Eight Reasons Why Maxwell Should Get Bail According To Her Lawyers

Deutsche Bank’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein is one of the clearest examples of how global finance happily rolled out the red carpet for a predator as long as the money kept flowing. After JPMorgan finally dumped Epstein in 2013, Deutsche Bank scooped him up as a client — not because they didn’t know who he was, but precisely because they did. The bank knew his reputation, knew he was radioactive, yet still chose to pocket his millions while turning a blind eye to the glaring red flags. Epstein shuffled suspicious payments to “models” and “cash withdrawals” through their accounts, and Deutsche executives treated it all like business as usual. In other words, the bank wasn’t duped — it was complicit, preferring fees over morality.That complicity came with a price tag, though hardly one that will dent their empire: in 2020, New York’s Department of Financial Services fined Deutsche Bank $150 million for its “significant compliance failures” in monitoring Epstein’s accounts. The fine was damning, a public acknowledgment that the bank chose to look the other way while Epstein moved money in patterns consistent with trafficking and abuse. Yet even that penalty feels like a slap on the wrist when weighed against the years of protection and credibility Deutsche gave him. They didn’t just keep Epstein afloat financially — they gave him institutional legitimacy, and for a man like him, that was priceless. The fine may have made headlines, but the damage of enabling a predator can’t be tallied on a balance sheet.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Prince Andrew’s maneuvering to avoid a deposition in Virginia Giuffre’s lawsuit was a masterclass in royal cowardice dressed up as legal strategy. Here was a man accused of sexual abuse, hiding behind the velvet ropes of privilege, while his legal team played a shell game with jurisdiction, paperwork, and technicalities. Instead of facing questions under oath — the bare minimum any honest man would do to clear his name — Andrew’s camp leaned into delay tactics, hoping that exhaustion and settlement would erase the scandal. It wasn’t courage, it wasn’t truth-seeking; it was damage control at its most cynical, designed to keep him from ever having to look a lawyer in the eye and answer for his actions.And of course, it worked. Andrew wrote a check and bought silence, shielding himself from the humiliating spectacle of cross-examination that would have stripped away the thin veneer of his denials. This wasn’t justice; it was aristocratic crisis management, where money spoke louder than accountability. For a man who once claimed he had nothing to hide, his frantic effort to dodge sworn testimony was deafening proof of the opposite. A deposition would have pinned him down, locked him into a version of events he could never wiggle out of — and Andrew, ever the entitled prince, wasn’t about to risk that. So he paid, he preened, and he slithered back into the shadows, another powerful man escaping real scrutiny.to contact me:  [email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Prince Andrew’s alleged stay at Jeffrey Epstein’s Zorro Ranch in New Mexico has become yet another stain in a long list of sordid associations he has tried — and failed — to explain away. Court filings and accuser testimony put him at the ranch during his official trip to New Mexico in 2001, a trip that was supposed to be about his role as a trade envoy but, conveniently, included time spent with a convicted predator. The mere fact that he is listed among Epstein’s elite guests at a property described as a hub of exploitation underscores how deeply entangled Andrew was in Epstein’s orbit. His later denials ring hollow in the face of settlements he has paid out and the multiple sworn statements placing him squarely inside Epstein’s inner circle.What’s critical here is not just whether Andrew personally abused anyone at Zorro Ranch — it’s that his very presence at such a place, while carrying the weight of royal office, illustrates the staggering arrogance and entitlement that have defined his handling of these allegations. This was a man who, even after Epstein’s 2008 conviction, continued to maintain ties with him. When the documents show Andrew spent time at Epstein’s desert compound, it’s not just a scheduling note — it’s a symbol of complicity, of a prince who placed himself in the company of predators and then acted shocked when the world refused to accept his excuses. The New Mexico ranch allegations add yet another brick to the crumbling wall of Andrew’s credibility.to contact [email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Virginia Roberts, passed away in April 2025 at her home in Western Australia, but her legal battles continue posthumously. Before her death, she and Rina Oh were locked in dueling lawsuits: Oh had filed a defamation suit accusing Giuffre of falsely portraying her as an Epstein recruiter and fraud, while Giuffre counter-sued alleging that Oh had physically and sexually abused her in Epstein’s presence, leaving lasting scarsto contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Ghislaine Maxwell was handed a big win in court by Judge Preska, rejecting an attempt by the Miami Herald and Julie K. Brown to have documents unsealed and released for public consumption.In our next article we talk about the investigation into Epstein's role within the Wexner foundation and what sort of part he might have played in the day to day operations.In a conclusion that shocked nobody, the "independent " law firm, Kegler Brown found that Epstein played no significant role in the foundation.To contact me:[email protected]:https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/judge-rules-for-ghislaine-maxwell-in-huge-setback-to-victims-and-boon-to-epstein-accomplices/Source:https://www.dispatch.com/business/20200227/epstein-had-no-day-to-day-role-in-wexner-foundation-report-findsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Les Wexner was subpoenaed by Alan Dershowitz as part of Dershowitz’s counterclaims in the defamation suit brought by Virginia Giuffre. Dershowitz issued subpoenas in April 2020 demanding that Wexner and his attorney John Zeiger produce documents and give deposition testimony concerning Giuffre’s allegations, including those related to Jeffrey EpsteinWexner’s legal side objected to the subpoenas, arguing that many of the requested records are protected by attorney-client privilege or otherwise confidential. They also claimed Dershowitz’s request was designed primarily to attack Giuffre’s credibility rather than uncover relevant facts, and that much of what Dershowitz seeks is inadmissible or irrelevant to the core issues of the case.to contact me:[email protected]:https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-dershowitz-wexner-epstein-giuffre-20200810-d56q3emu2rhsrpt3ennvmp4vru-story.htmlBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Les Wexner is a billionaire businessman known for founding L Brands, the parent company of Victoria's Secret and Bath & Body Works. His relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, a financier and convicted sex offender, has drawn attention due to their close association.Wexner and Epstein's relationship dates back to the 1980s, when Wexner entrusted Epstein with managing his finances. Epstein also served as Wexner's financial advisor and was given power of attorney over Wexner's affairs. Through this connection, Epstein gained significant influence and access to Wexner's wealth.Wexner reportedly granted Epstein control over his vast fortune, including properties and assets, which Epstein allegedly used to enhance his own wealth and lifestyle. Epstein's association with Wexner also provided him with credibility and connections within elite circles.Their relationship came under scrutiny after Epstein's arrest and subsequent conviction on charges of sex trafficking of minors. Epstein reportedly used his association with Wexner to gain access to wealthy and influential individuals, which contributed to the controversy surrounding their connection.Wexner has since claimed that he severed ties with Epstein in the early 2000s and denounced him following Epstein's criminal charges. However, questions remain about the extent of their relationship and the nature of Wexner's involvement with Epstein's activities, namely the credible accusations leveled against him.In this episode we dive into the white washing of Wexners relationship and how many in the legacy media still continue to miss the bigger picture.to contact me:[email protected]:Will Ohio State cut ties with Les Wexner's over Jeffrey Epstein scandal? (dispatch.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The allegations that Jeffrey Epstein “stole” vast sums of money from Les Wexner—often claimed to be in the hundreds of millions—rest on shaky ground at best. The core of the story is that Wexner, the billionaire founder of L Brands, granted Epstein sweeping power of attorney in the late 1980s and early 1990s, allowing him to control bank accounts, sign checks, and move assets. Later, when Epstein’s crimes came under scrutiny, reports circulated that he had misappropriated funds, especially tied to properties like the Manhattan townhouse that Wexner originally purchased but never lived in. Yet the narrative of Epstein as a con man who somehow duped one of the most seasoned and ruthless retail moguls into parting with a fortune seems questionable. Wexner is no naïve novice; he built a multibillion-dollar empire, commanded armies of lawyers and accountants, and had access to every safeguard a billionaire could deploy. To suggest he simply “didn’t notice” Epstein siphoning off hundreds of millions strains credulity.It’s far more likely that the theft story serves as a retroactive smokescreen, a convenient way for Wexner to distance himself from a relationship that became toxic once Epstein’s name was synonymous with sex trafficking. Claiming to be a victim of fraud casts Wexner as a dupe rather than an enabler, while muddying the public record about how deep their financial ties really ran. If Epstein truly “stole” such staggering amounts, why weren’t there lawsuits, asset recovery actions, or criminal referrals at the time? The silence speaks volumes. A billionaire losing hundreds of millions without raising alarms is an improbable scenario. What seems more plausible is that Epstein was entrusted with money and power because he served a purpose—whether as a fixer, a gatekeeper, or a handler—and that only after Epstein became radioactive did the theft narrative emerge as a convenient form of damage control.to contact me:[email protected]:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9668449/How-Jeffrey-Epstein-squeezed-financial-advisor-Les-Wexner.htmlBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Bill Barr’s deposition before Congress on Jeffrey Epstein was a masterclass in calculated deflection. While Barr insisted that Epstein’s death was “absolutely” suicide, he conceded that the prison surveillance system had “blind spots”—a detail that conveniently leaves just enough room for speculation without providing definitive answers. His reliance on flawed or incomplete camera footage, combined with his dismissal of alternative forensic perspectives, came off less like transparency and more like institutional damage control. Instead of holding the Bureau of Prisons accountable, Barr’s narrative positioned the failures as unfortunate but inconsequential, a stance that fails to satisfy the public demand for clarity.Just as troubling was Barr’s evasiveness when pressed about Donald Trump’s knowledge of Epstein. He admitted to having spoken with Trump about Epstein’s death but couldn’t recall when one of those conversations occurred—an astonishing lapse considering the gravity of the matter. His reasoning that “if there were more to it, it would have leaked” was not only flippant but dismissive of the very real history of suppression, obstruction, and selective disclosure that has defined the Epstein saga. By leaning on institutional trust in a case defined by betrayal of that very trust, Barr’s testimony did little more than reinforce suspicions that the Department of Justice has long been more concerned with containment than accountability.to contact me:[email protected]:Barr-Transcript.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Bill Barr’s deposition before Congress on Jeffrey Epstein was a masterclass in calculated deflection. While Barr insisted that Epstein’s death was “absolutely” suicide, he conceded that the prison surveillance system had “blind spots”—a detail that conveniently leaves just enough room for speculation without providing definitive answers. His reliance on flawed or incomplete camera footage, combined with his dismissal of alternative forensic perspectives, came off less like transparency and more like institutional damage control. Instead of holding the Bureau of Prisons accountable, Barr’s narrative positioned the failures as unfortunate but inconsequential, a stance that fails to satisfy the public demand for clarity.Just as troubling was Barr’s evasiveness when pressed about Donald Trump’s knowledge of Epstein. He admitted to having spoken with Trump about Epstein’s death but couldn’t recall when one of those conversations occurred—an astonishing lapse considering the gravity of the matter. His reasoning that “if there were more to it, it would have leaked” was not only flippant but dismissive of the very real history of suppression, obstruction, and selective disclosure that has defined the Epstein saga. By leaning on institutional trust in a case defined by betrayal of that very trust, Barr’s testimony did little more than reinforce suspicions that the Department of Justice has long been more concerned with containment than accountability.to contact me:[email protected]:Barr-Transcript.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.