Prince Andrew Whistleblower Says British Detectives Ignored His Evidence (9/14/26)

Day one of Tyler Robinson’s preliminary hearing on July 6, 2026, largely centered on prosecutors beginning to construct a timeline of Charlie Kirk’s killing at Utah Valley University and establishing the authenticity of the surveillance footage and investigative records they intended to use against Robinson. Former UVU police officer Chris Bagley described the moment the gunshot rang out during Kirk’s September 10, 2025 event and the chaos that followed, while Utah State Bureau of Investigation agent David Hull walked the court through the enormous video-review effort undertaken after the shooting. Hull testified that investigators examined hundreds of hours of surveillance footage and ultimately tracked a person they believed was Robinson moving around the UVU campus at several different points that day. Prosecutors introduced surveillance recordings from multiple locations as they attempted to connect the person seen approaching the campus, moving toward the area surrounding the Losee Center, and later leaving the area to Robinson. Three separate videos depicting Kirk being shot were admitted, although Judge Tony Graf determined that their graphic nature warranted restricting their display to the attorneys’ and judge’s monitors rather than broadcasting them throughout the courtroom. Kirk’s widow, Erika, and his parents left the courtroom while the videos were reviewed. Prosecutors also introduced Kirk’s autopsy report through Hull, which listed his cause of death as a gunshot wound to the neck and the manner of death as homicideThe defense spent much of the first day attacking the manner in which the prosecution was getting its evidence into the record rather than attempting to disprove the entire prosecution theory at that stage. Kathryn Nester and Robinson’s attorneys repeatedly raised hearsay, foundation and authentication objections, arguing that investigators were being permitted to introduce reports, statements and records created by other people without those individuals appearing personally to testify. Judge Graf overruled most of those objections, reflecting the substantially lower evidentiary threshold governing a Utah preliminary hearing, whose purpose was only to determine whether probable cause existed to send Robinson to trial rather than whether prosecutors could prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. One significant exception involved an edited compilation of surveillance footage, which Graf declined to admit in that form and required prosecutors to replace with the underlying unedited material. Hull’s testimony also revealed the scope of the prosecution’s surveillance theory: investigators claimed Robinson had appeared on or around the UVU campus multiple times on September 10 and that they were attempting to stitch those appearances together into a continuous identification of the alleged shooter. By the end of day one, prosecutors had established the killing itself, the medical cause of Kirk’s death, the existence and authenticity of substantial video evidence and the beginnings of their effort to identify Robinson as the person captured in that footage. They had not yet presented many of the pieces expected to become more consequential later in the hearing, including the rifle and DNA evidence, Robinson’s alleged communications and admissions, and testimony concerning his roommate Lance Twiggs.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Hillary Clinton’s February 26, 2026 deposition before the House Oversight Committee centered on how much she knew about Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and Bill Clinton’s relationship with them. Clinton repeatedly testified that she had never met Epstein, never flew on his plane, never visited Little St. James and knew nothing about his crimes before they became public. She described Maxwell as no more than a “casual acquaintance,” said she did not consider her a friend and attributed Maxwell’s presence around the Clinton family largely to her relationship with longtime Clinton friend Ted Waitt. Clinton acknowledged that Maxwell attended Chelsea Clinton’s 2010 wedding, but said she had no specific recollection of speaking with her there and believed Maxwell attended as Waitt’s guest. She also said she did not remember Maxwell visiting the Clintons’ Chappaqua home, despite Maxwell later saying she had been there several times, and said she had no knowledge of Epstein having connections to American or foreign intelligence services.The questioning became much more contentious when lawmakers turned to Bill Clinton’s documented relationship with Epstein. Hillary characterized her husband’s relationship with Epstein as “limited” and primarily connected to his use of Epstein’s airplane, said she had no knowledge of Bill visiting Little St. James and maintained there was no evidence connecting him to Epstein’s crimes. When lawmakers pressed her about photographs showing Bill Clinton with Epstein, Maxwell and young women during trips, Clinton acknowledged seeing some of those photographs but said she had not become curious enough to investigate the circumstances herself, calling it simply “unfortunate” that her husband ever had dealings with Epstein. She also denied personally soliciting money from Epstein and said she was unaware of anyone doing so on her behalf, while acknowledging she knew little about whether Epstein played any role around Clinton Foundation or Clinton Global Initiative activities. The transcript therefore presented a consistent Clinton defense: she said she personally had essentially no relationship with Epstein and only a peripheral relationship with Maxwell, while repeatedly separating herself from questions about Bill Clinton by telling lawmakers that he would have to answer for his own conduct.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Hillary Clinton’s February 26, 2026 deposition before the House Oversight Committee centered on how much she knew about Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and Bill Clinton’s relationship with them. Clinton repeatedly testified that she had never met Epstein, never flew on his plane, never visited Little St. James and knew nothing about his crimes before they became public. She described Maxwell as no more than a “casual acquaintance,” said she did not consider her a friend and attributed Maxwell’s presence around the Clinton family largely to her relationship with longtime Clinton friend Ted Waitt. Clinton acknowledged that Maxwell attended Chelsea Clinton’s 2010 wedding, but said she had no specific recollection of speaking with her there and believed Maxwell attended as Waitt’s guest. She also said she did not remember Maxwell visiting the Clintons’ Chappaqua home, despite Maxwell later saying she had been there several times, and said she had no knowledge of Epstein having connections to American or foreign intelligence services.The questioning became much more contentious when lawmakers turned to Bill Clinton’s documented relationship with Epstein. Hillary characterized her husband’s relationship with Epstein as “limited” and primarily connected to his use of Epstein’s airplane, said she had no knowledge of Bill visiting Little St. James and maintained there was no evidence connecting him to Epstein’s crimes. When lawmakers pressed her about photographs showing Bill Clinton with Epstein, Maxwell and young women during trips, Clinton acknowledged seeing some of those photographs but said she had not become curious enough to investigate the circumstances herself, calling it simply “unfortunate” that her husband ever had dealings with Epstein. She also denied personally soliciting money from Epstein and said she was unaware of anyone doing so on her behalf, while acknowledging she knew little about whether Epstein played any role around Clinton Foundation or Clinton Global Initiative activities. The transcript therefore presented a consistent Clinton defense: she said she personally had essentially no relationship with Epstein and only a peripheral relationship with Maxwell, while repeatedly separating herself from questions about Bill Clinton by telling lawmakers that he would have to answer for his own conduct.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Former royal protection officer Paul Page said British investigators looking into Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor had effectively ignored evidence he was trying to provide about Andrew’s conduct at Buckingham Palace, so Page instead took the material to the FBI and also sent it to U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie. Page, who worked as a protection officer at the palace for six years, alleged that from roughly 1997 to 2007 the normal security rules around Andrew were relaxed and that women, including Ghislaine Maxwell and other young female visitors, were sometimes allowed into Buckingham Palace without their names being properly entered into official visitor logs. He said Andrew’s guests were treated differently from ordinary visitors and claimed that protection officers were expected to accommodate the prince rather than rigorously document everyone coming and going. Page said he contacted Thames Valley Police, which has been investigating Andrew, but became frustrated by what he described as a lack of response, leading him to send his account and supporting material to American authorities instead.Page’s account became especially significant because it fed directly into the long-running question of whether Andrew used royal properties and privileges to facilitate relationships with women connected to Jeffrey Epstein and Maxwell. His claims did not establish that every woman who entered the palace was being trafficked or that a crime occurred inside Buckingham Palace, and Page himself has a criminal history, including a 2009 fraud conviction, which will inevitably be used to challenge his credibility. But his allegations were specific enough to raise uncomfortable questions about security procedures, missing or incomplete visitor records and whether royal status allowed Andrew to bypass scrutiny that would have applied to almost anyone else. Thames Valley Police said it was working through a substantial volume of information, but Page’s decision to bypass British investigators and provide his evidence to the FBI underscored his central complaint: he believed potentially important firsthand evidence about Andrew’s access to women through Buckingham Palace was not being taken seriously enough at home.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Independent journalist Tara Palmeri said she was removed from the Republican Midterm Convention in Dallas and had her press credential revoked shortly after she questioned Republican congressional candidate Robert Burke about the Jeffrey Epstein files. Palmeri entered the American Airlines Center with a valid media credential, accompanied by her producer and three Epstein survivors who had been admitted with guest passes. She said the group was not protesting, carrying signs or disrupting the event. Instead, they spoke briefly with Burke, who told them he supported releasing the Epstein information and wanted to know what had happened. Roughly nine minutes after that exchange, security approached Palmeri, and within about 35 minutes of entering the building she and the survivors had been escorted outside. Palmeri said officials never clearly identified what rule she had violated, and she was later told she could be arrested for trespassing if she tried to return.The incident immediately fed criticism that Republican officials were trying to suppress uncomfortable questions about Epstein rather than confront them. The optics were especially damaging because Palmeri had been accompanied by survivors of Epstein’s abuse, including Marijke Chartouni, and because the question that apparently preceded the removal was not hostile or disruptive but concerned whether a congressional candidate supported releasing more Epstein records. Palmeri said she repeatedly sought an explanation from the RNC afterward and received none, while the RNC had not publicly explained the decision when the story broke. The episode therefore became about more than one reporter losing a credential: it reinforced the perception that Epstein had become such a politically toxic subject that even raising it at a Republican convention could trigger removal, with survivors themselves being escorted out alongside the journalist asking the question.to contact me:[email protected]:Reporter Kicked Out of RNC Over Epstein Files Question - NewsweekBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

FBI Director Kash Patel was shown in newly obtained internal text messages ordering aides to push back aggressively against online criticism of the Justice Department’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files, including criticism coming from accounts that appeared to be trolls or provocateurs. According to the messages reviewed by the Daily Mail, Patel became enraged over social-media claims suggesting the FBI was hiding information or failing to deliver on promises of transparency, and he instructed staff to respond “continuously” rather than let the attacks go unanswered. The exchange offered a rare behind-the-scenes look at how personally Patel was reacting to the Epstein backlash and how much attention senior FBI leadership was paying to the online narrative surrounding the files. The texts also reportedly showed Patel trying to emphasize what he considered the bureau’s successes under the Trump administration while privately venting about the criticism generated by the Epstein controversyThe larger problem exposed by the messages was that the FBI director appeared to be spending significant energy fighting a public-relations war over Epstein rather than simply letting the evidence and investigative record speak for themselves. The criticism had been fueled by frustration over delayed releases, redactions and earlier promises from administration figures that the Epstein material would produce major revelations. Patel’s texts showed that he was acutely aware of that anger and wanted the FBI to counter claims that it was participating in a cover-up, even when those claims were being amplified by dubious online accounts. That made the episode particularly striking: instead of the Epstein controversy remaining an external headache for the bureau, the released messages showed it reaching directly into the FBI director’s office, where Patel was personally directing a response to the growing suspicion and hostility surrounding the government’s handling of the case.to contact me:[email protected]:Read the texts Kash Patel never wanted you to see: FBI boss rages at an Epstein fury facilitated by troll account | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Attorney L. Lin Wood made a series of explosive and largely unsubstantiated claims tying Jeffrey Epstein to a broader blackmail operation involving powerful public figures. Wood said he had received information from what he described as a credible confidential source concerning supposed Epstein “blackmail video files,” and he publicly circulated what he claimed was a password or key connected to those files. He also made far more dramatic allegations involving Chief Justice John Roberts, including claims that Roberts had some connection to Epstein and even suggesting Epstein was still alive and could expose powerful people. Those accusations were never substantiated with publicly verified evidence, and Wood’s broader Epstein claims became part of the wave of conspiracy-laden allegations he was promoting after the 2020 election. The important distinction is that Wood was asserting that compromising Epstein material existed and that his source had knowledge of it, but he never produced authenticated videos proving the extraordinary claims he was making.Former Palm Beach County sheriff’s deputy John Mark Dougan made a separate but related set of claims about alleged Epstein recordings. Dougan said a Palm Beach detective connected to the original Epstein investigation, Joseph Recarey, had allowed him to copy investigative material for safekeeping and that Dougan eventually possessed a hard drive containing hundreds of alleged Epstein recordings. He later claimed there were hundreds of tapes, possibly including compromising footage involving Prince Andrew and other prominent people, and said the FBI seized his computers during a 2016 raid but did not realize he had retained a copy that later ended up with him in Russia. Journalist Craig Unger reported that Dougan told him he possessed 478 Epstein sex tapes, while Dougan himself has repeatedly suggested Epstein’s properties were wired for systematic blackmail. But despite years of making those claims, Dougan has never publicly produced authenticated footage establishing that he possesses what he says he does. That leaves his story in a very different category from the documented evidence that Epstein used extensive surveillance at his properties: the existence of surveillance is well established, while Dougan’s claim that he personally holds hundreds of explosive sex tapes remains unverified.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Boies-Kessler-New York Times episode began when a mysterious man using the name Patrick Kessler approached lawyers David Boies and John Stanley Pottinger claiming he possessed a vast archive of Jeffrey Epstein material, including communications, financial records and thousands of hours of secretly recorded video showing powerful men in compromising sexual situations. Kessler presented blurry still images and said the footage included figures such as Prince Andrew, Alan Dershowitz and Ehud Barak. Boies and Pottinger took the claims seriously enough to explore whether the material could be used in litigation on behalf of Epstein survivors, and Boies eventually introduced Kessler to reporters from The New York Times. Pottinger separately texted Kessler about a “hot list” of wealthy men who might be targeted for settlements and floated scenarios in which lawyers could receive large contingency fees. Those messages later became central to the Times’ investigation.The situation then turned on Boies and Pottinger when Kessler met privately with Times reporters and accused the lawyers themselves of planning to use his supposed evidence to pressure wealthy men for money. In November 2019, the Times published a major investigation portraying the episode as an example of how elite lawyers could use explosive sexual-misconduct allegations as leverage for lucrative settlements. But the story later came under significant criticism because Kessler himself appeared to be a fraud or fabulist who never produced the promised evidence and then disappeared. NPR later reported that earlier journalists had already questioned his credibility, that Boies had expressed doubts about him in emails, and that some of the most damaging “hot list” communications came from Pottinger without Boies being copied. The episode therefore became a story within the larger Epstein scandal: a supposed whistleblower with potentially historic evidence drew in powerful lawyers and one of the country’s biggest newspapers, only for his credibility to collapse and leave behind a fight over whether the lawyers had been exposing Epstein’s network, exploiting it, or themselves been manipulated by a con man.to contact me;[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The federal government violated the Crime Victims’ Rights Act by secretly negotiating Jeffrey Epstein’s 2007 non-prosecution agreement without consulting the girls and young women he had abused, even though prosecutors had already identified dozens of victims and had drafted a lengthy federal indictment. The CVRA gave victims the right to confer with prosecutors and to be treated fairly, but the U.S. Attorney’s Office never told them that a deal was being negotiated, never gave them an opportunity to object and then actively kept the agreement hidden after it had been signed. Even worse, prosecutors continued telling victims that the federal investigation was ongoing when, in reality, Epstein had already secured the agreement that protected him from federal prosecution. Judge Kenneth Marra ruled in 2019 that, at a minimum, the government had been required to tell the victims it intended to enter into an agreement not to prosecute Epstein. He found that the government’s decision to conceal the deal while telling victims to remain patient was “particularly problematic” and inconsistent with the protections Congress had created under the CVRA.The rebuke became even sharper as the case moved through the courts. The Eleventh Circuit record laid out just how extraordinary the government’s conduct had been: prosecutors said they had proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Epstein had victimized more than 30 minors, negotiated extensively with his lawyers, secretly granted him federal immunity, worked to keep the deal from his victims and failed to tell them about it until after Epstein had already pleaded guilty in state court. One appellate opinion described the survivors as having suffered horrific abuse only to be left in the dark and “affirmatively misled” by government lawyers. Marra stopped short of ruling that prosecutors lacked discretion to make the deal itself, but he made clear that they had violated the law in the way they made it. The bitter irony was that the survivors ultimately won recognition that the government had treated them unlawfully, yet later appellate rulings severely limited the remedy available to them because Epstein had never been federally charged. In other words, prosecutors secretly structured the deal in a way that denied the victims their rights, and the absence of a federal prosecution later became one of the very reasons the courts said those victims could not obtain the full relief they sought.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Maritza Vazquez, who worked as a bookkeeper for MC2 Model Management, provided critical testimony placing Jean‑Luc Brunel and Jeffrey Epstein at the center of a carefully managed system of underage recruitment and abuse. In her deposition, she identified Brunel as a regular passenger on Epstein’s private jet and noted that Epstein often traveled with girls recruited through MC2—some as young as 14. Vazquez testified that flight logs deliberately omitted the names of some female passengers, suggesting efforts to conceal underage trafficking. She recounted Brunel’s active role in sourcing vulnerable girls from abroad and introducing them into Epstein’s orbit, effectively operating as a global trafficking coordinator.Vazquez further corroborated that Epstein frequently displayed controlling behavior: he referred to Brunel’s recruits as inventory rather than people, casually discussing having “slept with over a thousand of Brunel’s girls,” according to court documents. Her detailed bookkeeping records and firsthand accounts of scheduling, money flow, and logistics provided prosecutors with evidence of a pipeline feeding Epstein’s sex ring. The deposition exposed how MC2 transactions and Brunel’s agency served as the administrative and logistical backbone for Epstein’s exploitation operation.to  contact me:[email protected]:Maritza Vasquez Deposition - Discussing Jeffrey Epstein, Jean-Luc Brunel, Donald Trump | DocumentCloudBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.