Episodes

  • Courtney Wild And Her Jeffrey Epstein Related Deposition From 2017 (Part 4) (3/1/26)

    Courtney Wild And Her Jeffrey Epstein Related Deposition From 2017 (Part 4) (3/1/26)
    Mar 2 2026
    In the 2017 video deposition of Courtney E. Wild, taken as part of the civil case Epstein v. Rothstein in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida, Wild testified under oath about her personal background, criminal history, and relevant circumstances before the court began substantive questions. The early portion of the deposition focuses on Wild’s identity and personal history, including her marriage, family situation, and her own past convictions, including a drug trafficking conviction for which she was serving a sentence at the Gadsden Correctional Facility in Florida at the time of the deposition. Wild was sworn in and answered basic biographical questions about her life prior to moving into the heart of the civil litigation against Epstein’s representatives and others, establishing her presence and credibility as a witness in the case’s factual record


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com


    source:

    1027.pdf
    Show More Show Less
    13 mins
  • Courtney Wild And Her Jeffrey Epstein Related Deposition From 2017 (Part 3) (3/1/26)

    Courtney Wild And Her Jeffrey Epstein Related Deposition From 2017 (Part 3) (3/1/26)
    Mar 2 2026
    In the 2017 video deposition of Courtney E. Wild, taken as part of the civil case Epstein v. Rothstein in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida, Wild testified under oath about her personal background, criminal history, and relevant circumstances before the court began substantive questions. The early portion of the deposition focuses on Wild’s identity and personal history, including her marriage, family situation, and her own past convictions, including a drug trafficking conviction for which she was serving a sentence at the Gadsden Correctional Facility in Florida at the time of the deposition. Wild was sworn in and answered basic biographical questions about her life prior to moving into the heart of the civil litigation against Epstein’s representatives and others, establishing her presence and credibility as a witness in the case’s factual record


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com


    source:

    1027.pdf
    Show More Show Less
    12 mins
  • Courtney Wild And Her Jeffrey Epstein Related Deposition From 2017 (Part 2) (3/1/26)

    Courtney Wild And Her Jeffrey Epstein Related Deposition From 2017 (Part 2) (3/1/26)
    Mar 2 2026
    In the 2017 video deposition of Courtney E. Wild, taken as part of the civil case Epstein v. Rothstein in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida, Wild testified under oath about her personal background, criminal history, and relevant circumstances before the court began substantive questions. The early portion of the deposition focuses on Wild’s identity and personal history, including her marriage, family situation, and her own past convictions, including a drug trafficking conviction for which she was serving a sentence at the Gadsden Correctional Facility in Florida at the time of the deposition. Wild was sworn in and answered basic biographical questions about her life prior to moving into the heart of the civil litigation against Epstein’s representatives and others, establishing her presence and credibility as a witness in the case’s factual record


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com


    source:

    1027.pdf
    Show More Show Less
    15 mins
  • Courtney Wild And Her Jeffrey Epstein Related Deposition From 2017 (Part 1) (3/1/26)

    Courtney Wild And Her Jeffrey Epstein Related Deposition From 2017 (Part 1) (3/1/26)
    Mar 1 2026
    In the 2017 video deposition of Courtney E. Wild, taken as part of the civil case Epstein v. Rothstein in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida, Wild testified under oath about her personal background, criminal history, and relevant circumstances before the court began substantive questions. The early portion of the deposition focuses on Wild’s identity and personal history, including her marriage, family situation, and her own past convictions, including a drug trafficking conviction for which she was serving a sentence at the Gadsden Correctional Facility in Florida at the time of the deposition. Wild was sworn in and answered basic biographical questions about her life prior to moving into the heart of the civil litigation against Epstein’s representatives and others, establishing her presence and credibility as a witness in the case’s factual record


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com


    source:

    1027.pdf
    Show More Show Less
    13 mins
  • Virginia Robert's First Trafficking Allegation and the Man Epstein “Gave” Her To (3/1/26)

    Virginia Robert's First Trafficking Allegation and the Man Epstein “Gave” Her To (3/1/26)
    Mar 1 2026
    Glenn Dubin was not some distant, accidental acquaintance of Jeffrey Epstein. He was deeply embedded in Epstein’s personal and financial orbit for years, benefiting directly from Epstein’s money, connections, and influence while later claiming ignorance of Epstein’s criminal behavior. Epstein invested tens of millions of dollars in Dubin’s hedge fund, Highbridge Capital, helped smooth relationships with JPMorgan Chase, and acted as a financial patron at critical moments in Dubin’s rise. On a personal level, Epstein dated Dubin’s wife Eva Andersson-Dubin, remained close to the family long after that relationship ended, and was even named godfather to one of the Dubins’ children. This was not casual proximity; it was intimate, sustained access. For Dubin to later position himself as merely another wealthy figure who crossed Epstein’s path strains credibility, especially given how tightly Epstein’s money, social life, and leverage were woven into Dubin’s professional success.


    Virginia Giuffre’s allegation cuts straight through the “unknowing bystander” narrative. In sworn statements and civil filings, she has said that Glenn Dubin was the first man Jeffrey Epstein “gave” her to after she was trafficked into Epstein’s control as a teenager. That claim places Dubin not on the periphery but at the very beginning of her exploitation. Dubin has denied the allegation, and no criminal charges have been brought, but the gravity of the accusation cannot be dismissed as gossip or tabloid noise. Giuffre has been consistent over many years, under oath, and across multiple proceedings, and her account aligns with the broader, well-documented pattern of Epstein using powerful friends as both participants and proof of protection. The fact that Dubin continued to enjoy elite status, minimal scrutiny, and public sympathy while survivors’ claims were sidelined is emblematic of how Epstein’s network insulated itself. Dubin’s closeness to Epstein, combined with Giuffre’s allegation, places him squarely within the moral and factual shadow of Epstein’s trafficking operation, whether the legal system has chosen to confront that reality or not.



    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com


    source:

    Billionaire hedge fund manager Glenn Dubin was first person Ghislaine Maxwell told Virginia Roberts Giuffre to have sex with, unsealed Jeffrey Epstein files allege | Daily Mail Online
    Show More Show Less
    12 mins
  • Post-Mortem: The Alex Acosta OIG Interview — Anatomy of a Whitewash (3/1/26)

    Post-Mortem: The Alex Acosta OIG Interview — Anatomy of a Whitewash (3/1/26)
    Mar 1 2026
    The Alex Acosta interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General was not a genuine act of oversight but a carefully managed exercise in institutional self-protection. From the outset, the OIG accepted Acosta’s framing that the Epstein deal was inherited, constrained, and unavoidable, rather than interrogating his clear authority as U.S. Attorney to reject or dismantle it. Extraordinary features of the agreement—blanket immunity, secrecy, victim exclusion, and shielding of unnamed co-conspirators—were treated as unfortunate byproducts instead of deliberate choices. The interview avoided probing motive, power, ambition, or external influence, and allowed “complexity” to substitute for accountability. Victims were reduced to procedural inconveniences, dissent within Acosta’s own office was minimized, and secrecy was discussed without examining intent. The questioning was gentle, the language sanitized, and the structure designed to preserve narrative control rather than expose wrongdoing. Oversight became theater, and truth became optional.

    The result was a report that closed ranks instead of opened files, offering procedural recommendations while refusing to assign responsibility for one of the most grotesque plea bargains in modern history. The interview failed because success would have required institutional self-indictment, something the DOJ was never willing to permit. It reinforced the message that elite defendants receive different justice, that internal watchdogs protect the system before victims, and that career incentives quietly shape prosecutorial restraint. More than a missed opportunity, the Acosta interview became proof of how accountability is neutralized through tone, omission, and deference. Rage is justified because this failure was engineered, not accidental. Disgust is warranted because victims were erased yet again under the banner of review. The true scandal is not only the Epstein deal itself, but the system’s refusal to confront how and why it happened.



    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
    Show More Show Less
    17 mins
  • Why the Ghislaine Maxwell Transfer Feels Like Another Cover-Up (3/1/26)

    Why the Ghislaine Maxwell Transfer Feels Like Another Cover-Up (3/1/26)
    Mar 1 2026
    Outrage over Ghislaine Maxwell’s sudden transfer continues to intensify as the Department of Justice refuses to provide even the most basic explanations about why she was moved, who authorized it, and under what security or administrative rationale. For critics, the anger isn’t just about the transfer itself — it’s about the pattern it fits into. Maxwell is not a routine federal inmate; she is the sole convicted conspirator tied to Jeffrey Epstein’s trafficking network, a case already marred by secrecy, sealed records, and broken transparency promises. When the DOJ moves her quietly and then clamps down on information, it reinforces public suspicion that the system is still prioritizing institutional protection over accountability. Each day of silence fuels the belief that this was not a mundane bureaucratic decision, but a calculated move made without regard for public trust or the victims who were promised transparency.


    What has further inflamed the backlash is the DOJ’s absolute refusal to answer questions from Congress, journalists, or the public. No clear timeline, no stated justification, no acknowledgment of concern — just silence. That silence has become the story. Lawmakers are openly questioning whether the transfer was designed to limit access, control optics, or preempt future disclosures related to Epstein’s network. Survivors and advocates see it as another reminder that when it comes to Epstein-linked cases, the DOJ operates behind a wall of opacity that would never be tolerated in an ordinary prosecution. Instead of calming public concern, the DOJ’s stonewalling has done the opposite: it has turned the Maxwell transfer into yet another flashpoint in the growing belief that justice in the Epstein saga remains carefully managed, selectively transparent, and fundamentally untrustworthy.



    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:

    Ghislaine Maxwell's cushy 'Camp Cupcake' prison deal - custom meals and unlimited loo roll - The Mirror
    Show More Show Less
    17 mins
  • Mega Edition: The OIG Report Into The Circumstances Surrounding Epstein's Death (Part 9) (3/1/26)

    Mega Edition: The OIG Report Into The Circumstances Surrounding Epstein's Death (Part 9) (3/1/26)
    Mar 1 2026
    The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein’s death delivers a blistering indictment of systemic failures at the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and his holding facility. It documents a litany of procedural violations: Epstein’s cellmate was removed and never replaced despite explicit policy, surveillance cameras in his unit were malfunctioning or not recording, and the staff responsible for required 30-minute checks on Epstein didn’t perform them. Instead, employees falsified records indicating those rounds were completed, and in reality Epstein was alone and unchecked for hours before his death. These aren’t isolated mistakes—they’re classic symptoms of institutional collapse and neglect at a time when every safeguard should have been activated.


    Beyond the immediate night of his death, the report underscores a deeper rot: long-standing staffing shortages, indifferent supervision, and a culture that tolerated policy breaches without accountability. The OIG identifies that the same deficiencies had been raised in prior reports about the BOP, yet were never effectively addressed. By allowing one of the most high-profile detainees in the nation to slip through the cracks under such glaring conditions, the BOP didn’t just fail Epstein—they failed the public trust and all the victims who sought justice.


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com


    source:

    2 3 - 0 8 5 (justice.gov)
    Show More Show Less
    39 mins