The Royal Alibi That a Restaurant Took More Seriously Than Scotland Yard (7/7/26)

Lesley Groff And The Transcript From Her Epstein Related Trip to Congress (Part 10) (7/7/26)

Lesley Groff told the House Oversight Committee that she worked for Jeffrey Epstein from February 2001 until July 2019 as his secretary/administrative assistant, handling scheduling, calls, travel coordination, calendars, and staff logistics. Her central position was that Epstein kept her separated from his criminal life, that she never witnessed abuse, never had a victim disclose abuse to her, and did not knowingly help Epstein or Maxwell commit crimes. She described Epstein as a “master manipulator” who lied to her and kept his “legitimate” world apart from his abuse, while acknowledging that she scheduled massage appointments when Epstein provided names and numbers, sometimes circulated calendars that included those appointments early on, and understood the massages as routine at the time. She said she did not personally meet the massage providers, did not know they were minors or young women, and assumed they were masseuses, even though members pressed her on why an extremely wealthy man would use rotating names and phone numbers instead of a professional massage service. The questioning also focused heavily on Epstein’s network and whether Groff had knowledge of powerful men being provided access to girls or young women through Epstein or Maxwell. Groff repeatedly answered no when asked whether she had arranged massages for prominent figures, knew of sexual activity involving minors or young women, or knew of anyone who knowingly facilitated Epstein’s crimes. She acknowledged scheduling or connecting Epstein with high-profile contacts, including Prince Andrew, Ehud Barak, Larry Summers, George Mitchell, John Kerry, Wesley Clark, Bill Clinton-related circles, and Donald Trump phone calls, but denied arranging Trump travel during her employment and denied knowledge of Trump-related law enforcement communications. She also said she never suspected Epstein or Maxwell of working with any intelligence service. Overall, Groff’s testimony was defensive and narrow: she admitted to being part of the machinery that kept Epstein’s calendar and contacts moving, but insisted she never saw the criminal operation underneath it and never knowingly enabled it. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source:   Lesley-Groff-Transcript.pdf [https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Lesley-Groff-Transcript.pdf]

The Royal Alibi That a Restaurant Took More Seriously Than Scotland Yard (7/7/26)

Pizza Express carried out an internal inquiry into Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s infamous claim that he was at its Woking branch on March 10, 2001 — the same date Virginia Giuffre alleged she was sexually abused by him after being trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein. Andrew used the Woking visit during his 2019 BBC Newsnight interview as part of his denial, saying he had taken Princess Beatrice to a children’s party there and remembered it because going to Pizza Express in Woking was an unusual thing for him to do. According to the BBC’s reporting, Pizza Express checked what it could, including records and former staff, but found no evidence proving he had been there — and no evidence definitively proving he had not. BBC Newsnight also revisited the claim and found no record of anyone seeing Andrew at the restaurant that day. The BBC tried to get answers from the Metropolitan Police about whether royal protection officers had accompanied him, but the Met refused to confirm or deny whether it held relevant information, citing national security and protection issues. So the bottom line is brutal: one of Andrew’s most famous Epstein alibis remains unsupported by any clear public evidence, and the most visible attempt to test it appears to have come not from police producing a clean answer, but from Pizza Express itself trying to verify whether the former royal was ever actually in that Woking branch. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source: Pizza Express held inquiry into Andrew Mountbatten Windsor's Woking claim [https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1my27lyjx9o]

Epstein’s Offshore Bank: The Mystery of Southern Country International (7/7/26)

The Miami Herald reports that Jeffrey Epstein’s obscure U.S. Virgin Islands offshore bank, Southern Country International, suddenly became active in 2019 after years of dormancy, moving tens of millions of dollars shortly before and after his arrest and death. The bank reportedly had no employees, held under $500,000 for years, and then processed more than $20 million between April and early July 2019. After Epstein died in federal custody on August 10, 2019, another $25 million moved through the bank, including funds from unknown sources. Investigators later examined a $15 million transfer from Epstein’s Deutsche Bank account to Southern Country the day after his death, but the FBI closed the wire-fraud probe four years later without publicly explaining why. The story also lays out how Epstein obtained the offshore banking license in the first place, despite being a registered sex offender, and how Virgin Islands officials gave the bank unusual treatment, including waiving a requirement that it employ at least three people. The Herald notes that the bank may have been used in ways that violated territorial rules, because Southern Country was supposed to do business only with non-Virgin Islands people or companies, yet large transfers involved Epstein’s Southern Trust Company, which was based in the territory. Compliance officers at traditional banks later flagged suspicious activity, with TD Bank reportedly saying some account funding appeared designed to disguise Epstein as the source of the money. The result is another unanswered Epstein money trail: a bank created in a friendly offshore jurisdiction, largely dormant for years, suddenly moving huge sums around the exact moment the walls were closing in. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source: Questions surround Epstein’s USVI offshore bank activity | Miami Herald [https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/article316338915.html]

Mega Edition: Epstein Survivors Allege That Officials In The USVI Conspired With Epstein (7/7/26)

Epstein survivors and their attorneys have alleged that Jeffrey Epstein did not operate in the U.S. Virgin Islands as a lone predator hiding from the system, but as a wealthy, connected trafficker whose presence was tolerated, facilitated, and protected by people with power. In litigation and public filings, survivors have described Little St. James and Great St. James as isolated sites where young women and girls were abused, trafficked, controlled, and cut off from ordinary avenues of escape or help. The core allegation is that USVI officials, agencies, and politically connected figures either looked the other way, accepted Epstein’s money and influence, or helped create the conditions that allowed him to keep operating for years. The USVI’s own 2020 enforcement action against Epstein’s estate accused his network of using the islands to conceal trafficking activity and avoid detection, while later survivor criticism pushed the point further: that this was not merely institutional failure, but a pattern of access, favors, silence, and protection. The allegations have centered on the idea that Epstein embedded himself into the territory through money, jobs, political access, permits, business entities, tax advantages, and relationships with influential locals, making him more than just a rich landowner with a private island. Survivors have argued that the USVI environment gave Epstein unusual freedom: private islands, staff, boats, aircraft, local business structures, and officials who allegedly failed to meaningfully challenge what was happening in plain sight. While not every official has been accused of a crime, and many allegations remain contested, the outrage is that Epstein’s operation appears to have flourished in a place where too many people had reason to ask questions and too few people did. That is why survivors and critics frame the USVI piece of the Epstein story as more than geography; they see it as a case study in how elite money can bend a small jurisdiction around itself until abuse becomes protected by bureaucracy, influence, and silence. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Mega Edition: Jeffrey Epstein And The Video That Vanished (7/7/25)

After Jeffrey Epstein’s first reported suicide attempt at MCC New York in July 2019, one of the most important pieces of evidence should have been surveillance footage from outside the cell area where he was being held with former police officer Nicholas Tartaglione. That video mattered because Epstein reportedly told lawyers that Tartaglione had attacked him, while other accounts suggested Epstein may have harmed himself or staged something to get moved. Either way, the camera footage should have helped clarify what happened during one of the most consequential moments before Epstein’s death. Instead, when Tartaglione’s defense team sought the footage, prosecutors first indicated it had been preserved, only to later admit that the wrong video had been saved and that the relevant footage was gone. The explanation was that MCC staff had mistakenly preserved footage from the wrong tier, while the actual footage from outside Epstein’s cell had been overwritten by the jail’s surveillance system. That explanation has never satisfied critics because it lands in the middle of a case already defined by impossible coincidences, bureaucratic failures, and missing accountability. The public was asked to believe that, in one of the most scrutinized federal detainee situations in modern history, the Bureau of Prisons failed to preserve basic surveillance footage from the first major warning sign before Epstein died. Even worse, the loss of that footage did not produce a clear, public accounting that answered the obvious questions: who was responsible for preserving it, who checked whether the correct footage had been saved, why the mistake was not discovered sooner, and why no one appeared to face meaningful consequences for losing evidence tied to Epstein’s safety. The result is a vacuum where suspicion thrives, because the official explanation may describe a clerical or technical failure, but it does not rationally explain how the federal government mishandled evidence this important in a case this explosive. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com