From Donor Lodge to Demolition Site: Interlochen’s Epstein Problem (5/28/26)

James Fine, Karyna Shuliak, and Columbia Dental’s Epstein Problem (6/3/26)

Dr. James Fine, a longtime Columbia College of Dental Medicine administrator, is set to leave his post after newly scrutinized records showed he twice helped Karyna Shuliak, Jeffrey Epstein’s former girlfriend, gain entry into Columbia dental programs. The first instance involved her admission into the dental school after she had initially been rejected, during a period when Epstein was being courted as a potential major donor. The second involved Fine later recommending Shuliak for a postdoctoral program. The controversy grew because Columbia had already taken action against other dental school figures tied to Epstein-related admissions and fundraising questions, while Fine had remained in place despite documents showing his role in both episodes. The deeper issue is not merely one administrator leaving a university job; it is the pattern of elite institutions bending, softening, or bypassing normal procedures when Jeffrey Epstein’s money, access, or influence entered the room. Columbia has said Shuliak herself has not been found responsible for wrongdoing, but the admissions trail raises serious questions about who inside the school helped Epstein, why normal standards appeared to shift, and why accountability arrived only after documents forced the issue into public view. Fine’s exit adds another name to the fallout, but it also reinforces the larger Epstein pattern: powerful institutions only seem to discover their ethical backbone after the emails, donations, and internal favors become impossible to ignore. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source: College of Dental Medicine administrator who twice aided Epstein’s girlfriend’s admission to exit post [https://www.columbiaspectator.com/main/2026/05/30/college-of-dental-medicine-administrator-who-twice-aided-epsteins-girlfriends-admission-to-exit-post/]

Mega Edition: Les Wexner And The Epstein Related Q&A Session With Congress (6/3/26)

Les Wexner’s Epstein-related deposition landed less like a breakthrough and more like another controlled pass through already familiar terrain: Wexner said Epstein conned him, denied knowing anything about Epstein’s sex trafficking, denied participating in abuse, and tried to frame the relationship as professional rather than personal. He described Epstein as a family-office figure who managed parts of his financial life, claimed Epstein stole from him, said he never saw warning signs, and insisted that after Epstein’s 2008 guilty plea, Epstein was essentially “dead” to him. The questioning did force Wexner to address uncomfortable details — the birthday-book message signed “your friend Leslie,” photos of him with Epstein, a visit to Epstein’s island, Epstein’s role around New Albany, and the question of how much money Epstein may have taken — but Wexner’s answers largely stayed inside the same defensive box: he was deceived, he did not know, he does not remember, and Epstein was a criminal predator whose full operation escaped him. The problem is that the process did not appear to substantially move the ball. It produced optics, denials, memory gaps, and a few headline-friendly moments, but very little that fundamentally changed the public record. The public already knew Wexner was one of Epstein’s most important early patrons, that Epstein had unusual access to his money and world, that the relationship helped give Epstein social credibility, and that Wexner has long claimed he was betrayed and financially exploited. What the deposition added was texture, not revelation: Wexner’s own tone, his repeated distancing, his admission about the birthday note, his “con man” framing, and his inability or unwillingness to nail down key specifics. In that sense, the interview reinforced the larger frustration with the Epstein inquiry machine: powerful people are questioned, transcripts and videos are released, everyone gets a day of headlines, but the public still comes away with the same core unanswered questions about who enabled Epstein, who protected him, who benefited from him, and why the system let him operate for so long. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Mega Edition: The Psychological Reconstruction Of The Events Leading To The Death of Epstein (6/2/26)

In the memorandum responding to the psychological reconstruction of inmate Jeffrey Epstein dated September 17, 2019, MCC New York Warden J. Petrucci addressed findings related to Epstein’s mental state and the events leading up to his death while housed in the Special Housing Unit. The response reviewed Epstein’s custody status, the decision to remove him from suicide watch, and the psychological assessments conducted by staff prior to his death. According to the institutional response, medical and psychological personnel had evaluated Epstein after an earlier incident in July 2019 and later determined that he did not meet the criteria to remain on suicide watch. Instead, he was placed under psychological observation, which carried fewer monitoring requirements than full suicide watch. The memorandum emphasized that clinical staff believed Epstein was stable enough to be removed from the more restrictive monitoring status and that the decision was based on the professional judgment of mental health personnel following their evaluation. Petrucci’s response also addressed operational procedures within the Special Housing Unit and how those procedures were supposed to function during Epstein’s detention. The memorandum stated that once Epstein was removed from suicide watch, responsibility for routine monitoring shifted back to standard correctional procedures, including regular counts and welfare checks conducted by correctional officers. The response acknowledged that those required checks were not properly carried out during the overnight shift preceding Epstein’s death and that logbook entries later proved to be inaccurate. While the psychological reconstruction attempted to analyze Epstein’s mental condition and possible motivations, the institutional response focused on clarifying the decisions made by staff and explaining the custody status under which Epstein was being housed at the time. The memorandum ultimately framed the removal from suicide watch as a clinical decision made by mental health professionals, while noting that subsequent failures in required monitoring procedures occurred during the final hours before Epstein was found unresponsive in his cell. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source: EFTA00048963.pdf [https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00048963.pdf]

Mega Edition: Jeffrey Epstein And The Many Mysterious Deaths Around Him (6/2/26)

Jeffrey Epstein’s death inside a Manhattan jail cell in 2019 ignited a chain of suspicion that has never faded, morphing into a narrative where suicide is never just suicide. From Epstein himself to Jean-Luc Brunel in Paris, to former White House aide Mark Middleton in Arkansas, to Deutsche Bank executives and even Ghislaine Maxwell’s father decades earlier, each sudden death has been folded into a larger pattern. Official rulings of suicide or accident are met with disbelief, because the timing always feels too convenient, the circumstances too strange, and the institutions overseeing these figures too compromised. Together, these deaths form more than a morbid list—they’ve become symbols of systemic failure. Each one robs survivors of testimony, erases potential evidence, and reinforces the belief that the powerful never face full accountability. Whether by incompetence, coincidence, or conspiracy, the effect is the same: witnesses vanish, truth is buried, and public trust corrodes. In the shadow of Epstein, bizarre suicides are no longer personal tragedies—they are the story itself, a grim reminder that justice often dies before it can be delivered. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The Archives: Richard Branson And His Alleged Friendship With Jeffrey Epstein

The alleged relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and Richard Branson appears to fall into two separate categories: documented social or philanthropic contact, and far more explosive allegations made by Epstein survivor Sarah Ransome. On the documented side, Branson and Epstein were reportedly in contact around charitable and social circles, including Epstein’s attendance at events connected to Branson’s Necker Island orbit and a proposed charitable donation. Reporting based on released Epstein-related records says Epstein offered money connected to Branson-linked philanthropy, but Virgin has said it declined Epstein’s money after due diligence uncovered the seriousness of his 2008 sex-offense conviction. A separate donation was reportedly redirected to WildAid, a conservation charity linked to Branson’s broader philanthropic world, while Virgin has maintained that it did not accept funds from Epstein and that Branson and his wife cut contact after learning more about Epstein’s background. Virgin’s position has been that any contact with Epstein was limited and ended after due diligence raised concerns about his 2008 sex-offense conviction. A donation associated with Epstein was reportedly redirected elsewhere, including to WildAid, a conservation charity connected to Branson’s philanthropic interests, rather than being accepted by Virgin. There is no public record showing Branson was charged with any Epstein-related crime, and the available reporting frames the connection as one of elite social access and attempted philanthropic proximity rather than proof of direct involvement in Epstein’s trafficking operation. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com