Todd Blanche, the Epstein Files and the Survivors Left Behind (7/24/26)

The Brad Edwards Affidavit In Support Of Epstein Related Transparency (Part 6)

The affidavit submitted by attorney Bradley J. Edwards in the Southern District of Florida lays out a detailed argument for why the U.S. government should be compelled to produce documents related to the federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Edwards, representing Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, explains that the requested records are essential to proving that federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA) by secretly negotiating and finalizing Epstein’s 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement without notifying the victims. He asserts that internal DOJ communications, emails, memoranda, and investigative records would show what prosecutors knew, when they knew it, and how deliberate their decision was to exclude victims from the process despite clear statutory obligations. Edwards further argues that the government’s resistance to producing these materials undermines transparency and prevents the court from fully evaluating the extent of the misconduct. He emphasizes that the victims cannot meaningfully litigate their CVRA claims without access to evidence exclusively in the government’s possession, particularly records documenting decision-making within the U.S. Attorney’s Office and DOJ headquarters. The affidavit frames the document production not as a fishing expedition, but as a narrowly tailored request necessary to expose how Epstein was granted extraordinary leniency, how victims were intentionally misled, and how federal officials acted with impunity while shielding both Epstein and themselves from accountability. to contact me: bobbycacpucci@protonmail.com source: gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.265.1_1.pdf [https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.317867/gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.265.1_1.pdf]

Tyler Robinson's Motion to Halt Further Testing of Bullet Fragment (Part 2) (7/25/26)

Tyler Robinson’s defense asked Judge Tony Graf to immediately prohibit prosecutors and investigators from conducting any additional testing on a bullet-jacket fragment recovered during Charlie Kirk’s autopsy until the court resolves the dispute. The defense argued that further forensic work could permanently alter, consume, or destroy the fragment, preventing its experts from independently evaluating its condition and evidentiary value. Robinson’s attorneys requested that a defense firearms expert first be allowed to examine and photograph the fragment. As alternatives, they asked that their expert be permitted to observe any additional testing or that the entire process be video-recorded so the defense can later scrutinize exactly what was done. The motion was filed after an ATF examination was unable to conclusively identify the damaged bullet fragment as having been fired from the rifle attributed to Robinson. The result was inconclusive rather than an exclusion, meaning the fragment did not contain enough usable markings to either match it to or rule it out as having come from the rifle. With the FBI reportedly planning additional comparative and lead analysis, the defense maintained that basic fairness and Robinson’s right to challenge the prosecution’s evidence required preserving the fragment before potentially destructive testing occurred. The motion does not ask the judge to declare the evidence exculpatory; it seeks to ensure that the defense has a meaningful opportunity to inspect and document the evidence before its original condition is changed forever. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source: tyler-robinson-ballistics-motion.pdf [https://static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2026/04/tyler-robinson-ballistics-motion.pdf]

Tyler Robinson's Motion to Halt Further Testing of Bullet Fragment (Part 1) (7/25/26)

Tyler Robinson’s defense asked Judge Tony Graf to immediately prohibit prosecutors and investigators from conducting any additional testing on a bullet-jacket fragment recovered during Charlie Kirk’s autopsy until the court resolves the dispute. The defense argued that further forensic work could permanently alter, consume, or destroy the fragment, preventing its experts from independently evaluating its condition and evidentiary value. Robinson’s attorneys requested that a defense firearms expert first be allowed to examine and photograph the fragment. As alternatives, they asked that their expert be permitted to observe any additional testing or that the entire process be video-recorded so the defense can later scrutinize exactly what was done. The motion was filed after an ATF examination was unable to conclusively identify the damaged bullet fragment as having been fired from the rifle attributed to Robinson. The result was inconclusive rather than an exclusion, meaning the fragment did not contain enough usable markings to either match it to or rule it out as having come from the rifle. With the FBI reportedly planning additional comparative and lead analysis, the defense maintained that basic fairness and Robinson’s right to challenge the prosecution’s evidence required preserving the fragment before potentially destructive testing occurred. The motion does not ask the judge to declare the evidence exculpatory; it seeks to ensure that the defense has a meaningful opportunity to inspect and document the evidence before its original condition is changed forever. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source: tyler-robinson-ballistics-motion.pdf [https://static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2026/04/tyler-robinson-ballistics-motion.pdf]

Todd Blanche, the Epstein Files and the Survivors Left Behind (7/24/26)

Danielle Bensky argued that Todd Blanche is unfit to become attorney general because his handling of the Epstein files harmed survivors while doing little to expose or prosecute the people who enabled Epstein. She said the Justice Department released documents containing victims’ names, phone numbers, addresses and deeply personal details, even after survivors and their lawyers had identified information requiring protection. At the same time, she said the names of alleged abusers, facilitators and powerful Epstein associates remained heavily redacted. Bensky placed responsibility directly on Blanche, noting that former Attorney General Pam Bondi identified him as the official overseeing the document release. Bensky also accused Blanche of suppressing accountability by declaring there was insufficient evidence for additional prosecutions, despite survivor testimony and investigative leads contained in the files. She criticized him for refusing her repeated requests for a meeting for roughly nine months while spending nine hours interviewing Ghislaine Maxwell before Maxwell received a favorable prison transfer. According to Bensky, Blanche only hurriedly met with survivors after Republican Senator Thom Tillis threatened to withhold support for his confirmation, and the meeting offered no credible plan for further investigations or justice. She concluded that Blanche had treated survivors as political obstacles rather than crime victims and urged senators to reject his nomination. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source: I'm an Epstein survivor. Our Blanche meeting was a joke | Opinion [https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2026/07/23/epstein-files-todd-blanche-attorney-general-disqualified/90995254007/]

Alan Dershowitz Lawyers Allegedly Advised Him Against Appearing In Front Of Congress (7/24/26)

Alan Dershowitz had publicly declared that he was eager to appear before the House Oversight Committee, claiming he had “nothing to hide” and was prepared to answer questions under oath about Jeffrey Epstein. The committee sought his testimony because Dershowitz was a member of Epstein’s legal team, helped negotiate the extraordinarily lenient resolution of the Florida investigation and has repeatedly claimed to possess substantial information about Epstein and his associates. Dershowitz initially agreed to a videotaped, transcribed interview scheduled for July 20, 2026, but abruptly withdrew after his attorneys instructed him that he was not permitted to testify about the matters under investigation. Neither Dershowitz nor his lawyers publicly explained what legal issue supposedly prevented his appearance, despite repeated requests from congressional staff for clarification. Committee Chairman James Comer called the refusal unacceptable, contrasting Dershowitz’s withdrawal with his months of media appearances demanding transparency and volunteering to testify. Comer rescheduled the interview for September 2 and warned that the committee could subpoena Dershowitz if he refuses again, raising questions about why a man who repeatedly insisted he wanted to tell Congress everything suddenly retreated once an actual appearance was arranged. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source: Dershowitz Told By Attorneys He Cannot Legally Testify on Epstein Ties | News | The Harvard Crimson [https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2026/7/18/dershowitz-epstein-testimony/]