The Epstein Chronicles

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was described by friends as effectively “living in limbo” while Thames Valley Police continued investigating allegations tied to his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and his former role as a British trade envoy. Andrew had moved from Royal Lodge to Marsh Farm on the Sandringham Estate after his February 2026 arrest on suspicion of misconduct in public office. Although he had not been charged and faced no formal travel restrictions, friends said he had been advised to keep a low profile and had barely ventured beyond Sandringham. Investigators were examining claims that Andrew may have shared confidential information with Epstein, including details related to diplomatic and trade activity, while also pursuing broader questions about his relationship with Epstein and allegations involving women connected to Epstein’s network.

Despite the uncertainty, friends said Andrew was trying to “make the most” of his new life in Norfolk and even felt some relief at being removed from the Windsor royal bubble. At the same time, the investigation had left him unable to return to anything resembling his former life, with associates saying he could not realistically travel or resume normal public activity while the case remained unresolved. The police inquiry was expected to continue for months, in part because investigators were seeking original documents and other material from U.S. authorities. Andrew continued to deny wrongdoing, but the prolonged investigation meant his future remained uncertain, leaving him isolated at Sandringham while detectives continued examining his dealings with Epstein.



to contact me:

[email protected]



source:

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-16145093/Andrew-living-limbo-Epstein-investigation-new-life-Sandringham.html

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Day six of Tyler Robinson’s preliminary hearing, held September 1, 2026, centered on closing arguments and the prosecution’s claim that the evidence easily cleared Utah’s probable-cause standard. Deputy Utah County Attorney Ryan McBride argued that the state had built its case through four overlapping categories of evidence: surveillance footage placing Robinson at Utah Valley University, DNA recovered from the rifle authorities identified as the murder weapon, Robinson’s alleged admissions after the shooting, and circumstantial evidence establishing motive, means and opportunity. Prosecutors also leaned heavily on Robinson’s alleged messages to Lance Twiggs, including statements that he had gone on a “mission” to kill Charlie Kirk and had “had enough of his hatred,” along with politically charged engravings found on ammunition. The state maintained that the evidence established not only that Robinson was the shooter, but that Kirk had been targeted because of his political expression. Prosecutors characterized the case as overwhelming and argued that the remaining factual disputes belonged before a jury rather than being resolved at the preliminary-hearing stage.

The defense concentrated much of its closing argument on the aggravating circumstance that could keep the aggravated-murder charge death-penalty eligible: whether the shooter knowingly created a great risk of death to someone other than Kirk. Attorney Staci Visser stressed that there had been one shot, one bullet and one person struck, arguing that prosecutors were stretching possible dangers—such as a miss, ricochet or pass-through bullet—into proof that another person had actually been placed within the legally required “zone of danger.” Richard Novak separately challenged the state’s evidence concerning political motivation and whether Robinson could reasonably have known children were present. Prosecutor Chad Grunander answered that argument by describing the shot as “ballistic roulette,” emphasizing that Kirk was surrounded by security personnel, a questioner and thousands of spectators and arguing that a slight error in aim could easily have killed someone else. The fundamental dispute at closing was therefore not simply whether the state could identify Robinson as the alleged shooter, but whether prosecutors had established the aggravating circumstances and enhancements necessary to carry the entire case—including its potential death penalty—forward to trial.



to contact me:

[email protected]

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Day six of Tyler Robinson’s preliminary hearing, held September 1, 2026, centered on closing arguments and the prosecution’s claim that the evidence easily cleared Utah’s probable-cause standard. Deputy Utah County Attorney Ryan McBride argued that the state had built its case through four overlapping categories of evidence: surveillance footage placing Robinson at Utah Valley University, DNA recovered from the rifle authorities identified as the murder weapon, Robinson’s alleged admissions after the shooting, and circumstantial evidence establishing motive, means and opportunity. Prosecutors also leaned heavily on Robinson’s alleged messages to Lance Twiggs, including statements that he had gone on a “mission” to kill Charlie Kirk and had “had enough of his hatred,” along with politically charged engravings found on ammunition. The state maintained that the evidence established not only that Robinson was the shooter, but that Kirk had been targeted because of his political expression. Prosecutors characterized the case as overwhelming and argued that the remaining factual disputes belonged before a jury rather than being resolved at the preliminary-hearing stage.

The defense concentrated much of its closing argument on the aggravating circumstance that could keep the aggravated-murder charge death-penalty eligible: whether the shooter knowingly created a great risk of death to someone other than Kirk. Attorney Staci Visser stressed that there had been one shot, one bullet and one person struck, arguing that prosecutors were stretching possible dangers—such as a miss, ricochet or pass-through bullet—into proof that another person had actually been placed within the legally required “zone of danger.” Richard Novak separately challenged the state’s evidence concerning political motivation and whether Robinson could reasonably have known children were present. Prosecutor Chad Grunander answered that argument by describing the shot as “ballistic roulette,” emphasizing that Kirk was surrounded by security personnel, a questioner and thousands of spectators and arguing that a slight error in aim could easily have killed someone else. The fundamental dispute at closing was therefore not simply whether the state could identify Robinson as the alleged shooter, but whether prosecutors had established the aggravating circumstances and enhancements necessary to carry the entire case—including its potential death penalty—forward to trial.



to contact me:

[email protected]

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

On August 18, 2023, the government of the United States Virgin Islands filed a memorandum in the Southern District of New York seeking to exclude expert testimony presented by JPMorgan Chase in the civil lawsuit concerning the bank's financial relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The USVI argued that three experts retained by JPMorgan, Kimberly Mehlman-Orozco, Joseph Fonseca, and Carlyn Irwin, offered opinions that were unreliable, irrelevant, unsupported by sufficient evidence, or outside their professional qualifications. The government was particularly critical of Mehlman-Orozco, who presented herself as a human trafficking expert despite what the filing characterized as limited academic training and practical experience in the field. Her proposed testimony included claims suggesting that some minors could voluntarily participate in commercial sex without being trafficked, a position the USVI argued directly contradicted federal sex trafficking law. Prosecutors also challenged her opinions concerning banking regulations, suspicious activity reports, and JPMorgan's internal compliance practices, noting that she acknowledged lacking expertise in financial regulations. Additionally, the government accused her of introducing an unsupported theory of secondary exploitation that appeared designed to discredit trafficking survivors, their attorneys, and the government's motivations for bringing the lawsuit. The USVI maintained that allowing such testimony would confuse the jury and improperly introduce legal interpretations and speculative allegations under the guise of expert analysis.

The memorandum also challenged the proposed testimony of retired FBI agent Joseph Fonseca, who sought to minimize the importance of financial records and suspicious activity reports in investigations involving sex trafficking. The USVI emphasized that Fonseca admitted during his deposition that he had never used suspicious activity reports during his FBI career and had not even understood what they were before JPMorgan hired him for the litigation. According to the filing, his limited familiarity with banking documentation made him unqualified to speculate about whether financial information supplied by JPMorgan could have assisted investigators pursuing Epstein. The government similarly attacked forensic economist Carlyn Irwin's proposed testimony concerning tax benefits awarded to Epstein's businesses through the Virgin Islands Economic Development Commission. Irwin had criticized the territory's oversight of those benefits and suggested that their approval could have involved an improper exchange between Epstein and government officials. However, the USVI argued that she lacked experience with territorial tax programs, had not conducted an independent fraud investigation, and possessed no evidentiary foundation for suggesting improper motives by public officials. The government maintained that JPMorgan was attempting to redirect responsibility toward Virgin Islands authorities while introducing speculative testimony that did not address the bank's alleged participation in and financial benefit from Epstein's trafficking operation. Citing Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the standards established in Daubert, the USVI asked Judge Jed Rakoff to exclude the three experts' opinions entirely or substantially restrict their testimony before trial.



to contact me:

[email protected]

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

On August 18, 2023, the government of the United States Virgin Islands filed a memorandum in the Southern District of New York seeking to exclude expert testimony presented by JPMorgan Chase in the civil lawsuit concerning the bank's financial relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The USVI argued that three experts retained by JPMorgan, Kimberly Mehlman-Orozco, Joseph Fonseca, and Carlyn Irwin, offered opinions that were unreliable, irrelevant, unsupported by sufficient evidence, or outside their professional qualifications. The government was particularly critical of Mehlman-Orozco, who presented herself as a human trafficking expert despite what the filing characterized as limited academic training and practical experience in the field. Her proposed testimony included claims suggesting that some minors could voluntarily participate in commercial sex without being trafficked, a position the USVI argued directly contradicted federal sex trafficking law. Prosecutors also challenged her opinions concerning banking regulations, suspicious activity reports, and JPMorgan's internal compliance practices, noting that she acknowledged lacking expertise in financial regulations. Additionally, the government accused her of introducing an unsupported theory of secondary exploitation that appeared designed to discredit trafficking survivors, their attorneys, and the government's motivations for bringing the lawsuit. The USVI maintained that allowing such testimony would confuse the jury and improperly introduce legal interpretations and speculative allegations under the guise of expert analysis.

The memorandum also challenged the proposed testimony of retired FBI agent Joseph Fonseca, who sought to minimize the importance of financial records and suspicious activity reports in investigations involving sex trafficking. The USVI emphasized that Fonseca admitted during his deposition that he had never used suspicious activity reports during his FBI career and had not even understood what they were before JPMorgan hired him for the litigation. According to the filing, his limited familiarity with banking documentation made him unqualified to speculate about whether financial information supplied by JPMorgan could have assisted investigators pursuing Epstein. The government similarly attacked forensic economist Carlyn Irwin's proposed testimony concerning tax benefits awarded to Epstein's businesses through the Virgin Islands Economic Development Commission. Irwin had criticized the territory's oversight of those benefits and suggested that their approval could have involved an improper exchange between Epstein and government officials. However, the USVI argued that she lacked experience with territorial tax programs, had not conducted an independent fraud investigation, and possessed no evidentiary foundation for suggesting improper motives by public officials. The government maintained that JPMorgan was attempting to redirect responsibility toward Virgin Islands authorities while introducing speculative testimony that did not address the bank's alleged participation in and financial benefit from Epstein's trafficking operation. Citing Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the standards established in Daubert, the USVI asked Judge Jed Rakoff to exclude the three experts' opinions entirely or substantially restrict their testimony before trial.



to contact me:

[email protected]

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

On August 18, 2023, the government of the United States Virgin Islands filed a memorandum in the Southern District of New York seeking to exclude expert testimony presented by JPMorgan Chase in the civil lawsuit concerning the bank's financial relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The USVI argued that three experts retained by JPMorgan, Kimberly Mehlman-Orozco, Joseph Fonseca, and Carlyn Irwin, offered opinions that were unreliable, irrelevant, unsupported by sufficient evidence, or outside their professional qualifications. The government was particularly critical of Mehlman-Orozco, who presented herself as a human trafficking expert despite what the filing characterized as limited academic training and practical experience in the field. Her proposed testimony included claims suggesting that some minors could voluntarily participate in commercial sex without being trafficked, a position the USVI argued directly contradicted federal sex trafficking law. Prosecutors also challenged her opinions concerning banking regulations, suspicious activity reports, and JPMorgan's internal compliance practices, noting that she acknowledged lacking expertise in financial regulations. Additionally, the government accused her of introducing an unsupported theory of secondary exploitation that appeared designed to discredit trafficking survivors, their attorneys, and the government's motivations for bringing the lawsuit. The USVI maintained that allowing such testimony would confuse the jury and improperly introduce legal interpretations and speculative allegations under the guise of expert analysis.

The memorandum also challenged the proposed testimony of retired FBI agent Joseph Fonseca, who sought to minimize the importance of financial records and suspicious activity reports in investigations involving sex trafficking. The USVI emphasized that Fonseca admitted during his deposition that he had never used suspicious activity reports during his FBI career and had not even understood what they were before JPMorgan hired him for the litigation. According to the filing, his limited familiarity with banking documentation made him unqualified to speculate about whether financial information supplied by JPMorgan could have assisted investigators pursuing Epstein. The government similarly attacked forensic economist Carlyn Irwin's proposed testimony concerning tax benefits awarded to Epstein's businesses through the Virgin Islands Economic Development Commission. Irwin had criticized the territory's oversight of those benefits and suggested that their approval could have involved an improper exchange between Epstein and government officials. However, the USVI argued that she lacked experience with territorial tax programs, had not conducted an independent fraud investigation, and possessed no evidentiary foundation for suggesting improper motives by public officials. The government maintained that JPMorgan was attempting to redirect responsibility toward Virgin Islands authorities while introducing speculative testimony that did not address the bank's alleged participation in and financial benefit from Epstein's trafficking operation. Citing Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the standards established in Daubert, the USVI asked Judge Jed Rakoff to exclude the three experts' opinions entirely or substantially restrict their testimony before trial.



to contact me:

[email protected]

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

On August 18, 2023, the government of the United States Virgin Islands filed a memorandum in the Southern District of New York seeking to exclude expert testimony presented by JPMorgan Chase in the civil lawsuit concerning the bank's financial relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The USVI argued that three experts retained by JPMorgan, Kimberly Mehlman-Orozco, Joseph Fonseca, and Carlyn Irwin, offered opinions that were unreliable, irrelevant, unsupported by sufficient evidence, or outside their professional qualifications. The government was particularly critical of Mehlman-Orozco, who presented herself as a human trafficking expert despite what the filing characterized as limited academic training and practical experience in the field. Her proposed testimony included claims suggesting that some minors could voluntarily participate in commercial sex without being trafficked, a position the USVI argued directly contradicted federal sex trafficking law. Prosecutors also challenged her opinions concerning banking regulations, suspicious activity reports, and JPMorgan's internal compliance practices, noting that she acknowledged lacking expertise in financial regulations. Additionally, the government accused her of introducing an unsupported theory of secondary exploitation that appeared designed to discredit trafficking survivors, their attorneys, and the government's motivations for bringing the lawsuit. The USVI maintained that allowing such testimony would confuse the jury and improperly introduce legal interpretations and speculative allegations under the guise of expert analysis.

The memorandum also challenged the proposed testimony of retired FBI agent Joseph Fonseca, who sought to minimize the importance of financial records and suspicious activity reports in investigations involving sex trafficking. The USVI emphasized that Fonseca admitted during his deposition that he had never used suspicious activity reports during his FBI career and had not even understood what they were before JPMorgan hired him for the litigation. According to the filing, his limited familiarity with banking documentation made him unqualified to speculate about whether financial information supplied by JPMorgan could have assisted investigators pursuing Epstein. The government similarly attacked forensic economist Carlyn Irwin's proposed testimony concerning tax benefits awarded to Epstein's businesses through the Virgin Islands Economic Development Commission. Irwin had criticized the territory's oversight of those benefits and suggested that their approval could have involved an improper exchange between Epstein and government officials. However, the USVI argued that she lacked experience with territorial tax programs, had not conducted an independent fraud investigation, and possessed no evidentiary foundation for suggesting improper motives by public officials. The government maintained that JPMorgan was attempting to redirect responsibility toward Virgin Islands authorities while introducing speculative testimony that did not address the bank's alleged participation in and financial benefit from Epstein's trafficking operation. Citing Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the standards established in Daubert, the USVI asked Judge Jed Rakoff to exclude the three experts' opinions entirely or substantially restrict their testimony before trial.



to contact me:

[email protected]

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

For years, survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse operation, including Virginia Roberts Giuffre, encountered substantial legal and procedural obstacles when attempting to obtain documents, testimony, and other evidence from Prince Andrew concerning his relationship with Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Beginning in 2015, Giuffre's attorneys repeatedly sought to question Andrew under oath about her allegations that Epstein and Maxwell had trafficked her to the British royal for sexual purposes when she was a teenager. Their initial attempts were unsuccessful, with one request sent to Buckingham Palace reportedly returned unopened and another delivered through the British Embassy in Washington rejected because it had not followed the appropriate diplomatic channels. Because Andrew resided in the United Kingdom, American attorneys could not simply compel his testimony through the ordinary procedures available against witnesses living in the United States, creating additional complications involving international legal assistance and British courts. Despite publicly insisting that he was willing to assist investigators, Andrew's cooperation remained a major point of contention. In January 2020, then-U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman publicly criticized Andrew's failure to assist federal investigators, and by March, Berman declared that the prince had effectively closed the door on voluntary cooperation. Giuffre's attorneys similarly accused Andrew and his representatives of refusing repeated requests for interviews, testimony, and discussions about the allegations. The situation became even more contentious after Giuffre filed her civil sexual assault lawsuit against Andrew in August 2021, seeking to hold him personally accountable for the abuse she alleged occurred in London, New York, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.



During the discovery phase of Giuffre's lawsuit, Andrew's legal team maintained that he possessed no responsive documents for many of the requests submitted by her attorneys, including communications with Epstein and Maxwell and records relating to visits to locations in New York, Florida, and London. His lawyers also reportedly claimed there were no documents supporting his widely publicized assertion that a medical condition had prevented him from sweating, an explanation he had offered during his disastrous 2019 BBC interview to challenge Giuffre's account of their encounter. Giuffre's attorneys characterized Andrew's attempts to suspend discovery while challenging her residency and the court's jurisdiction as efforts to delay scrutiny of his records and testimony. The absence of supposedly relevant documentation was particularly contentious given Andrew's longstanding association with Epstein and Maxwell, his documented visits to Epstein's properties, and evidence of communications between Andrew and Maxwell concerning Giuffre herself. These difficulties reflected a broader problem encountered by Epstein survivors who sought evidence from wealthy and influential individuals with the resources to contest subpoenas, challenge discovery demands, and prolong litigation through procedural motions. In January 2022, Judge Lewis Kaplan rejected Andrew's attempt to dismiss Giuffre's lawsuit, allowing the case to proceed toward depositions and more extensive discovery. However, before Andrew was required to testify under oath or undergo the full discovery process, the parties announced a confidential financial settlement on February 15, 2022. Andrew acknowledged Giuffre's suffering as a victim of abuse and expressed regret over his association with Epstein without admitting liability for her allegations. The settlement ended the litigation but also prevented a trial and the further compulsory examination of Andrew's records, leaving significant questions about his relationship with Epstein and Maxwell unanswered in a public courtroom.


to contact me:

[email protected]

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

From the start, the Epstein investigation was engineered to produce narrow results. Narrow charges do not emerge naturally when evidence points to a sprawling criminal enterprise fueled by money, access, and institutional protection. The focus on Epstein alone was a deliberate choice designed to avoid following the financial infrastructure that made his crimes possible. The released emails and documents show awareness, coordination, and active containment, not ignorance. Sexual abuse was treated as the whole story because it could be isolated, while financial crimes would have exposed banks, intermediaries, and elite beneficiaries. Every dollar Epstein moved should have been treated as evidence of enterprise-level criminality, yet that scrutiny was avoided. RICO was never used because it would have forced prosecutors to acknowledge pattern, facilitation, and mutual benefit. That would have dragged the financial sector into the light, and that outcome was unacceptable to those in power. This was not incompetence or oversight. It was a controlled, scoped-down operation from the beginning.

When Epstein became a liability who might talk, the narrow investigation became untenable, but his removal did not erase the evidence. Financial records, emails, and transaction histories still exist and still point to beneficiaries who profited while keeping their hands “clean.” The unanswered questions are all financial: who received money, who structured the vehicles, who vouched for him, and who chose profit over accountability. The contrast with cases like Martha Stewart exposes the hypocrisy of enforcement priorities, where market disruption is punished but elite stability is protected. Figures like Leon Black and Les Wexner exemplify how proximity to power insulates culpability through delay and fragmentation. The investigation was tilted long before Epstein’s death, designed to deliver a villain without a reckoning. Survivors were denied full accountability, and the public was given closure without truth. Until the financial architecture that enabled Epstein is confronted, justice has not begun—it has been deliberately postponed.



to contact me:

[email protected]

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

For years, Virginia Roberts Giuffre's allegations against Prince Andrew were met with institutional resistance, repeated refusals to pursue a full criminal investigation, and a remarkable lack of accountability in the United Kingdom, despite the seriousness of her accusations and the evidence connecting Andrew to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Giuffre alleged that she was trafficked to London in 2001, when she was just 17 years old, and sexually abused by Andrew at Maxwell's residence in Belgravia. In 2015, London's Metropolitan Police received allegations involving Epstein and Maxwell, interviewed Giuffre, and examined available evidence, but ultimately decided in November 2016 not to open a full criminal investigation. Authorities justified that decision by arguing that most of the alleged trafficking activity occurred outside Britain and that American investigators were better positioned to pursue the case. However, Giuffre had specifically identified an alleged sexual assault involving a British royal on British soil, raising serious questions about why the matter never received a more extensive criminal examination.

Channel 4 News subsequently revealed that Giuffre had approached British police again in 2016, offering additional evidence and identifying potential witnesses, yet her efforts still failed to produce a full investigation. Scotland Yard reviewed its position in 2019, 2021, and 2022, repeatedly declining to pursue the matter even as Andrew's relationship with Epstein attracted increasing international scrutiny. The decision became particularly controversial after Giuffre filed her civil lawsuit against Andrew in August 2021, placing allegations that British authorities had declined to investigate before an American federal judge. Throughout this period, Andrew maintained his denials, publicly questioned Giuffre's credibility, and continued to benefit from the extraordinary institutional resources and public standing associated with his position in the royal family. The contrast was difficult to ignore: while Giuffre spent years fighting to have her allegations seriously examined, the British criminal justice system never subjected Andrew to a full criminal investigation over her accusations.



to contact me:

[email protected]

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.