New Mexico’s Truth Commission Demands Answers From U.S. Attorney’s Offices Tied to Epstein (6/22/26)

Andrew Windsor and the New Air Stewardess Allegation (6/22/26)

Andrew Windsor is facing another wave of damaging allegations, this time tied to claims from royal biographer Andrew Lownie’s updated book about the House of York. One of the central accusations involves an airline stewardess who allegedly said Andrew behaved inappropriately during a flight, grabbing or spinning her around before grinding against her. The accusation adds to the larger image of Andrew as someone who moved through elite spaces with entitlement, arrogance, and a sense that normal boundaries did not apply to him. Another alleged airplane incident involves Andrew on a British Airways flight to New York in 2010, where a flight attendant claimed he complained that his bottled water was too cold before putting it inside his trousers and joking that it would warm up there. The broader point is that these stories are being folded into the already ugly public narrative surrounding Andrew: his Epstein ties, his fall from royal duties, his repeated denials, and the long-running accusations that he treated people around him with contempt while protected by status, money, and the institution around him. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

New Mexico’s Truth Commission Demands Answers From U.S. Attorney’s Offices Tied to Epstein (6/22/26)

New Mexico’s Epstein Truth Commission has expanded its investigation well beyond Zorro Ranch by subpoenaing federal prosecutors’ offices in South Carolina, southern Florida, Michigan’s eastern and western districts, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The commission is looking for records showing whether those offices investigated Jeffrey Epstein, had information about his alleged crimes, and then declined to prosecute him. That matters because it pushes the inquiry past the familiar Florida non-prosecution deal with Alexander Acosta and into a broader question: how many offices, agencies, and officials had pieces of the Epstein puzzle and chose not to act? The South Carolina angle is part of that wider dragnet, not a standalone accusation that prosecutors there committed wrongdoing. According to Reuters, the new round of subpoenas brought the commission’s total to roughly 23, targeting law enforcement agencies, financial institutions, and other entities as New Mexico tries to identify people in power who may have known about Epstein’s abuse and looked away. The New Mexico DOJ is also running an active criminal investigation into Epstein-related activity in the state, including Zorro Ranch, and is asking the public for credible tips. For survivors, including Rachel Benavidez, the subpoenas represent another attempt to pierce the institutional silence that protected Epstein for years. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source: New Mexico targets Jeffrey Epstein investigations in SC [https://www.postandcourier.com/news/new-mexico-epstein-investigation-targets-records-from-south-carolina-2-other-states/article_94738f8e-1819-48a1-9cfb-86ea3f3eb26f.html]

Mega Edition: The Dumpster Fire Known As The BOP (6/22/26)

The failure to keep Jeffrey Epstein alive was not just a jailhouse screwup; it was a neon-lit indictment of the Bureau of Prisons as an institution. Epstein was one of the most high-profile federal detainees in the country, a man whose survival mattered to victims, investigators, the courts, and the public’s faith in the justice system. Yet the BOP managed to leave him effectively unprotected inside MCC New York, despite his prior incident in custody, despite the obvious stakes, and despite basic procedures that were supposed to prevent exactly this outcome. The DOJ Inspector General found failures involving his housing, supervision, required rounds, staff performance, and institutional follow-through, including the failure to ensure he had a cellmate and the failure of staff to carry out required responsibilities in the hours before his death. In other words, the agency did not merely drop the ball; it dropped the ball, kicked it into traffic, falsified the paperwork, and then asked the country to accept that this was just another unfortunate bureaucratic accident. That is why Epstein’s death personifies the absolute dumpster fire the BOP was and continues to be: an agency defined by understaffing, broken infrastructure, bad management, weak accountability, and a culture where catastrophic failures somehow become nobody’s fault in any meaningful way. The DOJ’s own watchdog has described federal corrections management as a long-running major challenge, with persistent problems including staffing shortages, deteriorating facilities, and contraband, while reporting around Epstein’s death tied his case to broader BOP failures rather than a single isolated lapse. And that is the real insult. If the BOP could not properly safeguard the most watched prisoner in America, inside one of the most scrutinized cases in modern history, then what chance does an ordinary prisoner have when nobody is watching, nobody is famous, and nobody in power is afraid of the consequences? Epstein’s death did not create the crisis of confidence around the BOP; it exposed it in the ugliest possible way. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Mega Edition: Paul Cassell's Deposition In Cassell/Edwards V. Dershowitz (Part 10-12) (6/21/26)

In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell’s deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz’s defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors’ allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein’s secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack. The deposition also addresses Dershowitz’s accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz’s narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified. to contact me: EFTA00594390.pdf [https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00594390.pdf]

Mega Edition: Paul Cassell's Deposition In Cassell/Edwards V. Dershowitz (Part 7-9) (6/21/26)

In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell’s deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz’s defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors’ allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein’s secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack. The deposition also addresses Dershowitz’s accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz’s narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified. to contact me: EFTA00594390.pdf [https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00594390.pdf]