Episodios

  • In Their Own Words: "MJ" Doe 's Allegations Made Against Jeffrey Epstein (Part 1)

    In Their Own Words: "MJ" Doe 's Allegations Made Against Jeffrey Epstein (Part 1)
    Feb 9 2026
    The document MJ v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 9:10-cv-81111-WPD, filed on September 17, 2010 in the Southern District of Florida, involves a civil lawsuit brought by a plaintiff identified as “MJ” against Jeffrey Epstein. According to publicly available summaries of this and similar filings from the same time period, MJ was a minor at the time of the alleged abuse. The complaint accuses Epstein of sexually abusing and trafficking MJ while exploiting his wealth and power to silence and control her. MJ alleged that Epstein engaged in a pattern of recruiting underage girls under the guise of offering them money for massages, only for the encounters to turn sexually exploitative. The suit contends that Epstein used his Palm Beach residence as a base for this operation and that he was enabled by associates who helped him procure and manipulate the victims.

    The complaint further claims that Epstein committed multiple violations of federal and state laws, including sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of civil rights statutes protecting minors. MJ's legal team argued that the long-term psychological damage from Epstein’s abuse warranted significant compensatory and punitive damages. The case forms part of a broader group of lawsuits filed by various women against Epstein around that time, many of whom described nearly identical patterns of abuse. These cases contributed to the growing body of evidence surrounding Epstein’s trafficking network long before his 2019 arrest and death.









    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:

    gov.uscourts.flsd.365238.1.0.pdf
    Más Menos
    12 m
  • Epstein Files Unsealed: Paul Cassell's Deposition In Cassell/Edwards V. Dershowitz (Part 5) (2/9/26)

    Epstein Files Unsealed: Paul Cassell's Deposition In Cassell/Edwards V. Dershowitz (Part 5) (2/9/26)
    Feb 9 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
  • All Questions, No Answers: Ghislaine Maxwell And Her Deposition Before Congress (2/9/26)

    All Questions, No Answers: Ghislaine Maxwell And Her Deposition Before Congress (2/9/26)
    Feb 9 2026
    Today, convicted sex-trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell is scheduled to sit for a deposition before the U.S. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee as part of Congress’s ongoing investigation into the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein and his network. Lawmakers have arranged for Maxwell to appear—likely by videolink from prison—to answer questions about her role in Epstein’s operations, her connections with powerful individuals, and related matters that have come to light after the release of millions of federal documents linked to the Epstein case. Committee members, including Representative Ro Khanna, outlined specific questions they intend to ask, spanning alleged co-conspirators, unindicted individuals, and high-profile figures with ties to Epstein’s world.

    However, Maxwell’s legal team has made clear she intends to invoke her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and will refuse to answer substantive questions during this deposition, effectively pleading the Fifth throughout the session rather than provide testimony. According to lawmakers, Maxwell plans to read a prepared statement at the outset and then decline to respond to individual inquiries—citing her constitutional privilege and concerns about jeopardizing ongoing legal matters, including a habeas petition challenging her conviction. This strategy means Congress may not get direct answers from her today, even as it pursues broader scrutiny of Epstein’s activities and associations.


    to contact me:


    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:

    Ghislaine Maxwell is set to plead the fifth as she appears before the US Congress board investigating Jeffrey Epstein today | Daily Mail Online
    Más Menos
    15 m
  • Someone Went Up the Stairs the Night Epstein Died—So Why Were We Told No One Did? (2/9/26)

    Someone Went Up the Stairs the Night Epstein Died—So Why Were We Told No One Did? (2/9/26)
    Feb 9 2026
    Newly released Department of Justice documents from the ongoing Epstein Files review include surveillance logs that appear to contradict parts of the official narrative of Jeffrey Epstein’s death in 2019. The logs describe an orange-colored figure moving up a staircase toward Epstein’s locked housing tier at the Metropolitan Correctional Center late on the evening before his death, around 10:39 p.m. That movement—possibly an inmate or corrections officer carrying linen—was logged differently by the FBI and the DOJ’s inspector general, and was not mentioned in earlier official accounts that asserted no one entered the tier that night. Experts reviewing the camera footage say the single working camera angle was limited, leaving uncertainty about whether someone could have approached the tier unnoticed, even as past statements from officials like former Attorney General Bill Barr maintained there were no additional entries.

    The newly released files also include interviews with prison staff and logs showing procedural failures on the night Epstein died, such as missed wellness checks and inconsistent inmate counts. The discrepancies between the surveillance observations and prior public claims have fueled fresh questions about the events surrounding his death, which was officially ruled a suicide. Though no new definitive evidence of foul play has been established, the details in the video logs and related records have underscored gaps and contradictions in the historical record of what happened inside the jail that night.


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com




    source:

    Who entered Epstein's jail tier the night of his death? Newly released video logs appear to contradict official accounts. - CBS News
    Más Menos
    21 m
  • Caught in Black and White: How Epstein Emails Expose Howard Lutnick’s Lies (2/9/26)

    Caught in Black and White: How Epstein Emails Expose Howard Lutnick’s Lies (2/9/26)
    Feb 9 2026
    In the newly released tranche of the Epstein files—millions of internal emails and documents made public by the U.S. Department of Justice—correspondence involving Howard Lutnick has revealed details that contradict his long-held public statements about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Lutnick had repeatedly claimed that he and his wife cut ties with Epstein around 2005 and that he had “limited interactions” with the disgraced financier, even saying at one point that he would “never be in a room” with him again after a weird encounter as neighbors in New York. However, the newly disclosed emails show that in 2012, years after Epstein’s conviction on sex offense charges, Lutnick and his family actually planned and carried out a visit to Epstein’s private Caribbean island, Little Saint James, agreeing to lunch with him there and coordinating logistics via email. Other messages show continued email contact into 2017 and references to Epstein contributing to a charitable dinner associated with Lutnick, undermining his repeated assertions that he had cut all contact decades earlier.

    These revelations have significantly weakened Lutnick’s credibility on this issue because they directly contradict his public narrative of distancing himself from Epstein after 2005. Instead of “limited interactions,” the emails indicate ongoing contact and social engagement well into the 2010s, including family travel arrangements and personal communication long after Epstein’s criminal conduct was widely known. When confronted with these files, Lutnick’s office has downplayed the interactions and reiterated that he was never accused of wrongdoing, but the factual email trail—showing lunches, island visits, and cordial correspondence—stands in stark contrast to his earlier statements of severance and minimal contact, raising questions about why he misrepresented the extent of his relationship.



    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:

    Lutnick and Epstein were in business together, Epstein files show - CBS News
    Más Menos
    12 m
  • Mark Epstein Says His Brother Was Murdered And He Thinks Trump Is Responsible (2/9/26)

    Mark Epstein Says His Brother Was Murdered And He Thinks Trump Is Responsible (2/9/26)
    Feb 9 2026
    Mark Epstein has consistently stated that he does not believe his brother, Jeffrey Epstein, died by suicide and has instead argued that he was murdered while in federal custody. From the beginning, Mark has pointed to what he sees as glaring irregularities in the circumstances of Jeffrey Epstein’s death, including the failure of jail staff to properly monitor him, the broken or unusable surveillance cameras, and the rapid rush by authorities to declare the death a suicide. He has said these failures go far beyond ordinary negligence and suggest, at minimum, a system that allowed Epstein to die when powerful interests may have preferred him silent. Mark has emphasized that his brother had recently been taken off suicide watch and, in his view, showed no signs consistent with an imminent suicide at that moment. He has repeatedly framed these facts as incompatible with the official narrative offered by the Bureau of Prisons and the DOJ.


    Mark Epstein has also cited medical and forensic concerns to support his belief that his brother was killed. He has publicly referenced findings from the autopsy that noted fractures in Jeffrey Epstein’s neck bones, arguing that these injuries are more commonly associated with strangulation than with hanging. Mark has said that the refusal of authorities to seriously address these findings, combined with the lack of accountability for the jail failures, reinforces his suspicion of foul play. He has further argued that Jeffrey Epstein was uniquely dangerous to powerful people because of what he knew, and that his death conveniently prevented testimony, cooperation, or further exposure of co-conspirators. For Mark Epstein, the issue is not just personal grief but what he describes as a profound failure of justice, where unanswered questions have been buried rather than investigated with the seriousness such a death demands.



    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:

    Trump accused of role in Epstein’s death in explosive email sent to FBI, documents reveal | The Independent
    Más Menos
    12 m
  • Mega Edition: Is The Epstein Investigation Genuine Or Another Attempt To Bury The Truth? (2/9/26)

    Mega Edition: Is The Epstein Investigation Genuine Or Another Attempt To Bury The Truth? (2/9/26)
    Feb 9 2026
    The controversy surrounding the Epstein files has intensified following President Trump’s public directive calling on Attorney General Pam Bondi and the Department of Justice to launch a new investigation into Jeffrey Epstein’s associations—specifically targeting political opponents and several high-profile figures in finance and technology. The timing of this announcement is drawing significant scrutiny, arriving just months after the DOJ and FBI publicly stated that they had already conducted a comprehensive review of all Epstein-related materials, including more than 300 gigabytes of digital evidence, and concluded there was no basis to open any further criminal inquiries. That review asserted that the majority of evidence remained sealed primarily to protect victims and that there was no credible evidence of an Epstein “client list” or coordinated blackmail operation. Critics argue that the sudden reversal raises red flags about political motivations rather than new facts, particularly as Congress moves forward with a discharge petition intended to force the release of unredacted Epstein records to the public.

    Legal scholars and government accountability watchdogs warn that labeling this sudden initiative an “ongoing investigation” could be used to halt congressional access to Epstein-related records and effectively freeze public disclosure for months or even years. Under DOJ policy, active investigations allow the government to withhold documents that would otherwise be subject to subpoenas or release mandates, raising concerns that the move could function as a procedural shield rather than a legitimate inquiry. Critics argue that invoking investigative privilege at this moment—after years of limited transparency and repeated failures to hold institutions accountable—risks undermining public trust in the justice system and may set a dangerous precedent in which politically motivated probes are used to obstruct oversight. With bipartisan pressure continuing to build around the discharge petition seeking full release of the Epstein files, the coming weeks will test whether Congress can assert its authority or whether the executive branch can successfully deploy legal mechanisms to re-seal evidence and control the narrative around one of the most consequential criminal scandals in modern American history.


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
    Más Menos
    1 h y 5 m