But the noises of this year’s White House Correspondents’ dinner suddenly found themselves impinged by multiple pops. Not from champagne corks, but from gunfire arising from the intrusion of a begruntled gatecrasher – a lone young man brainwashed by the very industry the horrified guests represent.

Within seconds, President Trump was rushed away by Secret Service agents while the high heeled and gowned and the suited and booted alike hid side-by-side beneath tabletops. Confused, their eyes darted around in vain for sight of the shooter, none of them contemplating, during or after the incident, the fact that they themselves were largely responsible for him being there.

The following morning, the familiar machine had already begun to turn.

The attempted assassination of President Donald Trump at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner was immediately folded into America’s permanent civil war of narrative. Some commentators rushed to frame the suspect, 31-year-old Cole Tomas Allen, as merely unstable, detached from politics altogether. Others treated the event as another regrettable but almost inevitable consequence of “polarisation” in the abstract, as though violent political obsession appears out of humidity like summer lightning.

But there is an uglier truth sitting beneath the velvet tablecloths of American media culture. One that journalists, editors, television bookers and partisan commentators do not want to confront.

For years now, substantial sections of the press have abandoned the discipline of evidence whenever Donald Trump intersects with Jeffrey Epstein.

Not scrutiny. Not investigation. Those are legitimate.

Narrative.

A false narrative - fuelled by political bias and a desire held by many journalists to exploit the Epstein scandal to smear Trump - repeated so relentlessly, so emotionally, so irresponsibly, that millions of Americans now speak about Trump as though his ‘criminal guilt’ in the Epstein scandal were already established fact rather than it being the great big nothing burger that the evidence so evidently reveals the allegations against him to be.

Allen’s ‘manifesto’ (more of a brief unhinged message sent to his friends and family) was swiftly released by the media without a hint of self-awareness. In it, he listed what motivated him to attempt to kill Trump and others connected to him. And those motivations were based on politically-motivated myths perpetuated by those same journalists and media outlets who have for many years now intentionally lied to you about the Epstein scandal in the hope that clickbait, as well as bringing in advertising revenue, can bring down a President.

The manifesto referred to Trump as a “pedophile” and “rapist,” language that mirrors years of maximalist rhetoric saturating social media, cable television panels, activist journalism, and algorithmically amplified political discourse.

They may not have pulled the trigger. But by intentionally ignoring the truth and sacrificing basic journalistic ethics and integrity to produce populist-style sensationalism and demonisation of Trump, contrary to the evidence (you can read one of my reports debunking one of the Epstein/Trump allegations by clicking the article below), they most certainly placed the gun in Allen’s hands.

Journalists from CNN, the BBC, the Daily Beast, the Guardian, and from practically every newspaper and news channel on the planet, have spent over a decade completely exaggerating the Epstein scandal, censoring inconvenient facts, whipping the world’s population into a frenzied witch hunt, and brainwashing folks like Allen to boiling point.

The facts, as clearly demonstrated in my book, Naked Lies, which you can order by clicking here, completely debunk the media narrative.

Epstein was a pervert and a convicted sex offender. But he was not a pedophile.

There was no sex trafficking operation - all of the evidence clearly supports this conclusion, and the FBI and DoJ have both confirmed that very fact.

Yet the media’s coverage of the Epstein scandal, its dangerous deployment of guilt by accusation, and the way in which it has demonised innocent men such as President Trump and his former lawyer, the esteemed (whom was later proven to have been falsely accused by the late Virginia Giuffre) is perhaps the best example of the dangers and destructive nature of ‘fake news’ that we have ever seen and are ever likely to see.

When an entire ecosystem repeatedly dissolves the distinction between suspicion, association, allegation, inference, and proof, unstable people often absorb the final emotional conclusion without understanding the evidentiary gaps that responsible journalism is supposed to protect.

There is a reason traditional newsroom standards once existed like load-bearing walls inside a fragile building. Verification before publication. Corroboration. Distinguishing fact from speculation. Separating commentary from reporting. Avoiding guilt by association.

Those principles were not invented to protect politicians. They were invented to protect civilisation from the consequences of mass emotional manipulation.

Trump unquestionably knew Epstein socially during the 1980s and 1990s before he banned him from Mar-a-Lago and severed all ties. That is documented. Photographs exist. Videos exist. Trump himself publicly commented on Epstein long before Epstein’s first arrest. None of that is disputed.

But what is also true, and almost never stated with equal force in many modern anti-Trump narratives, is that no criminal charge has ever accused Trump of participating in Epstein’s trafficking operation. No court has convicted him of crimes related to Epstein. No released document has established the sweeping certainty with which social media activists and even some mainstream commentators now speak.

That distinction matters enormously, especially in a country already boiling with political paranoia. Especially after multiple assassination attempts against the same political figure.

Fast-paced, social media-orientated modern media culture increasingly rewards emotional certainty over factual restraint. The incentive structure is grotesque. Journalists who urge caution or implore the employment of fact-checking disappear beneath the algorithm. Journalists who imply dark conspiracies and unsubstantiated, often bullshit-riddled allegations receive millions of impressions, television invitations, podcast appearances, subscriptions, outrage-sharing, and political tribal applause.

The Jeffrey Epstein scandal became the perfect delivery system for this pathology because, thanks to the media’s misrepresentation of the case, Epstein now represents genuine evil, a global child trafficking network (that doesn’t actually exist), and ultimate elite depravity. The story carries the emotional temperature of a horror film fused with class warfare. Once attached to Trump, many journalists stopped behaving like investigators and began behaving like prosecutors addressing a jury they assumed was already emotionally convinced.

Even language changed, particularly during the shambolic, deplorable coverage of the Epstein files.

“Linked to.”

“Connected to.”

“Named in.”

“Associated with.”

Phrases carefully constructed to imply criminal intimacy without crossing the legal threshold required for outright accusation. It is carefully catered towards confirmation bias. Those who dislike the accused want the headlines, the insinuations and unvetted allegations to be true, so they believe them to be so.

This is how modern narrative engineering works. Not through direct lies alone, but through accumulation. Atmosphere. Suggestion repeated until suspicion hardens psychologically into certainty. And once certainty arrives, violence becomes easier for damaged minds to rationalise.

We saw it with Pizzagate – a brainwashed gunman barging into a family eatery in Washington in search of the hidden child-trafficker’s basement that didn’t exist. We saw it with Qanon – Ashli Babbett, similarly tumbling down pedo-ring-focused rabbit holes and being shot to death trying to storm the heart of American politics.

And now we have seen it in the form of a man who may never have made that foolish, atrocious decision to pack a gun and head out to a dinner function had journalists not constantly fed him with emotive, hugely irresponsible lies about Epstein and Trump’s former association that led him to firmly yet wrongly believe that Trump is, as Allen wrote in his manifesto, ‘a pedophile’.

We are now also seeing something else: The consequences of clickbait.

Researchers studying political violence and online radicalisation have repeatedly found that emotionally charged narrative ecosystems intensify extremism and moral absolutism. A person who genuinely believes they are confronting a monstrous existential evil is psychologically far closer to justifying violence than someone who merely disagrees with a politician’s tax policy.

This is precisely why journalistic ethics matter. Not because journalists are priests of objectivity. Absolute objectivity does not exist. But because disciplined scepticism toward one’s own political desires is the firewall separating reporting from propaganda.

Too many modern reporters no longer even pretend to maintain that firewall where Trump is concerned.

House Inhabit

Epstein in His Own Words: A Seven Page Statement Unearthed by Jay

From the grave, we finally get Epstein’s “side.” Today’s conversation centers on the seven-page document Jay Beecher uncovered this week, buried deep within the Epstein files — where the disgraced financier, in his own words, lays out his version of the scandal, echoing what Jay uncovered over the course of his five-year investigation…

Listen now

2 months ago · 178 likes · 148 comments · Jessica Reed Kraus and Jay Beecher

One of the most corrosive developments in contemporary American journalism is the moral self-licensing that emerged during the Trump era. Many journalists convinced themselves that Trump represented such an extraordinary threat that traditional standards could be relaxed in pursuit of a higher moral cause. Anonymous sourcing standards weakened. Sensational framing increased. Thinly sourced stories received explosive coverage before collapsing quietly days later. Speculation blurred into headline-writing.

The result has been catastrophic for public trust.

Americans, and indeed many of us around the world now inhabit parallel realities where basic factual consensus barely survives longer than a news cycle.

The irony is suffocating.

The White House Correspondents’ Dinner itself exists partly as a symbolic celebration of democratic accountability and the importance of a free press. Yet the shooting this week unfolded inside an information culture where large sections of the public no longer trust the press to distinguish activism from journalism.

That distrust did not appear spontaneously. It was earned.

You can read my latest wrangling with the BBC over their proven false reporting over the Epstein scandal by clicking the article below. It is just on example amongst thousands.

None of this means Trump should be immune from scrutiny. Far from it. Powerful people deserve aggressive investigative reporting. The Epstein scandal absolutely deserved exposure and investigation at every level.

But ethical journalism requires proportion, precision, and restraint even when covering people one personally despises. Especially then, I’d suggest.

Because once journalism becomes openly outcome-driven, it stops functioning as journalism and becomes narrative warfare.

And narrative warfare eventually produces casualties.

The media cannot spend years saturating the public sphere with emotionally maximalist insinuations, collapsing distinctions between allegation and proof, portraying political opponents as existential monsters, and then act shocked when unstable individuals decide they are participating in some grand moral crusade.

Why are myself and the only journalists who seem to understand this when it comes to reporting on the Epstein scandal? Isn’t it obvious that lying to the public and spreading widespread fear and anger over a mythical elite child-trafficking consisting of world leaders and influential individuals can only ever have a negative outcome?

At some point, journalism must rediscover the ancient and unfashionable discipline of humility and responsibility - not because Trump deserves protection, but because the public does.

Because facts do.

Because a civilisation cannot survive indefinitely when millions of people are emotionally conditioned to experience political opponents not as fellow citizens, but as irredeemable monsters whose destruction feels morally righteous.

The bullets outside the Hilton ballroom were fired by one man, a man whose life and the lives of his family members will be changed forever. But the atmosphere surrounding them was built collectively, sentence by sentence, chyron by chyron, headline by headline, until reality itself became secondary to narrative momentum.

And somewhere beneath the glittering chandeliers of Washington, the press should now find itself confronting a question it has spent years demanding others answer:

What happens when rhetoric stops being metaphor and starts drawing blood?

The shocking suicide followed a long controversial series of revelations that had drawn public suspicion towards Giuffre, as well as the breakdown of her marriage and relationship with her children.

Before her death, Giuffre had been criticised after it was revealed that she had falsely accused a number of influential individuals, had acknowledged to having invented some of her widely-circulated allegations, and had admitted to having groomed and recruited children for financial gain.

Meanwhile, the breakdown of her marriage, which Giuffre herself attributed to domestic violence, had led to a restraining order against her being granted by a district judge to her husband, Robert Giuffre, who was granted full custody of their children.

This coincided with a court ruling that she would imminently be required to take the witness stand and be cross-examined under oath as part of a lawsuit brought about by artist Rina Oh, who had accused her of defamation and sexual assault.

The full details of Giuffre’s death had not been made public. However, in an email released this month amidst the millions of documents that constitute the so-called ‘Epstein Files’, fellow Epstein accuser Maria Farmer detailed the method Giuffre had used to sadly take her own life.

“She died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound,” Farmer revealed in the email that has since been removed from the DoJ website.

Emergency services were called after Giuffre was found unresponsive at the sprawling property. Paramedics attended but were unable to revive her, and she was pronounced dead at the scene. Western Australia Police also attended and stated early on that there were no suspicious circumstances surrounding the death.

The War of the Will

The worth of Giuffre’s estate remains contested, with her sons valuing it at around $472,000 and Giuffre’s associates estimating $501,000 - far below earlier projections of up to $20 million.

These low valuations are likely to have also confused Rina Oh and her lawyers, with Oh’s ongoing lawsuit seeking a multi-million-dollar payout.

Click here to read my interview with Oh, in which she details how Jeffrey Epstein was allegedly trying to establish a harem.

Furthermore, uncertainties persist regarding property rights. Records indicate the luxurious six-bedroom beachfront residence in Perth’s Ocean Reef, acquired by the family for about $1.6 million in 2021, was titled exclusively to her husband Robert Giuffre, mirroring their prior Queensland home.

Giuffre’s farm was jointly held through their company, Witty Rivers.

Under divorce rules, she could have only claimed half of it upon asset division.

Despite the couple’s 22-year marriage ending in separation, local laws might entitle Robert to at least one-third of the estate.

Tensions escalated after Giuffre publicly accused him of past physical abuse. It is curious, however, that a judge awarded Robert, not Virginia, with custody of their daughter and two sons, despite it usually being the norm for custody of children to be granted to the mother unless serious reasons are given, and proven, for why the mother is unfit to take care of them.

Coerced by the Cleaner?

Although she passed away without an official will, recent court documents reveal that Giuffre penned an informal version on 27th February, two months before her suicide, which has now become the focal point of a family conflict involving finances from legal settlements and potential book earnings.

Why is the ‘informal will’ so controversial? Well, because in it, Giuffre (suspiciously) leaves control over her fortune to one of her lawyers, Karrie Louden, and (even more suspiciously) to her housekeeper/cleaner, Cheryl Myers.

According to Louden and Myers, Giuffre not only provided this written outline but repeatedly instructed them verbally to formalise it in the lead-up to her passing.

“Why the f*ck would she do that?” a fellow journalist friend of mine, who is well versed on the entire Epstein scandal, rhetorically replied when I told him the news at the time. “Why would she leave everything to a lawyer and someone who scrubs her toilets?”

And it seems that Giuffre’s sons had a similar reaction.

The pair now contend that their mother’s informal directive is invalid due to her diminished mental state in the months leading up to her death. They further accuse Louden and Myers of exploiting her vulnerability, allegedly manipulating her in her final months to ‘trick’ her into designating them as beneficiaries and joint executors.

Beyond the business stake, the sons are vying for authority over the family trust, vehicles including a 2017 Toyota Kluger and a 2024 Chevrolet Silverado, plus various personal items and the contents of the farm.

A court filing from the two sons asserts that Louden and Myers, given their roles, should have recognised Giuffre’s compromised condition - and there is reason to agree with them. In the months prior to her death, loved ones of Giuffre voiced concerns about her emotional well-being amid the heated custody dispute. She was also reported as having been fearful that she would lose her remaining wealth to Rina Oh.

Giuffre was admitted into hospital in March of last year after what she described as a severe vehicle accident with a school bus, taking to Instagram to falsely claim she only had days left to live.

Authorities in Australia, however, confirmed that she was being untruthful and that the incident was a ‘minor bump’ - so minor in fact that only a tiny dent was left on the bus’ bumper, and all parties involved walked away completely unharmed.

Giuffre’s lawyer and house cleaner now aim to block Robert Giuffre from claiming any portion of her assets.

Registrar Danielle Davies pointed out that Robert had endorsed his sons’ bid without formally joining it himself, potentially safeguarding his own interests if they succeed. She raised concerns about the absence of Robert and the couple’s daughter from the proceedings, suggesting they be included or informed.

At a court hearing, Davies acknowledged additional interested parties wishing to participate. The court now plans to examine medical documentation, witness statements, and other materials, including an affidavit from an asset liquidation specialist, to determine whether or not Giuffre was of sound mind when allegedly writing her baffling informal will.

through a secret door concealed behind a polished panel perfectly blended into the high gloss, walnut wood-wrapped wall,

there is a ‘secret’ 1920s gloom-glamour room, in which last night kindly hosted the launch of my book, Naked Lies.

Jessica, who has been closely covering the Epstein and Maxwell cases for many many years on Instagram and on her Substack, has been truly fantastic in helping me to promote this book (and to get the truth of the Epstein Scandal out to the public). She’s opened up her wonderful home, her office, and her precious time, along with the time of her awesome team, to help launch Naked Lies, and I’m extremely grateful to her and to her awesome colleague Alicia Tang.

The book can now be purchased on Amazon, Apple Books, IngramSpark, and Barnes & Noble - or by clicking here.

Jessica’s going to be posting out the full video of the launch party very soon. In the meantime, below is the press release for Naked Lies and an exclusive video from Kevin Maxwell.

I’ll be back on here tomorrow with some further updates and exclusives. Thanks for your support!

Thursday April 9th

PRESS RELEASE

NAKED LIES

Employees Only. Santa Monica Boulevard, West Hollywood

One woman held the key to understanding the Jeffrey Epstein scandal.
Virginia Giuffre. If not for Virginia’s allegations, it’s probable that Epstein wouldn’t have died in prison; a British Prince wouldn’t have become a social pariah; Ghislaine Maxwell wouldn’t have been imprisoned for 20 years; and the most powerful man in the world, Donald Trump, wouldn’t have been wrongfully placed under suspicion. Virginia’s wide-reaching, life-destroying claims also made her a multi-millionaire. But, caught up in the sensationalist witch hunt, no-one stopped to ask a very simple question.

What if she was lying?

NAKED LIES is a story about truth and lies, money and media manipulation, power and corruption. It is the culmination of a five-year international investigation incorporating a forensic analysis of evidence and Jay Beecher’s exclusive interviews with key witnesses, accusers, and the accused.

Beecher travelled the world gathering new evidence (some of which has been included in Ghislaine Maxwell’s ongoing habeas petition), recording new allegations, and highlighting co-conspirators whose crimes against children went under the radar. His book, NAKED LIES, tells the true story of Jeffrey Epstein, how Epstein acquired his wealth and powerful connections, and how his sexual perversions created a media-driven mythos that has swallowed up reputations whole. NAKED LIES also includes secret audio recordings, previously unseen witness statements, and exclusive interviews with Epstein’s brother, with Maxwell’s siblings, with Trump’s former lawyer, with Giuffre’s inner circle and fellow accusers, & many more.

For the first time, the true, unreported story behind the Epstein scandal is finally laid bare.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Jay Beecher is a British journalist and the former News Editor of the Kyiv Post. His work covering crime, politics, and Russia’s war against Ukraine has been published in numerous outlets, including the Mirror and the Daily Express.

Much of his work, including his Epstein-related audio and video interviews, can be seen by subscribing to his Substack: www.jaybeecher.com.

During his Epstein investigation, Beecher came into the orbit of Jessica Reed Kraus, who has herself been covering the case for many years and who has been in regular contact with Jeffrey Epstein’s former cellmate. Kraus’ work can be seen by subscribing to her Substack:

House Inhabit

Where pop culture deep dives mingle with quality conspiracy theories, lifestyle highlights, and trending water cooler gossip

By Jessica Reed Kraus

EXCLUSIVE STATEMENT OF ENDORSEMENT FROM KEVIN MAXWELL

Hello, my name is Kevin Maxwell. I am Ghislaine Maxwell’s brother. At the age of 60, my sister was sentenced to 20 years in prison, a punishment I believe resting on a deeply flawed case and a dangerous public narrative. Among much else, Jay Beecher’s book, Naked Lies, shows, in my view conclusively, that she was wrongly convicted.

I’m with you today to thank Jay for his groundbreaking work and Jessica Reed Kraus and Substack for making today’s event possible. In a scandal defined by heat rather than light, they are, to my mind, much-needed truth-tellers.

Naked Lies is a forensic work. Its tagline is bold: that almost everything you know about the Epstein affair is untrue. But the evidence it assembles demands to be confronted, not dismissed. The book argues that one woman launched a campaign of untruths that became a global sensation.

It told stories of sexual exploitation and trafficking that didn’t happen and conjured a sex-based client list that didn’t exist. The moral outrage that followed was real, and so were the Czechs. Faced with the threat of being dragged through the courts as collaborators in a terrible story, many wealthy individuals and institutions chose to pay rather than fight.

Total compensation is, I believe, heading towards $1 billion, with some lawyers, key drivers of the scandal, reportedly collecting up to 40% in fees. Jay first came to our attention in 2020 when he wrote a blog called “We Must Talk About Virginia.” Using material available to any newsroom in the world, he showed Virginia Giuffre to be a venal and unreliable witness.

The astounding thing is that this material has been, and is, in plain sight. Yet in the scramble for legal fees, as well as viewers, readers, and the associated advertising revenue, the truth has been treated as an optional extra. Jay then paused his work on Epstein and turned to another theatre of distortion: war.

From the front line in Ukraine, he filed some 600 reports at considerable personal risk. That experience sharpened his eye for propaganda, for convenient stories that don’t survive contact with the facts. When he returned to the Epstein saga, the result was naked lies. The book exculpates the former Prince Andrew.

It argues that the allegations of sexual crimes involving many famous names were not just exaggerated but fundamentally venal fantasies. If that analysis is correct, Naked Lies deserves the highest awards that investigative journalism can offer. I’m not a journalist, a prosecutor, or a judge. I’m simply a brother. But I have watched as a narrative has hardened into dogma, as doubt is treated as heresy, and as my sister has become a symbol rather than a defendant.

Jay Beecher, Jessica Reed Kraus, and the Substack platform have done something unfashionable. They have asked awkward questions and followed the evidence where it leads. For that, from the bottom of my heart, I thank them.

COMING SOON:

Ransome states that she was 22 years old when she first encountered the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, during which time she was working as a high-end escort for the infamous Emperor’s Club, charging up to $10,000 for her services.

In 2016, when numerous women began filing lawsuits against Epstein’s estate, Ransome joined them, claiming that she had been kept a prisoner on his island and raped multiple times.

Yet Ransome’s credibility has been irreparably shaped by another chapter of her story, one that unfolded in chaos in 2019. In the frenetic days following Epstein’s arrest and death, she publicly alleged that she possessed compromising sex tapes involving high-profile figures including Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, and Richard Branson. But within days the story collapsed. Ransome admitted that the tapes did not exist and that the claims were untrue.

Her credibility took another blow through her accusations against Professor Alan Dershowitz. Ransome alleged that they engaged in a sex act within Epstein’s orbit. Dershowitz responded with detailed denials supported by travel records, phone logs and third-party documentation, arguing that the encounter she described could not have occurred because he was verifiably elsewhere at the time. He has stated that he has never met her and has repeatedly described Ransome’s allegations as demonstrably false, reiterating publicly that the accusation is a matter of provable chronology rather than competing recollection.

It is likely that Ransome’s debunked claims against Dershowitz came about as the result of her latching onto the earlier allegations made against him by Virginia Giuffre.

Giuffre initially demonstrated that she’d never met Dershowitz, then was told by Daily Mail journalist Sharon Churcher to name him in her unpublished memoir, ‘The Billionaire’s Playboy Club’ (but again didn’t claim he’d done anything wrong, nor that any sexual activity took place between them), and finally falsely claimed she’d been trafficked to him multiple times.

Dershowitz proved that she was lying, leading to Giuffre begrudgingly issuing a statement admitting that she was ‘mistaken’.

Dershowitz also provided Netflix with evidence that Ransome had made false allegations - yet producers chose to omit this entirely.

You can watch one of my explosive interviews with Professor Dershowitz by clicking here.

Despite widely promoting her unsubstantiated allegations, the mainstream media has remained suspiciously silent over Ransome’s shocking conduct in recent months.

Last month, she sent a series of emails to fellow Epstein accuser, Juliette Bryant. In them, Ransome threatened Bryant and her son with rape.

This month, after threatening via email to burn down a building in her area owned by JP Morgan, Ransome turned her attention to attacking the Jewish community with a series of messages.

In one, sent on March 14th, she wrote: “I demand the Anne Frank building be burnt down,” before reminding the email’s Jewish recipients that she is a resident of Amsterdam, where the house is located.

Ransome had previously sent an email to Professor Dershowitz, writing: “This is for you, cunt Jew boy!!!!”

In another email, she declared that she wished to see Dershowitz’s wife and children raped.

Earlier this month, Ransome sent the below audio clip to 99 recipients, mostly journalists, including myself. In it, she wildly screams out a series of unstable threats against President Donald Trump and America.

Ransome’s recent rants have already led to Dutch police acknowledging that her emails constitute a crime and that they have attended her home to notify her of an ongoing criminal investigation.

Meanwhile, Ransome herself has confirmed that local child welfare authorities have stepped in and have an ongoing case to ensure the safety of her own young son.

I can confirm that multiple individuals around the world have reported Ransome to their local police departments after receiving disturbing threats. I have also been approached for information by a professional hired by a famous individual whom Ransome issued similar unsettling threats to.

In December of last year, she emailed Lady Victoria Hervey, again threatening rape.

Before that, she sent threats to Sky Roberts Jr, brother of the late Virginia Giuffre, to his wife Amanda Roberts, and to Giuffre’s former publicist, Dini Von Mueffling.

In one of the offending emails, Ransome attached photographs of Mr Roberts’ partner and children, along with photographs of Mueffling, her family members, and her children, warning that they now ‘have targets on their backs’.

“I will come after your children,” she told them. “The fucking Ayatollah [the Supreme Leader of Iran] will be fucking terrified of me after what I do to you and your children.”

“I’m going to teach you boys and goals [sic] a lesson on what happens when you fuck with another woman’s cub the way you have. You brought this on yourselves, and I’ve given you more than enough warnings, to be fair.”

“The purge starts today,” she added. “There is no law or police, Sky Roberts and Dini… there is no one coming to help you. I’m coming for you in ways that you will not fucking fathom.”

Concluding the email, Ransome told Mueffling and Roberts Jr that they would, “Meet the monster you’ve made, there are no rules anymore. I’m coming for you Sky Roberts, and there is no going back now.”

In another email, sent to Sky Roberts Jr hours later, Ransome confirmed that police had arrived at her residence, but claimed that they had only stayed for a matter of minutes.

Doubling down on her threats, she wrote: “The policeman that was ran to [us] earlier was incredibly handsome. Was here for about three minutes.”

“I said to the policeman that, yes, I’m definitely definitely definitely definitely going to harm your children 100% if you don’t tell the truth about what’s been going on,” she added. “1,000,000% I’m gonna harm your children.”

Ransome then took aim at the children of other individuals, writing: “All your kids are going to get it as well… I’ve never been more fucking goddamn serious in my entire life.”

To another alleged Epstein victim, she wrote: “I’m going to come for your daughter and your son…. I’m coming for your daughter. May God have fucking mercy on you.”

Returning to Sky Roberts Jr, Ransome demanded that he send settlement money to her bank account, despite Roberts Jr not owing Mrs Ransome any such payment.

“If I do not have my outstanding settlement in my bank account tomorrow, your children are going to get hurt,” her email concluded.

In another email, this time sent to me, Ransome told me that she and her husband are going to ‘hunt’ me down.

In another, this time writing to the Russian Ambassador to the Netherlands, and copying in 98 other individuals, Ransome told him where I live and wrote, “Vladimir, please find this man and put a bullet in his head”.

Ransome then wrote: “Please review the attached photos. What do these photos mean to you, Jay!!!”

These were the attached photographs that she was referring to:

Below are two. more emails recently sent by Ransome in recent months.

Other emails sent by Ransome are even more graphic - too graphic, in fact, to be published.

A previously undisclosed investigation by the Drug Enforcement Administration examined Jeffrey Epstein and roughly a dozen other individuals in 2015 over suspected money laundering, drug distribution and the alleged recruitment of Eastern European women to provide sexual services to wealthy clients, according to five people familiar with the matter.

The inquiry reportedly grew out of an ongoing organized crime investigation and was handled by a specialized intelligence unit within the DEA working alongside a transnational crime task force. The probe began after a confidential informant told authorities that Epstein had been involved in financing and supplying so-called “club drugs,” including ecstasy, ketamine and methamphetamine, according to the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the case involved sensitive law enforcement information.

Documents tied to the investigation identified a group of people connected to Epstein, including lawyers, accountants and several European women who worked for him as assistants or fashion models, the sources said. Two companies were also referenced in the case materials.

No charges were ultimately brought against any of the individuals named during the investigation. Because the full case file has never been made public, it remains unclear how long the inquiry continued or what conclusions investigators may have reached. Still, accounts of the DEA probe raise further questions about what federal authorities knew about Epstein years before his arrest in 2019. By that point, the U.S. Department of Justice has said that more than 1,000 people had been victimized by him.

The existence of the 2015 investigation first surfaced in January when the Justice Department released a heavily redacted document referencing it. The additional details now emerging deepen the uncertainties surrounding Epstein and indicate that scrutiny of him extended well beyond the sex-trafficking investigation that later captured global attention.

They also point to a broader pattern: while Epstein publicly cultivated relationships with prominent figures in finance, politics and aristocratic circles, numerous government agencies were quietly monitoring him. Records released earlier this year show that beginning in 2009, after Epstein left a Florida jail following a plea deal that included a conviction for soliciting a minor for prostitution, at least eight US agencies launched separate inquiries involving him. These included the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the DEA, the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the U.S. Department of State’s Diplomatic Security Service.

According to those records, investigators tracked Epstein’s travel, compiled profiles of his associates and examined financial transactions flowing through offshore accounts. Authorities in other countries were also paying attention. Even years after Epstein’s release from Florida custody, the United States Secret Service’s White House division and police at Harvard University carried out background checks on him.

The Justice Department documents initially withheld the identities of the 12 people and two companies mentioned in the DEA investigation. According to individuals familiar with the case, those included Epstein’s longtime attorney Darren Indyke, his brother Mark Epstein and several accountants associated with him: Bella Klein, Harry Beller and Richard Kahn. Indyke and Kahn later became co-executors of Epstein’s estate after his death in federal custody in August 2019.

Two companies also appeared in the investigative materials: Wagging Tail Entertainment and Ossa Properties Inc.. Entertainment publicist Peggy Siegal conducted business under Wagging Tail, according to emails contained in the Justice Department’s Epstein document trove. Ossa Properties, owned by Mark Epstein, managed real estate connected to Jeffrey Epstein. A company executive, Anthony Barrett, was also identified in the profile prepared for investigators. In several civil lawsuits, alleged victims have said they were abused inside a building operated by Ossa Properties.

A spokesperson for Siegal said she had never been interviewed by either the DEA or the FBI, no longer has any connection to Wagging Tail, and was unaware of any investigation involving the company. She was not listed among the primary investigative targets in the task-force document.

Mark Epstein said in an interview that he had no knowledge of the DEA inquiry and had never spoken with investigators regarding illegal financial transfers, drugs or prostitution allegations. He added that he would only address questions concerning the circumstances surrounding his brother’s death. Authorities ruled Jeffrey Epstein’s death a suicide, though Mark Epstein has repeatedly disputed that conclusion and insists his brother was killed.

Daniel Weiner, who represents Indyke and Kahn, said both men were unaware that the DEA had ever conducted such an investigation.

The story published by Bloomberg (which you can read in full by clicking here) is riddled with sensationalism and flimsy dot connecting. For instance, their article goes on to detail, in great length, another investigation carried out into alleged drug dealing in New York at the time, but gives no evidence to suggest any connection with Epstein.

Furthermore, Epstein was known to be incredibly anti-drugs. In fact, he sacked a number of his former staff members (including Virginia Giuffre) upon discovering that they were taking illegal narcotics. So it is hard to reconcile this with the fresh insinuation that he was heavily involved in trafficking narcotics.

I also find it difficult to understand why Epstein, who was already a multi-millionaire and was making an astronomical, documented income from trading and helping the rich and powerful pay less tax, would risk all of that by selling drugs.

That said, though unlikely (and indeed the FBI never pressed any charges, so couldn’t have found evidence to prove a case against him), it’s still a story that warrants further investigation before ruling it out completely.

‘New Allegations’ Against President Trump

The Department of Justice released additional documents into the Epstein files database this week after several news organisations accused it of holding back records that contained allegations involving the President. The department said the documents had initially been withheld because they were mistakenly categorised as “duplicative”.

The reality is that over 75,000 additional documents were due to be released before Friday 6th March, but journalists, some of whom have been working alongside the House Democrats and lawyers representing Epstein’s accusers, were only interested in material that can be spun into misleading headlines capable of smearing Donald Trump, whose relationship with Epstein ended in the early 2000s.

Therefore, largely ignoring all else, they instantly honed in on 16 newly released pages containing summaries and notes from three FBI interviews with a woman who accused Trump of sexual assault, describing her allegations in graphic detail.

According to the documents, the woman first contacted federal authorities in 2019, shortly after Epstein’s arrest. She alleged that the financier assaulted her on Hilton Head Island in South Carolina when she was about 13 years old, an incident she believes occurred around 1984. During the interviews, she told investigators that Epstein “drove her and/or flew her to either New York or New Jersey,” where she was taken to a “very tall building with huge rooms” in which she said Trump sexually assaulted her.

The notes record the woman saying that Trump allegedly “mentioned something to the effect of: ‘Let me teach you how little girls are supposed to be.’”

She alleged that Trump attempted to force her to perform a sex act before striking her in the head and having her removed from the room.

The FBI conducted additional interviews later that year, on 24 July, 7 August, 20 August and 16 October.

In those conversations, the woman told agents she believed her mother had been blackmailed by Epstein and said she experienced verbal and physical threats for years after the alleged incident, which she believed were connected to him.

On Thursday, Trump’s press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, said the allegations were “completely baseless” and “backed by zero credible evidence.” She also questioned the credibility of the accuser, whose name remains redacted, citing her criminal history.

The Department of Justice reiterated its earlier warning that the Epstein files contain claims that are unverified and may be inaccurate.

“Some of the documents contain untrue and sensationalist claims against President Trump that were submitted to the FBI right before the 2020 election,” the department said. “To be clear, the claims are unfounded and false, and if they had any credibility, they would already have been used against President Trump.”

This did not stop the press and media from publishing intentionally misleading headlines and clickbait articles, claiming that the documents constitute ‘new’ allegations against President Trump.

The journalists writing those pieces, of course, knew full well that they were willingly trying to pull the wool over your eyes.

They also knew full well that the allegations not only are nothing ‘new’, but that they were thoroughly debunked many years ago. Even Julie K Brown, the former Miami Herald journalist known for covering the case, has previously admitted that these allegations were proven to be false. However, this hasn’t stopped her from, in recent days, insinuating the very opposite to gain herself some attention. One must remember that Brown publicly admitted that the only reason she first took an interest in the Epstein scandal was because allegations had been made against Trump (whom Brown clearly and openly dislikes).

Some of the allegations were, in fact, already present in the Epstein files before the additional documents were added. And, surprisingly, even the left-wing Guardian recently debunked those allegations. Their article, put out at the end of last month, can be read by clicking here.

You can. also read about another allegation against Trump, and how it turned out to be a hoax orchestrated by a former Jerry Springer Show producer, by clicking here.

Epstein’s Prison Guard Made ‘Mysterious’ Cash Deposit After Googling Him

Freshly released documents from the US Department of Justice suggest that one of the prison guards on duty the night Epstein died conducted internet searches about him shortly before his body was discovered, and had made a ‘sizeable’ cash deposit days earlier that later drew scrutiny from investigators.

According to the records, correctional officer Tova Noel searched online for updates about Epstein roughly 40 minutes before he was found dead in his cell at the Metropolitan Correctional Center on August 10, 2019. FBI logs of Noel’s computer activity indicate she typed the phrase “latest on Epstein in jail” at 5:42 a.m., repeating the search again at 5:52 a.m. Her colleague, correctional officer Michael Thomas, discovered Epstein hanging in his cell at about 6:30 a.m.

Both Noel and Thomas were later accused by prosecutors of falsifying prison logs to indicate they had carried out routine checks on Epstein during the night. In reality, investigators alleged that the mandatory half-hour welfare checks were not performed. The two officers were dismissed from their jobs, although criminal charges against them were eventually dropped.

Earlier in the shift, prosecutors said Noel spent time browsing furniture online while Thomas looked at motorcycle listings instead of conducting rounds.

When Noel was questioned under oath by the Justice Department in 2021, she denied carrying out the internet searches recorded by the FBI. “I don’t remember doing that,” she said during the interview, according to a transcript. She added that she did not believe the FBI’s search logs were accurate, stating: “I don’t recall looking him up.”

Noel also told investigators that failing to perform routine rounds was common practice inside the Manhattan jail and that records were frequently filled out to indicate checks had been completed even when they had not. “I’ve never worked in the Special Housing Unit and actually done rounds every 30 minutes,” she said.

Separate documents released by the Justice Department show that Chase Bank flagged a series of cash deposits into Noel’s account in a suspicious activity report sent to the FBI in November 2019.

Bank records indicate that 12 deposits had been made beginning in April 2018, culminating in the largest payment, a $5,000 cash deposit on July 30, 2019, ten days before Epstein’s death. The files released publicly include account activity from December 2018 onward, showing seven deposits totalling $11,880 in cash.

Noel began working in the jail’s Special Housing Unit, where Epstein was being held, on July 7, 2019, only weeks before he died. Records also show she was driving a 2019 Land Rover Range Rover valued at around $62,000 at the time. Investigators did not question her about the deposits during the sworn interview.

Another document in the Justice Department release summarises an internal FBI briefing about surveillance footage from the night of Epstein’s death. Investigators believed Noel may have been the unidentified orange-coloured figure captured on a grainy camera image near the tier where Epstein was housed around 10:40 p.m.

The briefing noted that a correctional officer, believed to be Noel, appeared to be carrying either linens or inmate clothing toward the unit’s entrance at that time, describing it as the last moment an officer was seen approaching the tier during the night. Epstein was later found to have used strips of orange fabric to hang himself.

In her sworn statement, however, Noel said she last saw Epstein alive sometime after 10 p.m. and insisted she did not distribute linens or clothing to prisoners during her shift. “I never gave out linen — ever,” she told investigators, explaining that the task was normally carried out by the previous shift.

The unclear identity of the orange-coloured figure in the surveillance footage has fuelled debate and speculation since the FBI released the video publicly.

When investigators asked Noel directly whether she had any role in Epstein’s death, she responded simply: “No.”

Now, let’s step away from the sensational, perhaps even conspiratorial aspects of this story, and inject some common sense.

Firstly, not only have we not been told who the payments to Noel were made by (nor indeed if they come from separate senders), but the majority of those payments were made long before Epstein ever stepped foot inside the Metropolitan Correctional Centre (the prison where Noel worked). In fact, most were made before Epstein was even arrested.

Secondly, the FBI would have investigated the origins of these payments, and yet there is no evidence to suggest that they concluded any of them were made in relation to the Epstein case, nor sent by anyone with a motive to kill Epstein.

Thirdly, Noel googling updates on Epstein’s case isn’t suspicious at all, particularly considering that it was so high profile at the time and, that very day, the world media was awash with stories on Epstein’s. legal battle and fresh allegations being made against him. Curiosity is a natural human trait - even more so for a bored guard sat behind a desk on a silent late night shift just meters away from the famous man in question. Furthermore, Epstein wasn’t the only inmate whom Noel googled. Shortly after searching ‘latest on Epstein in jail’, she also googled ‘latest on Omar Amanat’.

Omar Amanat was another high profile inmate of the MCC during the time that Noel worked there, further ddemonstrating that she was merely, and naturally, interested in the online gossip and news relating to the inmates under her care.

Amanat was an American entrepreneur, film producer, and investor in media, technology and hospitality companies.

In July 2016 Amanat was arrested as part of the conspiracy case against former technology IPTV company KIT Digital. Prosecutors asserted that Amanat with Kaleil Isaza Tuzman, Stephen E. Maiden and an unnamed individual used an investment vehicle controlled by Tuzman to purchase KIT Digital shares. In December 2017, Amanat was found guilty of defrauding Kit investors, Judge Paul G. Gardephe thus. revoked his bail and ordered him remanded into custody at the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC), citing the risk of flight and the presentation of fabricated evidence during the trial. He remained there until 2021, when he was finally sentenced to five years in federal prison.

And finally, are we really supposed to believe (as the headlines so clearly insinuate) that Noel would risk losing her job and risk serving a life sentence, to murder Jeffrey Epstein… for just $5,000 (the only large payment made to her during Epstein’s incarceration, and an amount that is less one month’s salary for a guard working at the MCC)?

I think not.

While I’ve got you here: Incase you missed mine and ’s latest live chat going over the evidence relating to Epstein’s curious death, including audio from his brother, Mark Epstein, and Epstein’s former cellmate, you can watch it by clicking here.

It was typed-up in 2011 after Epstein moaned to his PR representative, Michael Sitrick, about not being reactionary to the countless allegations and sensationalised headlines in the press.

Epstein later refused to pay Sitrick, was sued, and eventually settled for an undisclosed sum.

Once he’d penned the draft statement, going against Sitrick’s adivce, Epstein sent it to Peter Mandelson, the former Labour peer who was recently arrested over allegations he sent sensitive government information to Epstein via email.

In his reply, Mandelson reminded Epstein that he was writing it “as much to protect your friends as yourself”. Presumably, Mandelson considered himself to be among those in need of protecting.

Mandelson’s email can be read below:

Read more

Epstein had long shown an interest in the area. In a 2019 interview conducted by Steve Bannon, he stated that he became interested in New Mexico as an investor after 1990, when he learned that many scientists who had previously worked at Los Alamos National Laboratory were working at private spin-off firms doing pure and applied research, such as the Santa Fe Institute.

Epstein controlled the property through a shell company called Zorro Trust, later renamed Cypress, Inc.

The ranch spanned thousands of acres – reports vary between roughly 7,500 and 10,000 – making it a domain unto itself. At its heart stood a vast, hacienda-style mansion, often cited as being between 26,000 and 30,000 square feet. Built in the stucco-and-adobe tradition of the region, its cream-colored walls and terracotta roofs rose in sharp relief against the open blue sky. The main house, not completed until later 1999/early 2000, formed a wide U-shape around inner courtyards, with shaded porticoes, fountains, and terraces that looked out toward distant mountain ridges. From above, the estate seemed less like a single dwelling than a small compound – a deliberate echo of the Spanish colonial architecture that still defines much of northern New Mexico.

North of the Zorro Ranch is the Cerro Pelon Ranch, owned by fashion designer Tom Ford, where various films have been shot.

Beyond the main house stretched a small constellation of auxiliary buildings: guesthouses, staff quarters, a fire station, and a sprawling heated garage with multiple bays. There was a large swimming pool, stables, and fenced pastureland dotted with cattle. A short private airstrip and hangar, visible in aerial photographs, allowed for discreet arrivals by plane or helicopter. One peculiar detail noted by visitors and investigators alike was the presence of an antique railroad car on a short section of track – a personal curiosity whose purpose was never publicly explained.

Inside, the main residence reflected a blend of Southwestern motifs and conspicuous luxury. Reports and estate photographs describe wide, echoing halls; cavernous living spaces; and suites large enough to feel like apartments in their own right. Stone fireplaces, heavy wood beams, and arched windows gave the rooms a stylised regional character, but the scale – designed for entertaining or isolation – remained distinctly out of proportion with the understated local ranch culture. Courtyards opened into tiled patios, and the large pool glittered behind the house like a mirage in the desert heat.

Prince Andrew

In her unpublished memoir, The Billionaire’s Playboy Club, Virginia Giuffre, who is confirmed as having visited the ranch, wrote:

“I enjoyed spending time at his ranch, being it was my favourite of all of his residences. He had a lavish Mediterranean-looking castle on top of a hill that overlooked his extensive 7,500 acres of property. It has an indoor pool, gym, and all the trimmings of extravagance I could only imagine. I had a great time on the quad bikes. Sarah and I often got scolded for tipping one over going too fast or trying to go up a steep hill, but we knew those weren’t the things he cared about, so it wouldn’t matter. My favourite of it all was his little town with its own fire station and truck, stables full of horses, and little cottages where the housekeepers and ranch hands lived. On my own time I would take one of the quad bikes down to the stables and saddle up on one of his beautiful horses and go for a ride in the open terrain. It was coming up to the end of a very cold winter, and it still had the snow-covered mountaintops and brisk air that I loved to take in during my many trail rides. I have been an experienced horse rider since my childhood and could honestly pinpoint some of the best memories of my life being on the back of a horse.”

Continuing to write of the ranch in her unpublished memoir, Giuffre made the shocking allegation that Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell sent her there to have sex with Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor:

“Two days later I was gone again, beckoned to be in Santa Fe. Ghislaine only told me that I was to meet someone there, not sure of whom that was. It wasn’t my place to ask questions. As far as I knew it could be anyone, and I had no choice but to be compliant to their needs. It was the middle of the day when I arrived at the airport. One of the ranch hands came to pick me up in a big work truck that smelled like dirt and sweat, but I didn’t mind, that’s what I loved about the ranch. When we arrived at the mansion my guest was already there waiting for me. I couldn’t wipe the look off my face as he turned around from the bookshelf that he was standing at. ‘Hello’, that same old cheesy grin greeted me once again. It was his highness, Prince Andrew, and what a sight. He wrapped his arms around my waist and greeted me like an old friend. I hugged him back, rolling my eyes at the same time, already dreading what lay in store over the next couple of days. My job was to entertain him endlessly, whether that meant having to bestow him my body during an erotic massage or simply take him horseback riding. For the next couple of days, he was to be my only concern, but he wasn’t. I called in checking on TJ a few times a day, not wanting to be a nag but just hoping he hadn’t had any thoughts about relapsing. He was doing great, even applying for a couple of jobs. Being reassured by him made my time away less complicated and, thankfully with the help of my ever- ready Xanax, I was able to cope with the ordeal. The mansion was completely empty save a couple of maids who also cooked our dinners for us, and a couple bodyguards that we hardly even saw at all. The time dragged by slowly for me as I was counting down the hours until I flew away again, anywhere but here I thought. It wasn’t easy meeting the sexual desires of these strange men, the Prince being one of them. He loved my feet and even licked in between my toes. Then there was the lack of passion in the intimacy we shared, to him I was just another girl and to me he was just another job. Not the right reasons to be together, but I thought in this world, and to these monsters, there didn’t need to be a reason. To them it’s nothing but a re-enactment of their personal fantasies. To me it was a living nightmare.”

Surprisingly, Virginia Giuffre’s vivid account of having sex with Prince Andrew in New Mexico has largely been glossed over by the media.

And for good reason.

It was a complete lie.

During her 2016 court hearing, when questioned by one of Ghislaine’s lawyers, she casually acknowledged that she had never spent any time with Andrew in New Mexico at all, meaning that the above story in her memoir is, ultimately, a sinister fabrication.

Giuffre would go on to change her story yet again, this time claiming that her alleged “third encounter” with Andrew was on Jeffrey’s private island. During this visit, she claimed, she and Andrew participated in an “open-air” orgy with nine other young women. But not a single girl has ever come forward to corroborate her claim, and it was later revealed that Giuffre had originally claimed that Jean-Luc Brunel, not Andrew, was at the unlikely orgy.

The Baby Farm Allegation

Though unproven, the New York Times wrote the following in a 2019 article:

On multiple occasions starting in the early 2000s, Mr. Epstein told scientists and businessmen about his ambitions to use his New Mexico ranch as a base where women would be inseminated with his sperm and would give birth to his babies, according to two award-winning scientists and an adviser to large companies and wealthy individuals, all of whom Mr. Epstein told about it.

It was not a secret. The adviser, for example, said he was told about the plans not only by Mr. Epstein, at a gathering at his Manhattan townhouse, but also by at least one prominent member of the business community. One of the scientists said Mr. Epstein divulged his idea in 2001 at a dinner at the same townhouse; the other recalled Mr. Epstein discussing it with him at a 2006 conference that he hosted in St. Thomas in the Virgin Islands.

The idea struck all three as far-fetched and disturbing. There is no indication that it would have been against the law.

Once, at a dinner at Mr. Epstein’s mansion on Manhattan’s Upper East Side, Mr. Lanier said he talked to a scientist who told him that Mr. Epstein’s goal was to have 20 women at a time impregnated at his 33,000-square-foot Zorro Ranch in a tiny town outside Santa Fe. Mr. Lanier said the scientist identified herself as working at NASA, but he did not remember her name.

According to Mr. Lanier, the NASA scientist said Mr. Epstein had based his idea for a baby ranch on accounts of the Repository for Germinal Choice, which was to be stocked with the sperm of Nobel laureates who wanted to strengthen the human gene pool. (Only one Nobel Prize winner has acknowledged contributing sperm to it. The repository discontinued operations in 1999.)

Mr. Lanier, the virtual-reality creator and author, said he had the impression that Mr. Epstein was using the dinner parties — where some guests were attractive women with impressive academic credentials — to screen candidates to bear Mr. Epstein’s children.

Buried Bodies

Following Epstein’s death, the Zorro ranch was sold in 2023, and is now owned by the family of Republican politician Don Huffines.

New Mexico’s Department of Justice announced last week that, bowing to press and public pressure, it is examining an allegation arising from documents recently released by the U.S. Department of Justice that the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein ordered the burial of two foreign girls outside his secluded New Mexico ranch.

Lauren Rodriguez, a spokesperson for the New Mexico Department of Justice, said the agency has requested an unredacted version of a 2019 email containing the claim from federal authorities. “We are actively investigating this allegation and are conducting a broader review in light of the latest release from the U.S. Department of Justice,” Rodriguez said in an emailed statement responding to questions about the matter.

The allegation the move is based on, however, is an email sent by an anonymous individual in what appears to be a scam.

The redacted 2019 email had been sent a few months after Epstein’s death to Eddy Aragon, a New Mexico radio show host who had discussed the Zorro Ranch on his program.

The sender, claiming, without proof, to be a former Zorro Ranch employee, requested payment of one bitcoin (worth thousands of dollars) in return for videos that the email said had been taken from Epstein’s house and showed the financier having sex with minors.

No payment was made, no videos ever materialised, and though the email was forwarded to the FBI, no evidence was found to suggest the sender’s claim was genuine.

This follows a similar pattern of individuals trying to financially exploit the Epstein scandal by claiming to possess explicit video footage of Epstein. Sarah Ransome, a prominent Epstein accuser, previously asked a national newspaper to pay her a large upfront fee for sex tapes that, she claimed, starred Epstein, Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, and Richard Branson. After being refused an upfront fee without proof that the tapes were real, she began to make a series of bizarre excuses before ultimately admitting that she had lied and no such tapes existed.

In another case, John Mark Dougan, a former Florida police officer who was fired from the force, moved to Russia, and began working for the Kremlin disseminating anti-west ‘fake news’, managed to get a large number of people to pay a subscription fee to his website on the promise that he’d soon release CCTV footage from Epstein’s home. Dougan was later exposed as a scammer, a screenshot he eventually released being revealed to have been taken from a popular pornography website, depicting two consensual adults with no connection to the Epstein case.

This evening, Peter Mandelson was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office. This comes after the Met Police carried out searches at his properties in Wiltshire and north London earlier this month.

The force launched an investigation into the ex-Labour minister on February 3rd over allegations he passed market-sensitive government information to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein via emails that have since been made public within the millions of documents that make up the Epstein files.

In a carefully choreographed act intended to satisfy public calls for heads to roll over the Epstein scandal, rather than invite Mandelson to a police station to be interviewed (as is customary), police officers arrived at his home in Camden, London, placed him under arrest, paraded him past journalists and paparazzi who had been tipped-off beforehand, and led him into an unmarked police car. He was then taken away for questioning.

The Metropolitan Police have issued the following statement:

“Officers have arrested a 72-year-old man on suspicion of misconduct in public office.

“He was arrested at an address in Camden on Monday, 23 February and has been taken to a London police station for interview.

“This follows search warrants at two addresses in the Wiltshire and Camden areas.”

I will provide an update in due course.

PRINCE ANDREW’S ARREST

Mandelson’s arrest was easy to predict, for it mimics another high profile incident that took place last week: the arrest of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor.

Thames Valley Police detained him on Thursday on suspicion of misconduct in public office, citing his connections to Epstein.

The arrest took place on Andrew’s 66th birthday. But celebrations were cut short when unmarked police vehicles and plainclothes officers were observed at Wood Farm on the Sandringham estate, where Andrew has resided since vacating his long-time home at the Royal Lodge earlier this month following new allegations that he had shared sensitive material with Jeffrey Epstein.

Emails from the recently-released batch of Epstein files show Andrew’s assistant passing on reports of visits to Singapore, Hong Kong and Vietnam, and confidential details of investment opportunities during his tenure as trade envoy between 2001 and 2011.

Under official guidance, trade envoys have a duty of confidentiality over sensitive, commercial, or political information about their official visits.

Immediately, commentators and journalists portrayed the arrest as vindication for his accuser, the late Virginia Giuffre, who had alleged she had been trafficked to him in 2001. However, the arrest has no connection to those allegations, which have never been proven in a court of law. Furthermore, my five plus year investigation revealed that Giuffre had been proven to have falsely claimed that she had sex with Andrew during a long weekend with him at Epstein’s Zorro ranch in New Mexico. In 2016, however, she admitted that no such incident had taken place. Giuffre was also revealed to have made numerous false allegations against other individuals. You can listed to the below podcast episode for further details.

You can also read my further reporting on Andrew’s arrest by clicking here.

EPSTEIN BREAKS HIS SILENCE FROM BEYOND THE GRAVE

Whilst embarking on another potholing expedition into the mountain of 3.5 million documents that make up the Epstein files, I found something that, remarkably, no-one else had yet found: A long draft statement written by Epstein himself, in which he discussed his sexual appetite, confessed to being a frequent patron of massage parlours and prostitutes, and revealed the truth behind the allegations against him. And, just as remarkable, everything he wrote in the statement corroborates what myself and have been publicly saying for many years.

Watch our latest live below to hear Epstein’s statement read out in full for the first time, with some added context:

House Inhabit

Epstein in His Own Words: A Seven Page Statement Unearthed by Jay

From the grave, we finally get Epstein’s “side.” Today’s conversation centers on the seven-page document Jay Beecher uncovered this week, buried deep within the Epstein files — where the disgraced financier, in his own words, lays out his version of the scandal, echoing what Jay uncovered over the course of his five-year investigation…

Listen now

2 months ago · 116 likes · 97 comments · Jessica Reed Kraus and Jay Beecher

DIGGING FOR BURIED BODIES ON EPSTEIN’S RANCH

New Mexico’s Department of Justice said on Wednesday that it is examining an allegation arising from documents recently released by the U.S. Department of Justice that the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein ordered the burial of two foreign girls outside his secluded New Mexico ranch.

Lauren Rodriguez, a spokesperson for the New Mexico Department of Justice, said the agency has requested an unredacted version of a 2019 email containing the claim from federal authorities. “We are actively investigating this allegation and are conducting a broader review in light of the latest release from the U.S. Department of Justice,” Rodriguez said in an emailed statement responding to questions about the matter.

The allegation the move is based on, however, is an email sent by an anonymous individual as part of a scam.

The redacted 2019 email had been sent a few months after Epstein’s death to Eddy Aragon, a New Mexico radio show host who had discussed the Zorro Ranch on his program.

The sender, claiming, without proof, to be a former Zorro Ranch employee, requested payment of one bitcoin (worth thousands of dollars) in return for videos that the email said had been taken from Epstein’s house and showed the financier having sex with minors.

No payment was made, no videos ever materialised, and though the email was forwarded to the FBI, no evidence was found to suggest the sender’s claim was genuine.

This follows a similar pattern of individuals trying to financially exploit the Epstein scandal by claiming to possess explicit video footage of Epstein. Sarah Ransome, a prominent Epstein accuser, previously asked a national newspaper to pay her a large upfront fee for sex tapes that, she claimed, starred Epstein, Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, and Richard Branson. After being refused an upfront fee without proof that the tapes were real, she began to make a series of bizarre excuses before ultimately admitting that she had lied and no such tapes existed.

In another case, John Mark Dougan, a former Florida police officer who was fired from the force, moved to Russia, and began working for the Kremlin disseminating anti-west ‘fake news’, managed to get a large number of people to pay a subscription fee to his website on the promise that he’d soon release CCTV footage from Epstein’s home. Dougan was later exposed as a scammer, a screenshot he eventually released being revealed to have been taken from a popular pornography website, depicting two consensual adults with no connection to the Epstein case.

MEETING A PORN STAR

In the Epstein files, it was revealed that Epstein had a fondness for famous former adult film star Sash Grey.

Grey, who has long retired and has been vocal in her criticism of the adult film industry, is mentioned in numerous emails, with Epstein and one other associate sharing links to her adult videos.

In one email, one of Epstein’s female flings discussed at length being involved in domination shoots with ‘Sasha Grey’s man’, with Epstein advising her on how to use butt plugs.

In another email, Epstein was asked if he had met Sasha Grey in person, to which he claimed that he had. I reached out to Sasha this week but have so far received no comment.

There is no suggestion whatsoever that Grey did anything wrong or had any knowledge of the allegations against Epstein at the time. However, multiple news outlets have tried, and failed, to sensationalise the story.

ALLEGATIONS OF MURDER, AND ‘EPSTEIN’S LITTLEST GIRL’

A series of emails between Epstein and one of his former girlfriends has led to viral unsubstantiated claims to circulate online, alleging that Epstein and his associates were engaged in murder and child abuse.

In reality, the emails were sent by Susan Hamblin.

Anna Paulina Luna shared fresh details on X regarding Hamblin, highlighting a phrase from an email that read: 'Had a great night. Your littlest girl was a little naughty.' Luna urged the Department of Justice to revisit possible charges, suggesting that human rights violations could have been committed.

What Luna failed to do, however, was conduct a quick search for additional context to explain the email. If she had, she would have discovered that Hamblin was referring to herself as Epstein’s ‘littlest girl’, that she was in her twenties at the time the email and others written by her were sent, and it was a nickname based upon a miniature 3D model of herself she had previously taken photographs of and sent to Epstein.

In 2020 and 2021, British newspaper The Sun (known for printing ‘fake news’), published articles and videos linking Hamblin to allegations in a US legal claim involving Epstein. The coverage suggested she had some connection to the events described, although these reports were later formally retracted upon being revealed to be false. Hamblin pursued legal action in the United Kingdom, and The Sun issued a public apology in the High Court before Mr Justice Nicklin.

Another email sent by Hamblin used the phrase, “I give you permission to kill him”. This cause conspiracy theorists and dubious online commentators to spread the claim that Epstein had literally killed someone. However, when I trawled through the Epstein files for context, I discovered that the email was tongue-in-cheek and followed Hamblin telling Epstein that she had asked a male friend if he was having an affair, to which he allegedly lied that he was not (Hamblin claimed to have seen him with another woman).

MAXWELL BEHIND BARS

has been dishing out intriguing updates of Ghislaine Maxwell based on alleged daily sightings from fellow inmates whom Jessica has been communicating with. You can read some of them below.

House Inhabit

Inside Out: Ghislaine Maxwell Behind Bars

“I went outside yesterday evening and seen Maxwell doing her daily walking/jogging around the track. She always carries this little mini book/writing pad on her everywhere she goes she will even put it into her bra if she has to. i stay wondering what is so important about that book…

Read more

3 months ago · 84 likes · 27 comments · Jessica Reed Kraus

EPSTEIN ACCUSER SENDS TWISTED DEATH THREATS AGAINST CHILDREN

A criminal case was opened in the Netherlands against Epstein accuser Sarah Ransome, after she sent a series of illegal emails to numerous individuals, including Virginia Giuffre’s brother and fellow Epstein accuser Juliette Bryant.

In the emails, Ransome threatened to harm the children of her targets unless she was paid a large sum of money.

You can read the full story, along with some of the graphic emails, by clicking here.

Ransome has since escalated her online abuse by threatening Lady Victoria Hervey and several other innocent parties.

CHAOS ON CAMPUS

The board of trustees at Bard College has commissioned the outside law firm WilmerHale to conduct an independent inquiry into past interactions between Epstein and the institution’s president, Leon Botstein.

In a statement issued Thursday evening, trustees said the firm will examine the breadth of correspondence between Epstein and the college, assess any donations associated with him, and review other related matters. Once the investigation concludes, WilmerHale is expected to advise the board on potential changes to donor screening processes, fundraising oversight, codes of conduct, and conflict of interest safeguards.

Botstein, who has served as Bard’s president since 1975, has said his contact with Epstein began in 2011, when the college received what he described as an unsolicited $75,000 contribution for Bard High School Early College. This outreach occurred years after Epstein’s conviction for sex offences had become widely known. Botstein has stated that he continued the relationship in his role as the college’s chief fundraiser and has emphasised that Epstein was “not my friend,” a point he reiterated in a letter to the campus community.

The trustees’ decision follows fresh attention to Botstein’s dealings with Epstein after the release of emails and other records by the Department of Justice, including details of a 2012 visit by the college president to Epstein’s private island.

A PLOT TO SABOTAGE TRUMP?

You can read about the well-established modus operandi of the lawyers representing some of the Epstein accusers, and in particular their behind-the-scenes work with the media to exploit the scandal for financial gain, by clicking the article below.

It now appears that yet another publicity stunt is about the be pulled.

President Donald Trump will stand before Congress on Tuesday to deliver the annual State of the Union address. As the lawmakers sit in the House chamber listening to Trump’s agenda for the year ahead, David Boies and his associates (who have admitted to be working pro bono for the House Democrats) have already been plotting with the Democrats and the press to carry out a headline-grabbing spectacle to embarrass and smear Trump.

Their plan involves having Epstein accusers present in the room with Trump while he gives his long speech, during which they will carry out a so-far undisclosed act to grab the attention of every politician in the room, while they themselves will be intentionally placed in seats perfect for dramatic photographs of their stunt to be taken by pro-Boies/anti-Trump photographers.

Among those who have been invited is Haley Robson.

Rep. Ro Khanna announced on Thursday evening that Robson would be his guest when Trump delivers the annual joint address to Congress. Khanna served as the main Democratic sponsor of the discharge petition that forced the vote to release the Epstein files along with Republican Rep. Thomass Massie of Kentucky.

Robson said she hopes to hold Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi accountable, despite no evidence being found to suggest any wrongdoing on Trump’s part in relation to the Epstein scandal.

“I want to see Trump, and I want to look him in his eyes, whether I say anything to him,” Robson told the press over the weekend. “Same with Bondi, because I need them to know that I’m not scared.”

“Haley’s courageous fight is proof that this isn’t about politics, it’s about exposing America’s two-tiered system of justice and bringing accountability to the Epstein class involved in the horrific abuse of young girls,” Khanna said in a statement.

What he failed to mention, however, is that Robson was in fact a recruiter of minors, not a victim of Jeffrey Epstein - and police at the time tried their best to prosecute her after she bragged about recruiting children. You can read the full shocking story below.

GUNMAN SHOT DEAD AT MAR-A-LAGO

Massie’s madness has contributed to a brainwashed young man being shot dead at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago in West Palm Beach. Massie, who recently falsely accused four innocent men of being involved in Epstein’s alleged crimes, has been intentionally contributing to the ongoing witch hunt and maelstrom of disinformation on social media. It appears to have had an impact - though not completely one he’d expected.

The suspect has been named as 21-year-old Austin T Martin of Cameron, North Carolina, according to the BBC’s US partner CBS.

His family in North Carolina had reported him missing in the early hours of Sunday morning, the Moore County Sheriff’s Office said in a statement to the BBC.

The missing persons information has since been turned over to federal authorities, the sheriff’s office said.

They added that the department had no record of prior history concerning Martin and that it was not involved in the Florida investigation.

US Secret Service agents fired at him after they saw him “unlawfully entering the secure perimeter at Mar-a-Lago early this morning”, agency spokesman Anthony Guglielmi posted on X on Sunday.

The suspect “was observed by the north gate of the Mar-a-Lago property carrying what appeared to be a shotgun and a fuel can”, the agency said in a statement.

The man was then shot after refusing orders, Palm Beach County Sheriff Ric Bradshaw said.

“The only words that we said to him was ‘drop the items’, which means the gas can and the shotgun,” Bradshaw told a news conference.

“At which time he put down the gas can, raised the shotgun to a shooting position,” he said.

At that point, agents fired their weapons to “neutralise the threat”, Bradshaw added.

The officers were wearing body cameras and no law enforcement officers were injured, he said.

It was later revealed that the gunman had allegedly been brainwashed by some of the many conspiracy theories being promoted online relating to the Epstein scandal.

Well, that’s all for now, folks. But be sure to subscribe and stay tuned for my upcoming posts throughout the week.

Thanks for subscribing to me. Covering the Epstein scandal cost me my job as News Editor, but getting the truth out to you is far more important to me, and I truly appreciate your support.

MEANWHILE, YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN SOME MORE OF MY ARTICLES AND EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEWS:

‘It’s monumental,” a grinning Sky Roberts Jr told the press as, earlier this week, the news broke that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor had been arrested. “We’re astronomically proud of my sister. This is where the house of cards starts falling.”

“Virginia has been vindicated!’ many began to tweet, wrongly believing that a man being brought in for questioning over the alleged sharing of sensitive emails was somehow akin to being cast into a cell for having sex with a minor.

They were all, of course, referring to Prince Andrew’s famous, or perhaps now rather ‘infamous’ accuser, the late Virginia Giuffre.

As the ghoulish masses revelled in another man’s misery, scoffing at the front page-splattered image of a bewildered Andrew slumping into his seat during his lonely drive home from the police station, no-one seemed to give a fig for the age-old legal right to the presumption of innocence. And they cared even less for one inconvenient, indisputable fact:

The downfall of the Duke, and the ongoing witch hunt, is based upon the debunked lies of a demonstrable false accuser.

Whilst Andrew’s arrest pertaining to him allegedly sharing sensitive government material is legally sound, the stripping of his titles over lurid sex stories, without evidence, without a trial, is beyond the pale.

Those titles should be restored, and here are ten reasons why:

• Before she had even met Jeffrey Epstein, Virginia Giuffre, at that time Virginia Roberts, falsely accused two teenage boys of raping her. Her case was eventually dropped upon it being discovered that the three had engaged in a consensual threesome, with prosecutors issuing a statement that Giuffre lacked credibility.

• In another incident, again before she met Epstein, Giuffre claimed she’d been raped by another teenager - only for police to discover that she was in fact trying to rewrite history. She later admitted that she had willingly given oral sex to the accused teenager on someone’s front lawn.

• When Giuffre’s scandalous Prince Andrew story first broke in 2011, she clearly stated that she had had no sexual contact with him. Her story changed, however, after being paid over $140,000 by the Mail on Sunday.

• Sharon Churcher, the journalist who wrote that first article, later admitted that Giuffre was a ‘liar’, a former prostitute, and accused her of blackmailing Professor Alan Dershowitz.

• Giuffre went on to falsely claim she'd been trafficked to Prince Andrew in New Mexico, writing several lurid pages in her unpublished memoir, the Billionaire’s Playboy Club, detailing how she and the prince had spent a long weekend at Epstein’s Zorro ranch, horse riding together, sipping champagne, and having sex in a candlelit bathtub. Then, during a deposition in 2016, under oath, Giuffre admitted that no such event took place. She had never once been to New Mexico with Prince Andrew. She had lied.

• Giuffre then claimed (and was generously paid by the press to do so) that she and Andrew took part in a wild orgy on Epstein’s island, whereby she, the Duke, and Epstein, rithed around in Bacchanalian ecstasy with ten foreign nymphs. Later, however, it was revealed that she had made this up, with her first rendition of the story found to have accused Jean-Luc Brunel to have been present, before she later substituted him in her tall tale for Andrew.

• Giuffre falsely claimed in a lawsuit that she had been trafficked to foreign presidents. But in 2016 she admitted that she hadn’t ever met a foreign president in her life.

• After being offered a large sum of money to write a fiction-riddled memoir, she then accused President Donald Trump’s former lawyer, the renowned Professor Alan Dershowitz, alleging she’d had sex with him multiple times. Almost a decade later, after Dershowitz proved beyond any doubt that he never so much as met her, and after her own lawyer, David Boies, was secretly recorded admitting that her claim couldn’t possibly be true, Giuffre finally admitted that her allegation was false, begrudgingly issuing a public statement that she ‘may have been mistaken’.

• Giuffre also accused Paris Hilton’s father, Jacques Cousteau’ss granddaughter, multiple senators, famous scientists, and a string of celebrities. But then, after they proved that they’d never met her, she stopped mentioning their names.

• Giuffre’s own lawyer, Bradley Edwards, eventually acknowledged on national television that she had not been trafficked to anyone other than Jeffrey Epstein.

For over five years now, I’ve been investigating the Epstein scandal, predominantly focusing on Virginia Giuffre. I could go on and on listing the many contradictions and full-blown fabrications in her allegations against multiple innocent individuals. I could tell you, with full evidence, of how she, whilst a legal adult, groomed and recruited underage children, took them to Epstein, lied that they were over 18, and helped to sexually assault them in exchange for large sums of cash.

But it would be better if you listened to the evidence yourself. Below is a viral episode of my podcast, Everything Epstein, in which I include some of my shocking interviews with key witnesses, including Professor Alan Dershowitz, Giuffre’s former boyfriends, and the mother of one of Giuffre’s victims. And then I highly recommend that you read my upcoming book, NAKED LIES, in which the truth and evidence surrounding this entire scandal is finally laid bare.

Were it not for the press and media’s absolute disregard for truth when it comes to their fanatical, unethical dissemination of the debunked sex allegations against Prince Andrew and their crusade against him, I truly believe that we would all be hearing reports of an investigation right now, rather than an arrest. I truly believe that the mob would place down their pitchforks. An I sincerely believe that, if the rule of law means anything in this country, many of us would be calling for the restoration of his titles.

My findings have been fully reinforced by evidence: Epstein in fact did not have a predilection for underage females. He was a crook. He was a pervert. But he was not a paedophile. My investigation also revealed that several key accusers were in fact recruiters rather than victims, that the few girls who were underage at the time had intentionally lied to Epstein that they were over 18, and that many of them have fabricated their stories. As a result, individuals and institutions have been fleeced out of hundreds of millions of dollars.

has also been saying this for years - our efforts to report the truth leading to us being the targets of harassment, the loss of my job, and the unjust cancelling of some of Jessica’s sponsorships.

Late last night, whilst embarking on another potholing expedition into the mountain of 3.5 million documents that make up the Epstein files, I found something that, remarkably, no-one else has yet found: A long draft statement written by Epstein himself, in which he discussed his sexual appetite, confessed to being a frequent patron of massage parlours and prostitutes, and revealed the truth behind the allegations against him. And, just as remarkable, everything he wrote in the statement corroborates what myself and Jessica have been publicly saying for many years.

The following is Jeffrey Epstein’s draft statement in full. I have had the letter authenticated by one of my sources, an individual who was extremely close to Epstein and worked with him to handle the press. I will be giving further context over the coming days.

“I have, up until now, not told my side of the story. I was advised by attorneys and pr people to just stay quiet, and it will all go away. I have received the same advice for five years now. I realize my silence is now causing collateral damage to my friends and other innocent bystanders. The time has come to let the hounds of investigative reporters loose on those that, driven by money, have made false claims, concocted malicious fabrications, and have expanded their fictions, now to include others in my orbit.

I was investigated for soliciting underage girls. To be precise, girls under the age of 18 who were brought to my house by their close friends, worked in local massage parlors (West Palm Beach has scores of massage parlor, happy ending places that routinely advertise in the same local papers that have chastised my behavior, or strip clubs (see palm beach post < classified).

I am, and have always been, a bachelor. I have used massage parlor girls, licenced massage therapists, and girls with no massage experience. I have never ever used force, coercion or in fact had intercourse with any of these girls. When the police investigated me, went through my garbage, searched my house, they found sex toys, NO cameras or camera equipment - nothing in fact out of the ordinary from many homes of single men. There were never any photos of underage girls, never. A careful reading of any law enforcement document makes that clear. The camera that was referred to in the search warrant was the camera installed in the house with the help of the local police to catch my houseman, John Alessi, the same houseman mentioned in many articles. He was breaking into the house and stealing money after being fired. The camera caught him in the act. These cameras were the only cameras at the house, security cameras. The local state attorney, after conducting an extensive investigation, and interviewing the girls herself [sic]. A sex crimes prosecutor with over 13 years experience, and who had herself authored the more tough legislations dealing with sex crimes, said in her own words there were no real victims here… the girls knew they were going to a house in palm beach, they had their boyfriends or family members drive them to the house and wait outside; they then encouraged their friends to go.

Many of the girls interviewed were in their mid twenties, some in their early thirties, and some younger than 18. The girl that the newspapers have referred to as a fourteen year old told the police that she had repeatedly told me that she was 18, she was a senior in high school, like many of the massage parlor girls, and in her own words, to the police, said the reason she said that [that she was over 18] was that she was told that if she didn't, “Mr Epstein would not let her in the house”.

These reports are available. The state attorney offered me to take a plea to aggravated assault, with only probation. My attorneys told me that it would be a forever blight on my record, and I should refuse the deal. I did so. The state attorney, Barry Krisher, took the unusual step of bringing the facts before a state grand jury. In florida, this happens most often in capital murder cases, not prostitution in someone’s own home. To be certain that the public would not criticize the outcome, the state grand jury was given all the evidence and returned a verdict of Solicitation of prostitution. Solicitation, a non registrable offense that carried with it a sentence of mandatory probation. Mandatory probation. One of the few statutes that has such a designation.

This charge however, was met with great disdain by the local police chief. He believed something untoward had gone on for the grand jury to return such a mild verdict after his department had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars examining the behavior of a resident that rarely left his house. Girls seems to come and go, girls of ALL ages, some masseuses interviewed were in their sixties.. some were men. The police chief, unhappy with the decision of twelve Florida citizens that weighed the evidence, took the unprecedented step of releasing the raw police reports to the press.. the raw sewage of an investigation, not corroborated or, it turned out, not even transcribed, from the actual interview tapes correctly. Before a plea to the indictment was entered, and the case was still open, he released the reports and then sent a letter off to the parents of some of the girls, and to the FBI, asking for their assistance. Only two days after the grand jury decided that I should only be charged with solicitation of prostitution, NOT underage girls, not pimping, but using prostitutes as a john, I received my first FEDERAL subpoena.

What resulted after a thirteen month investigation, and can be read in my non prosecution agreement, was the federal govt threatened me with a fifty page indictment alleging that I had broken federal law.. though all actions took place in my home in Florida, the girls were from Florida, and no interstate travel took place.

The AUSA said that my secretary had made telephone calls to the girls. Many of those calls were return calls, and the use of the telephone by my secretary, to confirm massage appointments, was equivalent federally to some guy surfing the internet, knowing full well that the person on the other end of the connection is under age, and trying to coerce them into some illegal sex activity. The internet luring statute says that someone uses the means of interstate commerce ( in my case as phone ) to knowingly coerce underage persons into sex. This was the first time in history that this statute would be stretched, twisted, beyond all recognition, in an attempt to threaten prosecution.

I had hired Ken Starr former solicitor general, Alan Dershowitz, law professor, Roy black, Trial attorney, Joe Whitley, former assistant attorney general, and guy Lewis, former us attny in south florida, to defend me against what each one of them had said was no federal crime. Ken starr wrote a brief using a federalism argument that it was clear that my crime of being a john could not be a federal crime. To no avail.

What the federal govt required was as follows. They required that my defense team, not the feds, but my team, go to the state attorney, ask that he up my charge to a pimping charge (a charge that carried with it sex registration). They would not give him the facts to support that charge, or give me evidence that they said they had that I had, under Florida law, received money FROM these girls to offer them out as prostitutes. Florida is very clear that the pimp must have a financial benefit from the crime. It would be our responsibility to ask the state attorney to up my charge and agree to sentence me to 18 months in jail and a year of house arrest. In the history of the state attorney’s office, they have no other instance of someone requesting a higher charge than the grand jury decided, and a harsher penalty.

In addition, the federal govt would require me to pay a minimum of 50 thousand dollars to each girl on a list of girls that they would choose - a list that would be kept secret, and no names on their list would be disclosed to me or my attorneys until I was already firmly in a jail cell. A list that we would not only be obliged to pay money to, but if any of the girls did not accept the 50k dollars, I would be required to pay an attorney, chosen by the govt. to represent the girls, to enable them to sue me, and I would have to pay their attny fees. I would be given the names, after being in jail, not be allowed to appeal this deal, pay girls, some of whom I never even met and if I chose to fight this deal, I would be threatened over and over with being in breach of my agreement.

The attorney chosen hired his own daughter, a sitting state prosecutor, who received special leave to represent these girls; and though she continued to receive her state salary, billed me over 800 thousand dollars in a period of a year to represent girls suing me. When my side raised objections, we were told that if we fought this, the govt would declare a breach and indict me.

The AUSA actually filed an affidavit with the court that stated that the protection from (the govt), that Epstein though he bargained for really is "illusory ", we can always bring a case against him for the lifespan of any girl we think has been a victim.

After serving my sentence, I was sued by many girls on the govt list. During many of the depositions taken in those cases, the girls admitted to the following: They had many other clients, they got paid thousands of dollars a week to work in the local massage parlor, sex club; they kept their list of johns in their bible. They had abusive boyfriends, abortion, way before they ever met me, and though they claimed sex assault abuse, and various other sex claims, most later brought their best friends to the house, who also claimed the same abuse, in the hopes of getting money.

With what the newspapers had called a dream team, each and every lawyer, when they saw the result of the negotiations, said with incredulity, we have never seen anything like this before. I had never left my house. The girls had not travelled on my planes or to another state. I had never made money off of these girls. I was a consumer of prostitution, a john. The govt said that they could invoke a statute for travel for the purpose of sex. The tourists who had signed on to fake sites, advertising sex with minors in Cambodia, Thailand, and other third world countries.. The govt said that they could charge me with traveling to Florida to have sex with underage girl, even though sex with 16 year olds is legal in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, and sex with 17 year olds legal in New York. They suggested that they would indict me for traveling to florida FOR THE PURPOSE of having sex with minors. Not withstanding the fact that I had a home in Florida for 15 years, regularly travelled to see my brother, mother, and business associates. They said that they thought a novel application could at least get me indicted, unless I took the state plea deal.

I had little choice.

The crimes they alleged, no matter what the likelihood of success, carried with them minimum mandatory ten year sentences. I recognize that I am not a sympathetic figure, and had to decide whether to risk a jury trial that would see an older man, and young women that would be paraded in Sunday school outfits, for a trial.

I have showed poor judgement in the past, and have paid a heavy price for those mistakes. I had hope to move forward with my science philanthropy and helping those less privileged than myself.

Then came Scott Rothstein. Scott Rothstein was the senior partner of RRA. He is currently serving a fifty year prison sentence for perpetrating the largest fraud in South Florida’s history. He decided that since sex allegations made against me could be used to fleece hundreds of investors out of hundreds of millions of dollars, he recruited Brad Edwards, a small time ft Lauderdale attorney who had access to some of the girls on the govt list. Scott forged Judge’s signatures, hid behind attorney client privilege, secrecy of legal documents, work product, cover letter, giving illegal investigative activity the protection normally reserved for lawyers and their legitimate clients. He told investors that I had settled cases with him for hundreds of millions of dollars, but the girls wanted their money now. If they gave him 30 million dollars now, he could give it to the girls who wanted to remain anonymous, and they would go off into the sunset, and the full payment would be made to the investors - investors that would be getting 50- 100% return on their money for taking advantage of the same girls who allegedly I had come in contact with.

Bill Schere, an attorney in Broward, has filed a 147 page complaint against Scott Rothstein and the firm. The attorney for the girls, aware that I would be loathe to involve innocent friends in problems that were strictly of my own making, subpoenaed, named, and tried to smear any friend whose name appeared in print previously. They contacted Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, David Copperfied. Innocent bystanders with no knowledge of any of my actions whatsoever. I settled the cases rather than forcing both the girls, and others, to be subject to a public questioning of their lives.

It appears that the Rothstein firm had continuing help from the govt throughout their civil litigation. Emails received as a result of a recent subpoena show descriptions such as received info from current FBI agents. The former Rothstein partners subpoenaed my attorney for all correspondence, regarding my plea, with the US attorney. Though highly unusual, the govt sided with the attorneys and agreed we needed to produce all our correspondence from them to my attorneys.

During the civil deposition of my former houseman, Alfredo Rodriquez, attended by a new attorney from the Rothstein firm, whose name appears on the record as Cara Holmes, also appears as Carolyn holmes, also appears as Kara holmes. The houseman allegedly said that he had stolen a book from my house with telephone numbers in it that the govt wanted. This was in July of 09. I believe that the attorneys went to outside counsel Kendall Coffey, and asked whether or not they could buy the book for the fifty thousand dollars, that the houseman had asked for it. THREE months later, my houseman was set up in a sting by the FBI and the same AUSA that had headed my prosecution.

It appears that, using a lawyer from the RRA firm, Brad Edwards as a confidential informant for the govt, at the same time that Scott Rothstein was using me and my allegations to fleece his victims, the us attorney’s office was sitting in the Rothstein offices planning a sting operation while, right next door, Scott Rothstein was making off to Morocco in an attempt to flee the country.

Alfredo Rodriguez was prosecuted by the same AUSA and received an 18 months sentence, however, it also appeared that on the very same day of his sting arrest, he bought an illegal gun, and was later sentenced to four years in prison.

Who is Cara holmes, and what was her role in RRA is still a mystery to us.. She appears to be a former FBI agent out of the Chicago office. She joined the Rothstein firm in may of 09, and joined the Florida bar at the same time. She attended depositions of my pilots and my houseman, She communicated regularly with Brad Edwards and the investigators on my case. The email traffic is extensive. The telephone book that he had stolen from my house, was then turned over to the same attorneys who had been told they could not buy it as they would have been buying stolen property. Brad Edwards, the former partner of Scott Rothstein, then used the purloined book to send out letters to everyone in the book, asking for additional stories of my wrongdoing in the past five years.

With the hope of getting new clients, the letter was structured so as to circumvent the ethical rules regarding trolling for clients. While I was serving my sentence, my lawyers were able to come see me. Only two months after being incarcerated, my in-house lawyer came to see me to tell me that as we’re now conducting an audit of legal fees paid to date, they had discovered that Gerald Lefcourt, my primary attorney, had taken out cash to the tune of 800k, that according to his own accountant, he was not entitled to. He had simply prepared invoices that said please pay another 100k.. or 200k, though he had been asked on multiple occasions to substantiate the bills. His response would be, “we are working full time for you”. I pointed out that his was not he only firm, but he said “would you like me to quit?”

He eventually returned over four hundred thousand, over a period of time, as he said that his cashflow could not handle the strain, he said that he was still owed for things like taxi fair, coffee and donuts, detailed for $2, 53 cents, he would keep four-hundred-thousand. I was told that I should hire Guy Lewis, a former Us Attorney in the southern district. Guy, a southern-style gentleman - white suits, fast cars - said that he had a great relationship with the current us attny Alex Acosta and the people in Washington that would potentially need to review what ever happened in south Florida. He wanted a 100k per month retainer, and with this partner, Mike Tein, would represent me.

Upon review of his background, it was suggested that he might now have the credibility that he had represented, and rumors were that he had been asked to leave DOJ for inappropriate billing.. I told him in no uncertain terms that if this were true, he would need to tell me, as he was representing my credibility with the govt. IF he had been asked to leave, it would dramatically hurt my chances if it were he making my case to senior officials. He swore up and down, as southerners are apt to do, that there was no truth whatsoever to the allegations. Being charged with untrue allegations rang close to my heart, and I chose to side with Guy. Only after my incarceration, when Guy and Mike came to see me in an 9 by ten attorney room that smelled like urine, and I told them that I was now being sued by many of the girls on the govt list, they expressed their regrets and their willingness to help. However, as they walked out down the dungeon-like hall with the sound of clanging gates in the background, they were unaware of the security cameras and microphones throughout the hallway. They chose to High-five one another, on camera, and smile with the comment that this would be a couple more years of fees. The guards at the jail, accustomed to some of the most heinous physical crimes imaginable, and hardened against most of humanities foibles, were caught off guard by the exhilaration of the potential of more fees.

Sex for money, a sensitive subject.

The reactions range form Andrea Dworkin, the feminist who considers all intercourse a form of rape man inserting his authority, to Jackie Mason, who posits that when a man takes a woman for dinner, may times his real motivation is the hope of receiving sex at the end of the evening. He suggests it is hypocritical for the man to be able to pay the florist for flowers, the doorman for getting a cab, the restaurant for the food, and the liquor store for the gift of wine, but can't pay the only person that performs the actual sex act without committing a crime.

Yes, I had sex for money, I am a john.

Yes, I understand that prostitution is a crime and a crime that very few john’s have even gone to jail for.

I am aware that there are strong feelings amongst many people regarding that crime. Many countries have legalized it, some states have legalized it, many have a policy of no enforcement. New York City has escort services that openly advertise, massage parlors that have neon signs in midtown. In actual fact, the crime of sex for money, at the time of my transgressions, was under penal code 230, equivalent to that of jay walking unless the girl was under 15. Yes, under 15. That was in New York.

In Florida, the age of consent is 18. Misrepresentation of age is not considered a defense, even if the girl worked in a sex establishment where one has to prove age to work, was met in a bar where the drinking age is 21, or shows ID that appears to be valid that she is over 18. The State attorneys who deal with this sort of crime on a regular basis reviewed the case, brought by the local police, and said in no uncertain terms that there "were no real victims" in the Epstein case.

NO real victims. Their words.

They said that the girls knew what they were doing, they brought their best friends after being there a number of times. How could there be a serious crime? The AUSA decided that she would protect the young women of Palm beach. She sees a need for child safety everywhere she looked. She has been chastised twice by local judges for hiding information from the court, misleading the court, and had a supervisor represent her in front of a judge that would have disciplined her. Her first subpoena to me asked for all my tax returns, my medical records, my phone book, my plane logs.

The girls came to my house.. I usually exercised every day followed my massage. Most of the time, I would be on the telephone when a girl was brought into the room. Many times they rubbed my feet or back, I never spoke to them at all, because I would be on the phone. The room was dimmed, and often I would not even see the girl. If not on the phone, I would talk to the girl.

NO real sex. Most girls testified they never touched my genitals at all. NEVER. These depositions were taken as a result of the govt-supported civil suits against me.”

Thames Valley Police detained him on suspicion of misconduct in public office, citing his connections to Epstein.

Today is Andrew’s 66th birthday. But celebrations were cut short when unmarked police vehicles and plainclothes officers were observed at Wood Farm on the Sandringham estate, where Andrew has resided since vacating his long-time home at the Royal Lodge earlier this month following new allegations that he had shared sensitive material with Jeffrey Epstein.

An inside source revealed to me today that a small number of Daily Mail journalists and a paparazzi company associated with the Daily Mail were tipped-off about the arrest and had gathered outside the estate before police arrived. The Daily Mail’s journalists have been on a crusade of late, producing daily factually inaccurate and misleading articles about the Epstein scandal and actively promoting calls for the former Prince to be investigated.

It was the Daily Mail, along with the Mail on Sunday, that first broke the allegations against him by the late Virginia Giuffre.

It is worth noting here that the Palace, often accused of engaging in secretive internal family disputes and using the press to direct negative publicity against family members or to manage coverage of scandals for damage limitation, continues to be connected to Julian Payne, a former senior media professional who was communications secretary to King Charles III. Payne worked closely with the Royal Family’s press operation before moving back into the private sector — he’s now a top executive at the PR giant Edelman and has continued advising elements of the Palace’s media strategy.

Emails from the recently-released batch of Epstein files show Andrew passing on reports of visits to Singapore, Hong Kong and Vietnam, and confidential details of investment opportunities during his tenure as trade envoy between 2001 and 2011.

Under official guidance, trade envoys have a duty of confidentiality over sensitive, commercial, or political information about their official visits.

The longest he can be held for by police is 96 hours - but this would require multiple extensions from senior police officers and a Magistrate’s Court.

In most cases, suspects are held for 12 or 24 hours and are then either charged or released pending further investigation.

This afternoon, King Charles III issued the following statement:

The shock arrest comes after members of parliament called for an official investigation into Andrew’s conduct while a trade envoy, and is not believed to be in connection with sexual misconduct allegations made against him.

His accuser, the late Virginia Giuffre, was found to have made numerous false allegations, including against the former Prince. A summary of those false allegations, along with a scandalous biography of Giuffre, can be listened to below.

This is a breaking story. I’ll be contacting my sources for developments and inside information, and will be providing an update soon.

Today is Andrew’s 66th birthday. But celebrations were cut short when unmarked police vehicles and plainclothes officers were observed at Wood Farm on the Sandringham estate, where Andrew has resided since vacating his long-time home at the Royal Lodge earlier this month following new allegations that he had shared sensitive material with Jeffrey Epstein.

Emails from the recently-released batch of Epstein files show Andrew passing on reports of visits to Singapore, Hong Kong and Vietnam, and confidential details of investment opportunities during his tenure as trade envoy between 2001 and 2011.

Under official guidance, trade envoys have a duty of confidentiality over sensitive, commercial, or political information about their official visits.

The longest he can be held for by police is 96 hours - but this would require multiple extensions from senior police officers and a Magistrate’s Court.

In most cases, suspects are held for 12 or 24 hours and are then either charged or released pending further investigation.

The shock arrest comes after members of parliament called for an official investigation into Andrew’s conduct while a trade envoy, and is not believed to be in connection with sexual misconduct allegations made against him.

His accuser, the late Virginia Giuffre, was found to have made numerous false allegations, including against the former Prince. A summary of those false allegations can be listened to below.

This is a breaking story. I’ll be contacting my sources for developments and inside information, and will be providing an update soon.

The Epstein scandal is smothered in unsubstantiated allegations of blackmail, particularly relating to the largely debunked idea that Epstein was operating a global child trafficking scheme to blackmail some of the world’s most influential men.

But what most fail to realise is that blackmail and extortion have been highlighted in this case… but it was perpetrated not by that mysterious billionaire now infamously known around the globe, but by the lawyers who went after him.

When he was deposed in 2016, Epstein was questioned by Bradley Edwards.

Edwards is a Florida-based attorney who became involved in the Jeffrey Epstein legal cases from as early as 2008, focusing on representing women who said they were sexually abused by Epstein when they were minors, and eventually representing Virginia Giuffre.

You can read my extensive breakdown of the first arrest of Epstein by clicking here. In it, you will see full evidence showing that Giuffre and Haley Robson recruited underage girls, dressed them up in adult clothing, put makeup on them, and told them to lie to Epstein that they were over 18.

Edwards’ entry into the matter began when Courtney Wild, who was one of those girls - those child victims groomed by Robson or Giuffre - approached him with allegations that Epstein had abused her starting at age 14. Wild claimed that, along with other victims, she had been excluded from the federal prosecutors’ decision to negotiate the non-prosecution agreement with Epstein, which resulted in a lenient sentence and shielded his alleged co-conspirators from criminal charges.

Edwards responded by filing lawsuits that challenged the legality of the plea agreement under the federal Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA). That law requires prosecutors to inform victims of major developments in their cases, including plea deals. In the Epstein matter, dozens of girls—later identified in court filings as Jane Does—were never told that such an agreement had been reached. Edwards, working alongside former federal judge Paul Cassell, sought to have the courts recognise that the victims’ rights had been violated and to potentially reopen the criminal case against Epstein.

But many of the lawsuits filed by Edwards and his associates were later found to contain demonstrably false allegations (most notable among them was Virginia Giuffre’s original joinder motion, which contained numerous allegations she later admitted were untrue). Meanwhile, it was quickly becoming clear that something illegal was taking place within his law firm.

During the 2016 deposition, Epstein, on the advice of his lawyers, pleaded the Fifth to almost every question. But, knowing that the deposition would be made public and also seen by the press and any potential future jury, he went off script. He was keen for us all to hear the truth about the man sitting opposite him.

Therefore, he repeatedly issued the same statement, over and over and over, to ensure it stood out in the deposition transcript like a red flag:

“Mr Edwards, your firm has been described by the U.S. Attorney as a criminal enterprise perpetrating one of the largest frauds in Florida’s history. It has been reported that your firm fabricated multiple cases against me and others in order to fleece unsuspecting investors out of millions and millions of dollars.”

Epstein wasn’t lying. At least one of the key lawyers representing Epstein’s accusers even ended up behind bars over the incident.

Edwards came to represent more than 60 women in connection with the Epstein allegations. Many of these clients were part of civil suits against Epstein and his associates, while others were involved in actions brought against the U.S. Department of Justice over the original plea deal. During the early stages of his work on the Epstein cases, Edwards became associated with the Fort Lauderdale law firm Rothstein, Rosenfeldt & Adler (RRA), headed by attorney Scott W. Rothstein, a portly man renowned for flashing his wealth and boasting of his many expensive watches. This association began in 2009 when Edwards joined the firm while continuing to represent his Epstein clients. No one knows the full details of their joint work in relation to the Epstein scandal. However, their relationship was short-lived. Within months, Rothstein’s firm collapsed after revelations that he had been running a massive Ponzi scheme.

Rothstein’s scam operated in part by falsely representing to investors that they could purchase legal settlements paid out in high-profile cases—some of which involved sexual allegations similar to those made by Virginia Giuffre—at a discount. In reality, these settlements did not exist. Investors were paid returns from the funds contributed by newer investors, in classic Ponzi fashion. More false allegations against Epstein and other individuals were soon added, generating even more money.

The fraud unravelled in late 2009, when Rothstein abruptly left the country for Morocco before returning to Florida to turn himself in to federal authorities. In January 2010, he pleaded guilty to charges including racketeering, money laundering, and wire fraud. Federal prosecutors described his crimes as one of the largest financial frauds in Florida’s history, with losses exceeding $1billion dollars. He was sentenced to 50 years in federal prison. In 2020, another figure involved in the Ponzi scheme was arrested. But, to date, not everyone involved has been highlighted or brought to justice.

The Epstein–Rothstein connection became more public when Epstein himself filed a lawsuit naming Edwards and Rothstein. Epstein alleged that the attorneys had solicited false claims from women to be used against him. Edwards denied the accusations, characterising the lawsuit as an effort to intimidate him and discredit his work on behalf of the victims. The case ultimately collapsed when Epstein dropped the claims. In response to Epstein’s actions, Edwards filed a counterclaim for malicious prosecution, asserting that Epstein’s suit had been frivolous and damaging to his professional reputation. This counterclaim became part of the larger legal struggle between Epstein and the attorneys representing his accusers. While that specific dispute did not directly affect the criminal proceedings against Epstein, it underscored the contentious nature of the litigation and the tactics used by both sides.

Although his time at Rothstein’s firm was brief, the association undoubtedly complicated Edwards’s professional life during the Epstein litigation, with Edwards still under suspicion of having had some knowledge or involvement in the fraud.

But that didn’t hold him back. He latched onto other accusers, no matter their credibility. And he also began working with another controversial lawyer, the notorious David Boies, allowing him to take over some of his clients, most notably Virginia Giuffre.

“In the beginning, she spoke to the FBI, and the FBI showed her pictures, including a picture of me, and she didn’t identify me as somebody she had sex with,” Professor Alan Dershowitz, who was falsely accused by Giuffre told me during one of our interviews.

“She basically told the FBI she did not have sex with Alan Dershowitz,” he continued. “Then she tells Sharon Churcher [a British journalist] she did not have sex with Alan Dershowitz, and then Churcher writes her an email telling her to name me in her book. So she puts me in the book, but as someone she did not have sex with. She said she had sex with George Mitchell, the former peacemaker in Northern Ireland; she said she had sex with Jacques Cousteau’s granddaughter, who never met her; she said she had sex with a bunch of other people, including another Harvard professor named Steven - I know who he is, but his name is under seal; She says all those things but she says she did not have sex with Alan Dershowitz.”

“But then she makes a deliberate decision to commit perjury and submit a false affidavit, suddenly making up the story that she met me and had sex with me, including in front of my house in Cambridge, including on an airplane with two women and in a car with two women, including in places I’ve never been since the time that she met Jeffrey Epstein, and in places I couldn’t possibly have been during the relevant period of time. She made up the entire story; she made a premeditated attack on me and my family. I am the victim of her perjury, her extortion plot, and her attempt to shake down people for money.”

Extortion allegations are widespread in the Epstein Scandal. The New York Times published an intriguing article touching upon just one example of many. The article’s subheading read as follows: “A shadowy hacker claimed to have the financier’s sex tapes. Two top lawyers wondered: What would the men in those videos pay to keep them secret?”

Not long after Jeffrey Epstein was found dead in his jail cell, two of the most famous lawyers in the Epstein case, Edwards and Boies, were approached by a shadowy individual. He was enormous, barrel-shaped through the torso, his beard unruly, his presence hard to ignore. He drank prodigiously, favoured flip-flops, and introduced himself under an assumed name. Patrick Kessler, he said, was not his real identity, but a necessary disguise given the perilous world he claimed to inhabit. What he brought with him was an extraordinary promise. Kessler told the lawyers he controlled a massive digital archive belonging to Epstein, housed on encrypted servers beyond U.S. jurisdiction. According to him, the cache contained years of Epstein’s communications, detailed financial records, and thousands of hours of covert video surveillance taken inside Epstein’s properties.

Hidden cameras, he said, had captured some of the world’s most influential men in compromising sexual situations, even, he claimed, in acts of rape. Kessler said his intention was exposure. If true, his trove would offer an answer to one of the Epstein affair’s most enduring mysteries: how a former high school math teacher with no college degree accumulated what appeared to be a fortune in the hundreds of millions. One long-suspected but unproven theory was that Epstein operated a sprawling blackmail enterprise. Such a scheme could explain why billionaires, scientists, political leaders and even royalty remained fiercely loyal to him, sometimes long after his first criminal conviction. For the two lawyers listening, the implications were enormous. Boies and his longtime lawyer friend, John Stanley Pottinger, immediately grasped the leverage such material could provide. If Kessler was telling the truth, the videos could be used in litigation or to pressure powerful men into private settlements.

In encrypted Signal messages, Pottinger referred to potential targets as the “hot list.” Pottinger sketched out scenarios in which the lawyers could take as much as 40 per cent of any settlements. In some cases, he suggested, they might even flip sides, moving from representing victims to representing the accused themselves.

Pottinger envisioned a dramatic expansion of his practice. For Boies, whose reputation had taken serious hits in recent years (being accused of bullying Theranos whistleblowers and engaging in conflicts of interest being just two controversies from a long list), there was a chance at redemption, but also money.

None of it would come to pass. No explosive videos emerged. The man once toasted by the lawyers as a “whistle-blower” and “informant” would instead be denounced as a “fraudster” and a “spy.”

Kessler would never expose sexual abuse. But he would expose something else: how elite lawyers, operating at the outer edge of ethics, pursued evidence capable of producing massive settlements to make themselves even wealthier than they already were, while keeping misconduct hidden, allowing alleged abusers to move on untouched.

The man calling himself Kessler first reached out to Edwards. It was late August, roughly two weeks after Epstein’s suicide while awaiting trial on federal sex-trafficking charges. Edwards soon passed Kessler along to his New York partner, John Stanley Pottinger. Seventy-nine years old, silver-haired, Pottinger had once served as a senior civil-rights official under Presidents Nixon and Ford. His career also included stints in investment banking and a run as a bestselling novelist of medical thrillers. He was perhaps better known publicly for having dated Gloria Steinem and Kathie Lee Gifford.

Pottinger later recalled that Edwards cautioned him about Kessler, describing him as “endearing,” “spooky”, and someone who “loves to drink like a fish.” After meeting Kessler in Washington, Pottinger briefed David Boies. He then invited Kessler to his Manhattan apartment. Inside, Kessler took in a wall-mounted frame holding a headless stuffed parrot. On television, the Philadelphia Eagles were rallying against the Washington Redskins. Pottinger poured WhistlePig whiskey. Kessler began to talk. He named names. According to him, the videos showed men already publicly linked to Epstein: Ehud Barak; Alan Dershowitz; Prince Andrew; three billionaires; and a major corporate chief executive.

Pottinger presented Kessler with a signed copy of his 2005 novel, The Boss. On the title page he wrote: “Here’s to the great work you are to do. Happy to be part of it.” He also handed Kessler a draft retention agreement allowing him to operate under a false name. “For reasons revealed to you, I prefer to proceed with this engagement under the name Patrick Kessler,” the agreement stated. Pottinger believed Kessler’s files could transform the Epstein cases. Despite Kessler’s theatrical demeanour and fondness for alcohol, even the chance that his claims were real made them irresistible.

On Sept. 9, Kessler arrived at Boies Schiller Flexner’s offices in a gleaming Hudson Yards skyscraper. There, Kessler unfolded a story he would repeatedly revise and embellish. He said he had grown up within a few hours of Washington, that he had been sexually abused as a child by a Bible school teacher, and that he later found community online among victims-turned-hackers who used their skills to combat pedophilia.

According to Kessler, a technology executive had introduced him to Epstein, who in 2012 hired him to build encrypted servers to house his digital archives. With Epstein dead, Kessler claimed he now had unrestricted access to the material. He described more than a decade of continuous footage from dozens of cameras.

“This was explosive information if true, for lots and lots of people,” Boies later said.

Within hours of that meeting, Pottinger began discussing how the supposed evidence could be deployed. In encrypted Signal messages, he and Kessler talked about disseminating some of the material, beginning with the alleged footage of Barak. Israel’s election was days away, and Barak was challenging Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Pottinger suggested the images could sway the vote and command a high price. “Can you review your visual evidence to be sure some or all is indisputably him? If so, we can make it work,” Pottinger wrote.

When Kessler asked who might purchase the material, Pottinger replied, “Sheldon Adelson.” Pottinger reassured Kessler that Adelson had the influence to damage Barak politically. Boies later said the plan was never carried out, and Israel Hayom’s editor said the paper declined a pitch involving supposed images of Barak.

The men Kessler claimed to have on tape were worth billions. Their representatives had already worked aggressively to contain reporting on their ties to Epstein. The prospect of suppressing incriminating material would have been invaluable.

While lawyers representing abuse victims might be expected to seek public accountability, their relationship with Kessler and their evident intentions demonstrate that money and secrecy were central to the strategy being discussed. Private financial settlements, not prosecutions, were the focus. Exposure was framed as leverage, not an end goal.

Boies and Pottinger spoke of creating a charity, the Astria Foundation, funded by settlements with the men depicted (curiously, they did indeed later help establish a suspicious charity into which victim compensation was paid – but more on that later). Pottinger texted, “We need to get it funded by abusers,” adding that “these are wealthy wrongdoers.” He directed Kessler to compile evidence on a specific group: billionaires, a chief executive, Prince Andrew. “I call it our hot list,” he wrote. “Yes, that’s exactly how to do this,” Pottinger added. “Videos for sure, but email traffic, too.”

In mid-September, Boies and Pottinger invited New York Times reporters to meet Kessler at their offices, believing media interest would increase their leverage and that the media could be used to add pressure on the men whom they sought to squeeze money from in exchange for silence. Before the meeting, Pottinger cautioned Kessler to limit what he revealed. “Let them drink from a fountain instead of a water hose,” he wrote.

Afterwards, Kessler privately complained to reporters that the lawyers were more interested in money than exposure. He showed additional images and made further claims about Epstein’s hidden wealth, though he provided no proof.

Over subsequent meetings, Kessler’s story unravelled. His claims about investments, associates, and classified documents proved false or unverifiable. He admitted, “I am very often being purposefully inconsistent.”

Even so, Boies, Edwards and Pottinger continued to hope the files would materialise and that they could make a lot of money from them.

Seeing dollar signs and a way to exploit the Epstein Scandal for their own financial benefit, they began to plot their next steps. Pottinger proposed hypothetical settlement structures in which lawyers would take up to 40 percent. In another shocking scenario, he proposed that the men accused would hire the lawyers themselves and “make a contribution to a non-profit (controlled by Boies, Pottinger and Edwards) as part of the retainer,” ensuring they would not be sued.

Legal experts later said such arrangements risked crossing into extortion, as they involved threatening disclosure to extract money while suppressing evidence.

The files never arrived. Kessler eventually claimed the servers had been destroyed in a fire. Boies later concluded Kessler was “a fraudster who was just trying to set things up.”

No videos existed. Kessler had lied.

Yet the episode left behind an uncomfortable record: text messages, meetings, and plans showing that the lawyers’ primary interest lay not in exposing abuse or pursuing public justice, but in controlling evidence powerful enough to extract enormous sums of money while keeping allegations buried.

“I could easily have made this thing just go away by simply issuing a statement saying, ‘No, it was a mistake, she never met me, never had sex with me’, Dershowitz continued to tell me in relation to the accusations made against him by Virginia Giuffre and her attorney, David Boies. “But I decided not to do that because I have nothing to hide. I decided to fight back. I produced all my records; I can demonstrate where I was - she has never produced a single record. She said under oath she didn’t know when she had sex with me, she didn’t know the year, she didn’t know the month, she didn’t know the season. And she was foolish because she made up stories about places that I couldn’t have been during the relevant time period. Regarding her claim that she had sex with me on an airplane, there are records of who was on the airplane, and there’s no record of me ever being on the airplane with her. She said she had sex with me in a car, but there are limousine records, and there are no records that document or support anything she’s ever said. From day one, I said there will be no photographs, there will be no honest witnesses, because you can’t have photographs or witnesses to an event that didn’t occur.”  

Remarkably, behind the scenes, Boies agreed that his client was not telling the truth.

“Her own lawyers don’t believe her,” Dershowitz continued. “David Boies has told people, and told me on tape, that she was ‘wrong, simply wrong’. So if even her own lawyers don’t believe her, and the government doesn’t believe her, why should anybody believe her?

Dershowitz provided me with a copy of the audio recording he made of his conversation with Boies, telling me that I was the only journalist to have been sent it. Listening, I was able to confirm that Boies did in fact state that, regarding dates Virginia alleged the incidents took place, she was, ‘wrong, simply wrong.’

Dershowitz asserted that, despite Boies knowing that his client was lying, he tried to convince Dershowitz to pay up anyway, suggesting that he cough up $1 million to make the accusations ‘go away’.

A spokesperson for Boies previously addressed this recording with the Miami Herald, their October 2019 article reporting: “In Florida, it is illegal to record over the phone without both parties’ consent. But in other states like New York, one party can record without the other party’s consent. A spokesperson for Boies declined to comment on the matter but pointed to a July affidavit in which Boies says the recording was made without his consent, and that he never doubted Giuffre’s credibility during the conversation. Dershowitz’s transcript of the call, which he has offered up to reporters while refusing to share copies of the actual audio, gives no indication that he asked Boies’ permission.”

Dershowitz had made the recording from his hometown of New York, however, thus breaking no laws (it is perfectly legal in the state of New York to record a telephone conversation without asking for permission from the person on the other end).

Then, astonishingly, even Sharon Churcher, who first broke the Prince Andrew/Virginia Giuffre story, began to voice her own doubts about Giuffre’s credibility. In the following transcript of a telephone call between Churcher and publisher Tony Lyons, the journalist discussed her run-ins with Virginia; stating that it was “chequebook journalism”, before making further eye-opening statements:

Lyons: How old was she [Virginia], really?

Churcher: Well, she lied. She told me that she took a year off. She apparently was 16, not 15, when she was recruited. But sheʼd been on the game [working as a prostitute] for about a year then. I mean, I have my views... I donʼt believe her in that. I think Brad Edwards, you know, one of her lawyers, hates him.

Speaking about Virginia’s allegations against Dershowitz, she continued:

Churcher: The idea is that he will then pay her off. Itʼs just openly – this really is blackmail.

Lyons: Well, because whatʼs happening, itʼs going to cost him so much money that he gets put in the position where heʼs better off -

Churcher: Just giving her –

Lyons: I donʼt think heʼs going to do that because heʼs not willing to have his legacy sort of tarnished by this, you know. Heʼs 81-years-old.

Churcher: And sheʼll just move on to other people if she gets away with that one too... Apparently, she’s a big spender. She’s spent so much money.

In another taped telephone conversation that Dershowitz provided me with, Rebecca Boylan, the former best friend of Giuffre, corroborated much of what Dershowitz was saying.

Dershowitz: “Tell me how she described him [Leslie Wexner] to you.”

Boylan: “She just told me that he owned Victoria’s Secret and had lots and lots of money, that he was a billionaire.”

Dershowitz: “What did they wanna’ do?”

Boylan: “They wanted to sue him for at least half of his money and use it for this charity that they’re trying to start.”

Dershowitz: “And what would the lawsuit be based on?”

Boylan: “She didn’t say exactly, just him being affiliated with Epstein and [redacted for legal reasons].”

Dershowitz: “And did they think they would have to bring a lawsuit, or did they just think they would be able to threaten a lawsuit and he would pay the money?”

Boylan: “She made it sound to me like they were already talking to him and they were already in the process of suing him.”

Dershowitz: “Was he going to settle it then, or was he going to litigate it? What did it sound like?”

Boylan: “She didn’t really say, but she made it sound like she was pretty positive about it. And then I didn’t hear about it for, like, months. And then the last time she talked about the charity, it wasn’t about him anymore; it was just like raising money, going to celebrity charity events, and she told me she was going to do a bunch of television interviews and use the money that they were paying her for the interviews. She also told me that the lawyers were contributing their own money, like $80,000 or something like that.”

Dershowitz: “The lawyers contributed $80,000 to what, to the fund?”

Boylan: “The charity, to get it started.”

Dershowitz: “And were the lawyers charging her, do you know?”

Boylan: “No, I think it was, what do you call it, pro bono.”

Dershowitz: “But did they expect to get something out of it if they sued this rich guy in Columbus (Wexner) from Victoria’s Secrets?”

Boylan: “She didn’t say that exactly, but it’s kind of like, in retrospect, it’s probably… it seems like it was based on an opportunity to make a lot of money.”

The second part of Dershowitz’s telephone conversation, recorded with Boylan’s permission just like the first, was much shorter.

Dershowitz: “Please repeat what you told me previously.”

Boylan: “That Virginia never wanted to go after you, that she felt pressured by her lawyer.”

Virginia Giuffre and her lawyers finally gave in, the lawsuits were dropped, and no financial settlement was made by Dershowitz. Giuffre issued a public statement admitting that she ‘may have been mistaken’ in accusing him. But everyone could read between the lines: She had lied. Professor Alan Dershowitz was an innocent man.

But unsubstantiated, money-making accusations against high-profile, rich individuals and institutions by Virginia and other women continued to roll in. The flawed and dangerous notion of guilt by association was being promoted across the world. Anyone who was so much as snapped at a public event with Jeffrey became a target.

Giuffre was not the only client of David Boies and Bradley Edwards who was later exposed as a false accuser. Head over to Netflix, click on Epstein: Filthy Rich, and you will instantly be exposed to a clan of them.

Sarah Ransome tried to get money from the New York Times, asking for an upfront payment for sex tapes she claimed to possess starring Trump, Epstein, Clinton, and Richard Branson. When money was offered to her, but with the caveat that she needed to first provide proof, a flurry of excuses were forthcoming, leading to Ransome inevitably confessing that she’d lied and that no sex tapes existed. Ransome would later claim that Ghislaine Maxwell had helped Epstein to abuse her - but when I interviewed her, she admitted that she’d never witnessed Maxwell engage in any illegal or improper activity.

Juliette Bryant claimed that she’d been essentially held captive on the island and was abused by Epstein. In a victim impact statement submitted to the court for Maxwell’s sentencing hearing, she claimed that Maxwell had helped run the island ‘like a sex factory’. To me, however, she admitted that she’d never seen Maxwell groom, recruit, or abuse anyone. Nor had she witnessed any illegal conduct.

Maria Farmer was found to have made similar false allegations. As did many other key accusers. But none of this stopped Edwards and Boies from continuing to use their false accusations to squeeze innocent individuals and institutions for their own financial gain.

Much of this money remains unaccounted for, vanishing down a warren of ominous private pay-outs to the lawyers and their clients.

It is interesting that Rebecca Boylan should have mentioned Virginia Giuffre’s charity, particularly when we remember that Boies, Edwards, and the rest of the gang were on record, in relation to the Kessler affair, as having suggested early on in the scandal that they could financially benefit from accusations and funnel what was essentially ‘hush money’ into such a charity - because, eventually, they did exactly that.

Funnelling such money into a charity/NPO would have numerous benefits, not least of all legal pros and being able to pay individuals as ‘staff’ and ‘consultants’ while avoiding having to pay tax.

The charity was relaunched shortly before Giuffre, through the direction of her lawyers, most notably Boies and Edwards, filed a lawsuit against Prince Andrew.

Andrew was then denied the ability to submit Giuffre’s first memoir as evidence in his defence, a memoir in which Giuffre is proven to have falsely claimed that she’d been trafficked to him in New Mexico and had spent a few days having sex with him there (she admitted in 2016 that she’d invented this entire story).

Boies then went on television and used the media to pressure Andrew during the run-up to the Queen’s jubilee. Knowing Andrew’s team, along with the world, would be watching, Boies threatened that, should Andrew not pay up, he’d depose Andrew’s children and a long list of royals, including Meghan Markle.

Andrew was forced to pay up. And a large part of that payment was made to Giuffre’s charity.

This is where the controversies of Giuffre widen, extending to fellow accusers such as Teresa Helm (formerly listed as the charity’s vice president), and to her lawyers, Edwards (a co-founder and director of the charity), and Boies (whose firm is listed on the charity’s website as a partner).

In an ‘informal’ will drafted by her lawyer, Virginia expressed her intention for her millions to be bequeathed to her children and to SOAR. But the charity, which is now included in the ongoing legal battle as part of her estate, appears to be nothing more than a website, as confirmed by Giuffre herself in a recent deposition. And this website simply directs viewers to other organisations (For instance, anyone going to SOAR for help may find themselves disappointed, for the website simply suggests abuse victims contact the National Trafficking Hotline, which has no connection to SOAR). And all this despite receiving millions of dollars in donations against the promise that the charity would raise awareness of human trafficking and, more specifically, help victims.

In the charity’s bank account, among those millions of dollars, once sat a substantial donation made by Prince Andrew as part of his out-of-court settlement. Nobody seems to know exactly where that money has gone. The late Queen Elizabeth is believed to have contributed the $2.7 million to SOAR from her private Duchy of Lancaster estate. Legal experts said her cash was a charitable asset that could be accessed only by board members of SOAR. It was allegedly being held in an escrow account managed by a third party. No one knows for sure.

Nor does anyone seem to know where the rest of SOAR’s cash has ended up. The charity has not been forthcoming with satisfactory financial transparency. In January 2023, the Daily Telegraph reported about this mystery under the headline, “Virginia Giuffre yet to set up charity despite accepting $2m donation from Prince Andrew,” further adding, “Duke’s accuser has published website ‘for survivors of sex trafficking’ but organisation does not appear to have been officially registered”.

“SOAR is not thought to be officially registered as a non-profit with the Internal Revenue Service, the US governmental department with which charities file their annual accounts and are granted tax-exempt status,” the article continued. “Its website says it was incorporated as Victims Refuse Silence in 2015, but there have been no official filings by that organisation since 2019. The organisation’s website states that SOAR is “dedicated to providing a safe and empowering space for survivors of sex trafficking to reclaim their stories and stand up for themselves and each other. It adds that although it officially launched in November 2021, ’at this early stage, we are not yet accepting donations’. A spokesman declined to comment, although one source insisted that there would be activity ‘soon’.”

But that ‘soon’ has stretched into the passing of another two years, with evidently little to no activity in between. Virginia did, however, as emails made public through Professor Alan Dershowitz’s lawsuit against Virginia demonstrate, and as further evidenced in Boylan’s recorded telephone call, offer her old school friend Rebecca Boylan, who has no recorded experience of working in the NGO sector, a position in the charity. This was after Boylan told her she was in a dire financial situation and was asking her for money. 

Who else did Virginia offer positions to, or perhaps offer money from the ‘charity’s’ coffers? The answer is that, due to the lack of financial transparency, we simply just don’t know. A quick check on Guidestar.org shed further light on the controversy. GuideStar is a public charity that aggregates and presents comprehensive information about IRS-registered non-profit organisations in the United States. With a database encompassing over 1.8 million organisations, it is the world’s largest source of information on US non-profits.

The site states the following regarding Virginia’s ‘charity’: “The organisation’s (tax) exempt status was automatically revoked by the IRS for failure to file a Form 990, 990-EZ, 990-N, or 990-PF [informational forms required by law to present financial transparency in order to prove an organisation qualifies to be exempt from paying tax] for three consecutive years. Further investigation and due diligence are warranted.”

On learning this, I did some further digging. Curiously using its former name, ‘Victims Refuse Silence (VRS),’ Bradley Edwards filed an annual report in 2024 (though still I could find no financial transparency within it), listing the organisation’s ‘principal place of business’ as being based at his own head office in Florida. I emailed Edwards, but received no reply. I did, however, manage to speak to another person officially registered as a director of VRS and mentioned by Edwards as a director of the organisation in the report – only to surprisingly discover that she had no idea she’d been registered as such.

On her Twitter account, Eliza Bleu describes herself as ’a survivor and trained survivor advocate, certified in multiple states,’ and she has engaged with Elon Musk in relation to her outspoken campaigning against human trafficking. I spoke to her off and on over a series of months. I found her to be credible, open, and likeable. When I showed her documentation proving that she was officially named as a director, she appeared genuinely flabbergasted. She claimed that she had been approached by Virginia and Teresa Helm to help promote the newly fledged organisation on social media (Bleu has a very large following, particularly on Twitter).

“It was only a website when we met,” she told me. “They asked me to do a video for the fundraiser, and after that they asked me to be part of the organisation. But I never agreed to be a director.” Searching through her emails, Eliza confirmed that she’d been asked to be a board member, but was never sent any request or invitation to be listed as a director, nor had she even been informed of her role by anyone from within the organisation. She also sent me screenshots of her early conversation with Virginia and the VRS’s Vice President, Teresa Helm, corroborating her claim that she was registered as a director without her knowledge or consent.

“Very excited to have you apart [sic] of the team,” Virginia emailed her on the September 25th, 2020. “I know the three of us working together is a match made in heaven!! Please sign and send back. If you do not have a printer, please acknowledge you’ve received this email and agree to the terms attached.”

The attached document was, in fact, a scanned letter, which had already been signed by Virginia but awaited signatures from Helm and Bleu. “Dear Ms. Eliza,” it began. “We would like to welcome you and express our appreciation for the beginning of a long business relationship with our charity, Victims Refuse Silence Inc. We have made a draft of our conversation with you today, Friday, September 25 2020. It contains the ideas of an innovative motivation and dedication to the future of Victims Refuse Silence Inc. I will send you the details of our Dropbox account, where we record on a monthly basis a meeting between the three of us describing our short and long-term goals and notes of our conversations. Teresa Helm, Vice President & Virginia Giuffre, C.E.O., have voted you in and welcome you to Victims Refuse Silence as Chief Administrative Officer. Your role is, and not limited to, strategising ways to best help victims of human trafficking, child sexual exploitation and sexual abuse as a whole.”

Again, Bleu stressed to me that she was never asked to be a director of VRS, and confirmed that she was never paid any money from the organisation - in fact, sending me proof that she had made a donation to the charity in the hope that she would be helping victims of child trafficking. “I agreed to be on the board and to be a chief administrative officer, but they listed me as something other than what I agreed to,” she told me when I showed her that Bradley Edwards, as VRS’s ‘registered agent’, had recorded her as being a director. “That position (chief administrative officer) was the first and only position that I agreed to.”

Bleu claims that shortly after agreeing to come on as a board member and chief administrative officer, she tried to keep in touch with Virginia and Helm but was ‘ghosted’. “It’s crazy to put my name as director without my consent,” she added. “I’d like to get my name removed asap. I want nothing to do with any of it, and I’ll take legal action if needs be.”

It has not been revealed how much money Edwards, Boies, or any of the lawyers have made through SOAR. In fact, most of the huge pay-outs that they’ve facilitated have been made behind closed doors, with no transparency given.

One must question if the 25 men whom Ghislaine Maxwell’s habeas petition claims made secret compensation payments to the lawyers did so under pressure from the aforementioned MO of Boies and co:

1. Highlight an accusation, genuine or not.

2. Demand that the accused pay up to keep the accusation private.

3. Work with the press to enflame the ongoing witch hunt and scare them into finally giving in and paying the hush money.

What we do know is that, by suing institutions and threatening to destroy their reputations via guilt by association if they don’t pay huge compensation settlements, those same lawyers have become multi-millionaires.

A lawsuit launched by Boies, Edwards and their associates alleged that the banking giant JP Morgan and Chase knowingly benefited from Epstein’s alleged trafficking operation by providing banking services and failing to curb suspicious activity. Boies and his pals used immense media pressure to force the bank to settle in 2023 for agreements totalling a whopping $290 million, from which Boies and the other lawyers are rumoured to have pocketed up to 40%.

Deutsche Bank similarly coughed up $75m.

And the lawyers still have ongoing lawsuits against other banks, for which they needed to renew public and media pressure (hence why they began working pro-bono for the House Democrats to release the Epstein files… but I’ll save that story for another day).

And now, those same lawyers, though mired in controversy and accusations of blackmail and extortion, continue to go unscrutinised.

And their next target is Harvard University.

More on that soon.

The full story of blackmail will be included in my upcoming book, NAKED LIES. It will also contain my exclusive interviews with most of the key witnesses in the Epstein scandal, from accusers to the accused.

Let’s dive straight back in.

CLAIM: An email in the Epstein files shows Epstein and an associate discussing children between the ages of 6 and 7.

We’ll start with an easy one. Some X users report that the below email documents Epstein talking with an unidentified associate about ‘hot girls between 6 and 7’.

The truth is that the email’s sender is telling Epstein to come to a Hari NYC yoga class, makes no mention of underage females, and provides the address (still active today):

“Hari NYC” (New York City).

“30” (30th Street), “between 6 and 7” (6th and 7th Street).

CLAIM: “Epstein ordered sulphuric acid to dissolve the bodies of victims”

You may have seen this bizarre claim doing the rounds on social media, particularly on X. But while it’s true that Jeffrey Epstein’s staff once ordered a large amount of sulphuric acid for his island, it is only extraordinary to those of us, myself included, who aren’t lucky enough to own a private island and therefore don’t understand the operational necessities of trying to sustain life on one.

It’s all well and good lying back on your sun lounger by the pool all weekend, slowly sipping margaritas. But you and your guests are going to need to drink more than just cocktails. With the heat on Little Saint James generally never dipping below 25 degrees, and the humidity on the island averaging between 70-80%, water was needed in huge volumes. It not only kept inhabitants hydrated, but also hygienic. It was needed for the dozens of toilets and showers, for washing clothes and bed sheets, for watering the countless plants and cultivated lawns, for irrigation, for… well, you get the picture.

Untreated seawater is, of course, a big no-no, unless you want the salt content to destroy your clothes and sanitation systems, or you wish to drink it and leave your guests to dig you an early grave on the beach while your brain and body dehydrate into insanity. Thus, Epstein’s island, like all private islands, relied upon a sophisticated water treatment system.

The most important component in this was the Reverse Osmosis Plant (RO), mainly used to desalinize the water. Documents in the Epstein files show that the island operated an RO plant to turn seawater into fresh, usable water.

But such systems require a LOT of maintenance.

In May 2014, the water on Epstein’s island was found to have a considerably high PH level, making it potentially dangerous and also contributing to the rusting of water pipes and equipment. This was confirmed by an inspector who visited the island, as demonstrated in the below email from the Epstein files. With seawater being alkaline, it was decided that acid would be needed to balance out the PH levels (standard practice).

Less than a year later, in February 2014, the Florida company TSG, which designs, builds and maintains water purification plants, wrote a service report on the seawater reverse osmosis plant on Little St. James, which also appears in the Epstein files the DOJ published. The report mentions the "Sulfuric Acid Chemical feed pump" that Epstein’s staff went out and purchased, and includes pictures of the plant.

Treatment of the water’s PH levels was continuous throughout the years that Epstein owned Little Saint James.

In 2018, records show that his staff ordered more of it - six 55-gallon drums that were delivered to the island to once again try to remedy the problem.

Not for ‘dissolving bodies’. Not for ‘destroying evidence’. Just simply and boringly for purifying water.

If I have to write any more tedious lines about PH levels and acid, I’ll end up jumping into a batch, so let’s move on to the next viral claim.

CLAIM: “CCTV footage from Epstein’s home shows him with his victims”

It’s true that there was a CCTV camera installed in Epstein’s office. But the media are tending to omit important context.

Firstly, a thorough police investigation concluded that no surveillance footage from Epstein’s home showed him with any underage females. Instead, on occasion they showed him with young adult women, though not engaging in any sexual activity.

Secondly, the camera was installed in the office due to an employee stealing money kept there. The thief was Epstein’s butler, Juan Alessi.

After leaving Epstein’s employ, Alessi had been caught re-entering the house in West Palm Beach and frequently stealing cash from Epstein’s desk. Perplexed by the recurring disappearance of his money, Jeffrey had set up a CCTV camera, carefully hidden in a clock. He then called the police, showing an officer the subsequent footage of Alessi, over a number of days, creeping into the house via the sliding doors, helping himself to bank notes and even Jeffrey’s handgun, a black Glock kept behind a desk. When he presented Alessi with a grainy photograph of him caught in the act, Alessi confessed. His excuse was that he and his wife were going through a divorce and that he wanted the gun to commit suicide; however, this didn’t account for his stealing of almost $10,000 in $100 bills from a white envelope tucked into one of Jeffrey’s briefcases.

Ultimately, Epstein decided not to prosecute and allowed Alessi to pay back the money in instalments.

CLAIM: “A Nine-year-old victim is mentioned in the emails”

This claim can be seen not only in widely-circulated social media posts, but also in mainstream newspapers.

“9-year-old victim… wow!” Senator Cynthia Lummis told the press on Monday, parroting what she’d read in an email sent to Epstein in 2013.

But if you’ve seen some of the many emails within the files, you’ll have noticed two things:

1. Epstein was a DREADFUL speller; so much, in fact, that he had the following signature/excuse automatically included beneath all of his emails: “Sorry for the typos”.

2. The emails are riddled with out-of-place equal (=) sign. This, it has already been revealed, is simply the result of an exporting error, with the DoJ’s system accidentally replacing thousands of numbers and letters throughout the files with equal signs. Brian Krassentein (who is a regular poster of disinformation and clickbait) was one of the first to falsely claim that the below email shows that Epstein was discussing a 9-year-old. But in reality, the equal sign has replaced the first number. It cannot be zero, ergo the ‘sexy and cute’ Brazilian being discussed must have been at least 19 years old at the time.

CLAIM: Karyna Shuliak (Epstein’s last girlfriend) has ‘risen from her Twitter grave’

Social media users went into a frenzy after an account believed to be owned by Epstein's last girlfriend was suddenly reactivated, leading Alex Jones to request an interview with her.

The X account @Karynashuliak racked up over 30,000 followers in a matter of days.

On Saturday, ‘Karyna’ posted: “After years of silence, the truth: Jeffrey was innocent, trapped by powerful people who silenced him. I was his last confidante, and I have the evidence they’re still hiding.”

During my five year investigation into the Epstein scandal for my upcoming book, NAKED LIES, I revealed that the financier’s last jail cell telephone call before he died in August 2019 was to Shuliak.

Shuliak, born in 1991, became publicly known after the death of Epstein due to her close personal relationship with him and claims that she may have been a significant beneficiary of his estate. Raised in Minsk, Belarus, she trained initially as a dentist in her home country before moving to the United States in her early twenties to continue her professional education. Her relocation and subsequent career progression coincided with her introduction to Epstein, whom she met around 2011, beginning a relationship that would last until his death in August 2019.

Epstein is reported to have played a substantial role in supporting Shuliak’s dental career after they became involved. Financial records, emails, and witness accounts suggest that he helped fund her continued dental education in the United States, including tuition and associated costs linked to dental training in New York. He is also reported to have assisted with immigration-related matters, living expenses, and international travel, not only for Shuliak herself but also for members of her family. During this period, she completed the necessary qualifications to practice dentistry in the United States and later held dental registrations in multiple jurisdictions, including Florida and California, with professional links to the U.S. Virgin Islands, where Epstein owned extensive property.

Within Epstein’s inner circle, Shuliak was described by some associates as protective and closely involved in his day-to-day affairs.

There is no evidence or allegation that she participated in Epstein’s alleged criminal activities.

After his death, attention shifted to Epstein’s estate planning, particularly a trust structure he executed just days earlier. Court filings and investigative reporting have stated that Shuliak was named as a primary intended beneficiary of that trust, with provisions that allegedly included cash assets, valuable jewellery, real estate holdings, and long-term financial support. Some reports have claimed the value of what she stood to inherit could have reached around $100 million, although this figure has never been definitively confirmed.

Whether Shuliak ultimately received any substantial inheritance remains unclear.

Today, Shuliak remains a largely private figure, does not give comment to the press, and has no accounts on social media.

That’s why I was surprised to wake up and see that her name was trending on X, with the Twitter account Karynashuliak posting sensationalised comments and garnering widespread attention - something that Shuliak herself has always sought to avoid.

More surprisingly, I saw that conspiracy theorist Alex Jones had reached out to her to request an interview.

So I did some digging.

Then, what was evidently a hoax suddenly morphed into an undeniable scam when the account sent out a post asking for crypto donations.

The account also runs a similar grift on Telegram, and another on Instagram.

On another post, ‘Karyna’ wrote warned that Ghislaine Maxwell would be murdered if she ‘tries to speak out’. The post concluded by writing, ‘just like they murdered my husband’.

This alone should have raised a red flag (Epstein and Karyna, though in a relationship, were never married). However, X users continued to believe the account’s claims, with some even making donations.

Having interviewed a long list of key witnesses for NAKED LIES - from Trump’s former lawyer, members of the Maxwell family and Epstein’s brother, to alleged victims and Virginia Giuffre’s inner circle - I decided to reach out to someone whom I know to be associated with the real Karyna Shuliak. I cannot reveal their name, because they do not wish to be the target of the media’s ongoing frenzied harassment.

My source put me in touch with Shuliak, and, while she declined to be interviewed, she agreed for me to release the following comment from her:

“It’s not me. I have no account on X. The account claiming to be me (@Karynashuliak) is not in any way associated with me and is unauthorised. I have no online presence because I wish to protect my privacy.”

Case (easily) solved.

Two hours after I published my initial report exposing the fake account, its owner publicly admitted that it was a fake (though its mysterious owner tried to package the deception as ‘a social experiment’).

CLAIM: Epstein had a secret baby

The following headlines and excerpts have sent the international press and public into a frenzy of speculation this week, with fascinated readers now firmly believing that Jeffrey Epstein sired a secret son.

It even almost duped me at first, with the claim that Prince Andrew’s ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, had emailed Jeffrey Epstein to congratulate him on the birth of a baby boy, leaving me scratching my head and diving into the documents in search of verification.

However, I quickly noticed that the now widespread belief is based on lazy journalism, a lust to produce clickbait, and a complete absence of basic fact-checking.

So I decided to check the facts for you myself. What I found is that Ferguson did NOT congratulate Jeffrey Epstein, but had instead congratulated their (Epstein and Ferguson’s) mutual friend and business associate, David Stern.

David Stern (not to be confused with the late NBA chairman, although numerous mainstream outlets have already done precisely that) is a British businessman formerly associated with multiple companies, including the Witan Group.

This is David Stern:

And this is David Stern with Sarah Ferguson and Prince Andrew:

An example of correspondence between Prince Andrew and David Stern can be read in the Epstein files by clicking here.

Now, without any fluff or rambling, here is a timeline of what the Epstein Files actually tell us in relation to the ‘mystery baby boy’:

21/02/2011: David Stern sent the below email to Jeffrey Epstein, demonstrating that he (Stern) was in a relationship with a Russian woman named Yana Bogomolova.

26/06/2011: Yana Bogomolova had an ultrasound. I managed to discover that the Epstein files contain a video of that scan, which was later sent by David, at that time a proud soon-to-be father, to Epstein.

As you can see from the data listed on the ultrasound video, the gestational age of the pregnancy is listed as 28 weeks and 3 days, placing it firmly in the third (final) trimester. By using a due date calculator, I found that the baby would have had a due date of mid to late September 2011.

20/09/2011: During the pregnancy, David and Yana got married. And then, on the 20th September, their baby boy was born. In an email later sent to Epstein and other friends and associates of the Sterns, David Stern writes: “Dear Friends, we are delighted to announce the healthy & safe arrival of our son, born on 20 September 2011. He is looking forward to meeting you soon! Best wishes, Yana & David & [baby’s name redacted] Stern.”

21/09/2011: The day after Stern’s baby boy was born, Sarah Ferguson contacted David Stern through BBM (BlackBerry Messenger). In the message, she wrote: “Don’t know if you are still on this bbm but heard from The Duke that you have had a baby boy. Even though you never kept in touch, I still am here with love, friendship and congratulations on your baby boy. Sarah xx”. Shortly after, she sent a follow-up message: “You have disappeared. I did not even know you were having a baby. It was sooo crystal clear to me that you were only friends with me to get to Andrew. And that really hurt me deeply. More than you will know.”

On the same day, David Stern sent two emails to Jeffrey Epstein, copying the messages from Ferguson to show him what she had said. Although the sender’s details are redacted, the DoJ forgot to hide the sender’s details fully in the first email, revealing that the sender is David Stern, using his company email account, ds@wittangroup.com.

In the first email that David sent to Epstein at 6:18 am, he wrote “F [Ferguson] writes…” before including Ferguson’s BBM message:

In the second email David sent to Epstein at 6:26 am, he told him what Ferguson had sent next, starting his email simply with ‘Followed by:……’

So there we have it. A friend of Epstein and Ferguson had a baby. Ferguson congratulated him, yet also scolded him for allegedly using her to get close to Prince Andrew before ghosting her. That friend then forwarded her message to Epstein.

The explanation for why David Stern sent Ferguson’s BBM to Epstein is simple. By then, Epstein’s relationship with the Duchess of York had significantly soured.

After being hounded by the press over her association with Epstein, Ferguson gave an interview to the Daily Telegraph, and the Daily Telegraph subsequently published the following quote from her:

“I personally, on behalf of myself, deeply regret that Jeffrey Epstein became involved in any way with me. I abhor paedophilia and any sexual abuse of children and know that this was a gigantic error of judgment on my behalf. I am just so contrite I cannot say.”

In her interview, Ferguson admitted that she allowed Epstein to pay off £15,000 of her debts. “Whenever I can, I will repay the money and will have nothing ever to do with Jeffrey Epstein ever again,” she added.

The week after Ferguson’s interview, enraged that she had publicly called him a paedophile, Epstein discussed the situation with a crisis management publicist, Mike Sitrick. Epstein suggested Ferguson could release a statement saying she had been “duped” by lawyers representing some of his accusers.

“She now knows that what she was told was based on falsehoods and fabrications designed to enhance their civil suit,” Epstein said. “She should out the newspapers on the offering of money for stories.”

Sitrick, understood to be working for lawyers Epstein had retained, responded, saying they needed to put pressure on Ferguson to change her account. He said: “Agree, quite frankly, whatever her excuse, she needs to say she was mistaken, she apologises, feels terrible. Jeffrey is not a paedophile. The woman who was the source of the conviction for solicitation of prostitution for someone under 18 was 17-3/4, and she is very sorry. We need all those components. She created this problem. She needs to fix it, and as I know, everyone knows time is of the essence here.”

In the exchange, Sitrick said that if Ferguson did not succumb to “gentle persuasion”, he felt that they should “turn up the heat even to the point of sending her a draft defamation lawsuit”.

Although Epstein expressed concerns that he could not “depend” on Ferguson “doing as we would wish”, Sitrick replied that her retraction was “critical”. He said this would be “a major turning point and be picked up everywhere”.

He added: “This is about your name and your reputation. You really can’t worry about her, in my view, you need to worry about you. She certainly isn’t concerned about you or your reputation.”

Ferguson appears not to have made a public statement in support of Epstein. In private, however, she emailed him. She wrote: “I know you feel hellaciously let down by me from what you were either told or read and I must humbly apologise to you and your heart for that.”

She added: “I was instructed to act with the utmost speed if I would have any chance of holding on to my career as a children’s book author and a children’s philanthropist. As you know, I did not, absolutely not, say the ‘P word’ [paedophile] about you but understand it was reported that I did.”

Regardless, fast-forward to now, and journalists, eager to publish a ‘juicy’ Epstein-related story yet too lazy and/or useless to correctly read and relay a simple email, have quickly seen a message from Ferguson that was sent to Epstein, failed (or have chosen to ignore) the ‘F wrote’ and ‘followed by….’ important pieces of context, failed (or again chose to ignore) the ultrasound video and the fact that David Stern, not Epstein, was the proud father and the recipient of Ferguson’s original messages, and have published a lie claiming that Epstein may have had a secret baby son.

And that lie continues to circulate around the world. It has since been repeated in articles by the Guardian, the Daily Mail, the Independent, the Daily Beast, and in almost every newspaper and media outlet on the planet.

I contacted the BBC, who assured me that their error was ‘being looked into’.

To date, they have not issued a correction or removed or updated their misleading articles. On the contrary, they have since continued to promote the myth in follow-up articles.

So much for trustworthy journalism. And this is just a small example, just one from hundreds of articles containing far more damaging misinformation relating to the Epstein scandal that has been published and promoted by the press and media.

Hardly anyone seems to be reporting the news accurately or without bias anymore.

That’s why I hope you’ll kindly support me moving forward. I’ve been investigating the Epstein scandal for almost 6 years now, interviewing key witnesses, gathering fresh evidence, fact-checking the misleading and damaging lies spread by the media, and striving to deliver to you exactly what you deserve - the truth.

I’m doing this independently, and now rely solely on paid Substack subscribers to be able to continue my work.

Please consider becoming a paid subscriber by clicking the button below.

Subscribe now

CLAIM: A Paedophile pilot has been arrested in connection to the Jeffrey Epstein case

A viral tweet led to small news outlets repeating the claim that a pilot had been arrested in Brazil after being found to have operated a child-trafficking operation in collusion with Epstein.

The post has since been viewed over 3 million times, despite it being a lie.

Yes, a pilot named Sergio Antonio Lopes was arrested for child pornography and exploitation this week. However, he and his alleged crimes have no connection to the Epstein scandal whatsoever. You can read more about the story by clicking here.

CLAIM: “Epstein murdered a Christian girl!”

This is a particularly odd one, with X users claiming that an email, in which Epstein talks about an unidentified woman and Jesus, translates into “Epstein killed a child and then mocked her religion”.

But no child is mentioned in the email, let alone a murder. Furthermore, it would be illogical for someone to jokingly suggest that Epstein dress up as Jesus the next time he sees the woman if the woman in question were no longer alive.

CLAIM: “A diplomat offered her 13-year-old sister to Epstein”

This nonsense, invented by Mario Nawfal (a well-known poster of fake news and clickbait) has been viewed millions of times.

The truth is that the sister of Al-Owais (whom I won’t name here, to protect her from the many harassing ghouls and armchair detectives on X) was in her twenties at the time that the email was sent.

CLAIM: Epstein and his associates were eating children/engaging in cannibalism

For context, Lauren Boebert is a famously moronic Qanon believer, and is widely reported in the media as having promoted Pizzagate. She believes in every conspiracy theory under the sun (which she probably believes to be a giant climate-controlling lamp owned by George Soros). Pizzagate supporters are renowned for trying to create any sinister connection they can to harmless words found in emails (the 'Pizza' in 'Pizzagate' originates from nutjobs finding multiple harmless references to pizza among the tens of thousands of Tony podesta's leaked emails, and claiming it was code for child abuse). You can read my (very very) deep dive into Pizzagate, its origins, and how it influenced the Epstein scandal, by clicking here.

The 'torture' emails Boebert refers to are in fact a few emails (one is from Epstein to the Sultan, jokingly saying 'thanks for the torture video' - the other two are similarly tongue-in-cheek, for instance someone telling Epstein that one of their friends 'looks tortured' - I checked, and this relates to a recent relationship break-up.

Regarding 'Consumption', the word appears in the emails over 1,000 times... all in relation to trade, science, or commerce. E.g. 'In China, the consumption of eggs is 10% less than an India', and a report titled 'Reduced consumption due to higher CAFE standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards the automobile replacement cycle'.

Regarding 'Human consumption', yes, that phrase appears too... but only, for instance, at the end of a private email, i.e. 'not for human consumption'.

And there’s the sinister-sounding 'Cannibal Restaurant'.

I found the restaurant in question (now closed down). It was operational in 2013, when Epstein and his friends were (very rarely) emailing about it, as many others would have been.

The Cannibal (officially The Cannibal Beer & Butcher) was a gastropub/restaurant and butcher shop at 113 East 29th Street in Manhattan, New York. It opened in 2011 and was still in operation around 2013 (the year in which it's mentioned in the Epstein emails). It was known for its inventive meat dishes, artisanal charcuterie, and "an impressive craft-beer list". It was started by restaurateur Christian Pappanicholas as a spin-off of his next-door Belgian restaurant Resto and became known as a meat-centric neighbourhood favourite.

Beef jerky is indeed mentioned in the emails, but it isn’t a ‘codeword’, as brainless Boebert believes. It was written in relation to that same restaurant, which was famous for its burgers and beef jerky.

And as Boerbert and thousands of others put their tin foil hats back on, naturally they were bound to trawl through millions of files in a hunt to find harmless references to pizza they can assimilate into their underground child-trafficking fantasies.

The Epstein emails contain such references - but always in the context of, you guessed it, ordering or eating pizza.

Boerbert tried to further insinuate that an email mentioning grape soda and pizza had an evil hidden meaning behind it.

But, as Mostly Peaceful Latinas pointed out, the emails reveal that the simplest (and in this instance, the sanist) answer is often the correct one.

If you’ve made it this far, well done! Thanks for reading, and stay tuned for another fact-checker and some more exclusive articles and interviews in the coming days and weeks.

Also, if you aren’t already, please subscribe to . She’s the only other journalist I know who has spent years investigating this entire scandal and putting facts and morals above fiction and money. She has a treasure trove of exclusive interviews on her Substack, and will soon be providing an update on the case of Epstein’s former cellmate.

We both need your support so we can keep giving you what you deserve - the truth.

We’ve got a long, treacherous road ahead of us.

P.S. “Sorry for the typos”.

In an email sent this morning, Ransome attached photographs of Mr Roberts’ partner and children, along with photographs of Mueffling, her family members, and her children, warning that they now ‘have targets on their backs’.

“I will come after your children,” she told them. “The fucking Ayatollah [the Supreme Leader of Iran] will be fucking terrified of me after what I do to you and your children.”

“I’m going to teach you boys and goals [sic] a lesson on what happens when you fuck with another woman’s cub the way you have. You brought this on yourselves, and I’ve given you more than enough warnings, to be fair.”

“The purge starts today,” she added. “There is no law or police, Sky Roberts and Dini… there is no one coming to help you. I’m coming for you in ways that you will not fucking fathom.”

Concluding the email, Ransome told Mueffling and Roberts Jr that they would, “Meet the monster you’ve made, there are no rules anymore. I’m coming for you Sky Roberts, and there is no going back now.”

In another email, sent to Sky Roberts Jr hours later, Ransome confirmed that police had arrived at her residence, but claimed that they had only stayed for a matter of minutes.

Doubling down on her threats, she wrote: “The policeman that was ran to [us] earlier was incredibly handsome. Was here for about three minutes.”

“I said to the policeman that, yes, I’m definitely definitely definitely definitely going to harm your children 100% if you don’t tell the truth about what’s been going on,” she added. “1,000,000% I’m gonna harm your children.”

Ransome then took aim at the children of other individuals, writing: “All your kids are going to get it as well… I’ve never been more fucking goddamn serious in my entire life.”

To another alleged Epstein victim, she wrote: “I’m going to come for your daughter and your son…. I’m coming for your daughter. May God have fucking mercy on you.”

Returning to Sky Roberts Jr, Ransome demanded that he send settlement money to her bank account, despite Roberts Jr not owing Mrs Ransome any such payment.

“If I do not have my outstanding settlement in my bank account tomorrow, your children are going to get hurt,” her email concluded.

Since mid-2015, Ransome has engaged in a campaign of targeted online harassment against a wide range of individuals, spreading demonstrable false accusations and, at times, issuing chilling death threats.

In one of her recent chain emails, she demanded that her former lawyers pay her $75,000 and accused one of them, without evidence, of raping fellow Epstein accuser Maria Farmer (she has contradicted this claim in other statements).

Ransome then demanded that international arrest warrants be issued for prominent lawyers representing Epstein accusers, including David Boies, Sigrid McCawley, Bradley Edwards, and Brittany Henderson.

She has also demanded large sums of money from multiple other individuals and companies.

Ransome has since escalated her online harassment campaign, sending antisemitic statements to Dershowitz, and making death threats against Donald Trump.

Most of the emails are too graphic and defamatory to publish. Police in the Netherlands, where Ransome now resides, confirmed that they have reviewed her correspondence and acknowledged that her actions constitute “a criminal threat”.

Some of her other criminal threats contained within her recent emails include addressing President Trump, Alan Dershowitz, and me (after I interviewed her and published an article that highlighted some of the key contradictions in her story, not least of all that she previously claimed to have sex tapes of Epstein, Clinton, Trump, and Richard Branson - only to later admit that she had lied).

In one of them, she wrote: “Why do you boys get to play with guns on the battlefield, and I don’t? How come you rapists, pedophiles and sex traffickers get to defend yourself, and I’m left defenceless F*ck that nonsense. You want to play, let’s play...... Alan Dershowitz, you posted on 05/06/2025. “KILL THEM FIRST. The Bible teaches self-defence: if someone seeks to kill you, act first. Protect yourself wisely.”

In other correspondence, Ransome referenced a post about killing one’s enemies and wrote to Dershowitz, “It’s either you or me, Alan, and it ain’t going to be me. I’m coming for you, and this is war!”

Professor Dershowitz was falsely accused of impropriety by the late Virginia Giuffre, before Giuffre later dropped her allegations and revealed that she had lied.

In another email, Ransome told me that she and her husband are going to ‘hunt’ me down.

In another, this time writing to the Russian Ambassador to the Netherlands, and copying in 98 other individuals, Ransome told him where I live and wrote, “Vladimir, please find this man and put a bullet in his head”.

In the same email, she bizarrely accused me of being a spy working for President Trump, while accusing Israel, the British Royal Family, Dershowitz, and numerous other entities and individuals of trying to kill her, going on to suggest that she would kill us first.

Ransome then wrote: “Please review the attached photos. What do these photos mean to you, Jay!!!”

These were the attached photographs that she was referring to:

Signing off the email, she wrote: “I have a big, big, big surprise for you, Alan Dershowitz, Trump, Maxwell, and co.”

I have, for months now, contacted various officials in the Netherlands to try to stop Ransome’s harassment from escalating, and to get her the help she deserves. None of those officials, including the Dutch police, have taken any tangible action.

I’ll be providing an update in due course. In the meantime, I hope that Ransome stops her tirade of harassment and death threats against numerous innocent people, particularly against innocent children, that she doesn’t escalate them from emails into action, and that authorities at the very least offer her the help that she needs.

After Epstein was found dead in his cell under suspicious circumstances, the FBI interviewed a wide range of witnesses and employees. Shortly after, an official BOP report concluded that the prison had made numerous failings in the handling of Jeffrey Epstein in his final days.

Numerous factors were honed in on by the press and public.

Why was Epstein, whom prison staff had deemed to be suicidal, left alone?

Why did prison guards fall asleep?

Why was he allowed extra bed sheets, breaking prison protocol?

Why were medicine bottles still standing perfectly upright on the top bunk, despite it being claimed that Epstein had hanged himself, moving violently whilst the noose was tied to the bed frame?

Why were cameras covering his cell ‘conveniently’ not working?

And what happened to the ‘missing’ video footage?

Now we may have the answer.

Read the documents for yourself, which allege that an FBI agent removed the DVR despite being reminded that it would ‘wipe’ the footage from the hard drives:

There are many other eyebrow-raising aspects to Epstein’s death, some of which I’ll be reporting on extensively in upcoming articles.

I’ve already spent years investigating this enigmatic mystery. My full findings, along with interviews, will be revealed, in-depth, in my upcoming book, NAKED LIES, particularly in the final four chapters, starting with a chapter entitled ‘The Curious Death of Jeff’.

You can listen to my shocking interview with Epstein’s brother, Mark, below. He explains the suspicious circumstances surrounding his sibling’s death better than anyone else can.

Couturier is best known for designing and decorating the abodes of famous faces.

A graduate of the École Camondo in Paris, he moved to New York in 1981. Six years later, Sir James Goldsmith commissioned him to re-conceptualize his 30,000-acre nature reserve on the Pacific Coast of Mexico. Couturier went on to decorate Goldsmith’s Boeing 757, his double-width Manhattan townhouse, and his historic French chateau.

He has worked with the likes of Anne Hearst, Frederick Iseman, and was included in Elle Decor’s “A-list Top 60 Designers”, while the British magazine House and Garden named him one of the top 10 foreign decorators.

But it is his past work for Jeffrey Epstein that has become the focus of recent intrigue.

He wasn’t the only architect hired by Epstein to oversee the designs and renovations of his many luxurious properties. Another Frenchman, Alberto Pinto, was the most involved in the development of Epstein’s homes and island.

But Couturier helped to design one of the most infamous structures on Epstein’s island - a square, blue and white striped building crowned with a golden dome.

The building, standing at odds with the rest of the island’s infrastructure, has been the subject of many a rumour and conspiracy theory for over a decade.

It is now known around the world simply as ‘the Temple’.

But Couturier, whose name appears in the recently released Epstein files, insists that this name doesn’t match the mysterious feature’s true purpose.

In the below video, available to paid subscribers, Couturier tells me how he met Epstein, his visits to the island, the truth behind ‘the Temple’, and the day he sat beside Epstein and told him, “I can’t work for you anymore. I just can’t.”

Coming this week: An interview with the former boyfriend of Carolyn Andriano (one of Virginia Giuffre’s victims); A breakdown and fact-check of the Epstein Files; The next instalment of my podcast, ‘Everything Epstein’'; Coverage of Ghislaine Maxwell’s deposition'; An article about a particular fetish that Jeffrey Epstein was into, that journalists haven’t yet picked up on'; An article revealing more about Epstein’s ‘Temple’ and its origins'; Another exclusive interview (announced shortly); My newsletter; and much more.

If you haven’t seen it already, you can watch my interview on the Charlie Kirk Show by clicking here.

Now, without further ado, sit back and listen to Robert Couturier’s recollection of his time in Jeffrey Epstein’s orbit:

Read more

On Saturday, ‘Karyna’ posted: “After years of silence, the truth: Jeffrey was innocent, trapped by powerful people who silenced him. I was his last confidante, and I have the evidence they’re still hiding.”

During my five year investigation into the Epstein scandal for my upcoming book, NAKED LIES, I revealed that the financier’s last jail cell telephone call before he died in August 2019 was to Shuliak.

Shuliak, born in 1991, became publicly known after the death of Epstein due to her close personal relationship with him and claims that she may have been a significant beneficiary of his estate. Raised in Minsk, Belarus, she trained initially as a dentist in her home country before moving to the United States in her early twenties to continue her professional education. Her relocation and subsequent career progression coincided with her introduction to Epstein, whom she met around 2011, beginning a relationship that would last until his death in August 2019.

Epstein is reported to have played a substantial role in supporting Shuliak’s dental career after they became involved. Financial records, emails, and witness accounts suggest that he helped fund her continued dental education in the United States, including tuition and associated costs linked to dental training in New York. He is also reported to have assisted with immigration-related matters, living expenses, and international travel, not only for Shuliak herself but also for members of her family. During this period, she completed the necessary qualifications to practice dentistry in the United States and later held dental registrations in multiple jurisdictions, including Florida and California, with professional links to the U.S. Virgin Islands, where Epstein owned extensive property.

Within Epstein’s inner circle, Shuliak was described by some associates as protective and closely involved in his day-to-day affairs.

There is no evidence or allegation that she participated in Epstein’s alleged criminal activities.

After his death, attention shifted to Epstein’s estate planning, particularly a trust structure he executed just days earlier. Court filings and investigative reporting have stated that Shuliak was named as a primary intended beneficiary of that trust, with provisions that allegedly included cash assets, valuable jewellery, real estate holdings, and long-term financial support. Some reports have claimed the value of what she stood to inherit could have reached around $100 million, although this figure has never been definitively confirmed.

Whether Shuliak ultimately received any substantial inheritance remains unclear.

Today, Shuliak remains a largely private figure, does not give comment to the press, and has no accounts on social media.

That’s why I was surprised to wake up this morning to see that her name was trending on X, with the Twitter account Karynashuliak continuing to post sensationalised comments and garnering widespread attention - something that Shuliak herself has always sought to avoid.

More surprisingly, I saw that conspiracy theorist Alex Jones had reached out to her to request an interview.

So I did some digging.

What I found was that the account changed its user handle in 2017 before going into a long state of hibernation. Fast forward to now, and the account has suddenly changed its location. The following are subsequent bizarre posts the account has made since yesterday:

Then, what was evidently a hoax suddenly morphed into an undeniable scam, when the account posted this morning asking for crypto donations.

The account also runs a similar grift on Telegram. On Instagram today, an account appeared also claiming to be Shuliak.

On another post, ‘Karyna’ wrote warned that Ghislaine Maxwell would be murdered if she ‘tries to speak out’. The post concluded by writing, ‘just like they murdered my husband’.

This alone should have raised a red flag (Epstein and Karyna, though in a relationship, were never married). However, X users continue to believe the account’s claims, with some even making donations.

Having interviewed a long list of key witnesses for NAKED LIES - from Trump’s former lawyer, members of the Maxwell family and Epstein’s brother, to alleged victims and Virginia Giuffre’s inner circle - I decided to reach out to someone whom I know to be associated with the real Karyna Shuliak. I cannot reveal their name, because they do not wish to be the target of the media’s ongoing frenzied harassment.

My source put me in touch with Shuliak, and, while she declined to be interviewed, she agreed for me to release the following comment from her:

“It’s not me. I have no account on X. The account claiming to be me (@Karynashuliak) is not in any way associated with me and is unauthorised. I have no online presence because I wish to protect my privacy.”

Case (easily) solved.

This isn’t the first time that crooked individuals have perpetuated hoaxes to financially benefit from the Epstein scandal.

Along with false accusers coming forward to attempt to collect compensation pay-outs and press fees, in the early days of Ghislaine Maxwell becoming the focus of journalists and prosecutors, a woman named Laura Goldman came out of the shadows and claimed to be Maxwell’s ‘close friend and confidante’.

Goldman was interviewed as Maxwell’s spokesperson of sorts, appearing on Piers Morgan’s show on GMB, on ITV, and her statements - mostly paid for by journalists and producers far more focused on putting out clickbait headlines than carrying out basic fact-checking - were published across the world.

Then it was revealed that Goldman, like the account owner of the fake ‘Karyna Shuliak’ account, was a charlatan. Goldman in fact had no friendship with Ghislaine, no communication, and was outed as a serial fabulist.

You can read more about Goldman’s story here.

In the meantime, please DO NOT be foolish enough to donate to @Karynashuliak or anyone falsely claiming to be her.

Peter Mandelson has served as a cabinet minister, EU trade commissioner, and later as the UK’s ambassador to the United States. His career has long been defined by proximity to power and by controversy, but the release of new Epstein-related material in early 2026 marked the most damaging episode yet.

The latest tranche of files showed repeated contact between Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein over several years, including communications that continued after Epstein’s 2008 conviction. The material reignited scrutiny of Mandelson’s judgment and raised questions about whether his relationship with Epstein went beyond casual social contact. The controversy quickly became politically toxic, particularly after Mandelson had been reappointed to a high-profile diplomatic role.

As pressure mounted, Mandelson lost his ambassadorship and resigned from the Labour Party. However, it wasn’t Mandelson’s friendship with Epstein that was the final nail in his coffin. Police confirmed they were assessing material connected to him as part of a wider investigation into Epstein’s network and influence.

Earlier this week, the Metropolitan Police confirmed that they are searching two properties linked to Mandelson.

Deputy assistant commissioner Hayley Sewart, of the Met, said: “I can confirm that officers from the Met’s Central Specialist Crime team are in the process of carrying out search warrants at two addresses, one in the Wiltshire area, and another in the Camden area. The searches are related to an ongoing investigation into misconduct in public office offences, involving a 72-year-old man.”

Sewart confirmed that no arrests have been made.

The ongoing drama follows Mandelson dramatically resigning from the House of Lords after leaking sensitive information to Epstein during their long friendship.

There is no suggestion that Mandelson was involved in any of the crimes Epstein was accused of.

The move came as Keir Starmer said he had handed a dossier to the police after it emerged Mandelson had sent a string of emails to Epstein containing briefings he received as business secretary under Gordon Brown, including action the government was taking to deal with the global financial crisis.

Starmer told a meeting of the cabinet on Tuesday morning he was appalled by the reported leaks and had also asked officials to draft legislation to strip Mandelson of his peerage “as quickly as possible”.

The cabinet secretary, the UK’s most senior civil servant, is examining leaked emails sent by Mandelson during the final year of Gordon Brown’s government. The correspondence includes messages relating to the possible sale of government assets and advance confirmation of a €500bn European bailout.

The latter insider information could have helped him make a profit on the stock exchange.

The documents have since been passed to the Metropolitan Police, which said it would review the emails and consider whether a broader investigation is required.

Among the material are emails forwarded to Epstein from the highest levels of government while Mandelson was business secretary, including a confidential briefing prepared for the prime minister setting out proposals for up to £20bn in asset sales.

The emails also show Mandelson saying he was “trying hard” to influence government policy on bankers’ bonuses, providing early confirmation of an impending eurozone bailout, and suggesting that the head of JPMorgan should “mildly threaten” the chancellor over bonuses.

A spokesperson for Keir Starmer said the Cabinet Office was reviewing all information it held relating to the documents. An initial assessment of the Epstein files released on Friday by the US Department of Justice found they contained “likely market-sensitive information” connected to the 2008 financial crisis and subsequent efforts to stabilise the economy.

Morgan McSweeney

Morgan McSweeney served as chief of staff to Prime Minister Keir Starmer and was one of the most powerful unelected figures in British politics. Known as a disciplined political operator, McSweeney was not personally linked to Epstein but became ensnared through his role in Mandelson’s return to frontline politics.

McSweeney was instrumental in advising on Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador, despite Mandelson’s known past association with Epstein. When the newly released files reignited scrutiny of those ties, attention quickly turned to how and why the appointment had been approved. Critics argued that due diligence had failed at the highest level.

Today, McSweeney resigned from his post, accepting responsibility for the decision and its consequences.

In his resignation statement, he said he had acted “in good faith” but acknowledged that the decision had caused serious damage. He added that maintaining trust in government required him to step aside.

Miroslav Lajčák

Miroslav Lajčák is a former Slovak foreign minister and, until recently, the country’s national security adviser. He was a prominent figure in European diplomacy and had represented Slovakia at the United Nations.

Epstein-related documents revealed email correspondence between Lajčák and Epstein in 2018, including exchanges that appeared informal and social. The disclosures, despite demonstrating nothing illegal or particularly controversial, caused uproar in Slovakia, where opposition figures questioned why a senior security official had maintained contact with a convicted sex offender.

Lajčák resigned from his post shortly after the revelations became public, citing the need to avoid distracting the government at a sensitive time.

He denied any misconduct, describing the emails as innocuous and saying his decision to step down was made “in the interest of political stability, not because of wrongdoing.”

Jack Lang

Jack Lang is a towering figure in French cultural and political life, best known for his years as culture minister and later as president of the Arab World Institute in Paris.

The Epstein files revealed extensive communications between Lang and Epstein spanning several years. French prosecutors also opened investigations into potential financial and tax irregularities involving Lang and his family, with Epstein-linked offshore structures forming part of the inquiry.

Amid mounting pressure, Lang resigned from his role at the Arab World Institute. The resignation marked a dramatic fall from grace for a man once regarded as a symbol of French cultural diplomacy.

Lang rejected all allegations, saying he had “nothing to reproach himself for” and welcomed investigations as an opportunity to clear his name. He said his interactions with Epstein were connected to cultural and philanthropic discussions.

Caroline Lang

Caroline Lang, a film producer and the daughter of Jack Lang, was drawn into the scandal through financial and corporate links that surfaced in the Epstein material.

Her name appeared in documents referencing offshore companies and financial arrangements connected to Epstein, prompting scrutiny of her professional roles within the French film industry.

She resigned from her leadership position in a major producers’ organisation, stating that the controversy risked undermining the credibility of the institution.

In response, she denied any involvement in Epstein’s criminal conduct and said her resignation was an act of responsibility rather than an admission of fault.

Brad S. Karp

Brad S. Karp was the longtime chairman of the elite US law firm Paul, Weiss, one of the most influential legal institutions in the world.

Documents released in 2026 showed extensive email correspondence between Karp and Epstein.

Karp resigned as chairman following internal discussions and external pressure, predominantly from the press and media, becoming one of the most senior figures in US corporate law to lose a position over Epstein-related fallout.

He acknowledged the correspondence but said it had been misinterpreted, insisting there was no professional or improper relationship.

Matthieu de Boisséson

Matthieu de Boisséson is a London-based barrister who practised at Littleton Chambers. His name appeared in Epstein-related material released as part of the wider document disclosures.

A spokesperson for the law firm told the Standard: “In light of recent information received, Chambers has suspended M. de Boisseson’s Associate Membership pending a full investigation.”

The website for Littleton Chambers no longer includes an image of de Boisséson among its team.

According to emails released, de Boisséson was in contact with both Epstein and Jean-Luc Brunel, a modelling scout accused of putting the disgraced financier in contact with various girls.

In another email, Brunel writes to de Boisséson in French saying: “I’m going to take care of my libido. Kyiv is a good clinic.” The lawyer responds: “Perfect! You’re doing a great job, dear guru.”

In an image released in the Epstein files, de Boisséson is seen with a woman whose face is redacted, alongside the model scout.

Another image reportedly shows the French lawyer being served vodka in a bottle shaped like a rifle. Responding to the Telegraph, de Boisséson downplayed the images saying they were taken “probably in a restaurant, apparently not with ‘young girls’ but with unknown women, whose faces are redacted”.

De Boisséson has denied wrongdoing and said he would cooperate fully with any inquiries. He described the scrutiny as deeply damaging and said conclusions were being drawn before facts had been established.

Mona Juul

Mona Juul is a veteran Norwegian diplomat, best known for her role in the Oslo peace process and for serving as Norway’s ambassador in the Middle East.

Epstein documents showed that she had contact with Epstein after his conviction and that he had included her children in his will. The revelations triggered intense scrutiny in Norway, where ethical standards for public officials are high.

Juul was suspended from her diplomatic duties while Norway’s foreign ministry launched an internal investigation.

Through representatives, she denied any improper relationship and said she would cooperate fully to clarify the context of her contact with Epstein.

Børge Brende

Børge Brende is a former Norwegian foreign minister and the current president of the World Economic Forum.

The released files showed that Brende had attended dinners and meetings with Epstein in the years following Epstein’s conviction. Although no criminal allegations were made, the disclosures raised questions about judgment at the highest levels of global leadership.

The World Economic Forum announced an independent review into Brende’s contacts with Epstein. He has not resigned but has stepped back from matters related to the inquiry.

Brende said he regretted the meetings and stated that, with hindsight, he should have exercised greater caution.

Terje Rød-Larsen

Terje Rød-Larsen is a Norwegian diplomat and former head of the International Peace Institute. He is also the husband of Mona Juul.

Epstein-related documents suggested close ties, including financial support and favourable property arrangements. These revelations compounded scrutiny already surrounding Epstein’s influence in international diplomacy.

Although Rød-Larsen had stepped down from his institute role years earlier, the new disclosures prompted renewed investigation into his past conduct.

He has said little publicly, citing ongoing inquiries, but has indicated through associates that he intends to cooperate.

Thorbjørn Jagland

Thorbjørn Jagland is a former Norwegian prime minister, foreign minister and former chair of the Nobel Committee.

The files revealed meetings, correspondence and hospitality linked to Epstein, prompting Norwegian authorities to open a corruption investigation examining whether Epstein provided benefits inappropriately.

Jagland has not resigned from any current post but is under active investigation, a rare and serious development in Norwegian public life.

He has denied criminal wrongdoing and said all interactions were connected to official duties.

Crown Princess Mette-Marit of Norway

Crown Princess Mette-Marit is the wife of Norway’s future king and one of the country’s most prominent public figures.

Documents showed she had communicated with Epstein after his conviction, including exchanges that sparked public outrage in Norway.

While she has not lost her title or role, the fallout was severe. She issued a public apology in which she acknowledged ‘poor judgment’.

“I regret having had any contact with Epstein at all,” she said, calling the situation “deeply embarrassing.”

Prince Andrew

Prince Andrew, the Duke of York, has long been the most publicly associated royal figure connected to Jeffrey Epstein.

The latest document releases reinforced evidence of their long-standing relationship, including continued contact after Epstein’s conviction. The renewed scrutiny intensified pressure on the monarchy.

Andrew has lost military titles, royal patronages and his role as a working royal. He has also been forced out of royal residences and remains under law enforcement assessment.

He continues to deny wrongdoing and has previously said he is willing to cooperate with authorities, while disputing allegations linked to Epstein.

You can listen to my investigation into his accuser, Virginia Giuffre, by clicking here.

Joanna Rubinstein

Joanna Rubinstein was a senior Swedish nonprofit figure and chair of Sweden for UNHCR.

The Epstein files revealed that she had visited Epstein’s private island in 2012 and exchanged emails thanking him for hospitality. The visit took place years after his conviction, triggering widespread criticism.

Rubinstein resigned from her UNHCR role shortly after the disclosures.

She said the visit was a single encounter, denied any knowledge of wrongdoing at the time, and stated that stepping down was necessary to protect the organisation’s integrity.

As well as individual public downfalls, the Epstein scandal has now created a wave of official investigations, including in Poland and the Baltic states.

Poland investigates potential Russian, trafficking links

Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk announced that Warsaw will examine possible links between Epstein and Russian intelligence services, forming a specialized investigative team to scrutinize the files for implications related to national security and possible exploitation of Polish nationals.

Baltic states launch trafficking inquiries

The release of the Epstein documents has also led to human trafficking investigations in Latvia and Lithuania. Latvian prosecutors, joined by the country’s Organised Crime Bureau, are probing the recruitment of Latvian nationals for potential sexual exploitation. Lithuanian officials similarly launched an inquiry after references to Lithuanian models and arts figures appeared in the files.

In other news, I recommend my followers to read an op-ed piece written this week by Brendan O’Neill for The Spectator. In it, O’Neill states that the scandal has morphed into a moral panic.

“That’s it, I’m out,” he writes. “I’m finished with the Epstein scandal. This morning I read about a man who is on the cusp of cancellation because he once sent a flirtatious email to Ghislaine Maxwell, years before her crimes were known about. This is getting ridiculous. It feels like MeToo on steroids.

“The man is Casey Wasserman. He’s chair of the Los Angeles 2028 Olympics. And there are hollers for him to stand down. All because he once got digitally horny with Ms Maxwell. ‘I think of you all the time’, he wrote in one email. ‘What do I have to do to see you in a tight leather outfit?’, he asked.

“That’s it. A little bit of lame middle-aged wooing.”

Read the full article by clicking here.

Deputy assistant commissioner Hayley Sewart, of the Met, said: “I can confirm that officers from the Met’s Central Specialist Crime team are in the process of carrying out search warrants at two addresses, one in the Wiltshire area, and another in the Camden area.

“The searches are related to an ongoing investigation into misconduct in public office offences, involving a 72-year-old man.”

Sewart confirmed that no arrests have been made.

Today’s drama follows Mandelson dramatically resigning from the House of Lords after leaking sensitive information to Epstein during their long friendship.

There is no suggestion that Mandelson was involved in any of the crimes Epstein was accused of.

The move came as Keir Starmer said he had handed a dossier to the police after it emerged Mandelson had sent a string of emails to Epstein containing briefings he received as business secretary under Gordon Brown, including action the government was taking to deal with the global financial crisis.

Starmer told a meeting of the cabinet on Tuesday morning he was appalled by the reported leaks and had also asked officials to draft legislation to strip Mandelson of his peerage “as quickly as possible”.

The cabinet secretary, the UK’s most senior civil servant, is examining leaked emails sent by Mandelson during the final year of Gordon Brown’s government. The correspondence includes messages relating to the possible sale of government assets and advance confirmation of a €500bn European bailout.

The latter insider information could have helped him make a profit on the stock exchange.

The documents have since been passed to the Metropolitan Police, which said it would review the emails and consider whether a broader investigation is required.

Among the material are emails forwarded to Epstein from the highest levels of government while Mandelson was business secretary, including a confidential briefing prepared for the prime minister setting out proposals for up to £20bn in asset sales.

The emails also show Mandelson saying he was “trying hard” to influence government policy on bankers’ bonuses, providing early confirmation of an impending eurozone bailout, and suggesting that the head of JPMorgan should “mildly threaten” the chancellor over bonuses.

A spokesperson for Keir Starmer said the Cabinet Office was reviewing all information it held relating to the documents. An initial assessment of the Epstein files released on Friday by the US Department of Justice found they contained “likely market-sensitive information” connected to the 2008 financial crisis and subsequent efforts to stabilise the economy.