Episodios

  • Jeffrey Epstein And The Backdoor Relationship With Appleby

    Jeffrey Epstein And The Backdoor Relationship With Appleby
    Feb 12 2026
    Jeffrey Epstein’s relationship with Appleby, the elite offshore law firm based in Bermuda, sits squarely at the intersection of wealth concealment, legal engineering, and global secrecy. Appleby specialized in setting up and maintaining opaque offshore structures for ultra-high-net-worth clients, and Epstein used the firm to help manage a web of trusts, shell companies, and jurisdictions designed to obscure ownership, control, and financial flows. Through Appleby, Epstein accessed the same offshore infrastructure used by billionaires, multinational corporations, and politically exposed persons, reinforcing how thoroughly he was embedded in the professional enablers of the global financial system. This was not a case of a rogue client slipping through unnoticed; Epstein was exactly the type of client Appleby existed to serve. The relationship underscored how Epstein was able to operate internationally with minimal friction, moving money, assets, and influence across borders while remaining insulated from scrutiny. Appleby’s services provided Epstein with legitimacy, legal cover, and distance from accountability, even as allegations about his conduct were already circulating. The firm functioned as part of the invisible scaffolding that allowed Epstein’s empire to persist long after red flags were evident.


    The significance of Appleby’s involvement became clearer after the Paradise Papers leak, which exposed how the firm helped powerful clients structure offshore entities while maintaining plausible deniability. Epstein appeared within this ecosystem not as an anomaly, but as a familiar figure exploiting the same mechanisms used by global elites to shield assets and relationships from public view. Appleby’s role illustrates a broader pattern in the Epstein story: his crimes and influence were sustained not just by individuals, but by institutions willing to prioritize discretion, client service, and profit over ethical risk. The firm was not accused of participating in Epstein’s crimes, but its work undeniably helped preserve the financial architecture that supported his power. Without firms like Appleby, Epstein’s ability to function as a transnational operator, fixer, and financier would have been severely constrained. The Epstein-Appleby connection is a case study in how professional services firms act as force multipliers for abuse when accountability is treated as someone else’s problem. It is one more reminder that Epstein did not operate in the shadows alone; he operated inside a system that was built to protect people exactly like him.


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
    Más Menos
    1 h y 3 m
  • Pam Bondi Crashes Out During Her Congressional Hearing (2/12/26)

    Pam Bondi Crashes Out During Her Congressional Hearing (2/12/26)
    Feb 12 2026
    Yesterday’s Pam Bondi congressional hearing before the House Judiciary Committee utterly derailed into chaos as lawmakers — Republicans and Democrats alike — pressed her relentlessly over the Justice Department’s handling of the explosive Jeffrey Epstein files. Bondi faced sharp criticism for the department’s bungled release of millions of pages of documents, which included unredacted victims’ names and sensitive material while obscuring details about potential perpetrators, drawing outrage from survivors present in the hearing room. Rather than directly addressing these concerns or apologizing to victims, she repeatedly deflected, launching into partisan attacks, invoking unrelated topics such as the strength of the stock market, and fiercely defending President Trump’s record when pressed about investigations into high-profile figures linked to Epstein. Lawmakers — including some from her own party — condemned her evasiveness and lack of accountability, accusing her of dodging core questions about indictments, investigations, and protection of victims’ identities.


    The session rapidly deteriorated into a combative spectacle, with Bondi lashing out at Democrats with personal insults and shouting matches instead of sober legal explanations, at one point dismissing inquiries as “ridiculous” and railing against members she characterized as partisan adversaries. She refused to explicitly answer fundamental questions about whether the Department of Justice would investigate Epstein co-conspirators or remedy its redaction failures, opting instead to attack critics and pivot to broader political narratives that had little to do with the substance of the oversight. Survivors in attendance were visibly frustrated, and none indicated confidence that the DOJ under Bondi would support their pursuit of justice, underscoring the deepening controversy and a perception among many lawmakers that the attorney general’s performance was not just defensive but unmoored from the scrutiny she faced.



    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
    Más Menos
    12 m
  • Kleenex Boxes and Hidden Lenses: Inside Epstein’s Surveillance Web (2/12/26)

    Kleenex Boxes and Hidden Lenses: Inside Epstein’s Surveillance Web (2/12/26)
    Feb 12 2026
    Jeffrey Epstein relied heavily on his longtime pilot, Larry Visoski, to handle a range of logistical tasks that went far beyond simply flying his planes. According to court testimony and investigative reporting, Visoski purchased surveillance equipment at Epstein’s direction, including hidden cameras that were allegedly concealed inside everyday objects such as Kleenex boxes. The intent, as described in multiple civil proceedings tied to Epstein’s trafficking operation, was to quietly record activity inside his properties without alerting guests. These devices were reportedly placed in bedrooms and other private areas within residences like his Manhattan townhouse and Palm Beach estate, reinforcing long-standing allegations that Epstein used surveillance as leverage. The suggestion has been that Epstein treated information as currency—gathering compromising material on powerful visitors who passed through his homes. While Visoski has maintained that he was following orders and was unaware of criminal intent, his role in procuring equipment has drawn scrutiny as part of the broader enterprise. The existence of hidden recording devices has been cited by victims’ attorneys as evidence of a calculated, systematic operation rather than impulsive misconduct. It feeds into the larger portrait of Epstein as someone obsessed with control, secrecy, and insurance against exposure.


    The Kleenex-box concealment detail is particularly disturbing because it illustrates the deliberate effort to disguise surveillance in objects no one would question. This aligns with broader allegations that Epstein wired his properties with cameras positioned to capture intimate encounters. Survivors and investigators have long argued that Epstein’s power stemmed not just from wealth, but from the potential kompromat he could hold over influential figures. Although definitive proof of how any recordings were used remains limited in the public record, the pattern of hidden monitoring has become a recurring theme in lawsuits and depositions tied to his estate. Visoski himself was granted immunity in exchange for cooperation during certain proceedings, underscoring how deeply embedded staff members were in Epstein’s day-to-day operations. Ultimately, the surveillance allegations contribute to the image of Epstein not merely as a trafficker, but as an operator who understood the strategic value of secrets. The hidden cameras in Kleenex boxes symbolize the covert infrastructure that many believe underpinned his ability to maintain influence for so long.




    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:

    Epstein directed aide to obtain hidden video cameras | The Seattle Times
    Más Menos
    11 m
  • The Decoy Operation: How MCC Allegedly Misdirected the Media After Epstein’s Death (2/12/26)

    The Decoy Operation: How MCC Allegedly Misdirected the Media After Epstein’s Death (2/12/26)
    Feb 12 2026
    After Jeffrey Epstein’s apparent suicide in August 2019, newly unsealed internal documents allege that MCC staff staged a decoy to mislead reporters gathered outside the prison. According to the files, guards concerned about the intense media presence assembled what looked like a human body from boxes and sheets and placed it in a white medical examiner’s van. Reporters then followed that vehicle as it left the facility, while Epstein’s actual body was reportedly loaded into a separate black vehicle and driven away unnoticed. The documents suggest this tactic was intended to “thwart” the press and protect the privacy of the removal process amidst heavy public scrutiny.


    The material comes from a large tranche of records related to how prison staff responded in the hours after Epstein was found unresponsive in his cell and later pronounced dead. While the official ruling was suicide by hanging, Epstein’s death has been mired in controversy due to documented failures at the jail, including malfunctioning cameras and missed welfare checks, which have fueled speculation and alternative narratives. The “fake body” claim is part of that broader set of troubling details but has not been independently verified outside the reports in the released files.


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:

    Epstein jail guards used 'fake body' to trick media waiting outside the prison while paedophile's real corpse was loaded into van 'unnoticed', files claim | Daily Mail Online
    Más Menos
    12 m
  • Groomed at 14, Branded “Culpable” at 40: The Moral Collapse Behind Anna Paulina Luna’s Epstein Take (2/12/26)

    Groomed at 14, Branded “Culpable” at 40: The Moral Collapse Behind Anna Paulina Luna’s Epstein Take (2/12/26)
    Feb 12 2026
    In this episode, we’re taking a hard look at the narrative being pushed by Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna, who has suggested that some of the girls abused within Jeffrey Epstein’s trafficking network bear culpability themselves. We’re talking about minors—14, 15, 16 years old—who were groomed, manipulated, and conditioned to believe that what was happening to them was normal. The framing of her comments ignores the fundamental reality of grooming: that predators like Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell deliberately used psychological coercion, normalization, and dependency to control their victims. Instead of centering the adults who built and profited from the operation, this rhetoric shifts attention onto the very people who were targeted and exploited. It blurs the line between coerced minors and knowing adult facilitators, creating a narrative that risks rewriting victims as participants without acknowledging the power imbalance that defined the entire system.


    We break down why this kind of framing is not just controversial, but dangerous. Publicly branding abused minors as traffickers—without clear context about coercion, age, and grooming—can chill cooperation, fracture survivor communities, and redirect outrage away from the architects of the criminal enterprise. Real accountability starts with the adults who organized, financed, protected, and benefited from the abuse network—not the children who were conditioned inside it. The episode examines how language, timing, and political incentives shape public perception, and why shifting blame downward ultimately protects power at the top. At the center of this discussion is a simple question: who benefits when the focus moves from abusers to the abused?


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
    Más Menos
    19 m
  • Epstein Files Unsealed: Paul Cassell's Deposition In Cassell/Edwards V. Dershowitz (Part 8) (2/12/26)

    Epstein Files Unsealed: Paul Cassell's Deposition In Cassell/Edwards V. Dershowitz (Part 8) (2/12/26)
    Feb 12 2026
    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
    Más Menos
    14 m
  • Mega Edition: Jeffrey Epstein And His Brother Mark's Comments Post Epstein's Death (2/12/26)

    Mega Edition: Jeffrey Epstein And His Brother Mark's Comments Post Epstein's Death (2/12/26)
    Feb 12 2026
    Mark Epstein has repeatedly stated that he believes his brother, Jeffrey Epstein, was murdered and that the official narrative surrounding his death is deeply flawed. From the outset, Mark Epstein has questioned how a high-profile detainee on suicide watch could die under such extraordinary lapses in supervision, pointing to broken cameras, missing or incomplete footage, falsified or contradictory guard records, and shifting explanations from authorities. He has argued that these failures were not merely bureaucratic incompetence but systemic breakdowns so severe that they warrant suspicion of foul play rather than acceptance of a simple suicide conclusion.


    Beyond the circumstances of the death itself, Mark Epstein has also challenged the broader story told about his brother’s final days and legal exposure. He has said Jeffrey Epstein was in relatively good spirits, actively planning legal strategies, and expecting to pursue bail—conditions that, in his view, conflict with the portrayal of a man on the brink of suicide. Mark Epstein has further criticized the rush by officials to close the case, the absence of a transparent and adversarial investigation, and the reluctance to fully examine who benefited from Epstein’s death. Taken together, his claims amount to a direct rejection of the official account, asserting that the public has been given a simplified and misleading version of events that fails to explain glaring inconsistencies and unresolved questions.


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
    Más Menos
    45 m
  • Mega Edition: Dan Bongino Talked A Big Game Only To Fold When It Was Time To Produce (2/12/26)

    Mega Edition: Dan Bongino Talked A Big Game Only To Fold When It Was Time To Produce (2/12/26)
    Feb 12 2026
    For years, Dan Bongino built a reputation around loud, emphatic promises that he possessed explosive knowledge about Jeffrey Epstein, repeatedly telling audiences that the truth would eventually come out and that he knew where the bodies were buried. He positioned himself as someone with insider awareness, hinting at catastrophic revelations and suggesting that accountability was imminent if only the public waited. These claims helped drive attention, engagement, and credibility among listeners who believed Bongino was uniquely informed and prepared to expose powerful figures tied to Epstein’s crimes.

    In practice, however, those promises never materialized into concrete disclosures, documented evidence, or meaningful breakthroughs. Despite years of rhetoric, Bongino failed to deliver names, records, or verifiable reporting that advanced public understanding of the Epstein network beyond what was already known through court filings, investigative journalism, and victim testimony. As more primary documents have since emerged through litigation and records releases—without Bongino’s involvement—his earlier bravado has aged poorly, exposing a gap between his public posture and actual results. What remains is a case study in performative outrage: big talk that generated attention, but ultimately produced no accountability, no new facts, and no tangible contribution to unraveling the Epstein operation.


    to contact me:


    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
    Más Menos
    46 m