December 8, 2025 • 13 mins
The Department of Justice has consistently argued that the controversial 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement did not violate the Crime Victims’ Rights Act because, in its view, the CVRA’s protections did not attach until formal federal charges were filed. DOJ lawyers maintained that during the pre-charge negotiation phase, federal prosecutors were operating within their lawful discretion to decline prosecution and enter into a resolution without notifying potential victims. According to this position, because Epstein was never federally charged at the time the agreement was reached, the government contended there were no legally recognized “crime victims” under the CVRA to notify, consult, or confer with during the negotiations.
The government further argued that the plea deal itself was a lawful exercise of prosecutorial authority designed to secure accountability through a state-level conviction while conserving federal resources and avoiding litigation risks. DOJ filings emphasized that the CVRA was not intended to regulate prosecutorial decision-making before charges are brought, nor to force prosecutors to disclose or negotiate plea discussions with potential victims in advance. In short, the DOJ’s defense rests on a narrow interpretation of when victims’ rights legally begin, asserting that while the outcome may have been deeply troubling, it did not constitute a statutory violation under the government’s reading of federal law.
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
Title
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
The government further argued that the plea deal itself was a lawful exercise of prosecutorial authority designed to secure accountability through a state-level conviction while conserving federal resources and avoiding litigation risks. DOJ filings emphasized that the CVRA was not intended to regulate prosecutorial decision-making before charges are brought, nor to force prosecutors to disclose or negotiate plea discussions with potential victims in advance. In short, the DOJ’s defense rests on a narrow interpretation of when victims’ rights legally begin, asserting that while the outcome may have been deeply troubling, it did not constitute a statutory violation under the government’s reading of federal law.
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
Title
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're picking up where we
left off with the transcript from this CVRA meeting with
Judge Mahra. Judge Mara, Now, having learned today, I guess
that the agreement was signed when in October Edwards October
two thousand and seven, I heard the court about eight
(00:22):
or nine months ago. Is there any need to rush
to a decision in this matter? The decision has already
been made. You filed this, I think on the presumption
that the agreement was about to take place and you
wanted to be able to confer beforehand, and you weren't
sure what was going on, Brad Edwards precisely, your honor.
And I'm holding the letters that are exhibits that they
(00:43):
were writing to my client during the year of two
thousand and eight telling her how lengthy of a process
this was going to be and to be patient. So right,
I was completely in the dark when this agreement was signed.
The court in the view of the fact that this
agreement has already been consummated and you want me to
set it aside as opposed to something that's about to occur,
(01:04):
would you agree that, and I have done this very
quickly because of the petition and your allegation that something
was about to happen. I'm not blaming you, Brad Edwards.
I was mistaken the court. I'm not blaming you for
doing that in view of what you now know. Is
there any need to treat this as an emergency that
has to be decided by tomorrow? Brad Edwards? I can't
(01:25):
think of any reason in light of what we just
heard the court. Mister Lee, do you have anything else
you want to add? Does either side think I need
to take evidence about anything? If I do, since this
is not an emergency anymore, I can probably find a
more convenient time to do that. I don't have the
time today to take evidence. But if you do believe
that I should take evidence on this issue, Edwards, it
(01:49):
may be best if I conferred with US Attorney's office
on that and we can make a decision whether it's
necessary or whether you're honor deemed it was necessary for
you to make a decision the court. I want to
know your respective positions are because it may be something
in terms of having a complete record, and this is
going to be an issue that's going to go up
(02:09):
to the Eleventh Circuit. Maybe better to have a complete
record as to what your position is and the governments
is as to what actions were taken. And I don't
know if I have enough information based on Miss Villafana
Zaffa David, or I need additional information. And because it's
not an emergency, I don't have to do something quickly
and we can play it by ear and make this
(02:30):
into more complete record for the Court of Appeals. Brad Edwards,
if there is a time where it's necessary to take evidence,
your honor is correct in stating that it's not an
emergency and it doesn't need to happen today. I will
confer with the government on this and if evidence needs
to be taken, it'll be taken at a later date.
It doesn't seem like there will be any prejudice to
(02:52):
any party the court. Mister Lee, do you have any
thoughts you want to console with mister Edwards. Mister Lee,
there may be a couple of factual matters that I
need to chat with petitioners counsel on if we can
reach agreement as to those to what was communicated to
c W and what time. If they don't dispute that
(03:13):
then we don't think it will be necessary to have
an evidentiary hearing. But if we can agree, fine, or
maybe we can't, we'll talk about it the court, all right,
So why don't you let me know if you think
an evidentiary hearing is necessary. If there are additional stipulations
you want to enter into or supplement what has already
been presented, you can do that now. The other issue
(03:35):
I want to take up, though, is a government filed
its response to the petition under seal, and so I
want to know why what's in there that at this
point needs to be under seal. Is there anything in
there that's confidential, privileged, anything that's different from what you
have said here in open court that requires that it
be sealed, mister Lee, Well, your honor, our emotion to
(03:57):
steal is based on two reasons. One that dealt with
individuals or miners at the time that the offense occurred,
so we were attempting to protect the privacy of those individuals.
And also it dealt with negotiation with mister Epstein, which
were in the nature of plead negotiations, which we treat
as confidential normally they're not aired out in open court.
(04:18):
So those were the two reasons, Judge Marra, all right,
but I guess the letters you attached only related to
mister Edwards client, mister Lee, three of them, Yes, your honor,
the Court. Are you prepared, mister Edwards to waive any
issues regarding the release of those documents that relate to
your clients, Brad Edwards, Judge, I think it would be
(04:38):
appropriate to redact the names of the clients, as they
have done the court. I don't think the names are
in there, Brad Edwards. I think they're redacted, they're blacked out.
I have no problem with releasing the documents. I'm sure
that's part of the deal. But if he gets interrupted
by mister Lee, it is Edwards, okay, I'll wave the court.
You really don't have any objection to those letters that
(05:00):
were sent to them being released to the public, mister Edwards,
of course not, Judge the Court. Then what is there
about the plea agreement or the negotiations that is in
response that we really haven't already kind of he gets
cut off by mister Lee, Your honor, there was a
confidentiality agreement in the deferral of prosecution to the State
of Florida. So we were trying to maintain the confidentiality
(05:23):
of the negotiations that occurred, since we had discussions during
those negotiations as one of the reasons why we decided
not to tell all of the individuals what was going
on the court. But is that still necessary, that confidentiality
or is that kind of mood at this point, mister Lee, Well,
we would like it sealed. Admittedly, what happened today in
(05:44):
open court has probably weakened our argument. I don't dispute
that the court, in your opinion, anything in particular, any
paragraph in the response or in Miss Villafanazaffid David that
you think is particularly troublesome that should remain under seal.
Mister Lee, May I have a moment in your honor
the court? Yes, mister Lee, thank you, your honor. One
(06:05):
aspect of this, in the notification letter or dispatched individuals
which were attached to Miss Villa Fanna's declaration, there is
a citation to a clause in the agreement that was
reached regarding the damage's remedy under US Code eighteen, Section
twenty two fifty five that was subject to the constitutionality agreement.
We believed that should still remain confidential, Judge Mara. But
(06:29):
has in the fact that this provision was part of
the agreement again been aired. Is there any secret to
it anymore, mister Lee. The actual text of it has
not been aired. The existence of it has been heard,
but the actual text has not, and we believe it
should still remain confidential. Judge Marra. Okay, any other argument
(06:50):
on that issue, mister Lee, No, your honor, Thank you.
The Court. Miss Villa Fana wants to speak to you,
mister Lee, your honor. One item that I'd like to
bring to the Court's attention. We have advised mister Epstein
as attorneys that if we were to disclose some of
the agreement, we would give them advanced notice and ability
to lodge an objection. We would like an opportunity to
(07:11):
do that, Judge Marra, all right, but you're not disclosing.
It would be my order that it would be disclosed,
mister Lee, your honor, and we would just like to
register that we believe it should remain confidential. Court all right,
Brad Edwards, your honor. I don't see any authority for
keeping it under seal the Court. I agree the fact
(07:33):
that there is this preserve right on behalf of the
victims to pursue a civil action is already a matter
of public record, the exact text of the clause. I
don't see that disclosing the text of the clause when
the fact that the clause exists is already a matter
of public record. It's not harmful in any way to
mister Epstein or the government and the letters to the victims.
(07:55):
That the victims can disclose those letters. They're not under
any confidentiality obligation or restriction, and they're free to disclose
it themselves if they choose to. So, I don't see
that there is any real public necessity to keep the
response sealed in view of what we discussed already on
the record and the victim's ability to disclose those provisions
of their own choosing if they wish so. In the
(08:17):
view of the public policy, that matters filed in court
proceedings should be open to the public and sealing should
only occurr in circumstances that justifies the need to restrict
public access. I'm going to deny the motion to seal
the response and allow that to be viewed, all right,
So I'll let both of you confer about whether there
(08:38):
is a need for any additional evidence to be presented.
Let me know one way or the other. If there is,
we'll schedule a hearing. If there isn't, and you want
to submit some additional stipulated information, do that and then
I'll take care of this in due course. Mister Edwards,
thank you, your honor the Court. All right, mister Lee,
(08:58):
thank you, your honor. Ms. Villa Fauna, thank you, your
honor the Court. You're welcome. And as you can tell,
the DOJ didn't merely mishandle the Crime Victim's Rights Act
in the Epstein case. They bulldozed it with full awareness
of what they were doing. Federal prosecutors knew the CVRA
required them to notify victims, confer with them, and treat
(09:19):
them as participants in the process, not collateral damage. Instead,
they made a conscious decision to run a secret backchannel
deal that excluded the very people of the law was
written to protect. Internal emails and court filings made it
painfully clear they understood the obligation and deliberately chose to
violate it. They slow walk disclosures, hid the non prosecution agreement,
(09:42):
and actively worked to keep survivors in the dark while
finalizing a deal that guaranteed Epstein immunity, And in my opinion,
the most damning part is they didn't care because they
didn't have to. The DOJ knew the victims were young, traumatized, underfunded,
and powerless compared to the institutional weight the federal government.
They gambled that no one would hold them accountable, and
(10:04):
for years that gamble paid off. Survivors were treated as
an inconvenience to be managed, not rights holders to be respected.
The law was an obstacle, not a mandate. When federal
judges later ruled that the DOJ violated the CVRA, it
was in some shocking revelation. It was the formal confirmation
of what was already obvious. The Department chose Epstein over
(10:27):
the victims, not once, not accidentally, but systematically. The DOJ
didn't just fail the survivors, it knowingly stepped over them,
confident that protecting power mattered more than obeying the law
or basic human decency. And of course that confidence came
from experience. The DOJ has spent decades learning exactly how
(10:48):
to outlass victims, bury them in process, exhaust them with
delay and wrap every moral failure in sterile legal language.
They knew the clock would work in their favor. Memories fade,
resources dry up, survivors burn out. Meanwhile, prosecutors retire, move firms,
or quietly slide into prestigious careers, untouched by the damage
that they caused. There's no internal mechanism that punishes prosecutors
(11:12):
for violating victims rights and service of protecting powerful defendants.
None and the DJ understood that even if they were
eventually caught, the consequences would be symbolic at best, a
strongly worded judicial opinion years later, a public scolding with
no teeth, no handcuffs, no firings, no clawback of careers,
built on silence and deception. And that's why the Epstein
(11:35):
case isn't a scandal of the past. It's a blueprint
for the future. The DOJ sent a message loud and
unmistakable to every survivor watching. The law only matters if
you have the power to enforce it. The CVR was
treated as optional, victims as expendable, and justice has something
to be negotiated behind closed doors. This wasn't a rogue
(11:57):
office or a few bad actors. It was instantituitional decision making,
doing exactly what it was designed to do when a
lead interests are at stake. Epstein didn't evade justice alone.
He was shielded by a department that knew it was
breaking the law and made the cold calculation that the
people they were betraying would never matter enough to force
real accountability. And here's the final, unavoidable truth. The harm
(12:21):
can't be undone. The trust is gone. No press release,
no reform memo, no after the fact acknowledgment restores what
was stolen from those survivors, their right to be seen, heard,
and treated as human beings under the law. The DOJ
broke the law to protect a monster, got caught and
suffered nothing that even resembles justice. That's the end of it.
(12:43):
No redemption, no reform, just a permanent stain that proves
beyond any doubt that when forced to choose between victims
and the powerful, the Department of Justice made its choice,
and it'll make it again. All of the information that
goes with this episode can be found in the description box.
What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're picking up where we
left off with the transcript from this CVRA meeting with
Judge Mahra. Judge Mara, Now, having learned today, I guess
that the agreement was signed when in October Edwards October
two thousand and seven, I heard the court about eight
(00:22):
or nine months ago. Is there any need to rush
to a decision in this matter? The decision has already
been made. You filed this, I think on the presumption
that the agreement was about to take place and you
wanted to be able to confer beforehand, and you weren't
sure what was going on, Brad Edwards precisely, your honor.
And I'm holding the letters that are exhibits that they
(00:43):
were writing to my client during the year of two
thousand and eight telling her how lengthy of a process
this was going to be and to be patient. So right,
I was completely in the dark when this agreement was signed.
The court in the view of the fact that this
agreement has already been consummated and you want me to
set it aside as opposed to something that's about to occur,
(01:04):
would you agree that, and I have done this very
quickly because of the petition and your allegation that something
was about to happen. I'm not blaming you, Brad Edwards.
I was mistaken the court. I'm not blaming you for
doing that in view of what you now know. Is
there any need to treat this as an emergency that
has to be decided by tomorrow? Brad Edwards? I can't
(01:25):
think of any reason in light of what we just
heard the court. Mister Lee, do you have anything else
you want to add? Does either side think I need
to take evidence about anything? If I do, since this
is not an emergency anymore, I can probably find a
more convenient time to do that. I don't have the
time today to take evidence. But if you do believe
that I should take evidence on this issue, Edwards, it
(01:49):
may be best if I conferred with US Attorney's office
on that and we can make a decision whether it's
necessary or whether you're honor deemed it was necessary for
you to make a decision the court. I want to
know your respective positions are because it may be something
in terms of having a complete record, and this is
going to be an issue that's going to go up
(02:09):
to the Eleventh Circuit. Maybe better to have a complete
record as to what your position is and the governments
is as to what actions were taken. And I don't
know if I have enough information based on Miss Villafana
Zaffa David, or I need additional information. And because it's
not an emergency, I don't have to do something quickly
and we can play it by ear and make this
(02:30):
into more complete record for the Court of Appeals. Brad Edwards,
if there is a time where it's necessary to take evidence,
your honor is correct in stating that it's not an
emergency and it doesn't need to happen today. I will
confer with the government on this and if evidence needs
to be taken, it'll be taken at a later date.
It doesn't seem like there will be any prejudice to
(02:52):
any party the court. Mister Lee, do you have any
thoughts you want to console with mister Edwards. Mister Lee,
there may be a couple of factual matters that I
need to chat with petitioners counsel on if we can
reach agreement as to those to what was communicated to
c W and what time. If they don't dispute that
(03:13):
then we don't think it will be necessary to have
an evidentiary hearing. But if we can agree, fine, or
maybe we can't, we'll talk about it the court, all right,
So why don't you let me know if you think
an evidentiary hearing is necessary. If there are additional stipulations
you want to enter into or supplement what has already
been presented, you can do that now. The other issue
(03:35):
I want to take up, though, is a government filed
its response to the petition under seal, and so I
want to know why what's in there that at this
point needs to be under seal. Is there anything in
there that's confidential, privileged, anything that's different from what you
have said here in open court that requires that it
be sealed, mister Lee, Well, your honor, our emotion to
(03:57):
steal is based on two reasons. One that dealt with
individuals or miners at the time that the offense occurred,
so we were attempting to protect the privacy of those individuals.
And also it dealt with negotiation with mister Epstein, which
were in the nature of plead negotiations, which we treat
as confidential normally they're not aired out in open court.
(04:18):
So those were the two reasons, Judge Marra, all right,
but I guess the letters you attached only related to
mister Edwards client, mister Lee, three of them, Yes, your honor,
the Court. Are you prepared, mister Edwards to waive any
issues regarding the release of those documents that relate to
your clients, Brad Edwards, Judge, I think it would be
(04:38):
appropriate to redact the names of the clients, as they
have done the court. I don't think the names are
in there, Brad Edwards. I think they're redacted, they're blacked out.
I have no problem with releasing the documents. I'm sure
that's part of the deal. But if he gets interrupted
by mister Lee, it is Edwards, okay, I'll wave the court.
You really don't have any objection to those letters that
(05:00):
were sent to them being released to the public, mister Edwards,
of course not, Judge the Court. Then what is there
about the plea agreement or the negotiations that is in
response that we really haven't already kind of he gets
cut off by mister Lee, Your honor, there was a
confidentiality agreement in the deferral of prosecution to the State
of Florida. So we were trying to maintain the confidentiality
(05:23):
of the negotiations that occurred, since we had discussions during
those negotiations as one of the reasons why we decided
not to tell all of the individuals what was going
on the court. But is that still necessary, that confidentiality
or is that kind of mood at this point, mister Lee, Well,
we would like it sealed. Admittedly, what happened today in
(05:44):
open court has probably weakened our argument. I don't dispute
that the court, in your opinion, anything in particular, any
paragraph in the response or in Miss Villafanazaffid David that
you think is particularly troublesome that should remain under seal.
Mister Lee, May I have a moment in your honor
the court? Yes, mister Lee, thank you, your honor. One
(06:05):
aspect of this, in the notification letter or dispatched individuals
which were attached to Miss Villa Fanna's declaration, there is
a citation to a clause in the agreement that was
reached regarding the damage's remedy under US Code eighteen, Section
twenty two fifty five that was subject to the constitutionality agreement.
We believed that should still remain confidential, Judge Mara. But
(06:29):
has in the fact that this provision was part of
the agreement again been aired. Is there any secret to
it anymore, mister Lee. The actual text of it has
not been aired. The existence of it has been heard,
but the actual text has not, and we believe it
should still remain confidential. Judge Marra. Okay, any other argument
(06:50):
on that issue, mister Lee, No, your honor, Thank you.
The Court. Miss Villa Fana wants to speak to you,
mister Lee, your honor. One item that I'd like to
bring to the Court's attention. We have advised mister Epstein
as attorneys that if we were to disclose some of
the agreement, we would give them advanced notice and ability
to lodge an objection. We would like an opportunity to
(07:11):
do that, Judge Marra, all right, but you're not disclosing.
It would be my order that it would be disclosed,
mister Lee, your honor, and we would just like to
register that we believe it should remain confidential. Court all right,
Brad Edwards, your honor. I don't see any authority for
keeping it under seal the Court. I agree the fact
(07:33):
that there is this preserve right on behalf of the
victims to pursue a civil action is already a matter
of public record, the exact text of the clause. I
don't see that disclosing the text of the clause when
the fact that the clause exists is already a matter
of public record. It's not harmful in any way to
mister Epstein or the government and the letters to the victims.
(07:55):
That the victims can disclose those letters. They're not under
any confidentiality obligation or restriction, and they're free to disclose
it themselves if they choose to. So, I don't see
that there is any real public necessity to keep the
response sealed in view of what we discussed already on
the record and the victim's ability to disclose those provisions
of their own choosing if they wish so. In the
(08:17):
view of the public policy, that matters filed in court
proceedings should be open to the public and sealing should
only occurr in circumstances that justifies the need to restrict
public access. I'm going to deny the motion to seal
the response and allow that to be viewed, all right,
So I'll let both of you confer about whether there
(08:38):
is a need for any additional evidence to be presented.
Let me know one way or the other. If there is,
we'll schedule a hearing. If there isn't, and you want
to submit some additional stipulated information, do that and then
I'll take care of this in due course. Mister Edwards,
thank you, your honor the Court. All right, mister Lee,
(08:58):
thank you, your honor. Ms. Villa Fauna, thank you, your
honor the Court. You're welcome. And as you can tell,
the DOJ didn't merely mishandle the Crime Victim's Rights Act
in the Epstein case. They bulldozed it with full awareness
of what they were doing. Federal prosecutors knew the CVRA
required them to notify victims, confer with them, and treat
(09:19):
them as participants in the process, not collateral damage. Instead,
they made a conscious decision to run a secret backchannel
deal that excluded the very people of the law was
written to protect. Internal emails and court filings made it
painfully clear they understood the obligation and deliberately chose to
violate it. They slow walk disclosures, hid the non prosecution agreement,
(09:42):
and actively worked to keep survivors in the dark while
finalizing a deal that guaranteed Epstein immunity, And in my opinion,
the most damning part is they didn't care because they
didn't have to. The DOJ knew the victims were young, traumatized, underfunded,
and powerless compared to the institutional weight the federal government.
They gambled that no one would hold them accountable, and
(10:04):
for years that gamble paid off. Survivors were treated as
an inconvenience to be managed, not rights holders to be respected.
The law was an obstacle, not a mandate. When federal
judges later ruled that the DOJ violated the CVRA, it
was in some shocking revelation. It was the formal confirmation
of what was already obvious. The Department chose Epstein over
(10:27):
the victims, not once, not accidentally, but systematically. The DOJ
didn't just fail the survivors, it knowingly stepped over them,
confident that protecting power mattered more than obeying the law
or basic human decency. And of course that confidence came
from experience. The DOJ has spent decades learning exactly how
(10:48):
to outlass victims, bury them in process, exhaust them with
delay and wrap every moral failure in sterile legal language.
They knew the clock would work in their favor. Memories fade,
resources dry up, survivors burn out. Meanwhile, prosecutors retire, move firms,
or quietly slide into prestigious careers, untouched by the damage
that they caused. There's no internal mechanism that punishes prosecutors
(11:12):
for violating victims rights and service of protecting powerful defendants.
None and the DJ understood that even if they were
eventually caught, the consequences would be symbolic at best, a
strongly worded judicial opinion years later, a public scolding with
no teeth, no handcuffs, no firings, no clawback of careers,
built on silence and deception. And that's why the Epstein
(11:35):
case isn't a scandal of the past. It's a blueprint
for the future. The DOJ sent a message loud and
unmistakable to every survivor watching. The law only matters if
you have the power to enforce it. The CVR was
treated as optional, victims as expendable, and justice has something
to be negotiated behind closed doors. This wasn't a rogue
(11:57):
office or a few bad actors. It was instantituitional decision making,
doing exactly what it was designed to do when a
lead interests are at stake. Epstein didn't evade justice alone.
He was shielded by a department that knew it was
breaking the law and made the cold calculation that the
people they were betraying would never matter enough to force
real accountability. And here's the final, unavoidable truth. The harm
(12:21):
can't be undone. The trust is gone. No press release,
no reform memo, no after the fact acknowledgment restores what
was stolen from those survivors, their right to be seen, heard,
and treated as human beings under the law. The DOJ
broke the law to protect a monster, got caught and
suffered nothing that even resembles justice. That's the end of it.
(12:43):
No redemption, no reform, just a permanent stain that proves
beyond any doubt that when forced to choose between victims
and the powerful, the Department of Justice made its choice,
and it'll make it again. All of the information that
goes with this episode can be found in the description box.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com