The Moscow Murders and More

The Government has submitted a response to the defendant's set of supplemental proposed jury instructions, which were filed on June 8, 2025 (Dkt. 388). In its letter addressed to Judge Subramanian, the Government evaluates each additional instruction the defense seeks to introduce, scrutinizing the legal accuracy and appropriateness of these proposals for the jury's consideration.In its analysis, the Government likely identifies instances where the defense's proposed instructions either misstate governing law, overemphasize minor issues, or conflict with established precedents or the Court's existing instructions. Based on those assessments, the prosecution requests that the Court reject or modify certain of the defendant's suggested instructions to ensure jurors are provided only with legally sound and properly balanced guidance.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.415.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The allegations that Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs is currently facing are not new to him.   In fact, he's been accused of things similar many times in the past.   Now, with the dam breaking and many accusers coming forward, for those of us who have followed the Jeffrey Epstein case, the similarities are very, very apparent and when looking at the way things have transpired since these most recent allegations have been made, it's not hard to follow the thread connecting these civil allegations and the current criminal ones.   In this episode we get a look at those allegations for ourselves and why this is looking like it's going to be a major RICO case against Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs.The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is a United States federal law enacted in 1970 to combat organized crime. RICO targets individuals or groups involved in illegal enterprises, known as "racketeering activities," such as bribery, extortion, fraud, and money laundering.Key features of RICO include:Criminalization of Racketeering Activity: RICO makes it a federal crime to participate in, or conspire to participate in, the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity.Enterprise: RICO applies to both legitimate and illegitimate enterprises, including corporations, partnerships, and other associations.Pattern of Racketeering Activity: A pattern is established by engaging in at least two instances of racketeering activity within ten years.Consequences: Individuals convicted under RICO can face substantial fines, forfeiture of assets, and imprisonment for up to 20 years per racketeering count, with potential enhancements for multiple offenses.RICO has been used extensively against organized crime syndicates, such as the Mafia, but it has also been employed in cases involving various other criminal enterprises, including drug trafficking, securities fraud, and corruption. Prosecutors often use RICO to dismantle criminal organizations by targeting not only the individuals directly involved in criminal activities but also those who facilitate or benefit from them, such as leaders, associates, and even legitimate businesses linked to the enterprise.To successfully prosecute under RICO, prosecutors must demonstrate the existence of an enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity, as well as the defendant's involvement in that enterprise and its illegal activities. RICO has been praised for its effectiveness in dismantling criminal organizations but has also faced criticism for its broad scope and potential for abuse in certain cases.In this episode, we get a look at the amended complaint that has been filed by Rodney Jones.(commercial at 7:34)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.30.1.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The allegations that Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs is currently facing are not new to him.   In fact, he's been accused of things similar many times in the past.   Now, with the dam breaking and many accusers coming forward, for those of us who have followed the Jeffrey Epstein case, the similarities are very, very apparent and when looking at the way things have transpired since these most recent allegations have been made, it's not hard to follow the thread connecting these civil allegations and the current criminal ones.   In this episode we get a look at those allegations for ourselves and why this is looking like it's going to be a major RICO case against Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs.The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is a United States federal law enacted in 1970 to combat organized crime. RICO targets individuals or groups involved in illegal enterprises, known as "racketeering activities," such as bribery, extortion, fraud, and money laundering.Key features of RICO include:Criminalization of Racketeering Activity: RICO makes it a federal crime to participate in, or conspire to participate in, the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity.Enterprise: RICO applies to both legitimate and illegitimate enterprises, including corporations, partnerships, and other associations.Pattern of Racketeering Activity: A pattern is established by engaging in at least two instances of racketeering activity within ten years.Consequences: Individuals convicted under RICO can face substantial fines, forfeiture of assets, and imprisonment for up to 20 years per racketeering count, with potential enhancements for multiple offenses.RICO has been used extensively against organized crime syndicates, such as the Mafia, but it has also been employed in cases involving various other criminal enterprises, including drug trafficking, securities fraud, and corruption. Prosecutors often use RICO to dismantle criminal organizations by targeting not only the individuals directly involved in criminal activities but also those who facilitate or benefit from them, such as leaders, associates, and even legitimate businesses linked to the enterprise.To successfully prosecute under RICO, prosecutors must demonstrate the existence of an enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity, as well as the defendant's involvement in that enterprise and its illegal activities. RICO has been praised for its effectiveness in dismantling criminal organizations but has also faced criticism for its broad scope and potential for abuse in certain cases.In this episode, we get a look at the amended complaint that has been filed by Rodney Jones.(commercial at 7:34)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.30.1.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The allegations that Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs is currently facing are not new to him.   In fact, he's been accused of things similar many times in the past.   Now, with the dam breaking and many accusers coming forward, for those of us who have followed the Jeffrey Epstein case, the similarities are very, very apparent and when looking at the way things have transpired since these most recent allegations have been made, it's not hard to follow the thread connecting these civil allegations and the current criminal ones.   In this episode we get a look at those allegations for ourselves and why this is looking like it's going to be a major RICO case against Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs.The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is a United States federal law enacted in 1970 to combat organized crime. RICO targets individuals or groups involved in illegal enterprises, known as "racketeering activities," such as bribery, extortion, fraud, and money laundering.Key features of RICO include:Criminalization of Racketeering Activity: RICO makes it a federal crime to participate in, or conspire to participate in, the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity.Enterprise: RICO applies to both legitimate and illegitimate enterprises, including corporations, partnerships, and other associations.Pattern of Racketeering Activity: A pattern is established by engaging in at least two instances of racketeering activity within ten years.Consequences: Individuals convicted under RICO can face substantial fines, forfeiture of assets, and imprisonment for up to 20 years per racketeering count, with potential enhancements for multiple offenses.RICO has been used extensively against organized crime syndicates, such as the Mafia, but it has also been employed in cases involving various other criminal enterprises, including drug trafficking, securities fraud, and corruption. Prosecutors often use RICO to dismantle criminal organizations by targeting not only the individuals directly involved in criminal activities but also those who facilitate or benefit from them, such as leaders, associates, and even legitimate businesses linked to the enterprise.To successfully prosecute under RICO, prosecutors must demonstrate the existence of an enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity, as well as the defendant's involvement in that enterprise and its illegal activities. RICO has been praised for its effectiveness in dismantling criminal organizations but has also faced criticism for its broad scope and potential for abuse in certain cases.In this episode, we get a look at the amended complaint that has been filed by Rodney Jones.(commercial at 7:34)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.30.1.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Judge John Judge of Idaho firmly rejected Bryan Kohberger's latest legal maneuver to challenge the death penalty, dismissing his claim that Idaho's execution methods—specifically the firing squad—are unconstitutional. Kohberger's defense argued that the state's reintroduction of the firing squad as a backup method for executions constituted cruel and unusual punishment, thus violating the Eighth Amendment. However, Judge Judge ruled that since the firing squad hasn't actually been used in Idaho yet, and lethal injection remains the primary method, the argument was premature and speculative. He emphasized that Kohberger's execution method isn't an active issue at this stage of the proceedings.The ruling marks another significant setback for Kohberger's legal team, which has made several unsuccessful attempts to derail the state's pursuit of the death penalty. Kohberger faces four counts of first-degree murder in the brutal November 2022 stabbing deaths of four University of Idaho students. Prosecutors have made clear their intent to seek capital punishment, citing the heinous and calculated nature of the crime.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Idaho murders trial judge's damning one-word response to Bryan Kohberger's bid to dodge the firing squad | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

​In Case Number CR01-24-31665, the State of Idaho has submitted a reply to defendant Bryan C. Kohberger's objection concerning the self-authentication of certain records intended for use at trial. The State aims to admit various pieces of evidence—including surveillance footage, financial records, and communication data—by relying on the Idaho Rules of Evidence (I.R.E.) 803(6) and (8) for hearsay exceptions, and I.R.E. 902(4) and (11) for self-authentication, thereby eliminating the need for foundational witnesses. They assert that each item will be accompanied by the necessary Certificates of Authenticity to establish proper foundation and relevance.In response to the defense's objections, the State details specific items of evidence, such as surveillance footage from properties on Linda Lane and video from Albertson's in Clarkston, Washington, outlining their relevance and the steps taken to authenticate them. Additionally, the State addresses records from Amazon, AT&T, and various financial institutions, emphasizing that Certificates of Authenticity have been obtained or are in the process of being secured. The State maintains that utilizing these evidentiary rules does not infringe upon the defendant's due process rights and is a standard procedure to ensure efficiency and reliability in the admission of evidence.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:032425-States+Reply+to+Defendants+Objection+to+MIL+RE+Self+Authentication+of+Records.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

​In Case Number CR01-24-31665, the State of Idaho has submitted a reply to defendant Bryan C. Kohberger's objection concerning the self-authentication of certain records intended for use at trial. The State aims to admit various pieces of evidence—including surveillance footage, financial records, and communication data—by relying on the Idaho Rules of Evidence (I.R.E.) 803(6) and (8) for hearsay exceptions, and I.R.E. 902(4) and (11) for self-authentication, thereby eliminating the need for foundational witnesses. They assert that each item will be accompanied by the necessary Certificates of Authenticity to establish proper foundation and relevance.In response to the defense's objections, the State details specific items of evidence, such as surveillance footage from properties on Linda Lane and video from Albertson's in Clarkston, Washington, outlining their relevance and the steps taken to authenticate them. Additionally, the State addresses records from Amazon, AT&T, and various financial institutions, emphasizing that Certificates of Authenticity have been obtained or are in the process of being secured. The State maintains that utilizing these evidentiary rules does not infringe upon the defendant's due process rights and is a standard procedure to ensure efficiency and reliability in the admission of evidence.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:032425-States+Reply+to+Defendants+Objection+to+MIL+RE+Self+Authentication+of+Records.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

​In Case Number CR01-24-31665, defendant Bryan C. Kohberger has filed a reply to the State's objection concerning his Motion in Limine #6, which seeks to exclude specific opinions of forensic analyst Rylene Nowlin and the use of the terms "touch DNA" and "contact DNA" during trial. Kohberger's defense argues that these terms are misleading and could confuse the jury by implying a certainty about the method of DNA transfer that is not scientifically substantiated. They emphasize that Nowlin's own disclosures acknowledge the complexity of DNA transfer mechanisms and the current inability of DNA technology to conclusively determine how or when DNA was deposited on an item. Therefore, the defense contends that allowing such terminology and speculative testimony would prejudice the jury and should be excluded to ensure a fair trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:032425-Defendants-Reply-States-Objection-Defendants-MIL6-RE-Nowlin-Touch-Contact-DNA.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Newly released court documents reveal that surveillance cameras played a crucial role in tracking Bryan Kohberger's movements — as well as those of the victims — in the hours leading up to the University of Idaho murders. Investigators pieced together video footage from a network of cameras across Moscow, Idaho, to map out the victims' final evening and Kohberger's alleged path both before and after the killings. This surveillance helped authorities narrow the timeframe of the crime and identify Kohberger's white Hyundai Elantra, which was seen repeatedly driving near the crime scene around the time of the murders.According to the documents, camera footage showed Kohberger's vehicle leaving his Pullman apartment late at night, circling the victims' neighborhood multiple times, and then quickly departing the area after the estimated time of the murders. Additional video captured the victims at various locations on the night of November 12 into the early hours of November 13, including stops at a bar and a food truck. This comprehensive surveillance trail was key evidence that eventually led authorities to focus on Kohberger as a suspect.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Map: Alleged paths of Kohberger, Idaho victims via cameras | Idaho StatesmanBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Brendan Paul, a former Syracuse basketball player turned personal assistant to Sean Combs from late 2022 to March 2024, testified under immunity that his duties included purchasing cocaine, ketamine, ecstasy, marijuana, and other substances for Combs, as well as preparing hotel rooms for Combs's so‑called “wild king nights” or “freak‑offs.” He described going days without sleep, relying on Adderall and occasional cocaine use to cope, and even sampling a pink-drug blend ("tusi") to demonstrate loyalty. Paul recounted incidents where he was reprimanded—at times fired—for minor mistakes like forgetting a Gucci fanny pack loaded with drugs. He clarified that he was not a drug mule, maintaining he transported only small amounts for Combs's personal use, and that he ultimately assisted in the cleanup of these drug-fueled sex parties.On cross‑examination, Paul emphasized that procuring drugs was a minor aspect of his role and insisted that the narcotics were used solely by Combs. He recounted how he accidentally carried cocaine through a Miami airport—picked up during cleaning Combs's hotel room—and was arrested but later had charges dropped after completing a diversion program, attributing his silence to loyalty. Paul described Combs's expectations that his staff operate with “militant” discipline, likening them to "SEAL Team 6." He testified that Combs became particularly “extremely creative” when under the influence, using charts, messages, and communications about these events as part of the prosecution's racketeering-sex trafficking case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:(1) Live updates: Sean ‘Diddy' Combs trial coverage | CNNBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

James Cummings, a 57‑year‑old actor and film producer, recalled that in 2002 he and Combs were alone inside an LA Fitness steam room in Los Angeles when Combs made an unprovoked sexual advance. Cummings described seeing Combs reach toward the ceiling before suddenly bending toward him, placing his fingers on Cummings's legs. When Cummings rebuffed him—shouting “Hey, stop!”—Combs allegedly lunged at him and attempted to perform a sexual act. Cummings defended himself by punching him in the face, dragging him out, and continuing to fight until Combs fled naked, leaving behind only his sneakers.Cummings said the incident was terrifying and humiliating, and later even triggered a physical reaction—he was “depressed” and shaken afterward, according to his wife Jennifer, who was present when he emerged from the steam room shouting that the rapper had tried to orally assault him.  Though Combs reportedly avoided contact at a later encounter in a steakhouse, Cummings emphasized that he fought back effectively: “I beat him like the b***h he is,” expressing both pride in his self-defense and lingering emotional impact from the confrontation.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Hollywood producer James Cummings claims Diddy tried to force disturbing sexual act in gym steam room leading to nude brawl | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In a recent development from the federal trial of Sean "Diddy" Combs, legal experts note that the defense team's apparent decision to streamline or potentially shorten its presentation may signal a calculated strategic shift rather than a defensive retreat. As the prosecution nears the conclusion of its case-in-chief, sources close to the proceedings and trial analysts suggest the defense might now believe that the government has failed to present a sufficiently persuasive case. By minimizing their own witness list or not calling Combs to testify, the defense could be aiming to highlight the perceived gaps or inconsistencies in the prosecution's argument rather than risk opening new vulnerabilities.This strategy, often employed when defense counsel perceives prosecutorial overreach or a lack of clear burden fulfillment, may also be designed to maintain a laser focus on reasonable doubt. A shorter defense case can prevent jurors from being overwhelmed or confused, and avoids introducing unnecessary evidence that prosecutors could use to their advantage on rebuttal. Experts emphasize that such a move doesn't necessarily mean Combs' team is surrendering ground; instead, it may reflect confidence that the jury has already begun to question the strength or coherence of the government's narrative.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Sean 'Diddy' Combs' defense shortens timeline in federal racketeering trial | Fox NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Brendan Paul, a former Syracuse University basketball player turned personal assistant to Sean “Diddy” Combs, has emerged as a central figure in the federal RICO case against the music mogul. Initially arrested in March 2024 at Miami's Opa-Locka Executive Airport for possession of cocaine and marijuana edibles, Paul entered a pre-trial diversion program that allowed him to avoid formal prosecution. However, his arrest marked the beginning of a deeper legal entanglement. Named in civil lawsuits as Combs's alleged “drug mule,” Paul was accused of facilitating the logistics for drug-fueled, multi-day sex parties—known as “freak-offs”—at the heart of the trafficking and conspiracy allegations. Facing potential felony charges and even a federal RICO conspiracy indictment, Paul ultimately chose to cooperate with authorities. Granted immunity in exchange for truthful testimony, he is now positioned to provide jurors with an insider's perspective on how the alleged criminal enterprise functioned behind the scenes.Paul's testimony is expected to be devastating to the defense, serving as the linchpin that connects months of emotionally charged witness accounts to a coherent and systematic criminal operation. Unlike accusers with civil suits or public vendettas, Paul is viewed as a neutral actor—once fiercely loyal to Combs, now legally compelled to tell the truth under penalty of perjury. Prosecutors are strategically presenting him at the end of their case to leave a lasting impact on the jury, believing he will offer not just anecdotes but detailed infrastructure: how drugs were acquired, how events were planned, and who gave the orders. In doing so, Paul is expected to validate prior testimony, reinforce the prosecution's narrative of a tightly orchestrated enterprise, and drive home the gravity of the charges. His transformation from silent facilitator to key witness could prove to be the exclamation point that seals Combs's legal fate.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the case of United States v. Combs, S3 24 Cr. 542 (AS), the Government filed a letter opposing the defendant's objections to certain exhibits intended to be introduced during the testimony of the witness identified as “Jane.” Despite ongoing discussions between the parties, two main areas of dispute remain. First, the defense argues that selected text message exchanges should be excluded under the rule of completeness, suggesting that the Government is presenting messages out of context. Second, the defense raises hearsay objections to specific exhibits, including a text message exchange, a screenshot of a media headline, and several personal notes written by Jane in her phone's Notes app.The Government maintains that these objections lack merit. Regarding the completeness argument, the prosecution contends that the messages they seek to introduce are independently admissible and not misleading or taken out of context. As for the hearsay objections, the Government argues that the exhibits in question either do not constitute hearsay, fall within recognized exceptions, or are not offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Ultimately, the Government urges the Court to overrule the objections and allow the contested materials to be admitted into evidence during Jane's testimony.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.411.0_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In this filing, Sean Combs opposes the government's motion seeking permission to withhold the identities of certain witnesses in the civil RICO case, arguing that such secrecy is unjustified and prejudicial. Combs' legal team contends that the government's vague claims of witness safety concerns lack any factual foundation or evidence of real threats from Combs or his legal team. They argue that the government's request to conceal witness identities, even during the early stages of discovery, violates basic principles of due process and fairness, as it would prevent Combs from meaningfully preparing his defense and testing the credibility of key accusers.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.248.0_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Sara Rivers, formerly known as Sara Stokes from MTV's Making the Band 2 and a member of Da Band, filed a $60 million lawsuit against Sean "Diddy" Combs alleging a pattern of sexual harassment, battery, psychological abuse, and professional sabotage. Rivers claims that Combs subjected her to degrading treatment throughout her time on the reality series and beyond, including groping her without consent, making sexually explicit comments, and mocking her bulimia. She further alleges that Combs controlled contestants' food, sleep, and movement, orchestrated humiliating stunts like the infamous "cheesecake walk," and forced her into uncompensated labor under exploitative conditions. According to the complaint, Rivers was made to sleep in exposed, unsafe quarters with male co-stars and denied basic dignity and protection.The lawsuit names more than two dozen other parties, including executives at Bad Boy, Universal Music Group, MTV, and even Combs's mother, asserting that they either enabled or failed to intervene in the abuse. Rivers accuses Combs of deliberately dismantling Da Band to assert dominance and retain control of her earnings, effectively sabotaging her career. She asserts that this behavior was not isolated but part of a systemic pattern of exploitation and intimidation that targeted young, vulnerable performers. Combs's legal team has dismissed the suit as meritless and opportunistic, noting it was filed just before the deadline under the New York City Gender-Motivated Violence Act. The case joins a growing list of lawsuits and criminal investigations currently surrounding Combs.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Sara cmpltBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

From the archives: 6-27-23Bryan Kohberger will make an appearance in court today as his team argues several different issues before Judge John Judge, with the biggest issue of all being his request for a stay in proceedings. His court appearance is scheduled to take place at 10:30 AM (Local Idaho time) where his legal team will get their chance to argue their case in front of the court.Before we get there however, let's take a look around at some of the headlines and see where things currently stand in the investigation into the Murders In Moscow continues.(commercial at 8:53)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Bryan Kohberger updates today: Idaho murders suspect to appear in court as prosecutors seek death penalty | The IndependentBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Bryan Kohberger and his defense team are setting themselves up for an epic battle in the courtroom with the prosecutors over the DNA evidence and whether or not that DNA belongs to Bryan Kohberger. According to a new documentary, the fact that the house on King Road was a "Party House" and that there was other DNA of unknown males found at the house, Kohberger's team could sink their teeth into that and try to harness it in their favor. In this epiosde, we take a look at that as a strategy and how Kohberger might atempt to harness it and what the proseuction might do to shoot it down. (commercial at 8:18)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Idaho murders suspect Bryan Kohberger could claim in his trial that home where four students were murdered was 'party house' which would explain why his DNA was found there | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

One of the biggest concerns whenever a grand jury is empaneled is the secrecy in which it operates. With the defense not being able to be present during the presentation of evidence, things are tilted from the very start. However, in some cases, the state feels that a Grand Jury is the proper path to travel.In this episode, we take a look at the decision to use a grand jury to indict Bryan Kohberger and what that might mean for transparency as we move forward.(commercial at 7:45)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Community kept in the dark with secret Kohberger grand jury | Idaho StatesmanBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

From the archives: 3-28-23We've heard numerous times now about Bryan Kohberger and his newfound glory in God. Beyond the fact that he had been meeting with a pastor and exploring his faith however, we didn't know much else.In this episode, we are learning more about his visits to the pastor from the man who runs the ministry who is in charge of providing services to the incarcerated in Idaho.(commercial at 7:44)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Brian Kohberger pastor tells how he prays with the quadruple murderer | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

According to the lawyer representing Bryan Kohberger in Pennsylvania, he intitally waived his right to a lawyer in the direct aftermath of his arrest. After speaking with the police at the local police station for roughly 15 minutes, he changed his mind and evoked his right to counsel.In this episode, we hear from the man representing Bryan Kohberger and get a little more context about the the arrest.(commercial at 7:52)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Lawyer: Bryan Kohberger Initially Agreed To Talk to Police (lawandcrime.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, the defense submitted a reply challenging the State's opposition to its motion to continue the trial. Kohberger's legal team argues that the prosecution's objection ignores the complex and voluminous nature of discovery materials still being reviewed, which include thousands of pages of documents, hours of surveillance footage, and extensive forensic data. The defense emphasizes that proceeding without adequate time to evaluate this evidence would compromise Kohberger's constitutional right to a fair trial and effective assistance of counsel.Additionally, the reply underscores that this is a capital case with unique legal and investigative demands, requiring more preparation time than the prosecution acknowledges. The defense contends that rushing the proceedings would not serve justice and that the need for a continuance is both reasonable and necessary given the gravity of the charges and the scope of the case. They urge the court to grant the motion and reject the State's assertion that further delay is unwarranted.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:061625+Defendants+Reply+to+the+States+Opposition+to+Defendants+Motion+to+Continue.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, the defense submitted a reply challenging the State's opposition to its motion to continue the trial. Kohberger's legal team argues that the prosecution's objection ignores the complex and voluminous nature of discovery materials still being reviewed, which include thousands of pages of documents, hours of surveillance footage, and extensive forensic data. The defense emphasizes that proceeding without adequate time to evaluate this evidence would compromise Kohberger's constitutional right to a fair trial and effective assistance of counsel.Additionally, the reply underscores that this is a capital case with unique legal and investigative demands, requiring more preparation time than the prosecution acknowledges. The defense contends that rushing the proceedings would not serve justice and that the need for a continuance is both reasonable and necessary given the gravity of the charges and the scope of the case. They urge the court to grant the motion and reject the State's assertion that further delay is unwarranted.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:061625+Defendants+Reply+to+the+States+Opposition+to+Defendants+Motion+to+Continue.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In United States v. Combs, the Government responds to the defendant's motion to strike portions of Mr. Mescudi's testimony. The defendant contends that certain parts of Mescudi's testimony should be excluded from the trial, asserting that they are irrelevant or prejudicial. The Government argues that Mescudi's testimony is both relevant and integral to its case, and it should not be excluded. They emphasize that Mescudi's statements provide important context and details that directly relate to the charges and help to establish key aspects of the prosecution's narrative.Additionally, the Government identifies disputed evidentiary issues regarding the upcoming testimony of Deonte Nash and Mia. The defense has raised objections about the admissibility of certain aspects of their testimonies, questioning their relevance and the potential for bias. The Government contends that both witnesses are critical to the case and their testimonies should be allowed to stand, as they provide essential evidence regarding the defendant's actions. The Government's position is that any objections to their testimony should be rejected, as it aligns with the facts and is necessary for proving the charges.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.406.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In United States v. Combs, the Government responds to the defendant's motion to strike portions of Mr. Mescudi's testimony. The defendant contends that certain parts of Mescudi's testimony should be excluded from the trial, asserting that they are irrelevant or prejudicial. The Government argues that Mescudi's testimony is both relevant and integral to its case, and it should not be excluded. They emphasize that Mescudi's statements provide important context and details that directly relate to the charges and help to establish key aspects of the prosecution's narrative.Additionally, the Government identifies disputed evidentiary issues regarding the upcoming testimony of Deonte Nash and Mia. The defense has raised objections about the admissibility of certain aspects of their testimonies, questioning their relevance and the potential for bias. The Government contends that both witnesses are critical to the case and their testimonies should be allowed to stand, as they provide essential evidence regarding the defendant's actions. The Government's position is that any objections to their testimony should be rejected, as it aligns with the facts and is necessary for proving the charges.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.406.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In United States v. Combs, the Government writes to address contested evidentiary matters related to the testimony of Mia and Frank Piazza, as well as the text messages the prosecution intends to admit regarding the summary charts. The defense has raised objections concerning the admissibility of Mia's continued testimony, particularly regarding her interactions with law enforcement and any potential influence on her statements. Additionally, Frank Piazza's testimony has been challenged on the grounds of relevance and whether it sufficiently supports the Government's case. The defense argues that Piazza's statements should be excluded due to their alleged lack of direct connection to the charges.The Government also seeks to admit certain text messages as evidence, which the defense opposes, citing concerns about the authenticity and relevance of the communications. These messages are intended to support summary charts that outline financial transactions and communication patterns relevant to the case. The defense contends that the charts and associated texts lack sufficient context and may unfairly prejudice the jury. In response, the Government argues that the texts and charts are vital for clarifying key points in the case and should be admitted as they provide essential context for understanding the defendant's actions.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.407.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Sara Rivers, formerly known as Sara Stokes from MTV's Making the Band 2 and a member of Da Band, filed a $60 million lawsuit against Sean "Diddy" Combs alleging a pattern of sexual harassment, battery, psychological abuse, and professional sabotage. Rivers claims that Combs subjected her to degrading treatment throughout her time on the reality series and beyond, including groping her without consent, making sexually explicit comments, and mocking her bulimia. She further alleges that Combs controlled contestants' food, sleep, and movement, orchestrated humiliating stunts like the infamous "cheesecake walk," and forced her into uncompensated labor under exploitative conditions. According to the complaint, Rivers was made to sleep in exposed, unsafe quarters with male co-stars and denied basic dignity and protection.The lawsuit names more than two dozen other parties, including executives at Bad Boy, Universal Music Group, MTV, and even Combs's mother, asserting that they either enabled or failed to intervene in the abuse. Rivers accuses Combs of deliberately dismantling Da Band to assert dominance and retain control of her earnings, effectively sabotaging her career. She asserts that this behavior was not isolated but part of a systemic pattern of exploitation and intimidation that targeted young, vulnerable performers. Combs's legal team has dismissed the suit as meritless and opportunistic, noting it was filed just before the deadline under the New York City Gender-Motivated Violence Act. The case joins a growing list of lawsuits and criminal investigations currently surrounding Combs.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Sara cmpltBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Sara Rivers, formerly known as Sara Stokes from MTV's Making the Band 2 and a member of Da Band, filed a $60 million lawsuit against Sean "Diddy" Combs alleging a pattern of sexual harassment, battery, psychological abuse, and professional sabotage. Rivers claims that Combs subjected her to degrading treatment throughout her time on the reality series and beyond, including groping her without consent, making sexually explicit comments, and mocking her bulimia. She further alleges that Combs controlled contestants' food, sleep, and movement, orchestrated humiliating stunts like the infamous "cheesecake walk," and forced her into uncompensated labor under exploitative conditions. According to the complaint, Rivers was made to sleep in exposed, unsafe quarters with male co-stars and denied basic dignity and protection.The lawsuit names more than two dozen other parties, including executives at Bad Boy, Universal Music Group, MTV, and even Combs's mother, asserting that they either enabled or failed to intervene in the abuse. Rivers accuses Combs of deliberately dismantling Da Band to assert dominance and retain control of her earnings, effectively sabotaging her career. She asserts that this behavior was not isolated but part of a systemic pattern of exploitation and intimidation that targeted young, vulnerable performers. Combs's legal team has dismissed the suit as meritless and opportunistic, noting it was filed just before the deadline under the New York City Gender-Motivated Violence Act. The case joins a growing list of lawsuits and criminal investigations currently surrounding Combs.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Sara cmpltBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

On the morning of November 13th 2022 a horrifying quadruple murder took place in Moscow Idaho at a home located at 1122 King Road. Inside of that home, four young college students were busy living their lives like they did on countless weekends leading up to the that fateful morning. While they were busy living their lives, they could not know the evil that was lurking literally right outside their door.In this episode, we take a look at where things started and where things currently stand as of today.(commercial at 10:43)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:University of Idaho murders 1 year later: Where the case stands - ABC News (go.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

As the circumstancial evidence against Bryan Kohberger continues to grow, it becomes much more difficult to see a scenario where Bryan Kohberger is found innocent. We have seen just how damning the sort of evidence that has been collected against Kohberger can be and how that circumstancial evidence is weaved together to build a case and added together with the expected testimony of the surviving roommates and it paints a bleak picture for the defendant.In this episode, we take a look at how that testimony might be used by the prosecution and what it could mean for Bryan kohberger.(commercial at 8:45)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:'Intimate' testimony of Idaho murder victims' roommate will have 'invaluable' impact on jury in Bryan Kohberger trial | The US Sun (the-sun.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Lori Vallow Daybell did not receive the death penalty due to a combination of factors primarily related to the management and timing of evidence disclosures by the prosecution. The defense argued that the prosecution's late submission of thousands of documents and pieces of evidence impeded their ability to adequately prepare for trial. Judge Steven Boyce ruled to remove the death penalty to ensure that Vallow Daybell's constitutional rights were protected, allowing her defense team sufficient time to review the evidence. The judge emphasized that his decision was not to penalize the state but to avoid potential reversible errors that could arise from discovery issues if a death sentence were imposed​.  The implications of this decision might influence Bryan Kohberger's case, as his defense team could leverage similar arguments regarding evidence handling and procedural fairness. Kohberger, charged with the murders of four University of Idaho students, is facing the death penalty. His defense has been actively challenging the prosecution on various procedural grounds, including the handling and disclosure of DNA evidence and other investigative materials​.In this episode, we dive in and take a look at the possibility of Bryan Kohberger avoiding the death penalty due to prosecutorial misconduct.(commercial at 9:31)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Idaho suspect Bryan Kohberger's team could use same tactic as cult mom Lori Vallow to avoid death penalty if convicted | The US Sun (the-sun.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

With the Bryan Kohberger trial being delayed being a forgone conclusion at this point, many people have chimed in with their opinions on how the delay might hurt or help both sides. In this episode, we hear from a few of those experts as they breakdown the current situation in Moscow and what might be coming next as we await the trial of Bryan Kohberger.(commercial at 8:11)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Bryan Kohberger trial delay buys defense time to build alibi, concerns about memory of lone witness | Fox NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In this episode we are diving back into the court documents and taking at the Order Staying Time for a Speedy trial.(commercial at 7:42)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:070723+Order+Staying+Time+for+Speedy+Trial.pdf (amazonaws.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Since there's a lot of noise in the Epstein space lately, I thought it was time to reintroduce myself to people who might have forgotten—or never knew—why I've been in this fight from the beginning. I've spent the last six years doing the work most people run from: pulling sealed court records, tracking financial infrastructure across jurisdictions, interviewing survivors without exploiting their pain, and naming names that never trend because they still hold power. I didn't parachute in when the headlines were hot. I was already deep in the files when nobody cared, when speaking about this got you labeled, flagged, or worse—ignored. While others turned the story into performance art or monetized it through half-baked speculation, I was chasing evidence through federal court systems, examining asset holdings, and exposing the institutional rot that let Epstein operate for decades in plain sight. This hasn't been about building a brand. It's been about building a case. And if you're just showing up now—confused by the noise, misled by opportunists, or wondering who to trust—know this: I'm not here to entertain you. I'm here to remind you that the truth never stopped being available. It just stopped being convenient.I don't have all the answers, and I've never claimed to. But I've done the work the best way I know how—quietly, persistently, and with a focus on what can be proven. I've made mistakes, corrected course, and kept digging because I believe the truth still matters, even when it's hard, even when it's buried, even when it's inconvenient for everyone. If my work helps cut through the noise for even a few people trying to make sense of all this, then it's worth it. That's all this has ever been about—and that's why I'm still here.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In response to the defendant's recent motion for a mistrial in United States v. Combs, the Government opposes the claims that it intentionally elicited perjured testimony from witnesses Casandra Ventura and Bryana Bongolan. The defendant alleges that the Government improperly coached Ventura and Bongolan to provide false statements under oath. Furthermore, the defense argues that testimony from Mia about her interactions with law enforcement regarding the defendant was improperly introduced. The defendant claims that these actions were prejudicial and that they necessitate a mistrial.The Government asserts that these allegations are without merit and should be rejected. It argues that Ventura and Bongolan's testimonies were consistent with prior statements and there is no evidence to suggest any intentional misleading of the court. Regarding Mia's testimony, the Government contends that it was relevant and necessary for presenting the full context of the case, and there was no improper influence or violation of procedural rules. The Government maintains that the motion for a mistrial is unfounded and should not delay the trial proceedings.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.412.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In this letter addressed to Judge Subramanian, the Government responds to the defense's renewed objections to the removal of Juror #6 in the federal trial of Sean “Diddy” Combs. The prosecution firmly denies the defense's repeated claims that its efforts to remove the juror were racially motivated, calling the accusation “baseless.” It emphasizes that the juror was dismissed due to multiple inconsistencies in his statements during voir dire and subsequent questioning—specifically regarding basic biographical details like his residence. The Government asserts that it merely flagged the issue of candor to the Court, which independently concluded removal was warranted after its own review of the record.The Government further notes that nothing in the defense's latest letter undermines the Court's rationale for the juror's dismissal. While stating it does not oppose further inquiry into a separate juror mentioned in the defense letter, the Government criticizes the rest of the submission as a barrage of unfounded personal attacks on the prosecution team. It asks the Court to both disregard and formally rebuke those portions of the defense's letter as inappropriate and irrelevant to the matter at hand.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.405.0_2.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

On the afternoon of June 17, 2025, the prosecution in Sean "Diddy" Combs' federal sex trafficking and racketeering conspiracy trial presented further evidence to support their allegations. Special Agent DeLeassa Penland testified about financial records linking Combs' business accounts to expenses associated with alleged "freak-off" parties, including payments for travel and accommodations for male escorts. The jury was shown extensive excerpts from explicit videos, reportedly filmed on Cassie Ventura's laptop, depicting these encounters. Prosecutors argued that these recordings were used to intimidate and silence the women involved, with Ventura testifying that Combs threatened to release the footage, causing her significant distress.In response, the defense contended that the videos demonstrated consensual participation, highlighting text messages from Ventura expressing enthusiasm for the events. They argued that the recordings were private and intimate, not intended to be seen by the public, and were being misrepresented by the prosecution. The defense also noted that Ventura's communications were likely influenced by her desire to please Combs. The trial is nearing its conclusion, with the prosecution expected to rest its case by the end of the week, and the defense planning to present a brief rebuttal.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:@innercitypress Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In this letter addressed to Judge Subramanian, the Government responds to the defense's renewed objections to the removal of Juror #6 in the federal trial of Sean “Diddy” Combs. The prosecution firmly denies the defense's repeated claims that its efforts to remove the juror were racially motivated, calling the accusation “baseless.” It emphasizes that the juror was dismissed due to multiple inconsistencies in his statements during voir dire and subsequent questioning—specifically regarding basic biographical details like his residence. The Government asserts that it merely flagged the issue of candor to the Court, which independently concluded removal was warranted after its own review of the record.The Government further notes that nothing in the defense's latest letter undermines the Court's rationale for the juror's dismissal. While stating it does not oppose further inquiry into a separate juror mentioned in the defense letter, the Government criticizes the rest of the submission as a barrage of unfounded personal attacks on the prosecution team. It asks the Court to both disregard and formally rebuke those portions of the defense's letter as inappropriate and irrelevant to the matter at hand.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.405.0_2.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Sara Rivers, formerly known as Sara Stokes from MTV's Making the Band 2 and a member of Da Band, filed a $60 million lawsuit against Sean "Diddy" Combs alleging a pattern of sexual harassment, battery, psychological abuse, and professional sabotage. Rivers claims that Combs subjected her to degrading treatment throughout her time on the reality series and beyond, including groping her without consent, making sexually explicit comments, and mocking her bulimia. She further alleges that Combs controlled contestants' food, sleep, and movement, orchestrated humiliating stunts like the infamous "cheesecake walk," and forced her into uncompensated labor under exploitative conditions. According to the complaint, Rivers was made to sleep in exposed, unsafe quarters with male co-stars and denied basic dignity and protection.The lawsuit names more than two dozen other parties, including executives at Bad Boy, Universal Music Group, MTV, and even Combs's mother, asserting that they either enabled or failed to intervene in the abuse. Rivers accuses Combs of deliberately dismantling Da Band to assert dominance and retain control of her earnings, effectively sabotaging her career. She asserts that this behavior was not isolated but part of a systemic pattern of exploitation and intimidation that targeted young, vulnerable performers. Combs's legal team has dismissed the suit as meritless and opportunistic, noting it was filed just before the deadline under the New York City Gender-Motivated Violence Act. The case joins a growing list of lawsuits and criminal investigations currently surrounding Combs.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Sara cmpltBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Sara Rivers, formerly known as Sara Stokes from MTV's Making the Band 2 and a member of Da Band, filed a $60 million lawsuit against Sean "Diddy" Combs alleging a pattern of sexual harassment, battery, psychological abuse, and professional sabotage. Rivers claims that Combs subjected her to degrading treatment throughout her time on the reality series and beyond, including groping her without consent, making sexually explicit comments, and mocking her bulimia. She further alleges that Combs controlled contestants' food, sleep, and movement, orchestrated humiliating stunts like the infamous "cheesecake walk," and forced her into uncompensated labor under exploitative conditions. According to the complaint, Rivers was made to sleep in exposed, unsafe quarters with male co-stars and denied basic dignity and protection.The lawsuit names more than two dozen other parties, including executives at Bad Boy, Universal Music Group, MTV, and even Combs's mother, asserting that they either enabled or failed to intervene in the abuse. Rivers accuses Combs of deliberately dismantling Da Band to assert dominance and retain control of her earnings, effectively sabotaging her career. She asserts that this behavior was not isolated but part of a systemic pattern of exploitation and intimidation that targeted young, vulnerable performers. Combs's legal team has dismissed the suit as meritless and opportunistic, noting it was filed just before the deadline under the New York City Gender-Motivated Violence Act. The case joins a growing list of lawsuits and criminal investigations currently surrounding Combs.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Sara cmpltBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

From the archives: 11-30-22One of the key tools in the toolbox of investigators when they are trying to solve a crime is DNA and according to those in charge of bringing the person or persons responsible for these murders to justice, there was plenty of it at the crime scene. The question is, will it prove crucial to the case?(commercial at 6:36)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.newsweek.com/evidence-bodies-murdered-idaho-students-breakthrough-1763012Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

A judge may change a trial venue for a variety of reasons, such as:Pretrial Publicity: If pretrial publicity about a case is so extensive that it might bias the jury pool in the original venue, a judge may move the trial to a different location to ensure a fair trial.Convenience: Sometimes, a judge may change the trial venue if the original venue is not convenient for the parties involved or if there is a more suitable location for the trial.Safety Concerns: In some cases, a judge may change the trial venue due to safety concerns. For example, if there are threats or concerns about the safety of witnesses, jurors, or other participants in the trial, a judge may move the trial to a location that can better ensure the safety of everyone involved.Jury Pool: If it is difficult to find a fair and impartial jury in the original venue, a judge may move the trial to a different location where the jury pool is less likely to be biased or tainted by the circumstances surrounding the case.In this episode, we hear from several local scholars and lawyers who discuss the possibility of a change in venue for the trial of Bryan Kohberger.(commercial at 7:36)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Bryan's Kohberger's trial could receive a change of venue | Idaho StatesmanBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

From the archives: 8-28-23The Bryan Kohberger trial was bound to be delayed from the very moment the aggressive scheduling of the proceedings was released by the court. Considering the vast amount of evidence that has been presented in the case, it was obvious that there would be a delay.After setting a very aggressive schedule at the last hearing, it wasn't long before the motion to delay the trial hit the docket.In this episode we take a look at the aggressive schedule put forth by the Judge and how it was always going to lead us to where we are now: A Delayed trial.(commercial at 9:15)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Kohberger update: DNA experts testify, schedule released | Idaho StatesmanBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The cost of justice in Idaho continues to balloon by the day and there many factors at play that are moving the needle towards the red.   Here are two of the issues that are driving costs through the roof as the state of Idaho continues to pursue a conviction against Bryan Kohberger.Capital murder cases typically cost more to prosecute in Idaho, as in many other states, due to several factors:Legal Representation: Capital cases involve complex legal proceedings, often requiring extensive legal representation. Defendants in capital cases are entitled to competent legal representation, which can include hiring experienced attorneys and investigators. The state may also appoint defense counsel, and these attorneys often require additional resources for research, preparation, and presentation of the case.Lengthy Trials: Capital murder trials tend to be longer and more complex than non-capital murder trials. These trials involve more extensive pre-trial motions, jury selection processes, and evidentiary hearings. The trial itself can last for weeks or even months, requiring court personnel, judges, jurors, and legal professionals to dedicate significant time and resources to the case.Expert Witnesses: Capital cases often require expert witnesses to testify on various matters, such as forensic evidence, mental health evaluations, and other specialized areas. Hiring and compensating these expert witnesses can add substantial costs to the prosecution.Appeals Process: Capital cases are subject to mandatory appeals, which can extend over many years. The appeals process involves additional legal expenses, including filing fees, court costs, and expenses related to appellate attorneys and expert witnesses. These costs can accumulate significantly, especially if the case proceeds through multiple levels of appeal, including state and federal courts.Security Measures: Capital cases often require heightened security measures due to the seriousness of the charges and the potential for public attention or emotional reactions. Additional security measures may be necessary to ensure the safety of participants in the trial, including judges, jurors, witnesses, and attorneys. These security measures can involve increased staffing, security personnel, and infrastructure upgrades, all of which contribute to the overall cost of prosecuting the case.Emotional Toll: Capital cases can take an emotional toll on all parties involved, including victims' families, defendants, jurors, and legal professionals. Providing support services, such as counseling and victim assistance programs, adds to the overall cost of prosecuting these cases.The combination of legal representation, lengthy trials, expert witnesses, the appeals process, security measures, and emotional support services all contribute to the higher costs associated with prosecuting capital murder cases in Idaho and elsewhere.Also keep in mind that the taxpayers of Idaho are also on the hook for Bryan Kohberger's defense fees.The cost to the state of Idaho, to defend an indigent defendant in a capital murder case can vary widely depending on several factors:Length of Trial: Capital murder cases often involve lengthy trials due to the complexity and seriousness of the charges. The longer the trial, the higher the cost as it involves paying attorneys, expert witnesses, court personnel, and other associated expenses.Legal Representation: Indigent defendants are entitled to legal representation, and in capital cases, this often involves hiring experienced defense attorneys who specialize in such cases. The cost can vary based on the hourly rates of these attorneys or the structure of their fees.Expert Witnesses: Capital cases typically involve the testimony of various expert witnesses, such as forensic experts, psychologists, and medical professionals. These experts often charge high fees for their services, adding to the overall cost of the defense.Investigation Costs: Capital cases require thorough investigation, including gathering evidence, interviewing witnesses, and conducting forensic analysis. These investigative costs can contribute significantly to the overall expense.Appeals Process: If the defendant is convicted and sentenced to death, the appeals process can extend for many years, adding further costs to the state.Miscellaneous Expenses: Other expenses, such as court fees, administrative costs, and overhead, also contribute to the total cost of defending an indigent defendant in a capital murder case.(commercial at 7:46)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Millions spent in case against Bryan Kohberger before trial | Idaho StatesmanBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The cost of justice in Idaho continues to balloon by the day and there many factors at play that are moving the needle towards the red.   Here are two of the issues that are driving costs through the roof as the state of Idaho continues to pursue a conviction against Bryan Kohberger.Capital murder cases typically cost more to prosecute in Idaho, as in many other states, due to several factors:Legal Representation: Capital cases involve complex legal proceedings, often requiring extensive legal representation. Defendants in capital cases are entitled to competent legal representation, which can include hiring experienced attorneys and investigators. The state may also appoint defense counsel, and these attorneys often require additional resources for research, preparation, and presentation of the case.Lengthy Trials: Capital murder trials tend to be longer and more complex than non-capital murder trials. These trials involve more extensive pre-trial motions, jury selection processes, and evidentiary hearings. The trial itself can last for weeks or even months, requiring court personnel, judges, jurors, and legal professionals to dedicate significant time and resources to the case.Expert Witnesses: Capital cases often require expert witnesses to testify on various matters, such as forensic evidence, mental health evaluations, and other specialized areas. Hiring and compensating these expert witnesses can add substantial costs to the prosecution.Appeals Process: Capital cases are subject to mandatory appeals, which can extend over many years. The appeals process involves additional legal expenses, including filing fees, court costs, and expenses related to appellate attorneys and expert witnesses. These costs can accumulate significantly, especially if the case proceeds through multiple levels of appeal, including state and federal courts.Security Measures: Capital cases often require heightened security measures due to the seriousness of the charges and the potential for public attention or emotional reactions. Additional security measures may be necessary to ensure the safety of participants in the trial, including judges, jurors, witnesses, and attorneys. These security measures can involve increased staffing, security personnel, and infrastructure upgrades, all of which contribute to the overall cost of prosecuting the case.Emotional Toll: Capital cases can take an emotional toll on all parties involved, including victims' families, defendants, jurors, and legal professionals. Providing support services, such as counseling and victim assistance programs, adds to the overall cost of prosecuting these cases.The combination of legal representation, lengthy trials, expert witnesses, the appeals process, security measures, and emotional support services all contribute to the higher costs associated with prosecuting capital murder cases in Idaho and elsewhere.Also keep in mind that the taxpayers of Idaho are also on the hook for Bryan Kohberger's defense fees.The cost to the state of Idaho, to defend an indigent defendant in a capital murder case can vary widely depending on several factors:Length of Trial: Capital murder cases often involve lengthy trials due to the complexity and seriousness of the charges. The longer the trial, the higher the cost as it involves paying attorneys, expert witnesses, court personnel, and other associated expenses.Legal Representation: Indigent defendants are entitled to legal representation, and in capital cases, this often involves hiring experienced defense attorneys who specialize in such cases. The cost can vary based on the hourly rates of these attorneys or the structure of their fees.Expert Witnesses: Capital cases typically involve the testimony of various expert witnesses, such as forensic experts, psychologists, and medical professionals. These experts often charge high fees for their services, adding to the overall cost of the defense.Investigation Costs: Capital cases require thorough investigation, including gathering evidence, interviewing witnesses, and conducting forensic analysis. These investigative costs can contribute significantly to the overall expense.Appeals Process: If the defendant is convicted and sentenced to death, the appeals process can extend for many years, adding further costs to the state.Miscellaneous Expenses: Other expenses, such as court fees, administrative costs, and overhead, also contribute to the total cost of defending an indigent defendant in a capital murder case.(commercial at 7:46)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Millions spent in case against Bryan Kohberger before trial | Idaho StatesmanBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Before lunch on June 17th, the Sean “Diddy” Combs federal trial resumed with a tense start as Judge Arun Subramanian sternly warned both legal teams about the leaking of information from a previously sealed Friday hearing. He emphasized that any further violations of gag or sealing orders could result in civil or criminal contempt charges, holding lead counsel personally accountable for compliance going forward. The judge's remarks set the tone for a morning already thick with tension, as the courtroom braced for more disturbing and explicit government evidence. The prosecution continued its case by recalling FBI Special Agent DeLeassa Penland to the stand, who walked jurors through a collection of phone records and text messages between Combs and his ex-girlfriend Cassie Ventura. These messages, sent both before and after the alleged 2016 hotel assault, were framed as evidence of Combs's desperation, control, and attempts to manage public fallout.Penland also introduced sexually explicit video footage, referred to as “freak-off” recordings, which showed Combs orchestrating group sex parties. Several jurors—particularly Black female jurors—were visibly unsettled during the viewing, reacting with discomfort and concern. The prosecution supplemented the footage with related evidence, including records of luxury purchases like candles and flights allegedly used to support these events, as well as documentation of hotel damages totaling tens of thousands of dollars. Finally, the government previewed the upcoming testimony of Brendan Paul, a former Syracuse University basketball player turned Combs assistant, who is expected to testify under immunity. Meanwhile, the defense signaled that its case would be brief—potentially only two days—strongly suggesting that Combs himself will not take the stand. This development sets up the possibility that jury deliberations could begin as soon as next week.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Live updates: Sean ‘Diddy' Combs trial coverage | CNNBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Juror #6—a 41‑year‑old Black man—was dismissed on June 16, 2025, by Judge Arun Subramanian after it emerged that he had provided conflicting information about his residence. During jury selection, he stated he lived in the Bronx, but later told court staff he had moved to New Jersey—making him potentially ineligible for the Manhattan federal jury. The judge cited serious concerns over his candor and credibility, noting that these inconsistencies might suggest he “shaded answers to get on, and stay on” the jury.Combs's defense objected to the removal, arguing that dismissing one of only two Black men on the panel—and replacing him with a white male alternate—would compromise racial diversity and prejudice Combs. But Judge Subramanian emphasized that the decision was based solely on honesty and eligibility, stating that allowing the juror to remain “would be improper” if race were the motive. He noted the need to uphold the integrity of the process and maintain trust in juror credibility.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Diddy trial faces jury issues as experts question no sequestration | Fox NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

After the lunch break on Monday, June 16, 2025, testimony resumed with U.S. Special Agent DeLeassa Penland, who continued detailing travel records and communications tied to alleged “freak‑off” encounters. Specifically, she walked the jury through flight itineraries showing that a male escort—identified as Jules Theodore—flew from Los Angeles to New York in December 2009. These arrangements were allegedly made by Sean Combs and paid for using his American Express card registered to Bad Boy Entertainment. The jury also heard text messages between Combs and Jules coordinating the travel and stay at the London Hotel, underlining the prosecution's argument about the orchestration of these encounters.Following that, the focus shifted to financial documentation: the prosecution introduced credit card statements and travel logs tying Combs's business entity to payments for escorts and hotel bookings. These materials were presented to support the trafficking and racketeering conspiracy charges—showing evidence of Combs arranging and funding travel and accommodations for escorts. Court then adjourned for the day, with the testimony set to continue the next dayto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:June 16, 2025 - Day 24 of testimony in the Sean ‘Diddy' Combs trial | CNNBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the morning session, Judge Arun Subramanian formally dismissed Juror No. 6—a 41-year-old Black man—due to “lack of candor” after he gave conflicting statements about living in the Bronx versus New Jersey, which raised concerns about his eligibility for juror service in the Southern District of New York.   Combs's defense argued that this dismissal reduced the diversity of the panel and was racially motivated, filing a letter and threatening to seek a mistrial if the removal wasn't reversed.   Judge Subramanian denied both requests, stating that the decision was based strictly on the juror's factual inconsistencies, not race, and quickly seated a White accountant from Westchester County as a replacementAfter the jury reassembled, prosecutors called Ananya Sankar, a paralegal specialist from the U.S. Attorney's Office, as a summary witness. Before lunch, Sankar began presenting and walking jurors through a collection of text messages and call logs—including communications between Combs, his staff (like chief of staff Kristina Khorram), and his ex-girlfriend “Jane”.    These messages covered topics such as organizing “Wild King Nights,” procurement of MDMA (“Molly”), and discussions of explicit encounters—part of the prosecution's efforts to organize the voluminous digital evidence ahead of closing the case this week.    The second witness to take the stand before lunch on June 16, 2025, was Special Agent DeLeassa Penland from the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York. She served as another "summary witness," dispatched to help organize and present the vast trove of digital evidence to the jury. Penland walked jurors through charts and data, including additional phone and text message logs—this time highlighting communications between Combs, his bodyguard “D‑Roc,” and former assistant “Mia.”to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Live updates: Sean ‘Diddy' Combs' trial coverage | CNNBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the morning session, Judge Arun Subramanian formally dismissed Juror No. 6—a 41-year-old Black man—due to “lack of candor” after he gave conflicting statements about living in the Bronx versus New Jersey, which raised concerns about his eligibility for juror service in the Southern District of New York.   Combs's defense argued that this dismissal reduced the diversity of the panel and was racially motivated, filing a letter and threatening to seek a mistrial if the removal wasn't reversed.   Judge Subramanian denied both requests, stating that the decision was based strictly on the juror's factual inconsistencies, not race, and quickly seated a White accountant from Westchester County as a replacementAfter the jury reassembled, prosecutors called Ananya Sankar, a paralegal specialist from the U.S. Attorney's Office, as a summary witness. Before lunch, Sankar began presenting and walking jurors through a collection of text messages and call logs—including communications between Combs, his staff (like chief of staff Kristina Khorram), and his ex-girlfriend “Jane”.    These messages covered topics such as organizing “Wild King Nights,” procurement of MDMA (“Molly”), and discussions of explicit encounters—part of the prosecution's efforts to organize the voluminous digital evidence ahead of closing the case this week.    to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Live updates: Sean ‘Diddy' Combs' trial coverage | CNNBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Sara Rivers, formerly known as Sara Stokes from MTV's Making the Band 2 and a member of Da Band, filed a $60 million lawsuit against Sean "Diddy" Combs alleging a pattern of sexual harassment, battery, psychological abuse, and professional sabotage. Rivers claims that Combs subjected her to degrading treatment throughout her time on the reality series and beyond, including groping her without consent, making sexually explicit comments, and mocking her bulimia. She further alleges that Combs controlled contestants' food, sleep, and movement, orchestrated humiliating stunts like the infamous "cheesecake walk," and forced her into uncompensated labor under exploitative conditions. According to the complaint, Rivers was made to sleep in exposed, unsafe quarters with male co-stars and denied basic dignity and protection.The lawsuit names more than two dozen other parties, including executives at Bad Boy, Universal Music Group, MTV, and even Combs's mother, asserting that they either enabled or failed to intervene in the abuse. Rivers accuses Combs of deliberately dismantling Da Band to assert dominance and retain control of her earnings, effectively sabotaging her career. She asserts that this behavior was not isolated but part of a systemic pattern of exploitation and intimidation that targeted young, vulnerable performers. Combs's legal team has dismissed the suit as meritless and opportunistic, noting it was filed just before the deadline under the New York City Gender-Motivated Violence Act. The case joins a growing list of lawsuits and criminal investigations currently surrounding Combs.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Sara cmpltBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.