Episodes

  • How the Epstein Files Finally Put Prince Andrew on the Witness List (12/24/25)

    How the Epstein Files Finally Put Prince Andrew on the Witness List (12/24/25)
    Dec 24 2025
    The latest Epstein document release further reinforces how deeply Prince Andrew was entangled in Jeffrey Epstein’s orbit and how aware authorities were of his potential exposure long before public accountability set in. Newly surfaced investigative materials show that prosecutors believed Andrew had direct knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell’s role in recruiting young women and sought to question him formally about his relationship with Epstein, his presence around victims, and his continued contact after Epstein’s 2008 conviction. The documents make clear that Andrew was not viewed as a peripheral figure, but as someone investigators considered central enough to warrant detailed questioning under caution. Despite this, no interview ever took place, underscoring the long-standing gap between investigative interest and actual enforcement when it came to a senior royal.


    The files also highlight the extraordinary degree of institutional hesitation surrounding Andrew, both in the United Kingdom and internationally. While investigators outlined lines of questioning and compiled evidence, diplomatic sensitivities and royal privilege effectively stalled progress. Andrew’s refusal to cooperate was tolerated for years, even as civil litigation and survivor testimony mounted, and British authorities showed little urgency in compelling his participation. The documents illustrate a pattern in which reputational risk to the monarchy consistently outweighed accountability, allowing Andrew to avoid meaningful scrutiny until public pressure became impossible to ignore. Rather than revealing new allegations, the release confirms what survivors and journalists have long argued: that Prince Andrew was shielded not by a lack of concern, but by a system unwilling to confront power.


    to contact me:


    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:

    Andrew 'knew Ghislaine was a sex madam', Epstein cops believed - as new docs reveal efforts to quiz royal under caution
    Show More Show Less
    23 mins
  • Mega Edition: Johanna Sjoberg's Deposition In The Maxwell/Virginia Roberts Suit (Part 9-10) (12/23/25)

    Mega Edition: Johanna Sjoberg's Deposition In The Maxwell/Virginia Roberts Suit (Part 9-10) (12/23/25)
    Dec 24 2025
    In her deposition in the defamation lawsuit filed by Virginia Giuffre against Ghislaine Maxwell, Johanna Sjoberg described being recruited to work for Jeffrey Epstein under the impression that it was a legitimate job opportunity. According to her testimony, she was initially hired to help with office work but was soon asked to give massages to Epstein—something she testified quickly evolved into inappropriate and unwanted conduct. Sjoberg stated that Ghislaine Maxwell played a central role in managing the household and was often present during these encounters, contributing to the atmosphere of control and pressure. Her deposition supported claims made by Giuffre and other women who alleged they were misled into situations where they were exploited.


    Sjoberg also testified about interactions with well-known individuals while in Epstein’s company, including an allegation involving Prince Andrew, which she said took place at Epstein’s residence. She described an incident in which Maxwell, Epstein, and others were present during a moment she considered inappropriate and unsettling. While the full extent of those interactions remains the subject of legal scrutiny and public interest, Sjoberg’s deposition contributed to the broader pattern of allegations suggesting a tightly controlled environment where young women were manipulated under false pretenses. Her account was one of several that added weight to the claims being investigated in both civil and criminal proceedings surrounding Epstein and Maxwell.


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
    Show More Show Less
    23 mins
  • Mega Edition: Johanna Sjoberg's Deposition In The Maxwell/Virginia Roberts Suit (Part 7-8) (12/23/25)

    Mega Edition: Johanna Sjoberg's Deposition In The Maxwell/Virginia Roberts Suit (Part 7-8) (12/23/25)
    Dec 24 2025
    In her deposition in the defamation lawsuit filed by Virginia Giuffre against Ghislaine Maxwell, Johanna Sjoberg described being recruited to work for Jeffrey Epstein under the impression that it was a legitimate job opportunity. According to her testimony, she was initially hired to help with office work but was soon asked to give massages to Epstein—something she testified quickly evolved into inappropriate and unwanted conduct. Sjoberg stated that Ghislaine Maxwell played a central role in managing the household and was often present during these encounters, contributing to the atmosphere of control and pressure. Her deposition supported claims made by Giuffre and other women who alleged they were misled into situations where they were exploited.


    Sjoberg also testified about interactions with well-known individuals while in Epstein’s company, including an allegation involving Prince Andrew, which she said took place at Epstein’s residence. She described an incident in which Maxwell, Epstein, and others were present during a moment she considered inappropriate and unsettling. While the full extent of those interactions remains the subject of legal scrutiny and public interest, Sjoberg’s deposition contributed to the broader pattern of allegations suggesting a tightly controlled environment where young women were manipulated under false pretenses. Her account was one of several that added weight to the claims being investigated in both civil and criminal proceedings surrounding Epstein and Maxwell.


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
    Show More Show Less
    29 mins
  • Mega Edition: Johanna Sjoberg's Deposition In The Maxwell/Virginia Roberts Suit (Part 3-4) (12/23/25)

    Mega Edition: Johanna Sjoberg's Deposition In The Maxwell/Virginia Roberts Suit (Part 3-4) (12/23/25)
    Dec 24 2025
    In her deposition in the defamation lawsuit filed by Virginia Giuffre against Ghislaine Maxwell, Johanna Sjoberg described being recruited to work for Jeffrey Epstein under the impression that it was a legitimate job opportunity. According to her testimony, she was initially hired to help with office work but was soon asked to give massages to Epstein—something she testified quickly evolved into inappropriate and unwanted conduct. Sjoberg stated that Ghislaine Maxwell played a central role in managing the household and was often present during these encounters, contributing to the atmosphere of control and pressure. Her deposition supported claims made by Giuffre and other women who alleged they were misled into situations where they were exploited.


    Sjoberg also testified about interactions with well-known individuals while in Epstein’s company, including an allegation involving Prince Andrew, which she said took place at Epstein’s residence. She described an incident in which Maxwell, Epstein, and others were present during a moment she considered inappropriate and unsettling. While the full extent of those interactions remains the subject of legal scrutiny and public interest, Sjoberg’s deposition contributed to the broader pattern of allegations suggesting a tightly controlled environment where young women were manipulated under false pretenses. Her account was one of several that added weight to the claims being investigated in both civil and criminal proceedings surrounding Epstein and Maxwell.


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
    Show More Show Less
    29 mins
  • Mega Edition: Johanna Sjoberg's Deposition In The Maxwell/Virginia Roberts Suit (Part 3-4) (12/23/25)

    Mega Edition: Johanna Sjoberg's Deposition In The Maxwell/Virginia Roberts Suit (Part 3-4) (12/23/25)
    Dec 23 2025
    In her deposition in the defamation lawsuit filed by Virginia Giuffre against Ghislaine Maxwell, Johanna Sjoberg described being recruited to work for Jeffrey Epstein under the impression that it was a legitimate job opportunity. According to her testimony, she was initially hired to help with office work but was soon asked to give massages to Epstein—something she testified quickly evolved into inappropriate and unwanted conduct. Sjoberg stated that Ghislaine Maxwell played a central role in managing the household and was often present during these encounters, contributing to the atmosphere of control and pressure. Her deposition supported claims made by Giuffre and other women who alleged they were misled into situations where they were exploited.


    Sjoberg also testified about interactions with well-known individuals while in Epstein’s company, including an allegation involving Prince Andrew, which she said took place at Epstein’s residence. She described an incident in which Maxwell, Epstein, and others were present during a moment she considered inappropriate and unsettling. While the full extent of those interactions remains the subject of legal scrutiny and public interest, Sjoberg’s deposition contributed to the broader pattern of allegations suggesting a tightly controlled environment where young women were manipulated under false pretenses. Her account was one of several that added weight to the claims being investigated in both civil and criminal proceedings surrounding Epstein and Maxwell.


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
    Show More Show Less
    25 mins
  • Mega Edition: Johanna Sjoberg's Deposition In The Maxwell/Virginia Roberts Suit (Part 1-2) (12/23/25)

    Mega Edition: Johanna Sjoberg's Deposition In The Maxwell/Virginia Roberts Suit (Part 1-2) (12/23/25)
    Dec 23 2025
    In her deposition in the defamation lawsuit filed by Virginia Giuffre against Ghislaine Maxwell, Johanna Sjoberg described being recruited to work for Jeffrey Epstein under the impression that it was a legitimate job opportunity. According to her testimony, she was initially hired to help with office work but was soon asked to give massages to Epstein—something she testified quickly evolved into inappropriate and unwanted conduct. Sjoberg stated that Ghislaine Maxwell played a central role in managing the household and was often present during these encounters, contributing to the atmosphere of control and pressure. Her deposition supported claims made by Giuffre and other women who alleged they were misled into situations where they were exploited.


    Sjoberg also testified about interactions with well-known individuals while in Epstein’s company, including an allegation involving Prince Andrew, which she said took place at Epstein’s residence. She described an incident in which Maxwell, Epstein, and others were present during a moment she considered inappropriate and unsettling. While the full extent of those interactions remains the subject of legal scrutiny and public interest, Sjoberg’s deposition contributed to the broader pattern of allegations suggesting a tightly controlled environment where young women were manipulated under false pretenses. Her account was one of several that added weight to the claims being investigated in both civil and criminal proceedings surrounding Epstein and Maxwell.


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
    Show More Show Less
    31 mins
  • Mega Edition: Security Concerns or Bureaucratic Convenience? Maxwell’s Sudden Relocation (12/23/25)

    Mega Edition: Security Concerns or Bureaucratic Convenience? Maxwell’s Sudden Relocation (12/23/25)
    Dec 23 2025
    Skepticism about the “security concerns” explanation has grown precisely because it relies so heavily on implication rather than documented fact. While it was hinted that Ghislaine Maxwell’s safety was at risk after her DOJ meeting, neither the Bureau of Prisons nor prosecutors ever provided concrete evidence of a specific, credible threat necessitating an interstate transfer. High-profile inmates routinely meet with federal authorities without being uprooted across the prison system, and vague references to “safety” are a standard, catch-all justification that conveniently avoids scrutiny. In Maxwell’s case, the absence of incident reports, disciplinary records, or disclosed threats raises the possibility that the security narrative functioned more as a smokescreen than a genuine explanation.

    A more plausible interpretation is that the move was driven by administrative, legal, or strategic considerations unrelated to imminent danger—such as managing media exposure, controlling access to Maxwell, or placing her in a facility better suited for isolation, monitoring, or long-term housing. Transfers framed as protective measures often coincide with moments when the government wants tighter control over an inmate’s environment, communications, or visibility rather than out of fear for their life. Seen through that lens, the timing of Maxwell’s relocation after her DOJ meeting may say less about threats against her and more about institutional risk management by the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Prisons. In short, the “safety” explanation remains unproven, untested, and entirely dependent on official silence—hardly a reassuring foundation for such a consequential move.



    to contact me:


    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
    Show More Show Less
    31 mins
  • Mega Edition: Les Wexner And His Decades Long At The Top Of The Heap In Ohio (12/23/25)

    Mega Edition: Les Wexner And His Decades Long At The Top Of The Heap In Ohio (12/23/25)
    Dec 23 2025
    Despite his deep and long-standing ties to Jeffrey Epstein, billionaire Les Wexner remains an almost untouchable figure in Columbus, Ohio—revered as a philanthropic titan and regional kingmaker. Wexner, the founder of L Brands and the man behind Victoria’s Secret, has wielded enormous influence over the city’s economic and cultural landscape for decades. From hospitals to art centers to Ohio State University, his name is etched into nearly every major institution, with donations totaling hundreds of millions. This civic dominance has insulated him from the level of scrutiny other Epstein-linked figures have received. In Columbus, Wexner is not just a businessman—he’s a legacy, a power broker whose wealth and prestige have bought loyalty, silence, or both.

    But beneath the surface, that reverence is increasingly uncomfortable. Epstein once held power of attorney over Wexner’s finances, lived in a Wexner-owned mansion, and was given an unusual level of control over Wexner’s personal and professional affairs—facts that have raised serious questions about just how much Wexner knew and when. Yet in Columbus, public officials and institutional leaders rarely speak of it. The media coverage is polite, the criticism muted, and the donor gratitude eternal. It’s as if the city made a conscious choice to separate Wexner the benefactor from Wexner the enabler, ignoring the fact that his empowerment of Epstein may have been a central piece of the larger abuse machinery. In any other city, he might be scrutinized. In Columbus, he’s still the king.


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

    https://www.columbusmonthly.com/story/lifestyle/features/2022/10/25/what-jeffrey-epstein-scandal-means-to-columbus-and-les-wexner/69589703007/
    Show More Show Less
    49 mins