Episodios

  • Mega Edition: Jeffrey Epstein And The Homicidal Maniac He Was Celled Up With (12/27/25)

    Mega Edition: Jeffrey Epstein And The Homicidal Maniac He Was Celled Up With (12/27/25)
    Dec 28 2025
    Putting Nicholas Tartaglione—a former cop facing a serious violent case—into the same cell as Jeffrey Epstein has always looked like a decision that begs for more explanation than the system ever really gave. The official framing leans on routine housing pressures and standard placement decisions at MCC, but that’s hard to square with Epstein’s status as the most high-profile detainee in the building, under intense scrutiny, with known safety and suicide-risk concerns. What makes it even messier is that after Epstein was found injured in his cell, internal documentation reflects that Epstein told staff his cellmate tried to kill him—a claim that directly contradicts any “nothing to see here” tone about the housing choice. Even if officials later described the episode as murky, disputed, or consistent with self-harm, the fact remains: the inmate at the center of the most sensitive federal custody situation in America ended up in a cell with a man the public would never describe as “low-risk,” and then immediately said he’d been attacked.

    And that’s where the “official narrative” keeps running into its own credibility problem: it asks the public to accept a chain of extraordinary coincidences inside a facility later shown to be riddled with procedural failures. If Epstein’s account is taken seriously, then the placement decision and the response protocols become the story—because it would mean the Bureau of Prisons put him in a situation where he could plausibly be harmed, and then had to manage the fallout. If Epstein’s account is not taken seriously, then the obvious question is why the system tolerated ambiguity at all—why key surveillance gaps, inconsistent supervision practices, and the broader MCC breakdowns left so much room for competing explanations. Either way, the housing choice looks less like a neutral administrative call and more like a decision that created maximum risk with minimum transparency, followed by a public-facing story that never fully resolved the most basic issue: why was this pairing allowed in the first place, and why did Epstein immediately say he’d been assaulted?


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
    Más Menos
    1 h y 5 m
  • Mega Edition: Jes Staley And His Dramatic Fall Due To His Relationship With Epstein (12/28/25)

    Mega Edition: Jes Staley And His Dramatic Fall Due To His Relationship With Epstein (12/28/25)
    Dec 28 2025
    The downfall of Jes Staley traces back to his long-running professional and personal relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, which resurfaced publicly years after Epstein’s crimes became widely known. While serving as CEO of Barclays, regulators began scrutinizing the extent to which Staley had been transparent about the relationship, including email contact that continued after Epstein’s 2008 conviction. Staley initially characterized Epstein as a limited professional acquaintance, but subsequent disclosures—particularly emails referring to Epstein as a “trusted friend”—undermined that account and raised concerns about candor and judgment at the highest levels of the bank.

    In 2021, UK regulators concluded that Staley had mischaracterized the nature of his ties to Epstein, leading to his forced resignation from Barclays and a formal investigation into whether he had misled the board and regulators. The episode effectively ended Staley’s career at the top tier of global banking and later followed him into litigation, including a lawsuit by JPMorgan Chase, where he had previously worked and overseen the Epstein relationship. Staley has argued that institutions used him as a scapegoat for broader failures, but the reputational damage proved decisive: his association with Epstein became inseparable from questions of credibility, oversight, and accountability—turning a once-powerful banking executive into one of the most prominent professional casualties of the Epstein scandal.



    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
    Más Menos
    33 m
  • The Declaration Of Bryan Edelman In Support Of Bryan Kohberger (Part 8)

    The Declaration Of Bryan Edelman In Support Of Bryan Kohberger (Part 8)
    Dec 28 2025
    Dr. Bryan Edelman is a trial consultant and expert on pre-trial publicity who was involved in the Bryan Kohberger trial. Edelman was hired by Kohberger's defense team to conduct a phone survey of potential jurors in Latah County, Idaho. The purpose of the survey was to assess the impact of media coverage on public opinion about the case, which involves Kohberger being charged with the murder of four University of Idaho students.

    The survey, which contacted 400 residents, faced significant criticism from the prosecution. They argued that the questions were too specific and potentially spread false information, thereby contaminating the jury pool. Some questions included details not found in official affidavits, leading to concerns that the survey was prejudicing potential jurors against Kohberger.

    Edelman defended his work, stating that his aim was to measure the influence of media coverage on public opinion, regardless of whether the information was true or false. He emphasized that such surveys are standard practice in high-profile cases to determine whether a fair trial can be conducted in the current venue or if a change of venue is necessary.

    The controversy surrounding the survey led the judge to pause its continuation and to schedule further hearings to decide on the matter.


    In this episode we take a look at his declaration filed with the court.


    (commercial at 8:05)

    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:

    072224-Memorandum-Support-MCoV.pdf
    Más Menos
    13 m
  • The Declaration Of Bryan Edelman In Support Of Bryan Kohberger (Part 7)

    The Declaration Of Bryan Edelman In Support Of Bryan Kohberger (Part 7)
    Dec 28 2025
    Dr. Bryan Edelman is a trial consultant and expert on pre-trial publicity who was involved in the Bryan Kohberger trial. Edelman was hired by Kohberger's defense team to conduct a phone survey of potential jurors in Latah County, Idaho. The purpose of the survey was to assess the impact of media coverage on public opinion about the case, which involves Kohberger being charged with the murder of four University of Idaho students.

    The survey, which contacted 400 residents, faced significant criticism from the prosecution. They argued that the questions were too specific and potentially spread false information, thereby contaminating the jury pool. Some questions included details not found in official affidavits, leading to concerns that the survey was prejudicing potential jurors against Kohberger.

    Edelman defended his work, stating that his aim was to measure the influence of media coverage on public opinion, regardless of whether the information was true or false. He emphasized that such surveys are standard practice in high-profile cases to determine whether a fair trial can be conducted in the current venue or if a change of venue is necessary.

    The controversy surrounding the survey led the judge to pause its continuation and to schedule further hearings to decide on the matter.


    In this episode we take a look at his declaration filed with the court.


    (commercial at 8:05)

    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:

    072224-Memorandum-Support-MCoV.pdf
    Más Menos
    15 m
  • The Declaration Of Bryan Edelman In Support Of Bryan Kohberger (Part 6)

    The Declaration Of Bryan Edelman In Support Of Bryan Kohberger (Part 6)
    Dec 28 2025
    Dr. Bryan Edelman is a trial consultant and expert on pre-trial publicity who was involved in the Bryan Kohberger trial. Edelman was hired by Kohberger's defense team to conduct a phone survey of potential jurors in Latah County, Idaho. The purpose of the survey was to assess the impact of media coverage on public opinion about the case, which involves Kohberger being charged with the murder of four University of Idaho students.

    The survey, which contacted 400 residents, faced significant criticism from the prosecution. They argued that the questions were too specific and potentially spread false information, thereby contaminating the jury pool. Some questions included details not found in official affidavits, leading to concerns that the survey was prejudicing potential jurors against Kohberger.

    Edelman defended his work, stating that his aim was to measure the influence of media coverage on public opinion, regardless of whether the information was true or false. He emphasized that such surveys are standard practice in high-profile cases to determine whether a fair trial can be conducted in the current venue or if a change of venue is necessary.

    The controversy surrounding the survey led the judge to pause its continuation and to schedule further hearings to decide on the matter.


    In this episode we take a look at his declaration filed with the court.


    (commercial at 8:05)

    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:

    072224-Memorandum-Support-MCoV.pdf
    Más Menos
    12 m
  • The Declaration Of Bryan Edelman In Support Of Bryan Kohberger (Part 5)

    The Declaration Of Bryan Edelman In Support Of Bryan Kohberger (Part 5)
    Dec 27 2025
    Dr. Bryan Edelman is a trial consultant and expert on pre-trial publicity who was involved in the Bryan Kohberger trial. Edelman was hired by Kohberger's defense team to conduct a phone survey of potential jurors in Latah County, Idaho. The purpose of the survey was to assess the impact of media coverage on public opinion about the case, which involves Kohberger being charged with the murder of four University of Idaho students.

    The survey, which contacted 400 residents, faced significant criticism from the prosecution. They argued that the questions were too specific and potentially spread false information, thereby contaminating the jury pool. Some questions included details not found in official affidavits, leading to concerns that the survey was prejudicing potential jurors against Kohberger.

    Edelman defended his work, stating that his aim was to measure the influence of media coverage on public opinion, regardless of whether the information was true or false. He emphasized that such surveys are standard practice in high-profile cases to determine whether a fair trial can be conducted in the current venue or if a change of venue is necessary.

    The controversy surrounding the survey led the judge to pause its continuation and to schedule further hearings to decide on the matter.


    In this episode we take a look at his declaration filed with the court.


    (commercial at 8:05)

    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:

    072224-Memorandum-Support-MCoV.pdf
    Más Menos
    13 m
  • The Unsealed Epstein Grand Jury Transcript From 2019 in New York (Part 5) (12/27/25)

    The Unsealed Epstein Grand Jury Transcript From 2019 in New York (Part 5) (12/27/25)
    Dec 27 2025
    The 2019 New York federal grand jury transcripts capture the final prosecutorial push that led to the arrest of Jeffrey Epstein on sex-trafficking charges in the Southern District of New York. The transcripts reflect prosecutors laying out a sweeping pattern of alleged conduct, including the recruitment and exploitation of underage girls, the use of intermediaries, and the systematic nature of the abuse network. Witness testimony, documentary evidence, and financial records were presented to establish probable cause, directly contradicting the long-standing narrative that Epstein was a lone offender whose crimes were limited to Florida. These proceedings culminated in the July 2019 indictment, marking the first time federal prosecutors in New York formally moved against Epstein despite years of prior allegations and investigative leads.

    The transcripts have now been newly unsealed under the Epstein Transparency Act, a move that has reignited scrutiny over what federal authorities knew—and when. Their release sheds light on investigative decisions, evidentiary thresholds, and the scope of information presented to the grand jury, while also highlighting gaps that critics argue point to earlier prosecutorial failures. Survivors and transparency advocates have emphasized that the unsealing is significant not only for what it reveals about Epstein’s conduct, but for what it exposes about institutional hesitation, delayed accountability, and the broader protection mechanisms that allowed Epstein to evade federal charges for years. While redactions remain, the disclosure represents a rare window into the mechanics of a case that many believe should have been brought long before 2019.



    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:

    EFTA00008529.pdf
    Más Menos
    11 m
  • The Unsealed Epstein Grand Jury Transcript From 2019 in New York (Part 3) (12/27/25)

    The Unsealed Epstein Grand Jury Transcript From 2019 in New York (Part 3) (12/27/25)
    Dec 27 2025
    The 2019 New York federal grand jury transcripts capture the final prosecutorial push that led to the arrest of Jeffrey Epstein on sex-trafficking charges in the Southern District of New York. The transcripts reflect prosecutors laying out a sweeping pattern of alleged conduct, including the recruitment and exploitation of underage girls, the use of intermediaries, and the systematic nature of the abuse network. Witness testimony, documentary evidence, and financial records were presented to establish probable cause, directly contradicting the long-standing narrative that Epstein was a lone offender whose crimes were limited to Florida. These proceedings culminated in the July 2019 indictment, marking the first time federal prosecutors in New York formally moved against Epstein despite years of prior allegations and investigative leads.

    The transcripts have now been newly unsealed under the Epstein Transparency Act, a move that has reignited scrutiny over what federal authorities knew—and when. Their release sheds light on investigative decisions, evidentiary thresholds, and the scope of information presented to the grand jury, while also highlighting gaps that critics argue point to earlier prosecutorial failures. Survivors and transparency advocates have emphasized that the unsealing is significant not only for what it reveals about Epstein’s conduct, but for what it exposes about institutional hesitation, delayed accountability, and the broader protection mechanisms that allowed Epstein to evade federal charges for years. While redactions remain, the disclosure represents a rare window into the mechanics of a case that many believe should have been brought long before 2019.



    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:

    EFTA00008529.pdf
    Más Menos
    11 m