The True Crime Tapes

Jeffrey Epstein’s financial relationship with Harvard University revealed how elite institutions can compromise their own standards when wealthy donors are involved. Even after pleading guilty in 2008 to soliciting a minor, Epstein continued to maintain access to Harvard’s campus and faculty. He had previously donated to research initiatives and was granted privileges including office space, a university email address, and key-card access. Internal reviews later concluded that allowing him continued involvement after his conviction was a serious lapse in judgment that contradicted Harvard’s public commitments to combating sexual misconduct and protecting institutional integrity.The situation exposed a broader vulnerability in academic research funding: large private donations can shape scientific priorities without the oversight required in traditional peer-reviewed grant systems. Epstein directed funding toward established, high-profile researchers and specific areas of interest, amplifying existing power structures while sidelining more transparent, merit-based processes.Most scientists or officials at these universities would have you believe that they weren't close to Epstein, even as they were accepting him as a patron. This professor, however, went a different way and took aim at Epstein and his relationship with her University, Harvard.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Ian Maxwell, the brother of Ghislaine Maxwell, was denied a prison visit with her despite repeated attempts to secure access following her incarceration. His request was rejected under Bureau of Prisons rules governing approved visitors, which require advance clearance and compliance with strict security protocols. While the BOP did not publicly provide a detailed justification specific to Maxwell, the denial occurred amid heightened scrutiny of all contact involving Ghislaine Maxwell, given the sensitivity of her case, her conviction for sex trafficking-related crimes, and the ongoing legal and evidentiary issues surrounding the Epstein network.The denial underscored the unusually restrictive environment surrounding Ghislaine Maxwell’s detention, even compared to other high-profile federal inmates. Critics pointed out that the refusal appeared less about routine policy and more about risk management, limiting opportunities for messaging, coordination, or narrative shaping through family intermediaries. In context, the blocked visit reinforced the broader pattern of isolation imposed on Maxwell after her conviction, reflecting the government’s determination to tightly control access as her appeals and post-conviction maneuvering continued.to  contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Michael Thomas was a veteran correctional officer employed by the Federal Bureau of Prisons at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan — a federal detention facility — where Jeffrey Epstein was being held in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) while awaiting trial on federal sex-trafficking charges. Thomas had been with the Bureau of Prisons since about 2007 and, on the night of Epstein’s death (August 9–10, 2019), was assigned to an overnight shift alongside another officer, Tova Noel, responsible for conducting required 30-minute inmate checks and institutional counts in the SHU. Because Epstein’s cellmate had been moved and not replaced, Epstein was alone in his cell, making regular monitoring all the more crucial under bureau policy.Thomas became a focal figure in the official investigations into Epstein’s death because surveillance footage and institutional records showed that neither he nor Noel conducted the required rounds or counts through the night before Epstein was found unresponsive in his cell early on August 10. Prosecutors subsequently charged both officers with conspiracy and falsifying records for signing count slips that falsely indicated they had completed rounds they had not performed. Thomas and Noel later entered deferred prosecution agreements in which they admitted falsifying records and avoided prison time, instead receiving supervisory release and community service. Investigators concluded that chronic staffing shortages and procedural failures at the jail contributed to the circumstances that allowed Epstein to remain unmonitored for hours before his death, which was officially ruled a suicide by hanging.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00113577.pdf

Michael Thomas was a veteran correctional officer employed by the Federal Bureau of Prisons at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan — a federal detention facility — where Jeffrey Epstein was being held in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) while awaiting trial on federal sex-trafficking charges. Thomas had been with the Bureau of Prisons since about 2007 and, on the night of Epstein’s death (August 9–10, 2019), was assigned to an overnight shift alongside another officer, Tova Noel, responsible for conducting required 30-minute inmate checks and institutional counts in the SHU. Because Epstein’s cellmate had been moved and not replaced, Epstein was alone in his cell, making regular monitoring all the more crucial under bureau policy.Thomas became a focal figure in the official investigations into Epstein’s death because surveillance footage and institutional records showed that neither he nor Noel conducted the required rounds or counts through the night before Epstein was found unresponsive in his cell early on August 10. Prosecutors subsequently charged both officers with conspiracy and falsifying records for signing count slips that falsely indicated they had completed rounds they had not performed. Thomas and Noel later entered deferred prosecution agreements in which they admitted falsifying records and avoided prison time, instead receiving supervisory release and community service. Investigators concluded that chronic staffing shortages and procedural failures at the jail contributed to the circumstances that allowed Epstein to remain unmonitored for hours before his death, which was officially ruled a suicide by hanging.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00113577.pdf

Michael Thomas was a veteran correctional officer employed by the Federal Bureau of Prisons at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan — a federal detention facility — where Jeffrey Epstein was being held in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) while awaiting trial on federal sex-trafficking charges. Thomas had been with the Bureau of Prisons since about 2007 and, on the night of Epstein’s death (August 9–10, 2019), was assigned to an overnight shift alongside another officer, Tova Noel, responsible for conducting required 30-minute inmate checks and institutional counts in the SHU. Because Epstein’s cellmate had been moved and not replaced, Epstein was alone in his cell, making regular monitoring all the more crucial under bureau policy.Thomas became a focal figure in the official investigations into Epstein’s death because surveillance footage and institutional records showed that neither he nor Noel conducted the required rounds or counts through the night before Epstein was found unresponsive in his cell early on August 10. Prosecutors subsequently charged both officers with conspiracy and falsifying records for signing count slips that falsely indicated they had completed rounds they had not performed. Thomas and Noel later entered deferred prosecution agreements in which they admitted falsifying records and avoided prison time, instead receiving supervisory release and community service. Investigators concluded that chronic staffing shortages and procedural failures at the jail contributed to the circumstances that allowed Epstein to remain unmonitored for hours before his death, which was officially ruled a suicide by hanging.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00113577.pdf

Marina Lacerda, now 37, revealed that she was first approached by Epstein in 2002 when she was just 14, under the pretext of providing massage services, which led to years of sexual abuse in his New York residence. She recounted horrifying details of Epstein’s home operating like a "revolving door," hosting up to 5–10 women per day. After being contacted originally by investigators in 2008—only for Epstein to secure a secret non-prosecution agreement that prevented her from testifying before a grand jury—she was approached again over a decade later, and her testimony ultimately became pivotal in the 2019 sex-trafficking charges against him .Lacerda passionately called for transparency by urging the Trump administration to release all files related to Epstein’s crimes—not only for the sake of the victims but also for the American public. She emphasized that access to her records would help her—and others—begin to heal, acting as a broader demand for public accountability and truth. Her plea aligns with a broader bipartisan congressional push, led by Representatives Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie, to force the Justice Department to disclose Epstein‑related documents, despite claims that no "client list" exists.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:'We need the Epstein files to be out': Central witness in Epstein case speaks publicly for 1st time - ABC News

British-born Shelley Anne Lewis, reportedly Epstein’s longtime secret girlfriend, was identified in newly unsealed court documents after years of mystery about her identity. Lewis, then in her early 20s, is said to have met Epstein around 1999 while working in the contemporary art department at Christie’s auction house in New York and to have dated him until about 2002. Flight logs suggest she took numerous trips on his private jet, including to his properties, and was part of his social circle for several years. She later became known as a children’s book author, spiritual entrepreneur and wellness figure, running ventures like Chocolate Sauce Books and Sacred Space and describing herself as pursuing holistic wellbeing projects. Despite the spotlight on her name, there’s no indication she was involved in or aware of Epstein’s criminal conduct, and she declined to comment publicly after her identity was exposed.Lewis’ family acknowledged in other reports that they knew she was seeing “someone in New York” during that period, but her connection to Epstein only fully came to light through references in emails between Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. In one 2015 message, Maxwell asked Epstein to confirm that Shelley had been his girlfriend from the late 1990s to early 2000s, to which he agreed. While some media have highlighted her social travels and describe her as part of Epstein’s circle during a formative time in his life, she has not been accused of wrongdoing and has kept a low profile since the documents were released.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Jeffrey Epstein cultivated relationships with figures connected to the United Nations through philanthropy, academic funding, and high-level networking. He presented himself as a financier interested in global policy, science, and development, and he leveraged donations to gain proximity to diplomats, development officials, and nonprofit leaders operating in UN-adjacent spaces. Through events, private meetings, and introductions facilitated by well-connected intermediaries, Epstein sought legitimacy within international policy circles, often portraying himself as a benefactor of scientific collaboration and global problem-solving initiatives. His strategy relied less on formal titles and more on access—positioning himself around influential individuals connected to global governance institutions.While there is no evidence that Epstein held any official role within the United Nations itself, his ability to move within elite international networks highlighted how private wealth can open doors to multilateral environments. His associations underscored broader concerns about vetting standards and reputational risk when wealthy donors or power brokers insert themselves into diplomatic and development ecosystems. In the aftermath of his arrest and death, scrutiny intensified over how he managed to build relationships within circles linked to global institutions, raising questions about influence, access, and oversight at the intersection of money and international policy.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In mid‑2023, Morgan State University launched an internal investigation into Associate Professor of Mathematics Dr. Jonathan Farley after news emerged that he had independently reached out to Jeffrey Epstein—then jailed on sex trafficking charges—in July 2019. In a highly self-serving email, Farley requested a $5 million donation from Epstein to fund an endowed chair for women in mathematics, suggesting this act could rehabilitate Epstein’s public image and even likening it to avoiding a conviction akin to Bill Cosby’s. He also implied that such a contribution would generate support within the Black community. Crucially, university officials emphasized that Farley had acted alone and without institutional approval, stressing that Morgan State had neither solicited Epstein nor empowered any employee to do so.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:A Math Professor Suggested a Jailed Jeffrey Epstein Give Him Money to Repair His Image in the Black Community (vice.com)

A civil lawsuit filed by the U.S. Virgin Islands government against the estate of Jeffrey Epstein alleged that individuals tied to Epstein’s operations, including his longtime lawyer and accountant, facilitated fraudulent arranged marriages involving victims of his alleged sex-trafficking network. Prosecutors claimed that these sham marriages were orchestrated so that foreign nationals who helped recruit or work within Epstein’s circle could remain in the United States and remain under the network’s control. According to the amended complaint, forces that kept the victims tied to Epstein included threats of reputational harm or worse if they refused to participate or later tried to leave the arrangements. The complaint suggested these schemes were part of a broader strategy to secure immigration status for key associates while binding victims closer to Epstein’s exploitative enterprise.One of the specific allegations involved a victim identified in court records as “Katlyn Doe,” who said she was coerced into marrying another woman in Epstein’s orbit so that the non-citizen could stay in the U.S. as part of their roles in Epstein’s operation. The lawsuit claimed that Epstein promised financial incentives, including helping with medical costs, and that his associates handled the legal and accounting aspects of arranging these marriages — work prosecutors said further enabled fraudulent marriages and helped maintain control over victims’ lives. Prosecutors framed these actions not as isolated incidents but as components of the overall sex-trafficking scheme that persisted well after earlier legal entanglements, alleging at least three such marriages took place with the assistance of Epstein’s estate executors.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

A court in the U.S. Virgin Islands issued a subpoena to Nadia Marcinkova, a longtime associate of Jeffrey Epstein, demanding that she turn over a wide range of records connected to Epstein’s operations. The subpoena sought documents in more than a dozen categories, including flight logs from trips she took with Epstein, photographs and videos showing her with Epstein and other associates, communications with figures such as Ghislaine Maxwell, financial and employment records, immigration and visa documents, phone logs, and details about travel arrangements and passengers. She was reportedly given 30 days to comply with the court’s order as part of the territory’s broader effort to recover damages tied to Epstein’s activities.The reporting revisited past allegations from police records and victim accounts claiming Epstein referred to Marcinkova as his “Yugoslavian sex slave” and that some underage girls were allegedly directed to engage in sexual conduct with her. It highlighted longstanding questions about whether Marcinkova had transitioned from being an alleged victim to playing a recruiting role within Epstein’s network. Although she was identified as a potential co-conspirator in Epstein’s 2008 non-prosecution agreement, she was never criminally charged. The subpoena signaled continued legal scrutiny of Epstein’s inner circle and suggested that additional documentation about his travel, finances, and associates could surface through civil proceedings.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In the ABC News 20/20 special about Ghislaine Maxwell and her role in Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking scandal, her brother Ian Maxwell gave an extended interview defending his sister and offering personal context about her life and their family. Maxwell described their upbringing as privileged yet emotionally complicated, noting that his sister was one of nine children of media mogul Robert Maxwell and had been somewhat “spoiled” by their father. He said he met Epstein only briefly and did not know the details of his sister’s adult life with him, but insisted that Epstein’s crimes and Maxwell’s conduct were legally and morally distinct, urging viewers to treat her as “presumed innocent” given that she pleaded not guilty and was entitled to a fair legal process. Maxwell emphasized that the public narrative often conflated Epstein’s actions with his sister’s and portrayed her unfairly in the media.During the 20/20 interview, Ian Maxwell also recounted his limited personal interactions with Epstein, saying he did not find the financier especially likable and that Epstein’s charisma was not something he shared. He pushed back against the sensational media coverage surrounding his sister’s arrest and trial, framing her prosecution as overhyped and influenced by the high-profile nature of the case rather than pure legal evidence. Maxwell’s remarks were part of a broader effort — also seen in other media appearances — to defend Ghislaine’s character, argue that she deserved due process, and differentiate her from Epstein’s criminal legacy, even as she faced federal convictions and sentences for her role in the abuse network.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Ghislaine Maxwell, the longtime associate of Jeffrey Epstein who later was convicted in federal court of sex-trafficking and related crimes, filed a motion with a U.S. federal court asking a judge to dismiss the criminal case against her before her trial began. In her legal filings, Maxwell and her attorneys argued that the charges should be thrown out on constitutional grounds, saying she was not prosecuted fairly and that fundamental legal errors and violations of her rights undermined the government’s ability to proceed with the case. This type of filing, known as a motion to dismiss, contended that due process issues amounted to a miscarriage of justice and warranted dismissal of the indictment.At the time of that motion, Maxwell was facing allegations that she had helped recruit and groom underage girls in the 1990s for Epstein’s sex-trafficking operation — charges that would later lead to her conviction and a 20-year federal prison sentence. Though her pre-trial motion sought to derail the government’s case based on legal arguments, it was ultimately unsuccessful, and she was eventually tried, convicted, and sentenced in 2021. Even after conviction, Maxwell continued to challenge her sentence and conviction through appeals and habeas petitions, arguing that legal and procedural errors should entitle her to a new trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

A new NPR investigation has revealed that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) appears to have withheld and even removed dozens of pages from the public database of documents released under the Epstein Files Transparency Act that relate to **sexual abuse allegations involving President Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein. According to NPR, records tied to FBI interviews and notes from conversations with a woman who claims Trump sexually abused her as a minor are absent from the public archive, even though evidence suggests those pages were catalogued and should have been released. Some materials where Trump’s name is mentioned were temporarily taken down and re-uploaded, and others remain unreleased, raising serious questions about whether the DOJ is fully complying with the law requiring transparency about the investigation.Critics argue that this selective release and redaction undermines public trust in the Justice Department’s handling of the Epstein files and appears to protect Trump from scrutiny despite his extensive mentions in the records — Trump’s name appears in tens of thousands of documents in the Epstein archive. Observers say the DOJ’s actions, combined with Trump’s repeated denials of wrongdoing and claims of “total exoneration,” have shielded him from accountability even as other figures tied to Epstein — such as Peter Mandelson — face arrest and legal exposure abroad. This has fueled criticism that the DOJ is more interested in managing political optics than in complete transparency or justice for survivors, weakening confidence in how elite connections to Epstein are investigated.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:DOJ removed, withheld Epstein files related to accusations about Trump : NPR

Despite repeatedly telling the public and lawmakers that he had cut ties with Epstein and had minimal contact with him, newly released documents from the Epstein files reveal a very different picture. Lutnick claimed in interviews that after a 2005 meeting with Epstein he found him “disgusting” and avoided further interaction, but evidence shows he actually continued engaging with Epstein for years afterward. Emails show Lutnick coordinated a lunch on Epstein’s private island in 2012 with his family, had drinks with him around 2011, and even invited Epstein to a 2015 fundraiser—activities that directly contradict his earlier statements that he had no relationship and spent “zero time” with Epstein. When pressed before Congress, Lutnick tried to minimize these contacts as limited and innocuous, but the contrast between his rhetoric and the documentary evidence has made his public statements look disingenuous at best and deceptive at worst.The repercussions have been significant: bipartisan calls for his resignation have emerged, and prominent lawmakers—including Sen. Adam Schiff and Rep. Thomas Massie—have said Lutnick misled the American people about his interactions with a convicted sex offender. His attempts to spin the timeline and severity of his relationship with Epstein have only intensified scrutiny, with critics saying a senior federal official should not have to be prodded by document leaks to correct basic factual errors in his public claims. Lutnick’s credibility and judgment have been sharply questioned, and his failure to be transparent about the extent of his ties with Epstein has become a major liability for both his personal reputation and the administration he serve.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:New Details From Epstein Files Reveal Lutnick Had Years-Long Business Tie With Sex Offender – Mother Jones

Newly released documents from the Epstein Files Transparency Act trove reveal that Jeffrey Epstein was the subject of a previously undisclosed U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) investigation, according to a heavily redacted 2015 memo included in the government’s files. The 69-page memorandum, marked “law enforcement sensitive,” shows Epstein was one of 15 people targeted in a probe focused on “suspicious money transfers” that federal agents believed were tied to illicit drug trafficking and prostitution activities in both the U.S. Virgin Islands and New York City, raising questions about whether Epstein’s criminal conduct may have extended beyond his well-known sex trafficking offenses. The document, drafted after the DEA requested information from a multi-agency Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force, suggests a significant investigation that spanned five years from 2010 to 2015, although many details and the identities of other targets remain redacted.The existence of this DEA inquiry adds a new dimension to the public understanding of Epstein’s activities and how thoroughly federal authorities were examining various aspects of his operations. While the later, better-known 2019 prosecution focused on sex trafficking and did not publicly include drug trafficking charges, the DEA memo indicates that investigators had been pursuing a potentially broader case years earlier. The revelations have prompted renewed scrutiny from lawmakers and law enforcement observers about what the newly released records might yet reveal about Epstein’s financial networks and whether narcotics trafficking played any role in his criminal enterprise.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Newly unearthed DEA document from Epstein files raises question: Did Epstein facilitate drug trafficking? - CBS News

Former British cabinet minister and former ambassador to the United States Peter Mandelson, widely known as Lord Mandelson, was arrested on February 23, 2026, by the Metropolitan Police on suspicion of misconduct in public office as part of an investigation linked to revelations in the newly released Jeffrey Epstein files. Authorities allege that while serving as a senior UK government minister in 2009–2010, Mandelson may have passed sensitive UK government information to Epstein and maintained a relationship with him even after Epstein’s 2008 conviction. The arrest follows searches of his homes in London and Wiltshire and emerged amid growing public and political scrutiny over Mandelson’s ties to Epstein, which had already cost him his ambassadorial post and led to his resignation from the House of Lords and the Labour Party.After being taken into custody and questioned by police, Mandelson was released on bail pending further investigation, with the Metropolitan Police confirming that he must return for further enquiries as the case continues. Under UK law, misconduct in public office is a serious criminal offence, and Mandelson denies any wrongdoing. His arrest and bail come as the government faces intense pressure over its earlier decision to appoint him ambassador despite known concerns about his Epstein connections, and as lawmakers and critics demand further transparency and accountability in the unfolding investigation.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Former UK ambassador Peter Mandelson released on bail | AP News

Prince Andrew’s downfall has accelerated sharply in the wake of fresh allegations tied to Jeffrey Epstein and the explosive release of Virginia Giuffre’s memoir, Nobody’s Girl. The book recounts new details about Andrew’s alleged sexual encounters with Giuffre while she was being trafficked as a minor by Epstein. These revelations reignited public outrage and renewed scrutiny over Andrew’s long-denied relationship with both Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Buckingham Palace has reportedly been forced into damage control, with King Charles III supporting Andrew’s decision to give up his “Duke of York” title and remaining royal honors. The palace has publicly stated that the new allegations must be fully investigated, signaling growing institutional distance from Andrew as pressure mounts for full transparency and accountability.Adding to his disgrace, newly surfaced claims allege that Andrew attempted to orchestrate an online smear campaign against Giuffre to salvage his reputation. According to The Guardian’s coverage of the memoir, the prince and his aides tried to hire internet trolls to harass Giuffre online and even sought access to her private information, including her Social Security number. Reports indicate that the Metropolitan Police have opened an inquiry into whether Andrew misused his royal security detail or other public resources during this smear campaign. Parliamentarians are also reportedly pushing to strip him of any remaining titles and privileges, as his reputation continues to collapse under the weight of new evidence and public disgust over his conduct.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsources:Prince Andrew tried to hire 'internet trolls' to 'hassle' his sex accuser Virginia Giuffre, her posthumous memoir reveals | Daily Mail Online

Prince Andrew’s downfall has accelerated sharply in the wake of fresh allegations tied to Jeffrey Epstein and the explosive release of Virginia Giuffre’s memoir, Nobody’s Girl. The book recounts new details about Andrew’s alleged sexual encounters with Giuffre while she was being trafficked as a minor by Epstein. These revelations reignited public outrage and renewed scrutiny over Andrew’s long-denied relationship with both Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Buckingham Palace has reportedly been forced into damage control, with King Charles III supporting Andrew’s decision to give up his “Duke of York” title and remaining royal honors. The palace has publicly stated that the new allegations must be fully investigated, signaling growing institutional distance from Andrew as pressure mounts for full transparency and accountability.Adding to his disgrace, newly surfaced claims allege that Andrew attempted to orchestrate an online smear campaign against Giuffre to salvage his reputation. According to The Guardian’s coverage of the memoir, the prince and his aides tried to hire internet trolls to harass Giuffre online and even sought access to her private information, including her Social Security number. Reports indicate that the Metropolitan Police have opened an inquiry into whether Andrew misused his royal security detail or other public resources during this smear campaign. Parliamentarians are also reportedly pushing to strip him of any remaining titles and privileges, as his reputation continues to collapse under the weight of new evidence and public disgust over his conduct.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsources:Prince Andrew tried to hire 'internet trolls' to 'hassle' his sex accuser Virginia Giuffre, her posthumous memoir reveals | Daily Mail Online

The newly unsealed New York grand jury materials related to Ghislaine Maxwell provide a clearer window into how federal prosecutors built the case that ultimately led to her conviction. The documents outline the scope of witness testimony, evidentiary focus, and investigative priorities considered by the grand jury, reinforcing that Maxwell was not viewed as a peripheral figure but as a central facilitator within Jeffrey Epstein’s trafficking operation. While much of the material aligns with facts already established at trial—including patterns of recruitment, grooming, and abuse—the unsealing confirms that prosecutors presented a structured, victim-centered narrative to the grand jury well before Maxwell’s arrest, countering claims that the case was rushed or politically motivated.At the same time, the documents have drawn attention for what they do not contain. The grand jury materials remain narrowly focused on Maxwell’s conduct and charges, offering little insight into why broader conspiracy cases against other Epstein associates were never pursued in New York. This has fueled renewed scrutiny of prosecutorial discretion and investigative limits, as the records show a deliberate effort to secure Maxwell’s indictment while leaving larger questions about Epstein’s network unresolved. For critics and survivors alike, the unsealing represents both a measure of long-delayed transparency and a reminder of how much of the Epstein story remains outside the bounds of criminal accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com