Sarah Ferguson Weighs Tell-All Book on Prince Andrew’s Epstein Scandal (9/29/26)

Judge Paul Engelmayer rejected Ghislaine Maxwell’s attempt to overturn her conviction and 20-year prison sentence, dismantling the arguments she raised in a sprawling petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Maxwell claimed that newly released Epstein-related records, alleged prosecutorial misconduct, false testimony and withheld evidence demonstrated that her trial had resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Engelmayer was unequivocal, finding that nearly all of her claims were either procedurally barred because they had already been raised or could have been raised on appeal, or were simply unsupported by the record. He described the evidence presented against Maxwell at trial as overwhelming and concluded that the purportedly new material she relied upon did not undermine the jury’s verdict.Engelmayer also found that much of the material Maxwell portrayed as exculpatory was either irrelevant or actually reinforced the case against her. He rejected all 10 principal claims in her petition, denied her request for an evidentiary hearing and refused additional discovery, concluding that she had failed to show any constitutional violation warranting relief. The court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith for purposes of proceeding without paying filing fees. The August 25, 2026 ruling therefore left Maxwell’s conviction and sentence fully intact while closing one of her remaining avenues for challenging the verdict in federal court.to contacct me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Judge Paul Engelmayer rejected Ghislaine Maxwell’s attempt to overturn her conviction and 20-year prison sentence, dismantling the arguments she raised in a sprawling petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Maxwell claimed that newly released Epstein-related records, alleged prosecutorial misconduct, false testimony and withheld evidence demonstrated that her trial had resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Engelmayer was unequivocal, finding that nearly all of her claims were either procedurally barred because they had already been raised or could have been raised on appeal, or were simply unsupported by the record. He described the evidence presented against Maxwell at trial as overwhelming and concluded that the purportedly new material she relied upon did not undermine the jury’s verdict.Engelmayer also found that much of the material Maxwell portrayed as exculpatory was either irrelevant or actually reinforced the case against her. He rejected all 10 principal claims in her petition, denied her request for an evidentiary hearing and refused additional discovery, concluding that she had failed to show any constitutional violation warranting relief. The court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith for purposes of proceeding without paying filing fees. The August 25, 2026 ruling therefore left Maxwell’s conviction and sentence fully intact while closing one of her remaining avenues for challenging the verdict in federal court.to contacct me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Judge Paul Engelmayer rejected Ghislaine Maxwell’s attempt to overturn her conviction and 20-year prison sentence, dismantling the arguments she raised in a sprawling petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Maxwell claimed that newly released Epstein-related records, alleged prosecutorial misconduct, false testimony and withheld evidence demonstrated that her trial had resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Engelmayer was unequivocal, finding that nearly all of her claims were either procedurally barred because they had already been raised or could have been raised on appeal, or were simply unsupported by the record. He described the evidence presented against Maxwell at trial as overwhelming and concluded that the purportedly new material she relied upon did not undermine the jury’s verdict.Engelmayer also found that much of the material Maxwell portrayed as exculpatory was either irrelevant or actually reinforced the case against her. He rejected all 10 principal claims in her petition, denied her request for an evidentiary hearing and refused additional discovery, concluding that she had failed to show any constitutional violation warranting relief. The court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith for purposes of proceeding without paying filing fees. The August 25, 2026 ruling therefore left Maxwell’s conviction and sentence fully intact while closing one of her remaining avenues for challenging the verdict in federal court.to contacct me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Sarah Ferguson is reportedly considering a new memoir that would address the fallout from Prince Andrew’s association with Jeffrey Epstein and the damage the scandal caused to their family. According to the report, Ferguson has discussed writing about the years in which Andrew’s public standing collapsed, including the scrutiny surrounding his friendship with Epstein, the Virginia Giuffre allegations and the consequences that followed for the Duke and those closest to him. The proposed book is being framed as Ferguson’s chance to tell her version of what happened behind the scenes and explain how the Epstein scandal affected her relationship with Andrew and their daughters.The memoir has not been formally announced, and no publication date or final deal has been confirmed, but the possibility has attracted attention because Ferguson has remained one of Andrew’s most visible defenders throughout his disgrace. A book touching directly on Epstein would inevitably draw scrutiny over what Ferguson knew, when she knew it and how she viewed Andrew’s continued relationship with Epstein after his 2008 conviction. It would also reopen questions about Ferguson’s own connection to Epstein, including the £15,000 payment he made toward one of her debts, which she later said she regretted accepting.to contact me:[email protected]:Sarah Ferguson 'Planning Memoir to Tackle Jeffrey Epstein Scandal'Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Bill Gates again addressed his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein during a September 27 appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press, where he denied ever visiting Epstein’s private island and said his contact with Epstein consisted of roughly 10 meetings over a period of a few years. Gates laughed nervously at points while answering questions and insisted that there were never women present during those meetings, that he had no financial relationship with Epstein and that he never visited Epstein’s island. He also pointed to his June testimony before the House Oversight Committee, where he called his decision to meet with Epstein a “grave error in judgment” and said he had been drawn in by Epstein’s claims that he could help raise large amounts of money for global health initiatives.The renewed questioning came after months of scrutiny over how extensive the relationship actually was. An external review commissioned by the Gates Foundation found roughly 30 meetings between Epstein and foundation leaders and staff, including Gates, between 2011 and 2014, even as employees raised concerns about Epstein’s criminal history. Gates has maintained that he never knew about any ongoing criminal activity and that he ultimately cut off contact after concluding Epstein could not deliver the philanthropic connections he had promised. The larger controversy has therefore centered not on an accusation that Gates participated in Epstein’s crimes, but on why he continued meeting with a convicted sex offender, how extensive those contacts were and why the relationship persisted despite warnings about Epstein’s past.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Pam Bondi’s handling of the Epstein files became a major source of controversy after she publicly raised expectations that the Justice Department was about to deliver significant new transparency, only for the initial February 2025 release to consist largely of material that had already been publicly reported or leaked. Bondi then revealed that the FBI’s New York field office had thousands of additional pages that had not initially been turned over to her and ordered the bureau to produce everything. The situation became even more politically damaging when the Justice Department and FBI issued a July 2025 memo saying their review had found no incriminating “client list,” no credible evidence that Epstein had blackmailed prominent people and no evidence sufficient to open investigations into uncharged third parties. That conclusion clashed sharply with the expectations Bondi herself had helped create, including her earlier statement that an Epstein “client list” was sitting on her desk for review.Critics in Congress, the media and even within the administration accused Bondi and the Justice Department of trying to close the book on Epstein rather than aggressively pursue the unanswered questions surrounding his network. The July memo explicitly said that “no further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted,” a position that generated enough backlash that the issue continued through lawsuits, congressional scrutiny and eventually the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which forced a much larger release of records. Courts later noted the widespread controversy over the department’s reversal on disclosure, and the House Oversight Committee eventually moved to subpoena Bondi over DOJ’s handling of the files. Bondi and the department defended their work as an exhaustive review constrained by victim privacy, sealed records and the absence of evidence supporting new prosecutions, but the sequence of promises, limited releases, contradictory messaging and the attempt to declare the review essentially finished left her handling of the Epstein matter under sustained scrutiny.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Prince Andrew reportedly considered writing a memoir as part of an effort to tell his side of the story after his public downfall over his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and the allegations made by Virginia Giuffre. Reports said he discussed the idea with advisers and people in publishing, with the possibility that a book could address his friendship with Epstein, the fallout from his disastrous Newsnight interview and his removal from public royal duties. The concept drew immediate attention because a memoir would have given Andrew a chance to challenge the public narrative around him, but it also carried enormous legal and reputational risks, particularly if he addressed disputed allegations or private royal matters in detail.Despite the speculation, the memoir never materialized. Andrew ultimately did not publish a book, and the project appeared to stall amid concerns about whether recounting his version of events would create more problems than it solved. Any memoir would have subjected his claims to intense scrutiny, potentially reopened questions about Epstein and Giuffre, and risked further friction with the royal family. In the end, the idea remained just that: an idea repeatedly floated in the press but never turned into a finished, published account.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Judge Alison Nathan responded sharply after one of Ghislaine Maxwell’s appellate lawyers, David Markus, published a June 2021 New York Daily News op-ed arguing that Maxwell should benefit from the same kind of prosecutorial-agreement reasoning that had just led to Bill Cosby’s release. Markus described the case against Maxwell as extremely weak, argued that Jeffrey Epstein’s non-prosecution agreement should protect her and suggested that a jury should reject the charges. Federal prosecutors complained that the column violated Southern District of New York rules restricting lawyers from making public statements that could prejudice a pending criminal trial. Nathan ordered Maxwell’s defense team, including Markus, to respond and ultimately made clear that lawyers connected to the case could not use the media as an unrestricted venue for arguing the merits of a case that was still headed for trial.Nathan stopped short of disciplining Markus for the op-ed itself, noting there had been some uncertainty over whether the local rule technically applied to him because he was handling appellate matters rather than appearing as Maxwell’s trial counsel. But she removed any uncertainty going forward. Nathan ordered Markus to comply with Local Criminal Rule 23.1 and emphasized that public statements expressing opinions about a defendant’s guilt or innocence, the strength of the evidence or the merits of a pending case could create a substantial risk of interfering with a fair trial. The message from the court was straightforward: whatever ambiguity may have existed before the op-ed was now gone, and Markus, along with other attorneys associated with the Maxwell case, was formally on notice that their public commentary would be governed by the court’s restrictions.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the early 2000s, Jeffrey Epstein served as the chairman of Liquid Funding Ltd., an offshore financial entity registered in Bermuda, from November 2001 at least through March 2007. The firm was initially about 40% owned by Bear Stearns and specialized in securitizing complex debt instruments—bundling commercial and residential mortgages into AAA-rated securities. This intricate repurchase ("repo") structure obscured underlying risks and played a part in the broader collapse of Bear Stearns and the 2008 financial crisis.Though Epstein was known better for his criminal activity than his financial acumen, his leadership at Liquid Funding highlights an unusual parallel: he was not only embroiled in illicit trafficking schemes but also entwined in the darkest corners of Wall Street’s pre-crash financial engineering. Despite the potential systemic risk his firm represented, there is no record of tangible consequences—legal, financial, or criminal—stemming from his involvement in Liquid Funding. The company’s role in crisis-era finance remains part of Epstein's shadowy legacy, but the expected regulatory or legal reckoning never came.To contact me:[email protected]:https://www.icij.org/investigations/paradise-papers/jeffrey-epsteins-offshore-fortune-traced-to-paradise-papers/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jeffrey Epstein and Bill Clinton were a lot closer than most people know or understand. From all kinds of financial "donations" to Clinton, to visits to various properties to being invited to Chelsea Clinton's wedding, you'd have to be blind or playing serious partisan politics to not see how deep the ties run between the Clinton's and Epstein and Maxwell. Yet, there has not been no serious investigation (that we are aware of) into the relationship Epstein and Clinton shared and nobody has even bothered to call out his spokesperson for the canned statement he continues to offer. Hopefully, after these new revelations, the legacy media will re-evaluate their position and dive into the deep end instead of just checking the water temperature with their finely manicured toes.To contact me:[email protected]:https://www.thedailybeast.com/epstein-shared-hotel-room-with-bill-clinton-and-was-terrified-of-being-poisoned-says-victim-juliette-bryantBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.