Sarah Kellen Testimony Puts Prince Andrew’s Palace Access Back Under Scrutiny (6/9/26)

Lesley Groff Faces Congress Over Her Role in Epstein’s Operation (6/9/26)

Lesley Groff, Jeffrey Epstein’s longtime executive assistant, is set to testify before the House Oversight and Reform Committee as lawmakers continue digging through Epstein-related records and questioning people who worked inside his operation. Groff worked for Epstein for nearly 20 years, from 2001 until his July 2019 arrest, and told the FBI in 2021 that she was hired after a headhunter described the position as a job to “organize one man’s life.” According to FBI notes cited in the report, her duties included scheduling meetings, making calls, coordinating with Epstein’s driver, chef, and other staff, and managing much of his daily calendar. Those same notes say massage appointments were a routine part of Epstein’s day, and Groff described booking them as just another scheduling task. Groff’s testimony matters because her name has long sat in one of the most contested parts of the Epstein record: the category of employees and associates who may have had knowledge of how the abuse network functioned. She was among the women identified as possible co-conspirators and granted immunity under Epstein’s controversial Florida non-prosecution agreement, though she has never been criminally charged and her lawyers have repeatedly denied that she knowingly participated in Epstein’s crimes. The Guardian also notes that an FBI document from 2019 listed Groff among possible co-conspirators, while her lawyer said she was never told law enforcement considered her one and was informed after voluntarily answering prosecutors’ questions that she would not be prosecuted. Survivors have accused her in civil litigation of helping facilitate abuse, but those claims against her were later dismissed, leaving her testimony as another key attempt by Congress to understand who inside Epstein’s operation knew what, when they knew it, and how much they helped keep the machine running. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source: Jeffrey Epstein assistant Lesley Groff set to testify before House panel | Jeffrey Epstein | The Guardian [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jun/09/jeffrey-epstein-assistant-lesley-groff-testifies]

Sarah Kellen Testimony Puts Prince Andrew’s Palace Access Back Under Scrutiny (6/9/26)

Sarah Kellen, Jeffrey Epstein’s former personal assistant, told the House Oversight Committee that she was brought into Prince Andrew’s orbit, including private dinners in Andrew’s Buckingham Palace apartment and Princess Beatrice’s 18th birthday party at Windsor Castle. Kellen identified Andrew and Sarah Ferguson as notable figures within Epstein’s network, saying Andrew had been at Epstein’s New York home and that she had also been present at royal residences connected to him. Andrew has denied wrongdoing, but the testimony adds another layer to the long-running scrutiny over how deeply Epstein and his associates were able to move through elite royal spaces. Kellen’s testimony is also significant because she occupies one of the most complicated positions in the Epstein story: she was named as a potential co-conspirator in Epstein’s 2008 plea deal, yet she has told authorities she was also groomed, controlled, and repeatedly raped by Epstein. She described Epstein as a manipulative and dangerous figure who used his access to powerful people around the world as a tool of intimidation, and she said the abuse continued even after he was jailed, including an alleged Skype call from prison in which he ordered her to undress on camera. Her account places Andrew’s palace access inside a broader pattern of Epstein using proximity to royalty, politicians, financiers, academics, and foreign leaders to project power and keep those around him trapped. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source: Epstein’s PA dined with Andrew in his Buckingham Palace rooms [https://www.thetimes.com/uk/royal-family/article/epsteins-pa-dined-with-andrew-buckingham-palace-mmp36stng]

Mega Edition: MCC Captain's Statement Detailing The Death Of Jeffrey Epstein (Part 8-10) (6/8/26)

This deposition comes from an unnamed captain at the Metropolitan Correctional Center and provides a detailed account of how Jeffrey Epstein was managed inside the facility, particularly in the Special Housing Unit. The captain describes Epstein’s status following his prior suicide incident, including the decision-making process around his housing, monitoring level, and classification. The testimony highlights that Epstein had previously been placed under suicide watch but was later removed from those heightened precautions, despite ongoing concerns about his mental state. It also addresses Epstein’s resistance to having a cellmate and the facility’s shifting responses to that issue, revealing a pattern where known risks were acknowledged but not consistently acted upon. The deposition also exposes broader operational failures within MCC, particularly regarding supervision, communication, and adherence to protocol. The captain’s account suggests that while staff were aware of Epstein’s vulnerability, the systems in place failed to ensure continuous and effective monitoring. Decisions around staffing, inmate placement, and observation procedures appear fragmented, with lapses that ultimately left Epstein in a position that contradicted earlier risk assessments. The testimony reinforces the larger picture of institutional breakdown, where responsibility was diffused across personnel and safeguards that should have been firmly in place were instead inconsistently applied. What makes this account difficult to accept at face value is how neatly it shifts the burden onto procedural gray areas rather than confronting the glaring contradictions in custody decisions. The captain’s testimony acknowledges that Epstein was a known suicide risk, had already experienced a prior incident, and required heightened oversight, yet still attempts to frame the subsequent downgrade in monitoring as routine or justified. That explanation strains credibility when measured against the totality of circumstances, particularly the repeated deviations from established suicide prevention protocols and the failure to enforce basic safeguards like consistent observation and appropriate cell assignments. Instead of clarifying responsibility, the deposition reads more like an exercise in institutional self-preservation—where systemic failures are reframed as isolated judgment calls, and accountability is diluted across layers of bureaucracy. In that context, the official narrative begins to look less like a coherent explanation and more like a patchwork defense designed to explain away decisions that, taken together, point to a breakdown that should never have occurred in a high-security federal facility. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source: EFTA00059973.pdf [https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00059973.pdf]

Mega Edition: MCC Captain's Statement Detailing The Death Of Jeffrey Epstein (Part 4-7) (6/8/26)

This deposition comes from an unnamed captain at the Metropolitan Correctional Center and provides a detailed account of how Jeffrey Epstein was managed inside the facility, particularly in the Special Housing Unit. The captain describes Epstein’s status following his prior suicide incident, including the decision-making process around his housing, monitoring level, and classification. The testimony highlights that Epstein had previously been placed under suicide watch but was later removed from those heightened precautions, despite ongoing concerns about his mental state. It also addresses Epstein’s resistance to having a cellmate and the facility’s shifting responses to that issue, revealing a pattern where known risks were acknowledged but not consistently acted upon. The deposition also exposes broader operational failures within MCC, particularly regarding supervision, communication, and adherence to protocol. The captain’s account suggests that while staff were aware of Epstein’s vulnerability, the systems in place failed to ensure continuous and effective monitoring. Decisions around staffing, inmate placement, and observation procedures appear fragmented, with lapses that ultimately left Epstein in a position that contradicted earlier risk assessments. The testimony reinforces the larger picture of institutional breakdown, where responsibility was diffused across personnel and safeguards that should have been firmly in place were instead inconsistently applied. What makes this account difficult to accept at face value is how neatly it shifts the burden onto procedural gray areas rather than confronting the glaring contradictions in custody decisions. The captain’s testimony acknowledges that Epstein was a known suicide risk, had already experienced a prior incident, and required heightened oversight, yet still attempts to frame the subsequent downgrade in monitoring as routine or justified. That explanation strains credibility when measured against the totality of circumstances, particularly the repeated deviations from established suicide prevention protocols and the failure to enforce basic safeguards like consistent observation and appropriate cell assignments. Instead of clarifying responsibility, the deposition reads more like an exercise in institutional self-preservation—where systemic failures are reframed as isolated judgment calls, and accountability is diluted across layers of bureaucracy. In that context, the official narrative begins to look less like a coherent explanation and more like a patchwork defense designed to explain away decisions that, taken together, point to a breakdown that should never have occurred in a high-security federal facility. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source: EFTA00059973.pdf [https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00059973.pdf]

Mega Edition: MCC Captain's Statement Detailing The Death Of Jeffrey Epstein (Part 1-3) (6/8/26)

This deposition comes from an unnamed captain at the Metropolitan Correctional Center and provides a detailed account of how Jeffrey Epstein was managed inside the facility, particularly in the Special Housing Unit. The captain describes Epstein’s status following his prior suicide incident, including the decision-making process around his housing, monitoring level, and classification. The testimony highlights that Epstein had previously been placed under suicide watch but was later removed from those heightened precautions, despite ongoing concerns about his mental state. It also addresses Epstein’s resistance to having a cellmate and the facility’s shifting responses to that issue, revealing a pattern where known risks were acknowledged but not consistently acted upon. The deposition also exposes broader operational failures within MCC, particularly regarding supervision, communication, and adherence to protocol. The captain’s account suggests that while staff were aware of Epstein’s vulnerability, the systems in place failed to ensure continuous and effective monitoring. Decisions around staffing, inmate placement, and observation procedures appear fragmented, with lapses that ultimately left Epstein in a position that contradicted earlier risk assessments. The testimony reinforces the larger picture of institutional breakdown, where responsibility was diffused across personnel and safeguards that should have been firmly in place were instead inconsistently applied. What makes this account difficult to accept at face value is how neatly it shifts the burden onto procedural gray areas rather than confronting the glaring contradictions in custody decisions. The captain’s testimony acknowledges that Epstein was a known suicide risk, had already experienced a prior incident, and required heightened oversight, yet still attempts to frame the subsequent downgrade in monitoring as routine or justified. That explanation strains credibility when measured against the totality of circumstances, particularly the repeated deviations from established suicide prevention protocols and the failure to enforce basic safeguards like consistent observation and appropriate cell assignments. Instead of clarifying responsibility, the deposition reads more like an exercise in institutional self-preservation—where systemic failures are reframed as isolated judgment calls, and accountability is diluted across layers of bureaucracy. In that context, the official narrative begins to look less like a coherent explanation and more like a patchwork defense designed to explain away decisions that, taken together, point to a breakdown that should never have occurred in a high-security federal facility. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source: EFTA00059973.pdf [https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00059973.pdf]