Mega Edition: The DOJ Has Been Giving The Epstein Survivors The Run Around For Years (6/25/26)

The Great Epstein Runaround: Hearings, Transcripts, and Institutional Fog (6/25/26)

Ghislaine Maxwell remained publicly loyal to Prince Andrew throughout the collapse of Jeffrey Epstein’s network and the scrutiny that followed. She helped facilitate Andrew’s access to Epstein’s social circle, hosted him at her London home and was present during key periods later examined by journalists, investigators and civil litigants. Even after Epstein’s 2008 conviction, Maxwell continued moving within overlapping social circles connected to Andrew, and she never publicly turned against him as allegations mounted. During her own legal troubles, she avoided offering any public account that would implicate Andrew or clarify disputed episodes involving him, Epstein and Virginia Giuffre. That loyalty continued after Maxwell’s conviction. In interviews and statements from prison, she defended Andrew’s character, questioned the authenticity of the photograph showing him with Giuffre and Maxwell, and described him in sympathetic terms rather than distancing herself from him. She has never publicly accused Andrew of wrongdoing, never portrayed him as part of Epstein’s abuse operation and never provided the kind of detailed testimony that might have placed greater pressure on him. Whatever Maxwell may know about Andrew’s relationship with Epstein, her public position has remained consistent: protect the friendship, challenge the evidence against him and refuse to become a witness against him. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Mega Edition: Mark Epstein, Ian Maxwell And Their Opinion Of The Official Narrative (6/25/26)

Ian Maxwell and Mark Epstein have both become loud, persistent critics of the official Epstein-Maxwell process, though from different angles and with obvious family interests at stake. Ian Maxwell has argued that Ghislaine was turned into a convenient stand-in for Epstein after Epstein died before trial, claiming her trial was flawed, that she was scapegoated, and that the government used her conviction to create the appearance of accountability while leaving the broader network untouched. He has defended her refusal to answer congressional questions by saying she had already answered hundreds of questions during a DOJ interview with Todd Blanche, and he has continued pushing the idea that her conviction and sentence should be overturned or reduced. Mark Epstein has attacked the process from the other side, focusing on Jeffrey Epstein’s death in federal custody and the government’s explanation afterward. He has repeatedly rejected the DOJ inspector general’s conclusion that Epstein died by suicide, demanded a new investigation, questioned the autopsy, the jail video, the missing or disputed footage, the handling of evidence, and the speed with which officials closed ranks around the suicide ruling. Whether one accepts his claims or not, Mark has become one of the most vocal critics of the official story, arguing that the government has hidden information and that the public has been fed a managed narrative instead of a transparent accounting. Together, Ian and Mark represent two family-driven attacks on the same system: one saying Maxwell was used as a scapegoat, the other saying Epstein’s death was covered up, and both insisting that the real truth has been buried behind procedure, secrecy, and institutional self-protection. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Mega Edition: The DOJ Has Been Giving The Epstein Survivors The Run Around For Years (6/25/26)

For decades, Epstein survivors have been pushed from one locked door to another by the very institutions that were supposed to protect them. In Florida, federal prosecutors built a serious case, then cut a secret non-prosecution agreement with Epstein in 2007–2008 without properly notifying or conferring with the victims, leaving them to discover after the fact that the government had already bargained away meaningful federal accountability. Courts later recognized that prosecutors misled victims, and the Justice Department’s own Office of Professional Responsibility admitted the survivors were not treated with the “forthrightness and sensitivity” expected by the Department, yet the system still found ways to deny them a real remedy. Courtney Wild and others fought for years under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, only to be told that because no formal federal charges had been filed at the time of the secret deal, they had limited ability to enforce the rights the law was supposedly written to guarantee. That pattern never really ended: delay, concealment, partial disclosure, procedural excuses, and then a public-relations promise that accountability was just around the corner. Epstein died in federal custody in 2019 before trial, wiping out the criminal case against him personally and forcing survivors to chase justice through civil litigation, Maxwell’s prosecution, congressional hearings, document releases, and endless demands for transparency. Even the later “Epstein files” process became another source of anger, with survivors and their lawyers complaining that the government exposed sensitive victim information while still shielding powerful names and key investigative details; the DOJ’s handling of those releases has since drawn oversight and an inspector general audit. So the runaround is not one single failure — it is the whole architecture of the case: survivors were ignored when the deal was made, sidelined when they challenged it, retraumatized when records were mishandled, and repeatedly told to trust the same government that had already failed them. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Mega Edition: Andrew Windsor, The Prince Of Nonces (6/24/26)

Prince Andrew has become one of the most radioactive public figures in modern royal history, and the labels attached to him reflect just how completely his image has collapsed. He has been called arrogant, entitled, spoiled, sleazy, reckless, protected, disgraceful, and out of touch, but the most brutal label thrown at him in Britain has been “nonce,” a slang term used to accuse someone of being a sexual predator, especially toward minors. That word has followed him because of his long association with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, his disastrous public explanations, the Virginia Giuffre allegations, and the perception that he was shielded for years by royal status instead of being held to the same scrutiny as an ordinary person. The power of those labels is not just insult; it is public judgment. Andrew has denied wrongdoing, and allegations are not the same thing as a conviction, but the damage to his reputation has been overwhelming because the public sees a pattern of proximity to abusers, evasive answers, institutional protection, and zero believable accountability. To many people, “nonce” became shorthand for everything they believe the palace tried to manage away: the Epstein friendship, the Maxwell connection, the infamous interview, the settlement, and the sense that elite men are allowed to float above consequences until public outrage becomes too loud to ignore. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Virginia Roberts Giuffre’s Deposition in Edwards and Cassell v. Alan Dershowitz (Part 4)

The videotaped deposition of Virginia Roberts Giuffre taken on January 16, 2016, in Fort Lauderdale sits at the center of the bitter legal war between Epstein survivors’ attorneys Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell and Alan Dershowitz, who was accused by Giuffre of sexually abusing her when she was a minor trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein. In the deposition, Giuffre gives a detailed, sworn narrative of how she was recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell, groomed, trafficked to powerful men, and moved across multiple jurisdictions while still underage. She identifies Epstein’s residences, flight patterns, intermediaries, and specific encounters, placing her allegations firmly inside the broader trafficking structure rather than as isolated claims. The testimony was preserved on video precisely because her lawyers anticipated that credibility, consistency, and demeanor would become central issues in the defamation battle that followed. It also captured Giuffre under oath before years of public pressure, media narratives, and evolving legal strategies could reshape the record. What made this deposition legally explosive was its direct role in the defamation and civil litigation between Dershowitz and the Edwards–Cassell team, after Giuffre publicly accused Dershowitz and he responded with an aggressive campaign claiming she had fabricated the allegations and falsely implicated him. The video became a critical piece of evidence in determining whether Giuffre’s statements were knowingly false or grounded in a consistent trafficking account supported by contemporaneous detail. Dershowitz’s lawyers later argued that contradictions, memory gaps, and timeline disputes undermined her credibility, while Giuffre’s side pointed to the overall coherence of her narrative and the corroborating travel and contact records emerging in parallel cases. Long before the unsealing battles and public reckonings, this deposition quietly locked in one of the earliest comprehensive sworn accounts of Epstein’s trafficking network—and the legal fault line that would later fracture the reputations of some of the most powerful lawyers and institutions tied to the case. to  contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source: 1257-12.pdf [https://www.justice.gov/multimedia/Court%20Records/Giuffre%20v.%20Maxwell,%20No.%20115-cv-07433%20(S.D.N.Y.%202015)/1257-12.pdf]