Mega Edition: The Arrest Of Ghislaine Maxwell (11/15/25)

Ghislaine Maxwell entered pleas of not guilty to all charges brought against her, asserting that she had no involvement in the sexual abuse and trafficking of minors connected to Jeffrey Epstein. During her arraignments, Maxwell’s defense team argued that the prosecution was attempting to make her a scapegoat for Epstein’s crimes following his death in federal custody, claiming she was being unfairly targeted because Epstein was no longer alive to stand trial. They maintained that Maxwell had no knowledge of or participation in any abuse and that the accusations were based on unreliable memories and media-driven pressure rather than hard evidence.Despite the severity of the charges, Maxwell continued to insist on her innocence throughout the pre-trial process, challenging both the credibility of the accusers and the conditions of her confinement. Her attorneys attempted multiple times to secure bail, claiming she was being held under excessively harsh conditions and was not a flight risk, but the court repeatedly rejected these requests due to concerns about her financial resources, international ties, and the possibility she could flee prosecution. Throughout her legal battle, Maxwell’s not-guilty stance became central to her defense narrative, framing the case as one of political and public scapegoating rather than criminal accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

16 Nov 54min

For years, Prince Andrew acted like the high-flying royal who couldn’t see the minefield he was walking into: cozying up with ­Jeffrey Epstein, showing up in dubious photographs, giving an infamous 2019 BBC interview that looked more like a clown show than a credible defence (including his claim to have been at Pizza Express while accusations rained down). Ultimately his behavior came across as shamelessly indifferent, tone-deaf, and foolish—he didn’t just stumble; he waltzed through the wreckage.Then everything collapsed. The monarchy pulled the plug: he relinquished titles, had military honours stripped, was told to leave his royal residence, and in late 2025 he was formally stripped of his “Prince” title and other styles, becoming simply Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. These aren’t small demotions—they mark the end of his public roles and any real stature in the institution he once embodied. He gambled his privilege, association, and reputation—and lost it all.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

16 Nov 21min

In late 2019, Prince Andrew publicly stated that he was “willing to help any appropriate law-enforcement agency” in relation to Epstein’s criminal activities. However, on 27 January 2020 the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York announced that the prince had provided “zero cooperation” to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) despite repeated requests to interview him as part of the investigation.Since then, although at times Prince Andrew has asserted he remains open to cooperating, U.S. investigators maintain he has not voluntarily submitted to interview or question-and-answer sessions regarding the Epstein network.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

16 Nov 23min

In a fact-finding report released by Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in January 2020, conducted by the law firm Goodwin Procter LLP, it was found that Epstein donated a total of about $850,000 to MIT between 2002 and 2017, with approximately $225,000 going directly to Lloyd. The report concluded that Lloyd “purposefully failed to inform MIT” that Epstein—a convicted sex offender—was the source of certain donations in 2012 and that Lloyd allowed the gifts to be processed through administrators without formal discussion or full vetting. The report also stated that Lloyd accepted a personal gift of around $60,000 from Epstein in 2005 or 2006, deposited to his personal bank account and not reported to MIT.Lloyd publicly rejected key aspects of the report. He stated that the accusations were “completely false” and maintained that MIT administrators “knew that the donor was Epstein and fully approved the donation with this knowledge.” He also said he did not concede any breach of professional duty despite the report’s language implying he did. Lloyd pointed to email evidence showing MIT staff’s direct acknowledgment of Epstein’s donation.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

16 Nov 12min

In earlier reporting, much of the media framed the Jeffrey Epstein case largely as fuel for conspiracy theorists. The narrative around his death, the secretive networks, and the alleged “client list” often got labeled as fringe speculation, with the focus on odd memes and internet chatter rather than systemic investigation. The lack of transparency — the sealed records, the unanswered questions about his connections and how he died — created an environment where speculation thrived, and the mainstream coverage treated it as detached from serious journalism.More recently though, the tone has shifted. The piece acknowledges that what was once mostly dismissed as conspiracy talk is now being seen by some outlets as, at minimum, a reflection of genuine institutional failures — gaps in oversight, accountability and transparency that allowed the story to be mishandled or ignored. The reinterpretation means the media is slowly moving from “crazy fringe theory” toward “legitimate unanswered questions,” recognizing that the earlier dismissal may have been premature and that the conditions that spawned those theories often stemmed from real structural problems.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

15 Nov 25min

In her deposition on March 15, 2010, Ross was questioned extensively about her relationship with Epstein and individuals in his orbit, including the role of recruiting young women for massages and possible sexual contact. She was asked whether she ever used the term “massage” as a euphemism, whether she personally arranged for young women (including minors) to meet Epstein, and whether she benefited financially or materially from such arrangements. Ross repeatedly invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination when asked substantive questions about her own conduct in connection with Epstein’s sexual-abuse network, declining to answer many questions about the details of her involvement.Ross was also asked about her knowledge of Epstein’s associates and activities, including whether she was aware of certain flights, properties, and contacts used by Epstein’s organization for transporting, lodging or grooming associates. The deposition records show that many of these questions were met with silence or non-responses, as Ross declined to answer on advice of counsel or invoked the Fifth. The lack of direct testimony from Ross thus left significant gaps in the civil case’s ability to pin down the full details of her role.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

15 Nov 11min

In a move widely criticized as politically motivated and structurally compromised, former SEC chairman Jay Clayton—who previously worked closely with Apollo Global Management, the private-equity firm led for decades by Jeffrey Epstein associate Leon Black—was appointed to oversee an investigation into Epstein’s alleged ties to Donald Trump’s political adversaries. Critics argue that placing someone so closely connected to a firm entangled in Epstein’s financial orbit fundamentally undermines the credibility of the inquiry. While the announcement was framed as a push for transparency, the decision raised immediate concerns about conflicts of interest and selective scrutiny. Observers note that when Trump publicly demanded investigations into his opponents, he conspicuously avoided referencing Black or Les Wexner, another figure long linked to Epstein, fueling allegations that the appointment was designed to protect insiders rather than expose them.The broader controversy highlights what many see as a calculated effort to contain the fallout from newly surfaced Epstein-related communications that could implicate individuals across both political parties. Rather than pursuing a comprehensive accounting, the administration’s strategy appears focused on limiting exposure and reframing the narrative toward partisan targets. Survivors of Epstein’s abuse and their advocates have expressed frustration that those with direct proximity to Epstein—financially and personally—continue to remain shielded while public attention is redirected. Critics contend that the government’s approach resembles damage control rather than a legitimate pursuit of justice, reinforcing suspicions that political and financial interests, rather than accountability, are driving decisions at the highest levels.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

15 Nov 16min