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
Mega Edition: Jeffrey Epstein And The Emergence Of A Second Black Book (9/20/25)
The discovery of a second Jeffrey Epstein “black book” only deepened the sense that his network was far larger, more organized, and more deliberately hidden than anyone wanted to admit. While the first book had already revealed a dizzying array of names from politics, finance, royalty, and entertainment, this second ledger of connections suggested Epstein kept multiple layers of contact lists—one public enough to function as a Rolodex, and another shrouded in tighter secrecy. It reinforced the idea that Epstein wasn’t just dabbling in social climbing; he was meticulously cataloguing his web of influence, a web designed to protect him, enrich him, and trap others in his orbit of compromise.The implications were damning. The second book underscored how Epstein’s reach wasn’t a fluke or an accident—it was systemic. It showed that he maintained a shadowy, tiered system of access where one set of names could be sacrificed to scrutiny while another was tucked away for safekeeping. Instead of clarity, it raised more questions: who was in this hidden ledger, why was it separated, and how much leverage did Epstein intend to wield with it? Like the first book, its existence screamed complicity at the highest levels, proving once again that Epstein’s empire thrived not in isolation but with the tacit cooperation of elites desperate to keep their names out of the spotlight.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
20 Sep 50min
Mega Edition: Virginia Roberts And Her Legal Battle And Resolution With Alan Dershowitz (9/20/25)
Virginia Roberts (Giuffre) filed a lawsuit against Alan Dershowitz accusing him of sexual abuse when she was a minor trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein. The case was explosive, not only because of the seriousness of the allegations but also because Dershowitz was one of the most high-profile names in Epstein’s circle—a celebrity attorney who helped negotiate Epstein’s cushy non-prosecution agreement in 2008. Dershowitz fought back with ferocity, denying everything, painting Giuffre as a liar, and claiming he was the victim of a smear campaign designed to destroy his reputation. The lawsuit became a proxy war over credibility, with Dershowitz staking his entire legacy on dismantling her claims.The resolution was as murky and unsatisfying as you’d expect in a case involving Epstein’s orbit. After years of bitter back-and-forth, the lawsuit was settled in 2022 with both sides issuing statements that looked more like carefully crafted PR spin than real closure. Giuffre didn’t retract her allegations but acknowledged she may have been mistaken in identifying Dershowitz, while he declared vindication without ever facing a full trial on the merits. In the end, it was less a moment of clarity than another example of how the wealthy and well-connected escape true accountability, leaving survivors and the public with more questions than answers.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
20 Sep 31min
Mega Edition: Bill Barr And His Role In The Investigation Into Epstein's Demise (9/20/25)
Bill Barr’s role in Jeffrey Epstein’s death investigation was defined by damage control and a remarkable ability to look the other way. As Attorney General, Barr initially made noise about how “seriously” the Justice Department would take Epstein’s suspicious jailhouse demise. Yet, instead of digging deep into the glaring failures at the Metropolitan Correctional Center—broken cameras, sleeping guards, missing logs—Barr quickly pivoted to dismissing conspiracy theories and insisting the death was a straightforward suicide. His stance looked less like impartial oversight and more like someone working overtime to calm the waters, shut down speculation, and steer the narrative away from systemic accountability.Adding to the skepticism was Barr’s quiet meeting with financier Stone Reyes, a man rumored to have ties in the same murky corridors of influence Epstein once prowled. That sit-down only fueled suspicion that Barr wasn’t hunting for truth but rather for ways to contain fallout. The optics were appalling: the nation’s top lawman holding private conversations with power brokers while brushing aside the most high-profile custodial death in modern memory. Instead of delivering transparency, Barr left the public with more questions than answers, cementing his role not as a seeker of justice, but as one more gatekeeper standing between Epstein’s secrets and the light of day.to contat me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
20 Sep 42min
Mega Edition: Jeffrey Epstein And His Infamous Black Book (Part 2) (9/20/25)
Jeffrey Epstein’s so-called “black book” was less a contact list and more a grotesque monument to power shielding power. It wasn’t filled with your everyday acquaintances; it was a who’s who of billionaires, politicians, royalty, celebrities, and Wall Street heavyweights—names that had no business being in the same Rolodex as a convicted sex offender. The book exposed just how deep Epstein’s tentacles reached, how many doors he could knock on, and how many influential people were willing to at least tolerate, if not outright embrace, his presence. Whether every name in there was complicit or simply embarrassed by association, the sheer scale of it laid bare how Epstein weaponized access to the elite as both shield and currency.The real stench of the black book wasn’t just who was in it, but what it represented: a roadmap of complicity and cowardice. It proved that Epstein didn’t thrive in isolation—he thrived because powerful people answered his calls, opened their homes, and boarded his planes. It’s a reminder that the “Epstein problem” wasn’t just Epstein; it was the system of enablers, gatekeepers, and opportunists who kept him socially viable long after his crimes were known. The black book is less a curiosity and more a ledger of shame, an artifact that shows how the elite protect each other, even when the cost is justice for survivors.to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.comSource:https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/10/i-called-everyone-in-jeffrey-epsteins-little-black-book/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
20 Sep 1h 37min
