to the report, Andrew and Bourbeau left the party by boat with other women while Beatrice departed separately. The article casts the episode as another illustration of the Duke’s controversial nightlife and social conduct in the years before his later public scandal.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

10 Nov 20min

When Alex Acosta sat before Congress to explain himself, what unfolded was less an act of accountability and more a masterclass in bureaucratic self-preservation. He painted the 2008 Epstein plea deal as a “strategic compromise,” claiming a federal trial might have been too risky because victims were “unreliable” and evidence was “thin.” In reality, federal prosecutors had a mountain of corroborating witness statements, corroborative travel logs, and sworn victim testimony—yet Acosta gave Epstein the deal of the century. The so-called non-prosecution agreement wasn’t justice; it was a backroom surrender, executed in secrecy, without even notifying the victims. When pressed on this, Acosta spun excuses about legal precedent and “jurisdictional confusion,” never once admitting the obvious: his office protected a rich, politically connected predator at the expense of dozens of trafficked girls.Even more damning was Acosta’s insistence that he acted out of pragmatism, not pressure. He denied that anyone “higher up” told him to back off—even though he once told reporters that he’d been informed Epstein “belonged to intelligence.” Under oath, he downplayed that statement, twisting it into bureaucratic double-speak. He even claimed the deal achieved “some level of justice” because Epstein registered as a sex offender—a hollow justification that only exposed how insulated from reality he remains. Acosta never showed remorse for the irreparable damage caused by his cowardice. His congressional testimony reeked of moral rot, the same rot that let a billionaire pedophile walk free while survivors were left to pick up the pieces.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Acosta Transcript.pdf - Google DriveBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

10 Nov 14min