Mega Edition: Julie K. Brown And Defamation Lawsuits (10/19/25)

In 2011, newly surfaced emails suggest that Prince Andrew attempted to use a Metropolitan Police protection officer—assigned to him as part of his royal security detail—to dig up damaging information on Virginia Giuffre, the woman who accused him of sexual abuse linked to Jeffrey Epstein. The email reportedly contained Giuffre’s date of birth and U.S. Social Security number and alleged she had a criminal record in the United States. It was sent to a royal press aide, implying coordination to discredit Giuffre before the now-infamous photograph of Andrew with her surfaced. There is no evidence that the officer followed through on the request, and Giuffre’s family has confirmed she never had a criminal record. The revelation underscores Andrew’s desperation at the time to undermine his accuser rather than face the allegations head-on, revealing a cynical attempt to weaponize his royal privilege and the resources of law enforcement against a survivor.The Metropolitan Police have since announced they are “actively looking into” the claims, which have triggered widespread public disgust and renewed scrutiny over Andrew’s use of taxpayer-funded protection. The timing of the revelations—coming shortly after Andrew’s forced relinquishment of his Duke of York title and amid continued fallout from his ties to Epstein—paints a picture of a man still trying to manipulate institutions to protect his reputation. The notion that a royal would attempt to enlist the police to smear a victim of alleged trafficking is seen by critics as emblematic of the rot within Britain’s elite power structure. For a man who insists he “never met” Virginia Giuffre, his determination to have her investigated says everything about guilt, arrogance, and moral decay behind palace walls.to contact  me:[email protected]:Met Police to look into claims Prince Andrew sought information on accuserBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Two fronts opened against Miami Herald reporter Julie K. Brown over her Epstein reporting and book. First, multiple defamation suits were filed by people portrayed in her work: Epstein survivors Courtney Wild and Haley Robson alleged Brown misrepresented their experiences and, in Robson’s case, cast her as a collaborator rather than a victim; and Ghislaine Maxwell’s former assistant Emmy Tayler filed her own defamation action over claims that she “organized” Epstein’s massages. The Tayler matter proved especially damaging to Brown’s publisher: HarperCollins issued a formal apology in 2024 acknowledging Tayler was defamed in the UK edition and wrongly inserted into the narrative—an extraordinary concession that undercut the book’s editorial due diligence and handed ammunition to critics who said Brown’s project sometimes sacrificed precision for impact.Second, Brown became embroiled in a contractual fight with private investigator Michael (Mike) Fisten, who said he’d been cut out of a promised collaboration and sued for compensation tied to the book deal. That dispute showcased the commercial tug-of-war behind high-profile “accountability” bestsellers: Fisten’s early winless turn in arbitration (rejecting his $350k claim) didn’t end the saga, which spilled into Miami-Dade court and later reached Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal. The upshot is a messy, credibility-draining litigation trail: while Brown’s reporting helped reignite scrutiny of Epstein, the courtroom aftermath—defamation claims from survivors, a publisher’s apology to Tayler, and a protracted fight with a key investigator—has raised uncomfortable questions about methods, attribution, and whether the rush to own the narrative came at the expense of accuracy and fair dealing.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Haley Robson is one of the earliest known victims of Jeffrey Epstein’s Palm Beach operation, lured into his orbit when she was just sixteen. Like so many others, she says she was approached under the guise of a “massage” job that quickly turned into sexual exploitation. Afterward, Epstein’s associates allegedly convinced her to recruit other young girls, promising easy cash and glamor while normalizing abuse that Robson later described as “systematic grooming.” Her account, documented in police reports and media interviews, shows how Epstein’s network weaponized peer influence and economic vulnerability — turning victims into unwitting recruiters. In Robson’s case, the state charged her as a witness, not a defendant, recognizing that she had been manipulated by Epstein’s machinery rather than consciously aiding it. Still, the experience haunted her for years, and she later became a public advocate for victims’ rights, determined to expose the predator who warped her youth.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Kevin Rudd’s connection to Jeffrey Epstein is a textbook example of elite hypocrisy masquerading as moral leadership. As chairman of the International Peace Institute, Rudd oversaw an organization that accepted roughly $650,000 in donations from Epstein-linked foundations—years after Epstein was already a convicted sex offender. That’s not an oversight; that’s willful blindness wrapped in plausible deniability. Rudd claimed he was “deeply disappointed” when the donations surfaced, but disappointment isn’t accountability. Under his watch, the IPI took dirty money from a known predator whose crimes were public record, and the excuse that he “acted immediately” once the donations were exposed reeks of retroactive reputation management. If Rudd was truly blindsided, it’s because he didn’t care to look. Epstein’s money was good enough for the IPI until the headlines changed.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Judge Alison Nathan’s management of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial unsealing process revealed the stark contradictions at the heart of the U.S. judicial system’s approach to the Epstein network—public accountability in theory, institutional protection in practice. While Nathan presided over a high-profile prosecution that promised transparency, her decisions to keep the names of alleged co-conspirators sealed effectively reinforced the wall of secrecy that has surrounded the Epstein case for decades. Prosecutors had acknowledged the existence of additional “uncharged co-conspirators,” yet Nathan maintained that releasing those names could “unfairly harm individuals not on trial.” That justification rings hollow when weighed against the magnitude of Epstein’s crimes and the global power web he operated within. For the public, the perception is clear: justice may have reached Ghislaine Maxwell, but it politely stopped short of everyone else.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Scott Borgerson, a former tech executive and maritime analytics CEO, became romantically linked to Ghislaine Maxwell in the years after Jeffrey Epstein’s 2008 conviction. Borgerson owned a $2.4 million oceanfront property in Manchester-by-the-Sea, Massachusetts—a pristine, secluded estate later identified as one of Maxwell’s hiding spots before her 2020 arrest. Public records show the home was purchased through Tidewood LLC, a shell company tied to Borgerson, and Maxwell was reported to have lived there intermittently while keeping a low profile. The property, perched above the Atlantic, embodied the quiet privilege and insulation of New England’s elite enclaves, where someone accused of procuring girls for a billionaire sex trafficker could blend into the scenery. Borgerson denied that Maxwell was living there when rumors first circulated in 2019, but details later revealed otherwise: neighbors saw her walking her dog, and the FBI would eventually trace her movements through that very address before the arrest in New Hampshire.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Epstein is reported to have advised clients on deploying GRATs (Grantor Retained Annuity Trusts)—an estate planning vehicle that lets ultra-wealthy individuals pass appreciating assets to heirs while minimizing gift and estate taxes. Analysts say Epstein used his proximity to billionaires and his aura of financial wizardry to pitch these sophisticated tax-avoidance schemes. The strategy exploits a loophole in U.S. tax law: during the trust’s term, the grantor retains annuity payments, and if the trust’s investments outperform the assumed IRS rate, the excess passes to beneficiaries tax-free. Epstein’s involvement with GRATs even drew Senate scrutiny after it emerged he helped clients like Leon Black and possibly Sergey Brin structure trust arrangements.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In his analysis for the Autopsy television special, Dr. Hunter concluded that Epstein’s injuries were consistent with suicide, not homicide, though he emphasized that the case was riddled with anomalies that “rightfully raise suspicion.” Hunter reviewed the autopsy photos, injury reports, and toxicology findings released by New York officials and determined that the hyoid bone fractures—which Dr. Michael Baden claimed were more typical of strangulation—could also occur in older men who hang themselves, particularly given Epstein’s age and the height of his cell bunk. Hunter said the blood pooling, ligature marks, and asphyxial patterning on the neck aligned with hanging but acknowledged the environment and timing of Epstein’s death made it “one of the most poorly managed high-profile incarcerations in modern American history.”to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Reports indicate that Steve Bannon conducted roughly 15 hours of recorded interviews with Jeffrey Epstein in 2019, just months before Epstein’s death. According to journalist Michael Wolff’s book Too Famous, Bannon was allegedly coaching Epstein for a planned 60 Minutes interview that never materialized. Wolff claims Bannon advised Epstein on how to appear more sympathetic to the public and frame his crimes as “misunderstood” rather than predatory. Bannon, however, has denied coaching Epstein, insisting the footage was meant for a documentary project exposing Epstein’s “darkness” and the elites around him. Portions of the recordings reportedly show Bannon questioning Epstein about his social network and political ties, adding to speculation about how closely the two interacted during that period.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

French authorities launched a sweeping investigation into Jeffrey Epstein’s operations in France in 2019 after survivors and advocacy groups alleged that he and Ghislaine Maxwell had trafficked underage girls through Paris. Epstein owned a luxury apartment on Avenue Foch, a short walk from the Arc de Triomphe, which prosecutors later identified as a key site in his European network. Testimonies submitted to French investigators and reported in ABC News and France 24 claimed that Epstein and Maxwell used the residence to host minors who were brought to France under the guise of modeling or education opportunities. One accuser alleged that Maxwell was present during her assault in Paris, and others claimed she facilitated introductions between Epstein and underage girls sourced through French modeling agencies.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.