Hello to you all. I hope you’re having a great week so far!
I’ve been busy editing my new podcast series, The Life & Death of Jeff, but it was becoming increasingly difficult to stay focused amidst the constant Russian missile attacks here in Kyiv, grabbing a foldable chair and dashing down to the bomb shelter multiple times a day every time the air raid sirens start wailing.
Thankfully I’ve managed to remedy the wifi situation down in that dusty shelter, so can now type away through the wee small hours - though I have, in between attacks, managed to head outside and grab some sunshine (it’s bloody hot here!).
If you haven’t already, please listen to the latest episode of The Life & Death of Jeff, a chronological, shocking masterclass finally revealing the full truth about the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. In last week’s episode I revealed the identity of one of Jeffrey’s girlfriends who helped trap Queen Camilla’s son in a cocaine scandal. In today’s episode I begin to cover the story of Virginia Giuffre, including audio from Ghislaine Maxwell and from my interview with Giuffre’s former longterm partner.
As you may have noticed, the politically and financially-motivated witch hunt known globally as the ‘Epstein scandal’ continues to rage on.
We’ve got a LOT to cover to make sure we’re up to speed on recent developments.
So, let’s catch up on what may have been overlooked or that you may have accidentally scrolled past…
GET READY FOR THE MAXWELL/GIUFFRE FILES
“A large amount of damning new evidence against convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and his imprisoned accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell could soon come to light after a federal judge ordered a trove of case files to be unsealed”, The New York Post reported - seemingly oblivious to the fact that those who, like myself, have actually studied the case in question know the opposite to be true.
In a nutshell, when Virginia’s lurid allegations, particularly against Prince Andrew, first came out, Maxwell’s PR guy issued a statement to the press in which Giuffre was branded a liar. Giuffre’s legal team then filed a defamation lawsuit. Both Maxwell and Giuffre were deposed and gave testimony under oath. The lawsuit was then eventually settled, with Maxwell paying Giuffre a large sum of cash in the naive hope that the whole thing would go away and she could get on with her life.
Manhattan Federal Court Judge Loretta Preska has now ordered the unsealing of the previously subpoenaed material from the lawsuit (though most don’t realise that much of the lawsuit has already been readily available to read online for almost a decade).
Here are some things that I can assure you will be in those unsealed files, but that will either be redacted and/or not be covered by the mainstream media (due to the evidence proving that Giuffre was a serial liar and fabulist):
Giuffre admitting that she didn’t ever meet any foreign presidents, despite previously lying under oath in an official lawsuit that she was trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein to foreign presidents.
Giuffre acknowledging that she never spent any time with Prince Andrew on Epstein’s ranch in New Mexico, despite clearly writing in her unpublished memoir, ‘The Billionaire’s Playboy Club’, that she had spent a long weekend with him there, took him horse riding, and had engaged in multiple sexual acts with him.
The fact that Maxwell was pressured into financially settling due to the insurance company set to cover much of the settlement fee threatening to cancel her cover if she refused to do so. And who was on the board of that insurance company?… Virginia’s future attorney, David Boies.
I’ll produce an extensive report on the full files as soon as they are unsealed.
A PROSECUTION WITNESS AT MAXWELL’S TRIAL WAS ARRESTED
Shawn Haught was the partner of Carolyn Andriano. As some of you may recall, Carolyn was groomed and recruited by Virginia Giuffre when Virginia was over 18 and Carolyn was only 15. Virginia put makeup on her, dressed her in more adult clothing, and drove her to Jeffrey Epstein’s home in West Palm Beach. On the way, Virginia instructed Carolyn that, should Epstein ask her age, she must lie and say that she was over 18.
You can read more about Carolyn’s story, and my interview with Carolyn’s mother Dorothy by clicking the link below.
EXCLUSIVE AUDIO INTERVIEW: "Virginia Giuffre Groomed and Recruited My Daughter! She Was Just as Bad as Epstein," Says Victim's Mother
I’ve been in close communication with Dorothy for some time now, and have flown over to visit her on multiple occasions. She is more than just a mother grieving for her lost daughter; she is a staunch woman bitterly outraged at how the press and media have ignored Carolyn’s story while bestowing her groomer and recruiter with the undeserved title of ‘br…
Shawn Haught was a drug addict whom Carolyn met whilst in rehab. During Carolyn’s time in Jeffrey’s orbit, Shawn (whom Carolyn later went on to have children with) often coerced her into returning to Jeffrey so that they could obtain money to buy drugs, even, on one occasion, allegedly beating Carolyn up when she refused to do so.
During the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, both Carolyn and Shawn testified against her.
Haught’s previous convictions were kept hidden from Maxwell’s defence team - and since her trial he has added another charge to his criminal record.
The following is an excerpt from local newspaper Boca News Now:
A Boynton Beach man is being held Saturday in the Palm Beach County Jail — several months after a domestic dispute in Lake Worth Beach allegedly turned extremely violent. Shawn William Haught, 41, was arrested Friday night following an investigation by the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office into an incident in May that left a woman with significant injuries. Haught now faces charges of domestic battery by strangulation and felony battery.
The investigation began on the night of May 30, when deputies responded to an apartment on South M Street after a concerned coworker reported a potential domestic disturbance. Upon arrival, deputies encountered a woman exiting a neighbor’s unit in visible distress, crying and walking with a heavy limp. According to the arrest report, her right foot was severely swollen and lacerated, and she bore bruises and discoloration across her face, neck, and arms. The woman initially refused medical attention but repeatedly expressed terror, telling deputies that her attacker had tried to kill her.The victim alleged that Haught punched her multiple times and choked her until she lost consciousness. She told investigators that when she finally came to, Haught told her, “That’s what happens when you go to sleep”. The report further details that the woman was thrown into a shower where her foot was repeatedly stomped on, an account supported by physical evidence at the scene, including dried blood on the floor and a collapsed shower rod.
Haught allegedly fled the scene before law enforcement arrived. Friends and coworkers informed deputies that Haught had a history of physical abuse and that the victim had actually been scheduled to move into a battered women’s shelter just days after the attack. One witness even claimed Haught sent text messages containing photos of the victim’s injuries. Haught is being held without bond Saturday afternoon. It was not immediately clear why it took more than half a year to take him into custody.
I previously interviewed Shawn Haught, who recently claimed that the above incident had been settled and the charges against him dropped. That interview will be included in the next episode of The Life & Death of Jeff (out next Tuesday), alongside my interviews with Professor Alan Dershowitz (Trump’s former lawyer), the mother of a victim of Virginia Giuffre, Eptein accuser Rina Oh, and two longterm partners of Giuffre.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL’S HABEAS PETITION HAS BEEN REJECTED
A U.S. judge who was assigned to rule over Ghislaine Maxwell’s habeas corpus has dismissed her claims as “frivolous” and “meritless”, while the mainstream media are intentionally refusing to cover the important points raised in the petition.
Maxwell had appealed against her five felony convictions, claiming her constitutional rights had been “violated in multiple respects”.
But, ruling yesterday, U.S. District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer, who is well-known for his support for left-wing politics and was nominated into his position by Barak Obama, stated that the appeal “falls very far from the mark”, adding: “Nearly all its claims are procedurally barred; the overwhelming testimonial and documentary evidence adduced at trial conclusively established her guilt; and her petition’s claims are demonstrably meritless, and generally based on speculation, distortions, and/or outright falsehoods.”
He did not specify what he believed to be “falsehoods”, nor provide evidence. In fact, when I asked an individual close to Ghislaine Maxwell why the judge passed his ruling so swiftly (habeas corpus petitions usually take over a year to be ruled on), they told me that ‘the judge wanted to quickly get it off his docket.’
The habeas petition raised concerns over how Maxwell was denied her constitutional rights during her trial.
The habeas highlighted, with evidence, multiple issues, including that two jurors lied on their juror application forms that they had never been victims of sexual abuse (the opposite turned out to be true, and those jurors are now proven to have emotionally pressured other jurors into finding Ghislaine Maxwell guilty and to dismiss their doubts about the credibility of her accusers); that evidence submitted to the court by prosecutors was intentionally misrepresented; that evidence was withheld from her legal team, and that she was even prosecuted at all, considering that the non-prosecution agreement granted to Epstein also protected his alleged ‘co-conspirators’.
Some had already told me that they believed Engelmayer being able to rule over the petition was questionable and that he could potentially harbour bias, particularly due to his prior demonstrable support for the rulings made by Judge Alison Nathan during Maxwell’s trial. He had previously worked as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York, where Ghislaine was convicted, and as an assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General.
Shockingly, in his ruling, Engelmayer warned Maxwell against making further appeals, saying it “would not be taken in good faith” by the court, despite it being her constitutional right to do so, and despite a U.S. court of law being legally bound to handle any appeals fairly and impartially.
Maxwell can appeal Engelmayer’s denial of her §2255/habeas motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Yesterday’s ruling does not itself end the litigation.
If the Second Circuit rejects her, she could ask the Supreme Court to take the case, although the Supreme Court has already declined to hear her earlier appeal, making another trip there a difficult proposition.
There is also a separate route that isn’t judicial at all: Presidential clemency.
A pardon or commutation is now particularly significant because the Supreme Court has already refused her direct appeal. Her lawyer David Markus has previously indicated that he intends to pursue a presidential pardon.
Because Maxwell’s trial took place before the release of the so-called ‘Epstein Files’, tens of thousands of documents - much of which are crucial to her defence - were hidden from her legal team by the U.S. government.
Though Ghislaine herself has controversially been denied access to view those online files, her lawyers have been able to embark on the arduous task of trying to sift through them all, amidst a terribly tight deadline.
A supplementary filing was thus recently made - once again filed on time by Maxwell and her team, yet once again curiously. delayed in its uploading by authorities and delivery to the judge. The document listed further concerns.
Below is a sample of that filing.
The newly assembled documentary record materially strengthens three factual propositions underlying Petitioner's previously asserted claims. First, the Government's contemporaneous records demonstrate that the NPA was negotiated over an extended period; that commitments were made to Epstein's counsel before its execution; that those commitments were incorporated into the executed Agreement; that federal prosecutors continued to revise and implement the Agreement after its execution; and that Government officials contemporaneously understood the Agreement to provide broad protection extending to identified co-conspirators, including Petitioner. Second, the documentary record demonstrates that the Government possessed impeachment and exculpatory evidence unavailable to the defense, including documentary evidence relating to , , EFTA materials, flight manifests, Grand Jury materials, and other investigative records. The extraordinary delay between the underlying investigation and Petitioner's prosecution resulted in the loss or practical unavailability of substantial exculpatory and impeachment evidence while that evidence remained available to the Government. Third, the documentary record demonstrates that the Epstein investigation was not confined to a single United States Attorney's Office but instead operated as a coordinated multi-district federal investigation involving continuing communications among prosecutors, investigators, and other federal districts.
The Government has consistently characterized the 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement as a localized prosecutorial resolution negotiated within the Southern District of Florida and having only the limited effect reflected in the executed Agreement. The subsequently located documentary record materially supplements Petitioner's previously asserted challenge to that characterization. EFTA 00800336 reflects that the Department of Justice participated in negotiations concerning the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement before its execution. Rather than documenting a routine local resolution, the record demonstrates continuing Department of Justice involvement in shaping the Agreement before and after its execution, contrary to the Government's litigation position. That conclusion is further supported by EFTA 00009151, together with EFTA 00224977 at page 35, both of which reflect continuing Department of Justice participation during the negotiation process. Read together, these documents demonstrate that the Agreement was the product of deliberate governmental review and negotiation rather than a routine local disposition. These contemporaneous records materially supplement Petitioner's previously asserted claim that the Government's contemporaneous understanding of the Agreement was broader than the position later advanced during litigation concerning its scope.
The Government Concealed That the Expanding New York Investigation Led to the Execution and Continued Implementation of the Non-Prosecution Agreement.
The Government Contemporaneously Understood the Non-Prosecution Agreement to Provide Blanket Transactional Immunity to Identified Co-Conspirators. The Government has consistently argued that the Non-Prosecution Agreement afforded no protection to Petitioner and that any suggestion to the contrary is inconsistent with the Agreement itself. The contemporaneous documentary record materially contradicts that litigation position. EFTA 00009104, lines 13 through 23, together with EFTA 00009101, reflects the Government's contemporaneous understanding that the protections afforded by the Agreement extended beyond Jeffrey Epstein personally and encompassed identified co-conspirators through blanket transactional immunity. These documents are particularly significant because they reveal that the decision to extend global immunity to identified co-conspirators was deliberate and contemporaneously understood by Acosta and other Government officials responsible for negotiating and implementing the Agreement. Their significance lies not in retrospective interpretation, but in contemporaneous governmental recognition of the breadth of the immunity that had been afforded.
EFTA 00225071 reflects contemporaneous Government recognition that Petitioner fell within the protections afforded by the Non-Prosecution Agreement.
The Government's constitutional obligations under Brady and Giglio extend to evidence materially bearing upon the credibility, motivation, bias, or reliability of witnesses presented to the jury. The subsequently located documentary record materially supplements Petitioner's previously asserted claims by identifying additional contemporaneous evidence concerning Government witnesses that was unavailable to the defense.
The filing then named Shawn Haught as one of the examples of the government withholding information about a witness - though authorities redacted his name after (eventually) uploading it into the docket.
LEON BLACK AND PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ HAVE BEEN THREATENED OVER HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE INVESTIGATION
The Republican chairman of the House Oversight Committee, James Comer, has warned billionaire private-equity investor Leon Black that he could be held in contempt of Congress if he fails to comply fully with the panel’s investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. The warning comes as Comer accuses Black of attempting to restrict and delay the committee’s inquiry.
Black was one of Epstein’s biggest financial backers, along with Leslie Wexner, with Epstein handling Black’s financial affairs.
A letter from Comer’s office to Black’s attorneys, released on Tuesday, offered fresh details of the increasingly contentious dispute. Black, co-founder of Apollo Asset Management, was a friend and former client of Epstein and paid him roughly $170 million for financial services over several years.
“If Mr Black refuses to provide the Committee with responsive documents or refuses to appear for his scheduled deposition on September 3, 2026, the Committee will use all tools at its disposal, including contempt,” Comer said.
Susan Estrich, Black’s lawyer, rejected Comer’s assertions in a statement released on Tuesday night, saying the letter was misrepresenting the facts, and that Black was being targeted in a “political witch hunt”.
Professor Alan Dershowitz was also ordered to testify before the House Oversight Committee as part of its investigation into Epstein. Dershowitz had previously said he was willing to cooperate, but failed to appear for a videotaped, transcribed interview scheduled for July 20th. His lawyers subsequently told the committee that he could not testify at that time, prompting Chairman James Comer to demand that he appear on September 2nd.
Comer warned that if Dershowitz continued to refuse to cooperate, the committee would consider using “all available tools”, including compulsory congressional process. However, there is no reason to believe that Dershowitz will not attend in September and, as one of my interviews with him (below) demonstrates, the renowned attorney isn’t afraid to say what’s on his mind.
RANSOME’S BEEN RANTING AGAIN
This month, well-known Epstein accuser Sarah Ransome, best known for her appearance on the fact-resistant Netflix documentary series, ‘Epstein: Filthy Rich’, intensified her unhinged harassment campaign.
For over a year now, Ransome has been firing off sinister threats to hundreds of individuals via email, insisting that she will harm her targets and their children if she is not paid a large sum of money.
Ransome, who blew her huge compensation payouts and recently confirmed that she and her husband in the Netherlands are going through a break-up, in part due to her spiralling behaviour, has previously threatened to hunt down the children of Virginia Giuffre, torture and kill the children of numerous individuals, and (bizarrely) burn down the Anne Frank museum.
In her latest rant, Ransome took aim at President Donald Trump, urging people to ‘shoot him in the head’.
Dutch police have an ongoing investigation against Ransome, but despite being implored to refer her for the mental health support she urgently requires, no action has been taken to date.
You can read about that ongoing investigation, and further vile emails from her, by clicking the link below.
Police Investigating After Famous Epstein Accuser Threatens to Harm Children, Burn Down Anne Frank's House, and Issues CHILLING Audio Message
Ransome, a citizen of the Netherlands, first caught the attention of the world media after appearing in the Netflix documentary series, Epstein: Filthy Rich.
ANDREW MOUNTBATTEN-WINDSOR READS STATEMENT OVER STALKER CASE
Once again, unsubstantiated Epstein-related allegations and a never-ending smear campaign conducted by the press and media led to sinister real world consequences.
Alex Jenkinson, 39, who is listed as having no fixed address, faces two charges of using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to harass or cause alarm and distress. One allegation concerns an incident said to have taken place in June in King’s Lynn, Norfolk, during which prosecutors claim he threatened the former Duke of York. Jenkinson is also accused of threatening another man, Stephen Terry, the previous day. He denies both allegations.
Mountbatten-Windsor was confronted by Jenkinson, who was reportedly wearing a balaclava, while walking his dogs near the estate. Witnesses stated that the defendant had initially remained inside a parked vehicle roughly 50 yards away before emerging to approach Andrew. It is understood that an unarmed protection officer, funded by the King, intervened, alerted police and recorded the registration details of Jenkinson’s vehicle.
Although physically unharmed, the prince was reportedly left shaken by the encounter and was swiftly escorted to his vehicle alongside members of his security team.
The former Duke of York said in a statement read at Westminster Magistrates’ Court this month how the events unfolded when he was walking his dogs.
He said he was walking the pets on the estate when he spotted a car, which he assumed belonged to press photographers.
Then his security team ‘drove past the car.’
Suddenly, a man ‘turned and faced me – he was wearing a balaclava face covering,’ Andrew said.
Andrew provided a description of the ‘out-of-place’ man, and added in his statement: ‘I then saw a loose dog running towards him.
‘Then he realised who I was and began to sprint after my vehicle.’
Suffolk Police are also applying for a civil Stalking Protection Order against Jenkinson based on evidence from Andrew and searches of 39-year-old’s phone.
Andrew is due to give evidence by videolink at the criminal trial, which has been set for December 21.
Jenkinson, who was initially stopped from entering the court after trying to bring in his dog, is on bail over the criminal case, and conditions include prohibiting him from going near sites linked to the royal family like Sandringham, Buckingham Palace, Balmoral, Windsor and Highgrove.
He must not try to contact Andrew directly or indirectly, approach him or enter Norfolk.
A pre-trial hearing has been set for January 22 at Loughborough Magistrates’ Court before a final hearing on February 16 at Westminster Magistrates’ Court.
In other news, a new film is in the works, reportedly set to portray ‘Prince Andrew’s downfall’, though undoubtedly, and conveniently, missing out the serious question marks hanging over his accuser.
If only the producers would read my Substack.
Sigh.
THE PETER MANDELSON INVESTIGATION COULD COLLAPSE
The Metropolitan Police investigation into whether Lord Mandelson passed confidential government information to Epstein is facing the prospect of being abandoned. Detectives increasingly believe the US Department of Justice is unlikely to provide the unredacted Epstein files that they consider potentially important to any decision to charge the former Labour cabinet minister with misconduct in public office.
The Met initially sought the material through an informal information-sharing arrangement with US law enforcement. Neither the Department of Justice nor the FBI has responded to the request, which was later escalated through the formal mutual legal assistance process, a route that could take years. The original, unredacted files are regarded as significant because Mandelson’s lawyers could argue that emails released by the Justice Department with redactions lack the surrounding context and therefore do not present the complete picture.
The impasse has left the investigation at risk of being dropped altogether. Such an outcome would be an embarrassment for the Metropolitan Police, which came under considerable political pressure over its handling of the case. Mandelson was dismissed as Britain’s ambassador to the United States last year because of his relationship with Epstein, and he resigned from the Labour Party and the House of Lords in February after documents appeared to indicate that he had passed information to Epstein while serving as a minister under Gordon Brown.
Mandelson was subsequently placed under criminal investigation for misconduct in public office after documents appeared to show that he had passed market-sensitive material to Epstein during the 2008 financial crisis. He has not been charged and denies wrongdoing. His arrest followed information provided by Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker of the House of Commons, indicating that Mandelson intended to travel to the British Virgin Islands. Mandelson’s lawyers rejected the allegation as baseless.
PLAYBOY’S HUGH HEFNER ‘WARNED THE FBI’ ABOUT EPSTEIN
Accusers of Epstein who are suing the US government allege that Playboy founder Hugh Hefner contacted the FBI several times in 2005 after former Playmate Audra Christiansen told him that Epstein had raped her.
According to an amended complaint, Christiansen was 23 when she told Hefner about the alleged abuse while living at the Playboy Mansion in California. She asked Hefner to approach federal authorities because she believed his reputation and connections would give her allegations greater weight with the FBI. The lawsuit alleges that Hefner subsequently contacted the agency multiple times on her behalf.
The survivors claim that the FBI agreed to help Christiansen and investigate her allegations, but then failed to contact her again for roughly 15 years. According to the complaint, federal agents eventually reached out to her in October 2020, more than a year after Epstein died in federal custody while awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges, and three years after Hefner’s death.
Christiansen alleges that Epstein raped and trafficked her over a number of years. Her account is now included in the federal lawsuit, which accuses the United States of negligence and alleges that FBI personnel repeatedly failed to act on information concerning Epstein’s alleged abuse.
In April, US District Judge David S. Leibowitz dismissed an earlier version of the lawsuit without prejudice, allowing the plaintiffs to amend their complaint. He ruled that the filing did not provide sufficient facts demonstrating a comparable circumstance in which a private individual or organisation could be held liable under Florida negligence law.
EPSTEIN’S FORMER ASSISTANT BUYS NEW MANSION
Lesley K. Groff, Epstein’s longtime executive assistant, is now living in a newly built $5.85 million home in Naples, Florida, purchased by her husband, Daniel M. “Ike” Groff, in March.
The two-story property has 5,037 square feet of living space, five bedrooms and six bathrooms, and was built in 2023. The house sits on less than half an acre in Naples’ Moorings neighbourhood and has a three-car garage and an in-ground swimming pool. The property was described in its Zillow listing as having five en-suite bedrooms, a Pilates and yoga studio and an elevator connecting the garage level with the main and second floors. The listing said the interiors were designed by Clive Daniel and Robb & Stucky.
The property is held in the name of the Daniel M. Groff Revocable Trust. Groff and her husband also own a home in New Canaan, Connecticut. Daniel Groff, known as Ike, is a veteran financial trader and a founding partner and co-head of global equity trading at Tourmaline Partners, where he focuses on equity trading and works with institutional clients. He previously held trading positions at Greenwich Prime Trading Group, Williams Trading and Merrill Lynch. Groff has worked for Epstein for 18 years, from February 2001 until his arrest in July 2019, managing his calendar, appointments, travel and communications. Her name consequently appears tens of thousands of times in documents released as part of the Epstein investigation.
In June, Groff appeared voluntarily before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee for a closed-door, transcribed interview about her work for Epstein. In her opening statement, she said she had come to regard her former employer as “a monster” and described him as “a master manipulator and deceiver” who kept his legitimate activities separate from his abuse. She told lawmakers: “For 18 years, I worked for Dr. Jekyll, but was never permitted to see the true Mr. Hyde.”
Groff repeatedly denied knowing about allegations against Epstein for sexual abuse. She told the committee that she “would never have sat silent” had she known about his crimes and said Epstein had deliberately kept her away from his private life. She testified that she had never socialised with Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell, never attended one of Epstein’s parties and never flew on his private jet. She said she visited Little St James three times during her 18 years working for him, including once with her husband and twice on work trips to inspect construction projects. She also said that she never visited Epstein’s Palm Beach residence and had never entered the private quarters of his Manhattan home where massages took place.
Groff acknowledged that she arranged massage appointments for Epstein almost daily, but said the calls were brief and that she believed she was simply organising routine appointments. “To me, the few minutes it took to arrange massages for Mr. Epstein were just part of his routine,” she testified. She said she did not know the women involved, and that none had told her they were minors or were being sexually abused. “Nothing I heard or saw led me to believe otherwise,” she said.
Groff also told lawmakers that she and her family had been financially secure while she worked for Epstein and that she did not need the job. She said that, had she known what Epstein was alleged to have been doing, she would have acted. “I am not a conspirator,” she told the committee, referring to her inclusion as a potential co-conspirator in the 2007 non-prosecution agreement, “and I never would have agreed to this language.”
LESLIE WEXNER PRESSURED TO RESIGN
Central Ohio billionaire Les Wexner is stepping down as chairman of the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center Board amid renewed scrutiny of his longstanding relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted sex offender and disgraced financier.
Wexner, 88, will remain involved with the board as chair emeritus, but will no longer have a vote, according to Ohio State spokesman Ben Johnson. “Les Wexner has stepped back from his role as chair …. Les and Abigail have been great supporters of the university for many years, and we appreciate his ongoing service on the committee,” Johnson said. A spokesperson for Wexner declined to comment.
The medical centre was renamed the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in 2012, and Wexner became chairman of its board the following year. He has not attended a board meeting since May 2025. His departure as chairman comes months after he was questioned by members of the House Oversight Committee about his relationship with Epstein.
Wexner’s association with Epstein dates back to the 1980s. He hired Epstein to manage his personal finances and eventually gave him power of attorney, giving the financier extensive control over his financial affairs. Wexner has consistently denied knowing about Epstein’s sexual abuse and has said that he was deceived by him.
In written testimony submitted to Congress before his February deposition, Wexner described himself as “naïve, foolish, and gullible to put any trust in Jeffrey Epstein.” He added: “He was a con man. And while I was conned, I have done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide.” Wexner also told lawmakers that he had “never witnessed nor had any knowledge of Epstein’s criminal activity” and said he was “never a participant nor co-conspirator in any of Epstein’s illegal activities.”
Wexner said his wife, Abigail, ultimately discovered that Epstein had taken money from the family. In his testimony, he said Epstein had “stolen vast sums from our family” and that he had subsequently “completely and irrevocably cut ties” with him. Wexner said Epstein returned “a substantial amount of money”, although he did not say exactly how much had been taken. During the deposition, when asked how much Epstein had stolen, Wexner said: “I don’t think I’ll ever know.” Asked why he had not filed criminal charges over the theft, he replied: “At the time, I didn’t know.”
Wexner also told the committee that he had never knowingly allowed his assets to be used in Epstein’s criminal activities. Asked whether he knew if Epstein had used planes or yachts owned by Wexner to transport women or minors, he answered: “Absolutely not.” Wexner said Epstein had effectively led a double life, presenting himself as a sophisticated financial adviser while concealing what he described as “unthinkable crimes.”
The House deposition, which lasted roughly five to six hours, was conducted at Wexner’s home in New Albany, Ohio, on February 18th. The Oversight Committee subsequently released video of the questioning. Democratic members of the committee emerged from the deposition saying they were unconvinced by aspects of Wexner’s account, particularly his insistence that he had no personal relationship with Epstein despite their longstanding association.
Wexner was listed as an alleged co-conspirator in a 2019 FBI document concerning Epstein, although the same document says there was “limited evidence of his involvement.” Wexner has not been charged with any crime.
BARCLAYS BANK FACING LEGAL BATTLE OVER JES STALEY EPSTEIN TIES
Barclays is facing a potentially costly legal battle with investors who allege that the bank failed to properly disclose information about former chief executive Jes Staley’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
The High Court proceedings could expose the British lender to damages running into hundreds of millions of pounds. The case is the first litigation in the UK to focus directly on Staley’s conduct and the alleged consequences for Barclays of information concerning his links to Epstein.
The shareholders bringing the case argue that Barclays failed to provide adequate disclosure of material information about Staley’s personal relationship with Epstein while he was running the bank. Their claims add to wider scrutiny of the responsibilities of major financial institutions when senior executives have personal associations that could create reputational or financial risks.
The proceedings also raise broader questions about corporate governance and the information companies are required to provide to investors when the conduct or relationships of senior executives could materially affect the business.
EPSTEIN WAS OFFERED TO INVEST IN A PORN COMPANY
Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei’s wife, Cami Clark, played a more significant role in the company’s early story than previously understood, following a series of entrepreneurial ventures of her own, including an unsuccessful attempt to secure investment from the late financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein for what she described as a “luxury” pornography startup, according to a report.
Before meeting Amodei, Clark and a friend founded Eddice, which they described as a “revolutionary porn company” intended to produce more sophisticated adult entertainment that was “intellectually promiscuous”. The company’s website reportedly featured projects with titles including “Lady Porn Day” and “Orgasm, Inc.”
Following an introduction to Epstein in 2011, Clark sent him a follow-up message saying: “Hello Jeffrey! We would love to have dinner with you this evening.” She also provided her cellphone number. In another email, she suggested that Epstein and the women around him might be interested in a script and treatment for the company’s first four films, “American Girl in Paris”, describing the material as “a little nsfw”, meaning Not Safe For Work.
The following year, Clark approached Epstein again about investing in Eddice. She told him the company had recently hired an employee from Oprah Winfrey’s organisation and Ashton Kutcher’s Katalyst, the media company behind programmes including “Punk’d”.
When Epstein initially appeared not to remember Clark, she reminded him: “We have the free luxury porn company. Does that ring a bell?”
Epstein replied: “Yes, a loud gong.” Clark responded: “Haha, I was going to say, you would be the first person that didn’t remember us.”
Epstein, who was a registered sex offender at the time, ultimately declined to invest, writing: “Can’t do sex TV.” Emails written by Epstein that have been reviewed also show that he expressed an interest in financially supporting people working in the adult entertainment industry, including an apparent effort to help one of his girlfriends learn from the partner of famous former adult actress Sasha Grey. Over the coming months, Epstein’s girlfriend gave him regular updates, including providing graphic accounts of how she had taken his advice and learned how to use one of his favourite sex toys (a butt plug).
Clark remained in contact with Epstein for roughly two years, according to the Journal, and later invited him to a Manhattan housewarming party for herself and her Eddice co-founder, Michelle Capocefalo.
There is no suggestion that Clark committed a crime. None of the actions detailed constitute anything illegal - though that undoubtedly won’t stop the witch hunt from demanding that she be dragged kicking and screaming to the pyre. Prepare for yet another resignation.
NEW MEXICO SUES DOJ OVER ‘ZORRO RANCH’ INVESTIGATION
New Mexico’s attorney general is suing the US Department of Justice, accusing the government of obstructing the state’s investigation into Jeffrey Epstein by refusing to provide unredacted records from its files on the disgraced financier.
The lawsuit, filed by Attorney General Raúl Torrez, escalates an increasingly bitter dispute between New Mexico and federal authorities over Epstein’s former Zorro Ranch, a sprawling property outside Santa Fe.
Accusers have alleged that they were abused and trafficked there, and state investigators have argued that the original federal records could be important to determining what crimes, if any, were committed at the ranch.
Torrez accused Todd Blanche, the acting attorney general, and other senior Justice Department officials of “stonewalling” the state investigation. “Their conduct now actively harms victims and undermines the public interest,” Torrez wrote in the filing.
New Mexico began investigating Zorro Ranch in February and has repeatedly sought access to unredacted federal records. According to the lawsuit, state investigators believe the files could contain the identities of survivors, witnesses, alleged co-conspirators and other people who may have information relevant to a potential prosecution. Torrez said his office had encountered “sustained resistance to the type of information-sharing that has been routine from U.S.D.O.J. under prior administrations of both political parties.”
The Justice Department rejected the accusation. Department spokeswoman Kiersten Pels said a court-imposed protective order did not permit the “disclosure of victim-identifying information carte blanche” and argued that New Mexico had not provided a lawful justification for such broad access to the material. “D.O.J. remains available to assist New Mexico’s investigation consistent with the law and binding court orders,” Pels said.
The lawsuit is the latest development in a longstanding breakdown in cooperation between federal and state authorities over Zorro Ranch. While law enforcement searched Epstein properties in New York, Miami and the Caribbean, New Mexico officials say the ranch received comparatively little scrutiny. The property features prominently in the Epstein records, being mentioned more than 10,000 times, yet state officials say it was never subjected to a thorough law-enforcement search.
Former New Mexico attorney general Hector Balderas has blamed federal prosecutors for the failure to investigate the ranch more fully. In 2019, federal prosecutors instructed New Mexico to suspend an initial state investigation into Epstein and provide its findings to federal authorities, who believed they could pursue a stronger case. According to Balderas and emails concerning Zorro Ranch later released in the Epstein files, federal investigators subsequently appear to have paid relatively little attention to the property.
The revelation prompted Torrez to reopen the state investigation earlier this year. New Mexico lawmakers have also created a bipartisan “truth commission” with subpoena powers to examine the history of Zorro Ranch and the handling of allegations concerning Epstein.
In Wednesday’s filing, Torrez argued that the Justice Department’s refusal to provide the requested material breached longstanding arrangements between state and federal law-enforcement agencies. The lawsuit cites previous criminal investigations in which the two levels of government shared information, arguing that the department “is now reneging on both historical practice and its promised cooperation.”
The renewed state investigation was also fuelled in part by a viral conspiracy theory alleging, without evidence, that Epstein had murdered women and buried their bodies at Zorro Ranch. No bodies have been found at the property, and no missing-person reports have been linked to such a claim.
Investigators have also spoken to former Epstein employee Rachel Benavidez, who worked as one of his masseuses when she was in her twenties. Benavidez has subsequently discussed her experiences publicly and has given interviews using her name. Her lawyer recently asked that her name be removed from articles about her connection to Epstein. I have declined that request because the information has already been publicly disclosed by Benavidez herself and is relevant to understanding the investigation.
Journalists shouldn’t ever be pressured into withholding the truth from their readers.
COUPLE FROM NEW ZEALAND BECOME LATEST TARGETS AFTER FINDING MASSEUSES FOR EPSTEIN
A New Zealand couple who worked for Jeffrey Epstein at his properties have come under renewed scrutiny after investigators in New Mexico examined the role they played in managing his affairs, including arranging massage appointments for him.
Brice and Karen Gordon, both former members of the New Zealand Defence Force, worked for Epstein from about 2003 until his death in 2019, according to records released by the US Department of Justice. Their responsibilities included managing several of his properties, including his private island.
The Gordons’ involvement is now being examined by the New Mexico Truth Commission. An interim report from the commission describes the couple as members of Epstein’s “inner circle” because of their roles as employees at the ranch and discusses Brice Gordon’s role in arranging massage appointments.
According to the report, Epstein’s longtime pilot Larry Visoski told a court during Ghislaine Maxwell’s 2021 sex-trafficking trial that Gordon had told him he had “arranged for masseuses from a Santa Fe spa, Ten Thousand Waves, to visit Zorro Ranch to perform massages on Epstein.”
The commission’s report also cites a 2007 FBI interview with Gordon, during which he reportedly said that he generally arranged massage therapists for Epstein when the financier was staying at the ranch. Gordon told investigators that approximately five different massage therapists had been used.
“Before Gordon was able to share payment records with the FBI, he received a call from the ‘main office’ which told him he was no longer permitted to speak with the FBI,” the report states.
There is no indication in the material cited by the commission that either Brice or Karen Gordon participated in Epstein’s sexual abuse or trafficking, and neither has been accused of wrongdoing. The records instead describe employees carrying out duties connected to the operation of Epstein’s properties. Despite that, their names have now attracted scrutiny in local coverage of the investigation, eager to milk this story to death.
Emails I’ve reviewed show that the Gordons took an active role in handling Epstein’s properties, particularly his island. I found no emails demonstrating them hiring masseuses.
CALLS FOR INQUIRY INTO SUICIDE OF MODELLING SCOUT
Calls for an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of French modelling scout Daniel Siad have emerged amid questions about the intense media scrutiny he faced in the final months of his life. Siad, 69, was found dead at his home in Colombes, north-west of Paris, on July 20, while he was under investigation over allegations connected to Jeffrey Epstein. His death came after his name appeared thousands of times in the Epstein files and after extensive media coverage of allegations against him. His lawyer said the pressure and public condemnation had placed him under severe strain, raising questions about whether the surrounding media campaign may have contributed to his death. However, French authorities have not established that the coverage or investigation caused his death.
The circumstances have prompted renewed scrutiny of the French investigation itself. An inquiry into the cause of Siad’s death was opened after his body was discovered, while a post-mortem examination later found no signs of violence and identified evidence of impaired health and a previous heart attack, but did not establish a direct cause of death.
Siad’s name appeared nearly 2,000 times in documents released by the US Department of Justice. He had been the subject of several complaints in France, including allegations of rape, and prosecutors had opened an investigation in February covering suspected organised human trafficking and conspiracy to commit a crime. Siad denied wrongdoing and had not been arrested or questioned before his death. His lawyer, Ménya Arab-Tigrine, said he had “never been prosecuted” and maintained that he was innocent. French prosecutors said Siad had been subjected to investigative measures including telephone surveillance, but that these had not produced enough evidence to justify an immediate arrest.
One accuser, identified by the BBC as “Anya”, said Siad introduced her to Epstein. She described the encounter as “a complete set-up” and called Siad “essentially a professional trafficker”. Siad, however, maintained that he had not known the women he introduced to Epstein were being abused. In a CNN interview, he said: “I trusted him, I believed this guy is a professional person.” He also told BFMTV in May: “I have never raped anyone in my life.”
The Paris prosecutor’s office has said the investigation into Siad ended following his death, but the wider inquiry into the alleged network that recruited young models for Epstein continues. Prosecutors said the death did not bring that broader investigation to an end.
Siad’s death also recalls the tragic case in Norway earlier this year, when the 25-year-old son of former senior diplomats Mona Juul and Terje Rød-Larsen died by suicide amid intense scrutiny of his parents’ connections to Epstein. The couple were themselves under investigation over alleged corruption linked to their dealings with Epstein, while documents revealed that Epstein had left their children substantial sums of money. Norwegian parliamentary hearings into the Epstein affair were postponed following their son’s death. His parents’ lawyers said the family had been subjected to enormous pressure, while Norwegian media acknowledged the particular sensitivity of reporting on the death.
The comparison does not establish a causal connection between media coverage and either death. But both cases have raised difficult questions about the consequences of associating individuals with Epstein before allegations have been tested in court. In Siad’s case, his lawyers have argued that he was subjected to public opprobrium while maintaining his innocence, while alleged victims have expressed anger that his death means they will never have the opportunity to confront him in a criminal trial. One former model who gave evidence to police told the BBC that an important link in the chain had disappeared before investigators had the chance to question Siad about what he knew.
HOUSE DEMOCRAT PUTS MELANIA TRUMP ON NOTICE
In a clearly politically motivated move, Melania Trump could face questions under oath about Epstein if Democrats regain control of the House of Representatives after the midterm elections, according to the senior Democrat on the House Oversight Committee.
Rep. Robert Garcia, the committee’s ranking Democrat, told MeidasTouch co-founder Ben Meiselas that Melania Trump is among the people Democrats would like to question if they take control of the panel. Garcia pointed to the first lady’s past connections to people in Epstein’s social circle, as well as comments she has made publicly about the controversy.
“Melania clearly has information,” Garcia said. “There’s a lot of speculation about who knew who when, who was introduced to who and how, when and how. And so I think those are valid questions.”
Melania Trump has previously rejected any suggestion that she had a relationship with Epstein or knew about his crimes. In a statement responding to claims about her connection to Epstein, she said: “I was unaware of his crimes. I never had any relationship with him.” She has also said: “I never met Jeffrey Epstein.”
Garcia argued that Republicans had already established a precedent for congressional investigators questioning members of a president’s family, citing their treatment of Hunter Biden and congressional scrutiny involving Bill and Hillary Clinton.
And Melania is only be the beginning.
“We have to speak to the Trump family,” Garcia told Meiselas later in the interview. He said Democrats intend to investigate potential conflicts and financial dealings involving crypto, foreign investments, real estate transactions and other activity connected to Trump and members of his family.
Garcia also said Democrats are preparing public hearings on the Epstein files if they win the majority, noting that the Republican-controlled committee has held no public hearings on the matter.
“There have been zero public hearings. Zero,” Garcia said. “We’re planning all that out right now.”
Those investigations could lead to major legal confrontations with the Trump administration. Garcia said Democrats are prepared to use congressional subpoenas, contempt proceedings and the courts if witnesses refuse to cooperate.
“We’re going to do whatever it takes,” Garcia said. “Use every single power that we have, the courts, the Congress, contempt, to ensure that they answer questions on behalf of the American public.”
The witch hunt continues…
IN OTHER NEWS
Here are a few non-Epstein related crime news stories that caught my eye this month, that you may want to take a peak at:
‘Mushroom murderess appeals conviction’.
The Tupac Shakur murder trial.
Suspected Irish crime boss lands in Dublin after extradition from Dubai to face allegations.
New York woman charged with plotting to set off explosives at state Capitol.
Man on trial for Daphne Caruana Galizia murder claims he was framed.
That’s all for this week, folks. But stay tuned for more updates, a new interview of mine with a largely unreported Epstein accuser, inside info from the Maxwell case, and the next episode of The Life & Death of Jeff (out on Tuesday).
Thanks for reading. Thanks for your support. And I hope you have a great week!
Sincerely,
Jay