Speaker 1: What's up everyone and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles.
Speaker 1: Tonight we have two articles that we're going to dive into.
Speaker 1: One from Newsweek and one from The Sun. The first
Speaker 1: article we're going to discuss is one dealing with the
Speaker 1: situation surrounding juror number 50 and the request to keep
Speaker 1: the documents sealed. Now we've talked about this a bunch
Speaker 1: and there really has not been too much movement one
Speaker 1: way or the other that we need to add on here.
Speaker 1: But as you all know, context is very important. And
Speaker 1: I like to make sure we add all of the
Speaker 1: little things even to the catalog as we move forward.
Speaker 1: So the team for Ghislaine Maxwell, they want to keep
Speaker 1: this stuff under seal. And they assert that if it's
Speaker 1: not under seal, then there's a chance that juror number 50,
Speaker 1: Scotty David, might get some evidence that he shouldn't have
Speaker 1: access to. And they want to do everything in their
Speaker 1: power to avoid that happening. Now, we know that the
Speaker 1: prosecution has already come out and said, look, this doesn't
Speaker 1: need to be filed under seal. This is not documentation
Speaker 1: that should be sealed. But the defense is very adamant
Speaker 1: that they want this stuff sealed up. Now, me personally,
Speaker 1: unless it has to do with national security issues or
Speaker 1: the privacy of a victim of a crime, then I'm
Speaker 1: all for transparency when it comes to court proceedings. I
Speaker 1: think that it's important. And especially when we're dealing with
Speaker 1: something like this that has been shrouded in secrecy for
Speaker 1: so long. It's hard enough to get people to believe
Speaker 1: the institutions at this point. And when you continue to
Speaker 1: conduct yourself in a manner that looks like you're being shady,
Speaker 1: how are you ever going to convince anybody? So I
Speaker 1: truly believe that in most cases, transparency is the proper
Speaker 1: course and the proper path. Now, obviously, there's always situations
Speaker 1: where you can't have full transparency. Ongoing investigations, a current investigation.
Speaker 1: I'm talking about once you get to the point where
Speaker 1: you're in court. And if it doesn't affect the outcome
Speaker 1: of the case or national security or something like that,
Speaker 1: I don't see the purpose of it staying under seal. So, again,
Speaker 1: whenever there's a movement to unseal stuff in the Epstein case,
Speaker 1: as long as it's not outing anybody who was a victim...
Speaker 1: then I'm certainly all for it. And when you have
Speaker 1: lawyers like Maxwell's team asking to file things under seal,
Speaker 1: it causes a firestorm, right? People who are following the case,
Speaker 1: you know, people's minds wander right away to some kind of,
Speaker 1: you know, conspiracy theory in some cases. But this is
Speaker 1: just procedure. This is how it works. It's going to
Speaker 1: be a back and forth battle royale. You folks know
Speaker 1: the deal by now, especially if you've been listening to
Speaker 1: this podcast. So it's more of the same, and you
Speaker 1: can expect Glenn Maxwell's team to continue to try and
Speaker 1: disrupt things however they can. So with that said, considering
Speaker 1: we have two articles to get to, let's jump into
Speaker 1: this article from Newsweek, and let's see what author Jack
Speaker 1: Royston has to say. Glenn Maxwell's lawyers say key juror
Speaker 1: may destroy critical evidence. Well, you know, I may hit megabucks.
Speaker 1: I may win all of my prop bets on Sunday
Speaker 1: for the Super Bowl. I might hit a bunch of
Speaker 1: bets on Saturday for UFC. It doesn't mean that it's
Speaker 1: going to happen. And it doesn't mean that the juror,
Speaker 1: juror number 50, is going to destroy any evidence or
Speaker 1: anything like that either. So that's a big assertion, right?
Speaker 1: They're really going out on a limb here, in my opinion.
Speaker 1: You can't just say this dude's going to destroy anything.
Speaker 1: Ghislaine Maxwell's attorney has suggested a juror could destroy evidence
Speaker 1: unless her motion for a retrial remains sealed. The British socialite,
Speaker 1: you mean convicted human trafficker, is attempting to overturn her
Speaker 1: conviction on five out of six sex trafficking charges in
Speaker 1: December after Scotty David told journalists he discussed his past
Speaker 1: history of abuse in the jury room. And again, the
Speaker 1: attempt doesn't mean that you're going to profit from it.
Speaker 1: I can't tell you how many times I play this
Speaker 1: stupid slot machine called Buffalo, me and my girlfriend, and
Speaker 1: we'll get bonus games and you'll get all pumped up
Speaker 1: thinking that during this bonus game that your ship has
Speaker 1: arrived right now this is the day i'm about to
Speaker 1: make this gigantic hit here and it's about to be
Speaker 1: on but nothing comes comes of it right and it's
Speaker 1: kind of the same deal jurors were asked whether they
Speaker 1: had experienced sexual assault but david told the daily mail
Speaker 1: i would have definitely marked yes but i don't remember
Speaker 1: that question and again I wasn't there. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I'm not going to sit here and call anyone a
Speaker 1: liar one way or the other. But it doesn't look
Speaker 1: good for old Scotty David, folks. Certainly looks like he
Speaker 1: might have been fudging the truth a bit. And while
Speaker 1: I'm not ready to, you know, dogpile, we got to
Speaker 1: make sure we get all of the evidence and stuff.
Speaker 1: It really does make things more difficult for these survivors, right?
Speaker 1: Who wants to deal with this shit again? And I
Speaker 1: know you folks have better things to do than, you know,
Speaker 1: having to follow this case on a regular basis because
Speaker 1: you're hooked and you want to see justice. So the
Speaker 1: dude really threw a bit of a roadblock in the
Speaker 1: middle of the procession here. But like I said earlier,
Speaker 1: I really, when it's all said and done and the
Speaker 1: dust all settles, I highly doubt she's going to get
Speaker 1: this mistrial, even though Scotty David looks like, again, looks
Speaker 1: like he really shit the bed here. Following his media interviews,
Speaker 1: Maxwell's team submitted a motion for a retrial and said
Speaker 1: his answers to the questionnaire corrupted the process, violating her
Speaker 1: right to a fair trial. And I could see that.
Speaker 1: I mean, look, if it was me who was convicted
Speaker 1: and this blubbering fool was untruthful during the time of
Speaker 1: jury selection, I'd be pissed off as well. But how
Speaker 1: many people have had even worse done to them and
Speaker 1: had their convictions stand up? So... We'll have to see, right,
Speaker 1: where it goes, but I really don't see how Maxwell
Speaker 1: is going to be able to leverage this into anything
Speaker 1: more than, at the most, a new trial. If it's
Speaker 1: a new trial that she does end up getting, then
Speaker 1: I feel like she'll find herself right back in the
Speaker 1: same place when all is said and done. However, they
Speaker 1: have asked for their motion and the government's reply to
Speaker 1: be kept secret. Bobby Sternum, Maxwell's attorney, wrote in a
Speaker 1: letter to the court seen by Newsweek, Given juror 50,
Speaker 1: Scotty David, a preview of information he does not have
Speaker 1: and should not have at this juncture would permit him
Speaker 1: to craft testimony, destroy critical evidence, and explain away facts
Speaker 1: to protect himself while further jeopardizing the integrity of this case.
Speaker 1: Sounds pretty damning, right? But consider the source, Bobby Sternum,
Speaker 1: you know, Maxwell's lawyer. Of course, she's going to make
Speaker 1: it a bit of a hit piece. The absence of
Speaker 1: this temporary safeguard will contribute to further obstruction of the
Speaker 1: truth-seeking process, compromising any factual inquiry ordered by the court
Speaker 1: and jeopardizing Ms. Maxwell's legitimate opportunity to establish why a
Speaker 1: mistrial should be granted to vindicate her constitutional right to
Speaker 1: a fair trial. She should be heard. Look, this definitely
Speaker 1: warrants a discussion by the judge and everybody involved. I've
Speaker 1: said that from the beginning. Bad news, a bad look.
Speaker 1: You don't want any kind of taint. You don't want
Speaker 1: to give these people anything to sink their teeth into.
Speaker 1: The New York federal court heard Maxwell's victims describe how
Speaker 1: she groomed them to be abused by Epstein, normalizing his
Speaker 1: predatory behavior. Annie Farmer said she was 16 when Maxwell
Speaker 1: massaged her breasts. Quoted by The Guardian, she told the court, she, Maxwell,
Speaker 1: said to get undressed and get under the sheet on
Speaker 1: the massage tables. She pulled the sheet down and exposed
Speaker 1: my breasts and started rubbing on my chest and on
Speaker 1: my upper breast. So I highly doubt Scotty David's testimony
Speaker 1: really was the kicker for the jury when we have
Speaker 1: the testimony of Annie Farmer and the other survivors who
Speaker 1: got up there and told their stories. I don't need
Speaker 1: Scotty David to let me know when I'm hearing the
Speaker 1: story from these girls themselves. I'm saying if I'm a juror, right? Now,
Speaker 1: he might be able to help give some perspective, but
Speaker 1: I highly doubt that his description of what he went
Speaker 1: through was what sealed the deal for those other jurors.
Speaker 1: And I think that plays a huge part. Farmer added
Speaker 1: when she pulled down the sheet, I felt frozen because
Speaker 1: it didn't make sense to me. I was surprised and
Speaker 1: I wanted so badly to get off the table and
Speaker 1: have that massage be done with. I mean. How many
Speaker 1: of you have wanted things to be over with that
Speaker 1: you were doing that were unpleasant, a test or whatever
Speaker 1: it is? Now amplify that to the maximum. And that
Speaker 1: must be what it's like to be abused by somebody
Speaker 1: like this and have nowhere to go and think that
Speaker 1: your all hope is lost. And again, I have never
Speaker 1: suffered anything like that. So I can't even begin to
Speaker 1: attempt to walk in anyone's shoes who has. If Maxwell's
Speaker 1: motion is successful, the December conviction will be quashed and
Speaker 1: a new trial ordered. A previous letter from Sternum seen
Speaker 1: by Newsweek read, the motion urges the court to write
Speaker 1: a grievous wrong that deprived Ms. Maxwell of a fundamental
Speaker 1: constitutional right, her right to be tried by a fair
Speaker 1: and impartial jury. Jurors' 50s responses to the questionnaire and
Speaker 1: questions posed to him during in-person questioning corrupted the process
Speaker 1: and violated miss maxwell's right to a fair trial it
Speaker 1: is a compelling argument there is no doubt but i
Speaker 1: don't think it's an argument that's going to work As
Speaker 1: set forth in the motion, the defense believes that the
Speaker 1: existing record is clear and more than sufficient for the
Speaker 1: court to grant Ms. Maxwell a new trial without the
Speaker 1: need for further factual development. So is Sternum saying here
Speaker 1: that she doesn't even want any kind of investigation? Let's
Speaker 1: just grant the trial? Hey, you know what? Let's just
Speaker 1: forget about the investigation. We'll just go forward with a
Speaker 1: new trial. On the taxpayer's dime, by the way. Yeah,
Speaker 1: no thank you. Better think long and hard about this one,
Speaker 1: Judge Nathan. Nobody wants to go do a trial again.
Speaker 1: And we all sat here and we all listened to
Speaker 1: the testimony and we all heard what was what. Furthermore, honestly,
Speaker 1: even before that, as you can tell by the podcast
Speaker 1: and the content, I was convinced that Maxwell was guilty
Speaker 1: for years now. And that's because I've just followed the evidence.
Speaker 1: You know, again, I'm just some moron, right? I'm not
Speaker 1: any kind of investigator or internet researcher or anything like that.
Speaker 1: Just a regular guy like you who has been captured
Speaker 1: by how heinous this story is. And it's just amazing
Speaker 1: to me that Maxwell and her team would really would
Speaker 1: think that something like this is going to work. I mean, Again,
Speaker 1: it might, right? Look, I'm certainly not a future reader either, right?
Speaker 1: I can't see the future. I don't know what's going
Speaker 1: to happen. But my gut tells me that Ghislaine Maxwell
Speaker 1: and her bid here is going to fizzle out and fail.
Speaker 1: And she's going to have to do the time that
Speaker 1: she gets smacked with. And we'll see that at the sentencing,
Speaker 1: but it's going to be significant. All right, so on
Speaker 1: to our second article. And this one's a bit more goofy, folks.
Speaker 1: There's a new Unearthed TV interview. And it's Andrew explaining
Speaker 1: how he got the nickname Randy Andy. So we're going
Speaker 1: to dive into this article from The Sun. And the
Speaker 1: author is Tariq Tahir. And the headline Prince Andrew admits
Speaker 1: he was nicknamed Randy Andy after getting caught in girls
Speaker 1: dorm at school in unearthed TV interview. For those of
Speaker 1: you old enough out there to have seen the movie
Speaker 1: Police Academy, it reminds me of the scene where the
Speaker 1: dude's sneaking into the real tough policewoman's room. And then
Speaker 1: he's wearing the top hat, the shower hat, dressed like
Speaker 1: a woman and stuff to try and sneak in over there.
Speaker 1: That's the vision I get here when I hear about
Speaker 1: old Randy Andy skulking around and trying to sneak into
Speaker 1: the girl's dorm. Prince Andrew once claimed he was given
Speaker 1: his infamous nickname, Randy Andy, after he was caught going
Speaker 1: into the girls' dormitory at his posh school. The Duke
Speaker 1: of York claimed that the nickname stuck after the seemingly
Speaker 1: innocent incident on his second day at the posh Gordonston
Speaker 1: School in Scotland. So, this guy is saying that he
Speaker 1: got the nickname because he was, you know, sneaking around
Speaker 1: on campus when the lights went out. Mr. Creeper himself,
Speaker 1: getting busy when he was young, huh? Practicing? Now look,
Speaker 1: I'm just kidding, obviously. You know, dudes in high school,
Speaker 1: I get it. But it goes to show you, this
Speaker 1: guy has had this kind of nickname and this sort
Speaker 1: of reputation since he's been in these schools, these private,
Speaker 1: posh schools. He didn't wake up one morning and say
Speaker 1: to himself, ah, well, you know what? I have some proclivities.
Speaker 1: He's had them forever. He claimed boys were not allowed
Speaker 1: to go into the girls' dorm at the £ 30, 000 per
Speaker 1: year school, which was also attended by his dad, Prince Philip,
Speaker 1: and brother, Prince Charles. But the young Duke claimed he
Speaker 1: was caught outgoing to say hello to someone and he
Speaker 1: was subsequently dubbed Randy Andy. Oh, I'm sure that was
Speaker 1: all of it. So if that's the story he's telling us,
Speaker 1: you can guarantee it was something way worse or something
Speaker 1: a lot less innocent. probably got caught in bed with
Speaker 1: somebody or something like that, and that's why he got
Speaker 1: the name Randy Andy. Whatever it might be, but you
Speaker 1: can guarantee that he's giving you the watered-down version when
Speaker 1: he's giving you his version. Andrew revealed the origins of
Speaker 1: his nickname during an Unearthed TV interview with Selena Scott
Speaker 1: in the 1980s. Scott asked him about the origins of
Speaker 1: his nickname, to which he sheepishly replies, which nickname? After
Speaker 1: much laughter, she replies, Randy Andy. Can you imagine? This
Speaker 1: guy's sitting around having this interview, and this is the
Speaker 1: excuse he comes up with? Oh, because, you know, I
Speaker 1: got caught sneaking around that night, so they called me
Speaker 1: Randy Andy. Nah, I think you were doing a little
Speaker 1: bit more, buddy. Okay? They'd be calling you Wandering Andy,
Speaker 1: if that was the case. Or Strolling Andy. Or... Andy
Speaker 1: on the road. Whatever it is, but I highly doubt
Speaker 1: it's Randy Andy. What does that have to do with
Speaker 1: you sneaking around and skulking about like you're Richard Ramirez?
Speaker 1: I'll tell you exactly where it originated from. It was
Speaker 1: my second day at public school, he said. It was
Speaker 1: unfortunate enough during my early years at Gordonston not to
Speaker 1: realize the rules of the house, which is you weren't
Speaker 1: allowed in the girl's house. Oh, he didn't realize those
Speaker 1: rules either. He had no idea. A long history of
Speaker 1: not knowing the rules, right? Or, more likely, knowing the rules,
Speaker 1: and then when getting caught, pleading ignorance. Oh, well, how
Speaker 1: am I supposed to know? Nobody told me that. Oh,
Speaker 1: I don't know. I'm not supposed to go in the
Speaker 1: girl's dorm? What, are you crazy? When did that rule
Speaker 1: pop up? And I was unfortunately caught going through the
Speaker 1: door to the girl's house saying hello to somebody. And
Speaker 1: it stuck. Not many people use it nowadays. And I
Speaker 1: don't think that it actually fits today anyway. Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: fits today better than ever. I mean, talk about hindsight, huh?
Speaker 1: Because you were sneaking into the girl's dorm? Okay, sure. Right.
Speaker 1: As a young man, the Duke of York was considered
Speaker 1: one of the world's most eligible bachelors and was linked
Speaker 1: to a string of women. But he was just sneaking
Speaker 1: in through the door to go say hello to somebody.
Speaker 1: He was going to help her with her homework. Maybe
Speaker 1: they were going to watch, uh, you know, the King's
Speaker 1: Speech together. He became known as the Playboy Prince and,
Speaker 1: of course, Randy Andy as the papers feasted on the
Speaker 1: Royal Navy helicopter pilot's relationships. Those included actress Ku Stark,
Speaker 1: who it was revealed had appeared topless in an arthouse
Speaker 1: film in the late 1970s. Oh, the scandal. She appeared topless, folks.
Speaker 1: That's it. Call in all of the guards. She can
Speaker 1: never come to the palace again. She was topless. And
Speaker 1: again in later years, after his divorce from Sarah Ferguson,
Speaker 1: the prince was regularly pictured at parties, clearly enjoying the
Speaker 1: company of young women. No doubt about that. Topless girls
Speaker 1: in Thailand, the whole thing. And if this guy didn't
Speaker 1: try and put out this wholesome image of himself and
Speaker 1: would just own up to who he is, then it
Speaker 1: would take away a lot of the ammunition people use
Speaker 1: against them. But he's one of these dudes that just
Speaker 1: won't admit what he is, even though we all see it.
Speaker 1: It's like having that drunken fool of a relative who
Speaker 1: just won't see that they're a drunken fool. He was
Speaker 1: a regular at nightclubs, including Tramp, where rape accuser Virginia
Speaker 1: Roberts says she danced with him. But despite that, in
Speaker 1: his infamous 2019 interview on BBC's Newsnight, Andrew claimed he
Speaker 1: rarely partied and wasn't a fan of public displays of affection.
Speaker 1: Yet we've seen him all over girls, all over the place.
Speaker 1: Every time pictures are released of him and some females,
Speaker 1: there's public displays of affection. So I don't even know
Speaker 1: what he's talking about. Again, just like with Maxwell... And
Speaker 1: in fact, there's more of a history of lying here
Speaker 1: because Andrew's been on the record more than Maxwell. He
Speaker 1: also denied ever meeting Miss Roberts, despite there being a
Speaker 1: picture of his arm around her. Andrew has issued a
Speaker 1: defiant response to his sex abuse claims, including denying that
Speaker 1: he was a close friend with Ghislaine Maxwell and claiming
Speaker 1: he wasn't a frequent visitor of Jeffrey Epstein. And I
Speaker 1: don't frequently update the podcast. You know, we don't frequently
Speaker 1: have context episodes. We don't frequently have morning updates. Absolutely absurd.
Speaker 1: Pictures of the famously teetotal prince out partying with women have, however,
Speaker 1: resurfaced as he faces a jury trial and a bid
Speaker 1: to clear his name. The Duke of York was snapped
Speaker 1: dancing with glamorous blonde Chris Von Aspen while at a
Speaker 1: poolside party thrown by a Libyan businessman in San Tropez.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, perfect. On a wild night in the Millionaire's
Speaker 1: Playground of Southern France in July 2007, the 47-year-old prince
Speaker 1: cavorted with 27-year-old Chris after the U.S. socialite reportedly caught
Speaker 1: his eye. So look, again, what it's doing is establishing
Speaker 1: who this man is. And under normal circumstances, I wouldn't
Speaker 1: care if dude was hanging out with girls by the
Speaker 1: dozen times. If they're all consenting women and they want
Speaker 1: to hang out with them, hey, I don't care what
Speaker 1: anybody does. Not my business. I have my own problems,
Speaker 1: my own life to live. live but when you start
Speaker 1: dealing with it not being consensual and a 17 year
Speaker 1: old girl being trafficked to the prince of england it's
Speaker 1: a bit more serious no Photographs from the night show
Speaker 1: a teetotal Andrew with his hands around Chris at the
Speaker 1: villa party. Jeffrey said at the time, Andrew came over
Speaker 1: to me and asked, what's her name? She is beautiful.
Speaker 1: I love the way she carries herself. She is very classy.
Speaker 1: And meanwhile, other snaps show the prince enjoying a wild
Speaker 1: night out with Canadian model and singer Pascal Bourbeau, while
Speaker 1: teenage daughter Beatrice was just meters away at the same
Speaker 1: party in Saint-Tropez. Well, that's a bit dishonest. Beatrice was
Speaker 1: of age, and I get it, right? You don't want
Speaker 1: to be doing that around your daughter, ever. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm not a parent, but I would think that you
Speaker 1: wouldn't want to do that around your daughter, you know, uh...
Speaker 1: Shacking up with some lady, kissing on her, being all romantic,
Speaker 1: stuff like that. Probably not the right place or time.
Speaker 1: But again, it's not like she was, they say teen
Speaker 1: like she was 14. She was an adult here, so.
Speaker 1: One picture from the night shows Pascal with her arms
Speaker 1: around Andrew's neck while he appeared to place a hand
Speaker 1: on her rear. Another image shows a slightly sweaty looking
Speaker 1: Andrew standing awkwardly next to the model with his hand
Speaker 1: side by side. And again, the sweating, right? Very important.
Speaker 1: There's always little gold nuggets here, and inside of these articles,
Speaker 1: you'll always find them. A third image shows the two
Speaker 1: almost nose-to-nose as they get close at a swanky gathering.
Speaker 1: Andrew faces a two-day grilling starting on March 10th at
Speaker 1: a neutral location where Virginia Roberts' lawyers fly in from
Speaker 1: the U.S. He will be questioned by ace lawyers David
Speaker 1: Boies and Sigrid McCauley. And we all know that. We've
Speaker 1: discussed it. David Boies is... very well equipped to wring
Speaker 1: some answers out of Andrew here. And I would expect
Speaker 1: that this is going to be a very uncomfortable deposition
Speaker 1: for Andrew, and I would guess that he might even
Speaker 1: start to sweat during it. And after that, they interview
Speaker 1: a woman who alleges she saw the prince with Miss
Speaker 1: Roberts at London's Tramp Nightclub in 2001. Boyes, 80, has
Speaker 1: a fearsome reputation as the greatest deposition taker in modern U.S. justice.
Speaker 1: Boyce has said he looks forward to looking the Duke
Speaker 1: in the eye and has previously been dubbed the Great Inquisitor.
Speaker 1: That's not very much reassuring for the prince, huh? For
Speaker 1: his part, Andrew is reportedly being carefully prepared by his
Speaker 1: UK-based legal team over fears of a repeat of his
Speaker 1: car crash 2019 interview with BBC Newsnight's Emily Maitlis. Yeah,
Speaker 1: he better practice with Brettler. I'm telling you right now,
Speaker 1: you better get your money's worth with Brettler. Because if
Speaker 1: you're going to use anyone to prep you, it should
Speaker 1: be that dude. All right. There we are, folks. That's
Speaker 1: the update for this evening. That's where we are. Completely
Speaker 1: caught up on the news of the day. Quick blurb
Speaker 1: on Ghislaine Maxwell. Closed it out there with Prince Andrew.
Speaker 1: And on we go to whatever tomorrow brings. If you'd
Speaker 1: like to contact me, you can do that at bobbycapucci
Speaker 1: at protonmail.com. That's B-O-B-B-Y-C-A-P-U-C-C-I at protonmail.com. You can also find
Speaker 1: me on Twitter at B-O-B-B-Y underscore C-A-P-U-C-C-I. The links that
Speaker 1: we discussed can be found in the description box. You know, folks,
Speaker 1: today we're going to do something we haven't done in
Speaker 1: quite some time. That's right. We're going to hop across
Speaker 1: the pond... and check in on the Joe Exotic of
Speaker 1: the Windsor family, a.k.a. Prince Andrew. Well, when we've been
Speaker 1: talking about this disgusting individual for the past couple of years,
Speaker 1: I've said from the beginning that I thought that eventually,
Speaker 1: when his brother ascends to the throne, that Andrew was
Speaker 1: going to be buried somewhere, right? And out of sight forever.
Speaker 1: Now if this was the old days... He would have
Speaker 1: been sent to whatever the most... Far flung province... In
Speaker 1: the empire was... And he'd be left to rot there...
Speaker 1: If he was lucky... Or... He would have been put
Speaker 1: into the Tower of London... Or... Insert... Some other sort of... Depraved... Fate...
Speaker 1: But that is what you had to look forward to...
Speaker 1: If you embarrassed the royal family... Especially if you were
Speaker 1: a claimant to the throne... and your brother ascends to
Speaker 1: the throne, and you're looked at as a liability? In
Speaker 1: the old days, you were done for, bro. There was no, alright, well,
Speaker 1: just don't talk to the media. No, no, no, no, no.
Speaker 1: That wasn't how it worked. And especially if you were
Speaker 1: somebody that had sights on taking the throne maybe someday.
Speaker 1: So Prince Andrew should be lucky it's modern day and
Speaker 1: not the old days because it would be going real
Speaker 1: poorly for him. Now, again, I'm not an expert on
Speaker 1: the monarchy or the royal family or anything like that,
Speaker 1: but it just seemed to me that the likeliest scenario
Speaker 1: would end up being Charles, as the king, trying to
Speaker 1: get away from Andrew as fast as possible, considering this
Speaker 1: Epstein situation and considering the way it has mushroomed and
Speaker 1: dumped Charles. a toxic cloud of fallout over the whole
Speaker 1: entire royal family. So my working theory was when he
Speaker 1: ascends the throne, Charles, he's not going to want to
Speaker 1: have all of that baggage, all of that nonsense dragging
Speaker 1: down his new reign. So he's going to step up
Speaker 1: and try and fix it. Not because he's a good guy, right?
Speaker 1: That's not what I'm saying. But because the family's honor
Speaker 1: is at stake. That kind of thing. And of course,
Speaker 1: he wants to have a smooth transition, no bumps in
Speaker 1: the road, and he wants everybody to be out there
Speaker 1: clapping and cheering for the monarchy. Well, nobody's going to
Speaker 1: do that if you have Uncle Touchy running around, right?
Speaker 1: You got the Joe Exotic of the Windsor family hanging
Speaker 1: around trying to get some airtime. Not going to go
Speaker 1: so well for you as the new king who's trying
Speaker 1: to settle into his new role, especially following a monarch
Speaker 1: that was so beloved as the queen. big shoes to fill.
Speaker 1: So he's going to want to be proactive. And from
Speaker 1: a political standpoint, right, from a shrewd political standpoint, and
Speaker 1: that's where these people operate from, remember, there was no
Speaker 1: other option for Charles besides banishing or getting rid of Andrew.
Speaker 1: That is the only logical outcome. And that is why
Speaker 1: that was my working theory throughout this whole entire thing. Now,
Speaker 1: the queen, soft spot for Andrew, as we well know,
Speaker 1: She was never going to banish him or anything like that.
Speaker 1: She went as far as she was willing to go.
Speaker 1: But Charles, on the other hand, according to reports and
Speaker 1: everything you hear from monarchists and people who follow the monarchy,
Speaker 1: him and Andrew don't have a good relationship at all.
Speaker 1: And Charles is definitely going to swing the hammer. So
Speaker 1: let's jump into this article from the Express and let's
Speaker 1: see What author Holly Evans has to say. Headline. Prince
Speaker 1: Charles has plans in the works to deal with Prince
Speaker 1: Andrew when he becomes king. It's an obvious move, right?
Speaker 1: I mean, for those of us who have been following
Speaker 1: this case, there's no other option for Charles. Prince Charles
Speaker 1: will act more quickly to take on a new approach
Speaker 1: in dealing with the fallout of Prince Andrew's relationship with
Speaker 1: disgraced financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, a royal commentator claimed.
Speaker 1: Royal experts have criticized the royal family's current approach of
Speaker 1: do-nothing as a tactic that has not served them well. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's an understatement to say the least. A tactic that
Speaker 1: has not served them well? Look at all of the
Speaker 1: pressure on the royal family. Look at all of the
Speaker 1: people talking about the royal family. Look at all of
Speaker 1: the people pointing the finger at the royal family. That's
Speaker 1: not what they want. They want everybody to love them, right?
Speaker 1: The last thing they want is to have this scoundrel
Speaker 1: running around in their midst. But again, the queen didn't
Speaker 1: have the heart, I guess, to do what is necessary
Speaker 1: with Andrew. Oh, but Bobby, he hasn't been convicted of anything. Well,
Speaker 1: that's not the point. When you're in a position like
Speaker 1: this as a prince, you need to be above reproach.
Speaker 1: You can't be hanging out at the Woking Pizza Joint,
Speaker 1: then going over to the Belgravia townhouse with Ghislaine and Jeffrey.
Speaker 1: That's not what princes do, okay? Do the right thing
Speaker 1: and you won't have to worry about the scrutiny. Break
Speaker 1: bread with the right people and you won't have to
Speaker 1: worry about the blowback. But since when did Andrew ever
Speaker 1: do that? Be it an arms dealer, a human trafficker,
Speaker 1: or anything in between, all bets were off when it
Speaker 1: had to do with Andrew and him breaking a little
Speaker 1: bit of money off for himself, right? He didn't care
Speaker 1: who he was involved with, who he was hanging out with.
Speaker 1: And there's been no repercussions for it. This guy's been
Speaker 1: able to just, you know, like I said, arms dealers,
Speaker 1: human traffickers, guys like Peter Nygard, you name it. Just
Speaker 1: take a look at all of the people that Andrew
Speaker 1: has kept company with and then ask yourself if the
Speaker 1: old saying, the old adage rings true. You are who
Speaker 1: you choose to surround yourself with. I know I don't
Speaker 1: hang out with any sheisty ass people. People moving funny.
Speaker 1: Especially people that are out here hurting kids or women
Speaker 1: or anybody else for that matter at this point in
Speaker 1: my life. Look, I have a life full of regrets, folks, alright?
Speaker 1: I wasn't a great person my whole life. I lived
Speaker 1: my life callously. I lived my life where I was
Speaker 1: always worried about me, numeral uno, and no matter what
Speaker 1: sort of destruction I left in my wake, I was
Speaker 1: going to get to my goals. That's not the kind
Speaker 1: of person I want to be. I was very negative,
Speaker 1: you know, and I've worked really hard to change and
Speaker 1: try and not be that person. And that's what's required
Speaker 1: as you move through life, right? Each level of life
Speaker 1: is going to require a different you. And if you're
Speaker 1: not leveling up, and if it's not requiring a different
Speaker 1: version of you, you're not doing the right thing, my man. Royalty,
Speaker 1: excuse me, royally U.S. host Molly Moleshine claimed Are we
Speaker 1: just going to let it go away? Are we just
Speaker 1: going to pretend it never happened? How is it possible
Speaker 1: that it's in that we can't hold this person accountable
Speaker 1: when we kind of know what the deal is? And
Speaker 1: I agree with her there, right? How is it possible
Speaker 1: that you can't hold this guy accountable? And now look,
Speaker 1: I'm not talking about criminally, right? He hasn't had a
Speaker 1: trial yet. Nobody should be held accountable criminally until they
Speaker 1: go through the trial process. I'm talking about socially. This
Speaker 1: man needs to be held accountable. And then when the
Speaker 1: criminal process starts that way as well, that's the preferred method, right?
Speaker 1: But at the very least, let's start here. Any ideas
Speaker 1: or designs on coming back into the royal fold, that's
Speaker 1: out the window. You should be lucky that you're walking
Speaker 1: around as a free man right now, Joe Exotic of
Speaker 1: the Windsor family. Never mind running around as a prince.
Speaker 1: It's very confusing. I think whenever Charles takes the throne,
Speaker 1: we will see some closure around this. Even if it's
Speaker 1: just never really seeing Andrew again. Bingo. What did I
Speaker 1: tell you, folks? They'd put his ass in Timbuktu if
Speaker 1: they could. If they could launch this guy to the
Speaker 1: farthest part of the English Empire in the old days,
Speaker 1: that's what would have happened. He would have found himself
Speaker 1: on some island in the Indonesian island chains or some shit.
Speaker 1: Royalty doesn't play games like this, especially if you're a
Speaker 1: claimant to the throne and you can pose a risk
Speaker 1: as a usurper. Forget about it. In the old days,
Speaker 1: no chance. No chance. And you got to think that
Speaker 1: Charles coming in is going to try and solidify his
Speaker 1: reign and try and build some goodwill right off the bat.
Speaker 1: And if his brother is the ounce of flesh that
Speaker 1: gets served up, so be it. Her co-host, Joe Drake, claimed,
Speaker 1: I think you're onto something, because I do think when
Speaker 1: the queen passes, then they may act more quickly, swiftly,
Speaker 1: to figure out how to do something. And that's always
Speaker 1: been the rub, right? The queen and her relationship with
Speaker 1: the Joe Exotic of the Windsor family. According to monarchists
Speaker 1: and people who are historians of the royal family, Andrew's
Speaker 1: her favorite. So of course she's not going to really
Speaker 1: come down on him. Of course she's going to do
Speaker 1: the bare minimum to punish him. I think plans are
Speaker 1: already in the works as to how to deal with
Speaker 1: it in the future. Both royal experts agree that the
Speaker 1: current tactic used by the monarchy, which included the removal
Speaker 1: of Prince Andrew from public office, has not been effective. Yeah,
Speaker 1: not really. I mean, the guy's still running around laughing
Speaker 1: it up, yucking it up, looking like he's having a
Speaker 1: grand old time. Have you spoken to the FBI yet,
Speaker 1: you epic asshole? I think they call people like you
Speaker 1: over the pond some kind of like nonce, maybe a wanker,
Speaker 1: something like that, right? Here in America, we just call
Speaker 1: you an asshole. And where I'm from in America, we
Speaker 1: call you a stunat. This guy is an absolute asshole.
Speaker 1: piece of trash, okay? Sorry. That's how I feel about him.
Speaker 1: That's my opinion. Another grown-ass man. Prince, no less. Using
Speaker 1: his children as an alibi. Oh, I was at the
Speaker 1: pizza place with my daughter. Great position to put your
Speaker 1: daughter in, you scumbag. Miss Moleshine claimed, We'll see them
Speaker 1: navigate it. I think so far the do-nothing approach has
Speaker 1: not been great. And it has not served them well.
Speaker 1: And it's interesting to see that they're still going for
Speaker 1: the do-nothing approach. And that leads me to believe that
Speaker 1: they think that Andrew's guilty. That's what I think the
Speaker 1: royal family is convinced of. They're convinced that this happened.
Speaker 1: They know that that picture is there. That picture wasn't.
Speaker 1: Where did that picture come from? It was just created
Speaker 1: out of thin air. Give me a break already. And
Speaker 1: until people can start explaining that kind of shit, it's
Speaker 1: not even worth listening to their arguments, right? How can
Speaker 1: you explain that picture? And then you have this jerk off, oh,
Speaker 1: I never even met her. But we're supposed to believe
Speaker 1: what he has to say, huh? Zero evidence provided. Everything
Speaker 1: pointing the other way. But because he's the Prince of England,
Speaker 1: we should listen to him? Yeah, right. The Queen's second
Speaker 1: son first met the American financial manager, pedophile, in 1999
Speaker 1: after they were introduced by British socialite, co-conspirator, general all-around scumbag, and,
Speaker 1: you know, fellow child abuser as well as a bipedal serpent,
Speaker 1: and mutual friend Ghislaine Maxwell, Prince Andrew, the Joe Exotic
Speaker 1: of the Windsor family. first came under scrutiny for his
Speaker 1: friendship with Jeffrey Epstein in 2011 after he was photographed
Speaker 1: in Central Park with a convicted sex offender following his
Speaker 1: release from custody. Mr. Epstein was charged in 2008 with
Speaker 1: procuring a person under 18 for prostitution and felony solicitation
Speaker 1: of prostitution and was sentenced to 18 months in prison.
Speaker 1: First of all, no such thing as soliciting a minor
Speaker 1: for sex, okay? That's just first and foremost. How can
Speaker 1: a minor be a prostitute? The fact that there was
Speaker 1: a law on the books in Florida that actually stated
Speaker 1: that is mind-boggling to me. Now, that law is no
Speaker 1: longer there. They got rid of the whole under-18 sex
Speaker 1: worker type thing in Florida, thank God. But what a
Speaker 1: ridiculous law to have on the books in the first place.
Speaker 1: Amid calls for him to step down as trade envoy
Speaker 1: to the U.S., the Duke of York cut ties with
Speaker 1: the disgraced financial manager. Pedophile. No, he didn't. All right?
Speaker 1: This dude, Andrew, is such a scumbag that grown-ass man,
Speaker 1: Prince of England, thinks he has to fly across the
Speaker 1: pond to come and break up with his BFF, Jeffrey Epstein,
Speaker 1: in person? You don't have a guy for that? What
Speaker 1: hole does he have over you that makes you have
Speaker 1: to hop on a plane, fly to America... and break
Speaker 1: up with him, air quotes, in person. None of this
Speaker 1: story makes sense now. It didn't make sense then. And
Speaker 1: anybody trying to pitch this shit, the narrative that Prince
Speaker 1: Andrew had nothing to do with this, he's just a
Speaker 1: regular old guy, is lying to you, okay? Straight up
Speaker 1: BSing you, trying to gaslight you. And I would be very, very, very, very,
Speaker 1: very cautious of anybody who's trying to pitch the fact
Speaker 1: that Andrew... is squeaky clean. I know, not very many
Speaker 1: people trying it, but there are a few publications that are,
Speaker 1: you know, trying to refurbish some images, shall we say.
Speaker 1: Some knucklehead from England, you know, a couple of moronic,
Speaker 1: wasteful type people. But none of that matters, right? My
Speaker 1: opinion doesn't matter. Nobody's opinion really matters when all is
Speaker 1: said and done. You know what matters? Where the evidence
Speaker 1: leads in this case. And so far, the evidence sure
Speaker 1: does seem to point to Prince Andrew being involved. Sure
Speaker 1: does seem to point to Virginia and her story being very,
Speaker 1: very true. Whereas Andrew has provided nothing in his defense,
Speaker 1: or to the contrary, of the evidence provided. So why
Speaker 1: would anyone believe the Joe Exotic of the Windsor family? However,
Speaker 1: in 2019, Jeffrey Epstein was arrested again for sex trafficking
Speaker 1: after a number of women came forward to reveal their
Speaker 1: grooming experiences. glaine maxwell has also been arrested and is
Speaker 1: currently awaiting trial for enticement of minors and sex trafficking
Speaker 1: epstein was found dead in his prison cell on august
Speaker 1: 10th 2019 in an apparent suicide allegedly Prince Andrew was
Speaker 1: named in court documents that stated that he attended parties
Speaker 1: hosted by Epstein in which minors were present and one
Speaker 1: survivor had sexual contact with the prince on three occasions.
Speaker 1: Buckingham Palace issued a statement to say that the allegations
Speaker 1: were categorically untrue and held a number of inconsistencies. Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: a whole bunch of inconsistencies, huh? The only thing that's
Speaker 1: inconsistent is the fact that the prince of... England over here,
Speaker 1: Joe Exotic of the Windsor family. The only thing that's
Speaker 1: going on here is that this guy is lying, okay?
Speaker 1: The only thing that's categorically untrue is everything that this
Speaker 1: guy is saying. The only inconsistencies that we have here
Speaker 1: are the ones that he's throwing at us. So they
Speaker 1: can just bury all of that nonsense. That's such a
Speaker 1: canned statement, such a garbage statement from the crown. It's like, oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: we don't believe any of this. Hands off. Not our problem.
Speaker 1: Guess what? It is your problem. The statement read, the
Speaker 1: Duke of York unequivocally regrets his ill-judged association with Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 1: Epstein's suicide, allegedly, left many unanswered questions, particularly for his victims.
Speaker 1: The Duke deeply sympathizes with those affected who want some
Speaker 1: form of closure. Oh, yeah, he sympathizes so much. that
Speaker 1: he's running to the local FBI office to talk to
Speaker 1: the FBI. He sympathizes so much that he's reached out
Speaker 1: to all of these survivors and offered aid. He's so
Speaker 1: sympathetic of their cause that he's out in the forefront
Speaker 1: leading the battle to get justice for them. Man, shut up.
Speaker 1: Sitting around, laughing it up, yucking it up, hoping people forget. Well,
Speaker 1: guess what, Joe Exotic of the Windsor family? Nobody's going
Speaker 1: to forget. It is his hope that in time, they
Speaker 1: will be able to rebuild their lives. The Duke is
Speaker 1: willing to help any appropriate law enforcement agency with their
Speaker 1: investigations if required. Oh yeah, so what's up? The FBI
Speaker 1: already asked him. Again, this guy's proven to be a
Speaker 1: liar time and time again. So why would anybody attempt
Speaker 1: to even listen to anything he has to say at
Speaker 1: this point? The Duke has already stated that he did
Speaker 1: not see, witness, or suspect any behavior of the sort
Speaker 1: that subsequently led to Jeffrey Epstein's arrest and conviction. He
Speaker 1: deplores the exploitation of any human being and would not condone,
Speaker 1: participate in, or encourage any such behavior. Oh no, not
Speaker 1: at all. I mean, he hangs out with such classy individuals. Dictators,
Speaker 1: arms dealers, human traffickers, rapists. Hell of a guy. Hell
Speaker 1: of a group of friends. but he would never condone
Speaker 1: any of that behavior. Not at all. He never saw
Speaker 1: anything untowards over at Jeffrey Epstein's. In November 2019, Prince Andrew,
Speaker 1: the Joe Exotic of the Windsor family, participated in a disastrous,
Speaker 1: no-holds-barred interview with BBC Newsnight's Emily Maitlis in order to
Speaker 1: tell his side of the story. During the interview, he
Speaker 1: claimed he had no recollection of meeting the claimant and
Speaker 1: he could not have participated in a sexual activity on
Speaker 1: that said day. as he was in Pizza Express with
Speaker 1: his daughter, Princess Beatrice, at the time. Oh, yeah. Hell
Speaker 1: of a guy, huh? Drag your daughter into it. What
Speaker 1: is wrong with these people? He also said he had
Speaker 1: no regrets over his friendship with Epstein, but acknowledged that
Speaker 1: he should not have visited him in New York following
Speaker 1: his initial release from prison. Oh, yeah. That's to say
Speaker 1: the least, huh? But again, he had to go over
Speaker 1: there and break up with his BFF, Jeffrey Epstein. Had
Speaker 1: to hop across the pond and go and tell Jeffrey
Speaker 1: Epstein they couldn't be friends anymore. What are they, 12?
Speaker 1: Here's an idea. Just stop talking to him. What were
Speaker 1: you really flying to New York for, Prince Andrew? What
Speaker 1: were you so worried about that you had to fly
Speaker 1: all those miles from England to New York to crash
Speaker 1: on Jeffrey Epstein's couch? Pretty sure that the FBI would
Speaker 1: love to hear that story. If you'd like to contact me,
Speaker 1: you can do that at bobbycapucci at protonmail.com. That's B-O-B-B-Y-C-A-P-U-C-C-I
Speaker 1: at protonmail.com. You can also find me on Twitter at
Speaker 1: B-O-B-B-Y underscore C-A-P-U-C-C-I. All of the links that go with
Speaker 1: this episode can be found in the description box.