The Moscow Murders and More

In Ada County Case No. CR01-24-31665, Defendant Bryan Kohberger filed motions to suppress evidence obtained through search warrants directed at AT&T, Google, USB devices, Apple, and Amazon. The defense argued that these warrants were invalid, alleging they were based on information gathered through unconstitutional methods, including the use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), and that the affidavits supporting the warrants contained intentional or reckless omissions of material facts. They contended that the evidence obtained from these warrants violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights and should therefore be excluded from trial.However, the court denied these suppression motions, ruling that the search warrants were lawfully issued and executed. The judge found that the affidavits provided sufficient probable cause and that the methods employed, including the use of IGG, did not violate constitutional protections. Additionally, the court determined that there was no evidence of intentional or reckless falsehoods or omissions in the affidavits that would warrant a Franks hearing. As a result, the evidence obtained from AT&T, Google, USB devices, Apple, and Amazon remains admissible in the proceedings against Kohbergerto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:021925-Order-Defedants-Motions-Suppress-ATT-Google-USB-Apple-Amazon.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In Ada County Case No. CR01-24-31665, Defendant Bryan Kohberger filed motions to suppress evidence obtained through search warrants directed at AT&T, Google, USB devices, Apple, and Amazon. The defense argued that these warrants were invalid, alleging they were based on information gathered through unconstitutional methods, including the use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), and that the affidavits supporting the warrants contained intentional or reckless omissions of material facts. They contended that the evidence obtained from these warrants violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights and should therefore be excluded from trial.However, the court denied these suppression motions, ruling that the search warrants were lawfully issued and executed. The judge found that the affidavits provided sufficient probable cause and that the methods employed, including the use of IGG, did not violate constitutional protections. Additionally, the court determined that there was no evidence of intentional or reckless falsehoods or omissions in the affidavits that would warrant a Franks hearing. As a result, the evidence obtained from AT&T, Google, USB devices, Apple, and Amazon remains admissible in the proceedings against Kohbergerto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:021925-Order-Defedants-Motions-Suppress-ATT-Google-USB-Apple-Amazon.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The 2009 federal lawsuit Jane Doe No. 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein, filed in the Southern District of Florida, accuses Epstein of sexually abusing and trafficking the plaintiff when she was a minor in Palm Beach County. Filed under a pseudonym to protect her identity, the complaint outlines a pattern of predatory conduct consistent with other allegations against Epstein during the same period. It asserts federal jurisdiction, establishes venue in Florida, and demands a jury trial. Early filings also sought a no-contact order and measures to preserve evidence, signaling the seriousness of the claims and the plaintiff's intent to prevent witness intimidation or evidence tampering.The case emerged alongside a wave of similar “Jane Doe” suits that were being coordinated in federal court, reflecting the widening legal fallout for Epstein at the time. The complaint fits within the broader narrative of civil actions that sought to hold Epstein accountable after his controversial 2008 plea deal allowed him to avoid federal prosecution. By placing this new plaintiff's claims into the public record, the suit added further pressure on Epstein's legal defenses and contributed to the mounting body of litigation alleging he operated a long-running sex trafficking network targeting underage girls.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.334533.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The 2009 federal lawsuit Jane Doe No. 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein, filed in the Southern District of Florida, accuses Epstein of sexually abusing and trafficking the plaintiff when she was a minor in Palm Beach County. Filed under a pseudonym to protect her identity, the complaint outlines a pattern of predatory conduct consistent with other allegations against Epstein during the same period. It asserts federal jurisdiction, establishes venue in Florida, and demands a jury trial. Early filings also sought a no-contact order and measures to preserve evidence, signaling the seriousness of the claims and the plaintiff's intent to prevent witness intimidation or evidence tampering.The case emerged alongside a wave of similar “Jane Doe” suits that were being coordinated in federal court, reflecting the widening legal fallout for Epstein at the time. The complaint fits within the broader narrative of civil actions that sought to hold Epstein accountable after his controversial 2008 plea deal allowed him to avoid federal prosecution. By placing this new plaintiff's claims into the public record, the suit added further pressure on Epstein's legal defenses and contributed to the mounting body of litigation alleging he operated a long-running sex trafficking network targeting underage girls.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.334533.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Epstein survivors and their legal advocates have voiced serious concern over the DOJ's push to unseal grand jury documents from Ghislaine Maxwell's criminal case, cautioning that such a move risks retraumatizing victims and potentially exposing sensitive identifying information. While the survivors have long called for transparency and accountability, many are now expressing frustration that the DOJ appears more interested in symbolic gestures—like the selective unsealing of documents—than in pursuing real justice against the powerful figures who enabled and benefited from Epstein's trafficking ring. Survivors' attorneys have pointed out that the DOJ has a long history of inaction, and they view this sudden interest in grand jury material as performative rather than substantive.In particular, the survivors have emphasized that unsealing redacted transcripts is no substitute for meaningful prosecutions or full disclosure of the DOJ's own failings—specifically regarding the original 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement and the lack of charges brought against Epstein's inner circle of enablers. Some have accused the Justice Department of using the unsealing process as a distraction from the larger systemic failure to hold those in Epstein's orbit truly accountable. Others have warned that without strict safeguards, the release of grand jury testimony could expose private details that were never meant for public consumption, ultimately serving institutional optics rather than survivor justice.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein victims speak out: This ‘smacks of a cover up' - POLITICOBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Ghislaine Maxwell's transfer from FCI Tallahassee, a medium-security federal prison, to Bryan Federal Prison Camp in Texas has drawn sharp criticism and widespread skepticism due to its highly irregular nature. Federal prison policy dictates that inmates convicted of serious crimes—especially those involving violence, international ties, or sex trafficking—are rarely, if ever, reassigned to minimum-security camps. Maxwell's background as a convicted sex trafficker with dual citizenship, ties to global intelligence, and deep associations with high-profile individuals makes her a textbook case for maximum supervision. Yet she was quietly moved to a facility with no armed guards, no fences, and minimal restrictions—conditions far more suited to nonviolent white-collar criminals.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Ghislaine Maxwell's move to Texas minimum security prison called 'highly unusual' | Fox NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Virginia Giuffre's response to Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for summary judgment was a direct challenge to Maxwell's attempt to dismiss the case without a trial. In her filing, Giuffre argued that Maxwell's statements denying any wrongdoing were not only defamatory, but made with actual malice—because Maxwell knew they were false when she made them. Giuffre's legal team submitted sworn testimony, supporting documentation, and detailed timelines to establish that Maxwell had played a central role in Epstein's trafficking operation and that her denials were part of a broader effort to discredit and silence victims.Virginia Giuffre's response to Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for summary judgment was a direct challenge to Maxwell's attempt to dismiss the case without a trial. In her filing, Giuffre argued that Maxwell's statements denying any wrongdoing were not only defamatory, but made with actual malice—because Maxwell knew they were false when she made them. Giuffre's legal team submitted sworn testimony, supporting documentation, and detailed timelines to establish that Maxwell had played a central role in Epstein's trafficking operation and that her denials were part of a broader effort to discredit and silence victims.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Giuffre-unseal.pdf (courthousenews.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Virginia Giuffre's response to Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for summary judgment was a direct challenge to Maxwell's attempt to dismiss the case without a trial. In her filing, Giuffre argued that Maxwell's statements denying any wrongdoing were not only defamatory, but made with actual malice—because Maxwell knew they were false when she made them. Giuffre's legal team submitted sworn testimony, supporting documentation, and detailed timelines to establish that Maxwell had played a central role in Epstein's trafficking operation and that her denials were part of a broader effort to discredit and silence victims.Virginia Giuffre's response to Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for summary judgment was a direct challenge to Maxwell's attempt to dismiss the case without a trial. In her filing, Giuffre argued that Maxwell's statements denying any wrongdoing were not only defamatory, but made with actual malice—because Maxwell knew they were false when she made them. Giuffre's legal team submitted sworn testimony, supporting documentation, and detailed timelines to establish that Maxwell had played a central role in Epstein's trafficking operation and that her denials were part of a broader effort to discredit and silence victims.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Giuffre-unseal.pdf (courthousenews.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the defamation case Virginia Giuffre brought against Ghislaine Maxwell beginning in 2015, Maxwell responded with a motion for summary judgment—arguing that Giuffre's allegations were not legally defamatory and that Maxwell was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. That motion aimed to avoid a trial by asserting that even if all of Giuffre's allegations were true, they did not meet the legal threshold for defamation. The motion, along with supporting documents, was filed under seal during pre-trial proceedings. Ultimately, the district court did not grant the motion, and the case was later settled out of court under confidentiality terms in 2017.When third parties later moved to unseal portions of the sealed record, particularly filings related to the summary judgment motion, the courts determined that these materials were judicial documents subject to a strong presumption of public access. A federal appeals court ordered their partial release because Maxwell had not shown sufficient reasons to overcome the public's right of access. In other words, although Maxwell sought to dispose of the case quietly and legally via summary judgment—and shield that process from public view—those efforts were rejected, and important portions of the case were ultimately made part of the public record.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein Docs - DocumentCloudBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In Ada County Case No. CR01-24-31665, Defendant Bryan Kohberger filed motions to suppress evidence obtained through search warrants directed at AT&T, Google, USB devices, Apple, and Amazon. The defense argued that these warrants were invalid, alleging they were based on information gathered through unconstitutional methods, including the use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), and that the affidavits supporting the warrants contained intentional or reckless omissions of material facts. They contended that the evidence obtained from these warrants violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights and should therefore be excluded from trial.However, the court denied these suppression motions, ruling that the search warrants were lawfully issued and executed. The judge found that the affidavits provided sufficient probable cause and that the methods employed, including the use of IGG, did not violate constitutional protections. Additionally, the court determined that there was no evidence of intentional or reckless falsehoods or omissions in the affidavits that would warrant a Franks hearing. As a result, the evidence obtained from AT&T, Google, USB devices, Apple, and Amazon remains admissible in the proceedings against Kohbergerto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:021925-Order-Defedants-Motions-Suppress-ATT-Google-USB-Apple-Amazon.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the defamation case Virginia Giuffre brought against Ghislaine Maxwell beginning in 2015, Maxwell responded with a motion for summary judgment—arguing that Giuffre's allegations were not legally defamatory and that Maxwell was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. That motion aimed to avoid a trial by asserting that even if all of Giuffre's allegations were true, they did not meet the legal threshold for defamation. The motion, along with supporting documents, was filed under seal during pre-trial proceedings. Ultimately, the district court did not grant the motion, and the case was later settled out of court under confidentiality terms in 2017.When third parties later moved to unseal portions of the sealed record, particularly filings related to the summary judgment motion, the courts determined that these materials were judicial documents subject to a strong presumption of public access. A federal appeals court ordered their partial release because Maxwell had not shown sufficient reasons to overcome the public's right of access. In other words, although Maxwell sought to dispose of the case quietly and legally via summary judgment—and shield that process from public view—those efforts were rejected, and important portions of the case were ultimately made part of the public record.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein Docs - DocumentCloudBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In Ada County Case No. CR01-24-31665, Defendant Bryan Kohberger filed motions to suppress evidence obtained through search warrants directed at AT&T, Google, USB devices, Apple, and Amazon. The defense argued that these warrants were invalid, alleging they were based on information gathered through unconstitutional methods, including the use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), and that the affidavits supporting the warrants contained intentional or reckless omissions of material facts. They contended that the evidence obtained from these warrants violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights and should therefore be excluded from trial.However, the court denied these suppression motions, ruling that the search warrants were lawfully issued and executed. The judge found that the affidavits provided sufficient probable cause and that the methods employed, including the use of IGG, did not violate constitutional protections. Additionally, the court determined that there was no evidence of intentional or reckless falsehoods or omissions in the affidavits that would warrant a Franks hearing. As a result, the evidence obtained from AT&T, Google, USB devices, Apple, and Amazon remains admissible in the proceedings against Kohbergerto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:021925-Order-Defedants-Motions-Suppress-ATT-Google-USB-Apple-Amazon.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The April 24, 2025 order issued by Judge John C. Judge in the Bryan Kohberger case addresses the prosecution's motion to limit or exclude certain pieces of evidence—specifically, the 911 call and related text messages made by surviving roommate Dylan Mortensen on the night of the murders. The state sought to prevent the defense from introducing or speculating about the content and timing of the 911 call or messages, arguing that such discussions would be prejudicial, misleading, and based on incomplete information. The court agreed in part, ruling that the defense may not reference the 911 call or text messages during opening statements, as their admissibility will depend on the context provided during trial.However, Judge Judge left the door open for the 911 call and texts to be introduced later, depending on how the evidence unfolds and whether a proper foundation is laid. He emphasized that such materials must meet standards of relevance and reliability before being admitted in front of the jury. The ruling reflects the court's intent to avoid speculation and ensure that jurors are only exposed to properly vetted evidence. The decision was a partial win for the prosecution, but it does not preclude the defense from raising the issue later if it becomes legally and factually appropriate.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:042425+Order+on+States+Motions+in+Limine+RE+Text+Messages+and+911+Call.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The April 24, 2025 order issued by Judge John C. Judge in the Bryan Kohberger case addresses the prosecution's motion to limit or exclude certain pieces of evidence—specifically, the 911 call and related text messages made by surviving roommate Dylan Mortensen on the night of the murders. The state sought to prevent the defense from introducing or speculating about the content and timing of the 911 call or messages, arguing that such discussions would be prejudicial, misleading, and based on incomplete information. The court agreed in part, ruling that the defense may not reference the 911 call or text messages during opening statements, as their admissibility will depend on the context provided during trial.However, Judge Judge left the door open for the 911 call and texts to be introduced later, depending on how the evidence unfolds and whether a proper foundation is laid. He emphasized that such materials must meet standards of relevance and reliability before being admitted in front of the jury. The ruling reflects the court's intent to avoid speculation and ensure that jurors are only exposed to properly vetted evidence. The decision was a partial win for the prosecution, but it does not preclude the defense from raising the issue later if it becomes legally and factually appropriate.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:042425+Order+on+States+Motions+in+Limine+RE+Text+Messages+and+911+Call.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

From the archives: 12-26-22Cole Altender, a former tenant at the Moscow house when he was attending college at the university of Idaho has spoken out about his time living in the house and how when he lived there nobody could move around without everyone else hearing their movements, even if that was just rolling a computer chair away from his desk.Let's dive in and see what's up!(commercial at 7:51)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Ex-tenant of Idaho murder house says 'you can hear footsteps on every floor at night' | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Prince Andrew's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was not a mistake—it was a calculated choice sustained over years, even after Epstein's conviction for sex crimes. The Duke of York didn't distance himself from Epstein—he doubled down, staying at his Manhattan mansion and walking through Central Park with him while the world watched. When accused by Virginia Giuffre of raping her while she was a trafficked teenager, Andrew responded not with cooperation or humility, but with denials, absurd alibis, and a multi-million dollar settlement to avoid testifying under oath. The infamous Newsnight interview only cemented his arrogance, exposing a man more concerned with salvaging his reputation than acknowledging the suffering of Epstein's victims.What followed was a carefully managed retreat from public life. The monarchy, under increasing pressure, stripped Prince Andrew of his titles and public duties—not out of moral reckoning, but as a necessary step to contain the fallout. The legal system never pursued criminal charges, and media coverage often focused more on the royal family's image than the underlying allegations. Virginia Giuffre, through her persistence, brought global attention to a case that might otherwise have remained buried. In the end, Prince Andrew's reputation remains permanently damaged, but the broader questions about accountability, privilege, and institutional protection remain unresolved.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Prince Andrew's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was not a mistake—it was a calculated choice sustained over years, even after Epstein's conviction for sex crimes. The Duke of York didn't distance himself from Epstein—he doubled down, staying at his Manhattan mansion and walking through Central Park with him while the world watched. When accused by Virginia Giuffre of raping her while she was a trafficked teenager, Andrew responded not with cooperation or humility, but with denials, absurd alibis, and a multi-million dollar settlement to avoid testifying under oath. The infamous Newsnight interview only cemented his arrogance, exposing a man more concerned with salvaging his reputation than acknowledging the suffering of Epstein's victims.What followed was a carefully managed retreat from public life. The monarchy, under increasing pressure, stripped Prince Andrew of his titles and public duties—not out of moral reckoning, but as a necessary step to contain the fallout. The legal system never pursued criminal charges, and media coverage often focused more on the royal family's image than the underlying allegations. Virginia Giuffre, through her persistence, brought global attention to a case that might otherwise have remained buried. In the end, Prince Andrew's reputation remains permanently damaged, but the broader questions about accountability, privilege, and institutional protection remain unresolved.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The civil complaint filed by Virginia Roberts Giuffre against Prince Andrew in 2021 alleged that he sexually abused her on multiple occasions when she was 17 years old, a victim of Jeffrey Epstein's trafficking network. The lawsuit, filed in New York under the Child Victims Act, claimed that Prince Andrew knowingly engaged in sexual acts with Giuffre despite being aware that she was being trafficked by Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Giuffre alleged that the abuse occurred in Epstein's New York townhouse, in London at Ghislaine Maxwell's residence, and in the Virgin Islands. The complaint painted a damning picture of a royal using his status and connections to exploit a vulnerable girl, shielded by a global web of power and silence.Prince Andrew publicly denied the allegations, claiming he had no recollection of meeting Giuffre—even though a widely circulated photo shows them together with Maxwell in the background. Rather than face a public trial and legal discovery, Andrew reached an out-of-court settlement with Giuffre in early 2022, reportedly for several million dollars, without admitting guilt. The settlement effectively ended the case but left critical questions unanswered, including whether others in Epstein's orbit facilitated or knew of the abuse. The lawsuit against Prince Andrew marked a rare instance where someone of global stature and diplomatic immunity faced direct legal consequences tied to Epstein's trafficking ring, though many critics saw the quiet settlement as another example of privilege avoiding accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Final Giuffre v. Prince Andrew Complaint v.13.pdf (courthousenews.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In response to the civil lawsuit filed against him under New York's Adult Survivors Act, Leon Black sought to unmask the identity of his accuser, known in court filings as Jane Doe. Black's legal team argued that anonymity undermined his ability to defend himself and conduct a fair investigation into the allegations. They filed motions urging the court to compel the woman to publicly reveal her name, claiming that her accusations were damaging his reputation and that shielding her identity placed him at an unfair legal disadvantage. This move was widely criticized by victim advocates, who saw it as a tactic meant to intimidate and discourage other survivors from coming forward, especially in cases involving powerful, well-connected defendants.Jane Doe's legal team pushed back forcefully, emphasizing that her anonymity was legally protected under the Adult Survivors Act and critical to her safety and well-being. They argued that forcing her to go public would expose her to harassment, retraumatization, and potential danger. The court initially ruled in her favor, allowing her to proceed under a pseudonym. The broader implications of Black's attempt to identify his accuser reflect a familiar dynamic in high-profile sexual assault cases—where wealthy defendants use aggressive legal maneuvers to shift the focus away from the allegations and onto the accuser. In the context of Epstein's network, this tactic is seen as part of a pattern of silencing, discrediting, and outlasting survivors through sheer financial and institutional power.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.602764.144.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The lawsuit filed by Jane Doe against billionaire Leon Black alleges that he raped her at Jeffrey Epstein's Manhattan townhouse when she was a vulnerable young woman in her early twenties. Filed in 2023 under New York's Adult Survivors Act, the civil suit claims Black used Epstein's residence—a known hub of abuse—as the setting for the assault, and that Epstein facilitated the encounter. Jane Doe alleges that she was trafficked and groomed within Epstein's network and that Black's actions were part of the larger pattern of abuse and exploitation that Epstein orchestrated for his powerful associates. The lawsuit accuses Black not only of rape, but also of intentional infliction of emotional distress and other civil claims tied to Epstein's broader trafficking enterprise.Black has denied the allegations and filed a countersuit against the accuser and her attorneys, claiming extortion and reputational harm. However, the civil complaint against him highlights a critical and recurring theme in the Epstein saga: the deep connections between Epstein and prominent men who allegedly used his network for their own gratification under the guise of friendship or philanthropy. The suit adds to the growing scrutiny of Black's long-standing ties to Epstein, including previous revelations that he paid Epstein over $150 million for undisclosed “financial advice” long after Epstein's 2008 conviction. Jane Doe's case underscores how Epstein's reach extended well beyond his own crimes, into the lives—and alleged actions—of the elite men he surrounded himself with.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.602764.152.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Congresswoman Stacey Plaskett has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought against her by a Jeffrey Epstein survivor, arguing that the claims are legally baseless and politically motivated. In her filing, Plaskett maintains that she had no involvement in Epstein's trafficking operation and that the plaintiff's allegations are speculative, unsupported by evidence, and fall outside the statute of limitations. Her legal team asserts that the lawsuit is an abuse of the judicial process, designed to smear her reputation and exploit her previous associations with the Virgin Islands government during the time Epstein operated there. Plaskett categorically denies any wrongdoing and is seeking to have the case thrown out at the earliest stage.Critics, however, argue that Plaskett's motion sidesteps the deeper issue: the survivor's claim that Plaskett's political influence may have contributed to a broader effort to shield Epstein and his network from scrutiny while he operated in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The lawsuit ties her to the failure of local and federal officials to hold Epstein accountable, citing her past connections to officials who allegedly enabled his activities. While Plaskett insists she had no direct involvement, the motion to dismiss has sparked backlash from advocates who believe public figures with proximity to Epstein's orbit should be investigated rather than allowed to deflect scrutiny with procedural defenses. The case now hinges on whether the court will allow discovery or accept Plaskett's argument that the lawsuit lacks merit on its face.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 15154228_7.docx (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Congresswoman Stacey Plaskett has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought against her by a Jeffrey Epstein survivor, arguing that the claims are legally baseless and politically motivated. In her filing, Plaskett maintains that she had no involvement in Epstein's trafficking operation and that the plaintiff's allegations are speculative, unsupported by evidence, and fall outside the statute of limitations. Her legal team asserts that the lawsuit is an abuse of the judicial process, designed to smear her reputation and exploit her previous associations with the Virgin Islands government during the time Epstein operated there. Plaskett categorically denies any wrongdoing and is seeking to have the case thrown out at the earliest stage.Critics, however, argue that Plaskett's motion sidesteps the deeper issue: the survivor's claim that Plaskett's political influence may have contributed to a broader effort to shield Epstein and his network from scrutiny while he operated in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The lawsuit ties her to the failure of local and federal officials to hold Epstein accountable, citing her past connections to officials who allegedly enabled his activities. While Plaskett insists she had no direct involvement, the motion to dismiss has sparked backlash from advocates who believe public figures with proximity to Epstein's orbit should be investigated rather than allowed to deflect scrutiny with procedural defenses. The case now hinges on whether the court will allow discovery or accept Plaskett's argument that the lawsuit lacks merit on its face.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 15154228_7.docx (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The dive into the court documents continues in this episode as we take a look at the AT&T cell tower warrant.(commercial at 10:01)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:022823+Order+to+Seal+and+Redact+-+ATT.pdf (amazonaws.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Hybristophilia is a sexual attraction or arousal in response to someone who has committed a heinous or notorious crime. It is also sometimes referred to as "Bonnie and Clyde syndrome" or "serial killer groupies." The term "hybristophilia" is derived from the Greek word "hubristes," which means "an outrage against another person."Individuals with hybristophilia may be drawn to criminals who have committed crimes such as murder, rape, or kidnapping.They may seek out relationships with these individuals or become sexually aroused by the idea of being with them. Some individuals with hybristophilia may even go so far as to idolize and romanticize the criminal, viewing them as a misunderstood or tragic figure.Hybristophilia is a rare condition, and little is known about its causes. Some experts suggest that it may be related to a desire for power or control, while others speculate that it may be linked to a history of abuse or trauma. Regardless of its origins, hybristophilia can be a dangerous and potentially harmful condition, as it may lead individuals to engage in risky or illegal behavior in pursuit of their attraction to criminals.In this episode, we take a look at hybristophilia and how it is connected to Bryan Kohberger and the Moscow murders.(commercial at 7:57)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Idaho murders suspect Bryan Kohberger has distant admirers who lavish praise, question guilt | Fox NewsBecome 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.

This Friday, May 9, 2025, at 9 p.m. ET/8 p.m. CT, Dateline NBC will air a two-hour special titled “The Terrible Night on King Road”, offering exclusive new insights into the investigation of the 2022 murders of four University of Idaho students. The episode will feature never-before-seen evidence, including video, photographic, and digital materials that investigators say track the movements of the accused, Bryan Kohberger. Additionally, the special will include interviews with friends of the victims and in-depth analysis from criminology and genetics experts. A preview of the special is set to air on TODAY on Thursday, May 8Correspondent Keith Morrison will also present interviews with former students who interacted with Kohberger. One such interview includes a former graduate student named Holly, who recounts meeting Kohberger at a pool party and receiving a text from him the next day with "peculiar" wording. The special aims to provide a comprehensive look into the case as Kohberger's trial approaches. He has pleaded not guilty to the charges. Dateline NBC has been covering this case extensively, and this upcoming episode promises to shed new light on the events leading up to the trial.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Video shows car resembling Bryan Kohberger's around time of Idaho student murdersBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In this motion to suppress, Bryan Kohberger's defense team argues that law enforcement violated his constitutional rights during his December 2022 arrest by relying on a legally insufficient arrest warrant. The defense claims the Idaho arrest warrant had no legal authority in Pennsylvania, where Kohberger was apprehended, and that Pennsylvania authorities were required to obtain their own warrant to lawfully enter the home. Citing both Idaho and Pennsylvania law, the defense argues that the forced entry into the home without a Pennsylvania-issued warrant rendered the arrest unconstitutional. The motion also criticizes the heavily armed SWAT raid, despite federal surveillance showing Kohberger to be unarmed and nonviolent, and seeks suppression of any statements or evidence gathered during and after the arrest on Fourth Amendment grounds.Furthermore, the defense alleges that the affidavit used to support the Idaho arrest warrant was flawed, asserting that it included information gathered through unconstitutional means — including the use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG) and invalid cellphone data — and that it omitted material facts necessary for a fair probable cause determination. They have requested a Franks hearing, which challenges the integrity of the affidavit by asserting that law enforcement either recklessly or intentionally excluded key information. They argue that once tainted or improperly gathered information is removed, the warrant lacks sufficient probable cause, and therefore all resulting evidence and statements must be excluded from trial. The motion frames the arrest as a product of procedural shortcuts and overreach, violating both state and federal constitutional protections.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:111424-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-ATT-First-Warrant.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

For over two decades, the legacy media failed catastrophically in its responsibility to expose Jeffrey Epstein's criminal empire. Rather than investigate, they actively suppressed the story, ignored survivors, buried leads, and protected the powerful individuals within Epstein's orbit. Outlets like ABC, NBC, and The New York Times had ample evidence but chose access over accountability, prestige over principle. When whistleblowers and independent journalists tried to sound the alarm, they were smeared as conspiracy theorists. The media wasn't just absent—they were complicit, operating as PR agents for the very elites they were supposed to scrutinize. Even after Epstein's 2019 arrest, the media presented the scandal as if it were new, rewriting history to conceal their cowardice and protect their image.Now, years later, those same outlets have shamelessly returned to the story, parroting talking points and revelations that the so-called “conspiracy crowd” had documented long ago. They grandstand as if they were in the trenches, all while ignoring their own role in shielding the system that allowed Epstein to thrive. Their sudden concern is not about justice—it's about optics, narrative control, and political expediency. The Epstein scandal is not just about one man—it's about the elite networks that enabled him and the media institutions that kept those networks safe. Until the press admits its role in the cover-up and holds everyone accountable—not just those who are no longer useful—its credibility remains broken. They were never the watchdogs. They were the gatekeepers. And their gates are stained with blood.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

For over two decades, the legacy media failed catastrophically in its responsibility to expose Jeffrey Epstein's criminal empire. Rather than investigate, they actively suppressed the story, ignored survivors, buried leads, and protected the powerful individuals within Epstein's orbit. Outlets like ABC, NBC, and The New York Times had ample evidence but chose access over accountability, prestige over principle. When whistleblowers and independent journalists tried to sound the alarm, they were smeared as conspiracy theorists. The media wasn't just absent—they were complicit, operating as PR agents for the very elites they were supposed to scrutinize. Even after Epstein's 2019 arrest, the media presented the scandal as if it were new, rewriting history to conceal their cowardice and protect their image.Now, years later, those same outlets have shamelessly returned to the story, parroting talking points and revelations that the so-called “conspiracy crowd” had documented long ago. They grandstand as if they were in the trenches, all while ignoring their own role in shielding the system that allowed Epstein to thrive. Their sudden concern is not about justice—it's about optics, narrative control, and political expediency. The Epstein scandal is not just about one man—it's about the elite networks that enabled him and the media institutions that kept those networks safe. Until the press admits its role in the cover-up and holds everyone accountable—not just those who are no longer useful—its credibility remains broken. They were never the watchdogs. They were the gatekeepers. And their gates are stained with blood.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The Jeffrey Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) is widely regarded as one of the most disgraceful failures in the history of American justice. Structured to shield not just Epstein but a host of unnamed co-conspirators, the NPA granted sweeping immunity, all negotiated in secret and without the knowledge or consent of Epstein's victims—an apparent violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Far from being a standard plea deal, the NPA was a calculated firewall built by powerful actors within the Department of Justice to protect a broader network of elite individuals. Its open-ended language, lack of transparency, and immunity clauses served not justice, but systemic protectionism for the well-connected. For over a decade, this deal has prevented real accountability, emboldened Epstein's enablers, and sent the chilling message that influence and wealth can overwrite the rule of law.Yet the NPA is not untouchable. Legal avenues still exist, from challenging its violation of victim rights, to pursuing civil lawsuits, state-level prosecutions, FOIA litigation, and even appointing a Special Counsel to investigate the DOJ's misconduct. Public pressure, congressional oversight, and relentless investigative work could still expose the names hidden behind its broad immunity clauses. What's needed now is moral courage, not more institutional silence. The DOJ must either rescind the NPA, investigate those who crafted it, and pursue those it protected—or be remembered not as an agency of justice, but as the architect of the most shameful cover-up in modern legal history. The survivors deserve more than platitudes—they deserve action. Because the NPA may have buried the truth once, but it doesn't get to bury it forever.to contact me: bobbcapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Democratic strategist James Carville has issued a public apology and removed a YouTube video from his “Politics War Room” podcast that implied a connection between First Lady Melania Trump and Jeffrey Epstein. The decision follows a legal letter from Melania's attorney, prompting Carville to edit the episode, retract his remarks, and formally apologize on a recent broadcast. The first lady responded by sharing a screenshot of the pulled video and the apology transcript on X. This action aligns with another recent retraction by the Daily Beast, which took down a piece citing Michael Wolff's claims about Melania's introduction to Donald Trump via Epstein's circle—claims she disputes in her 2024 memoir, saying she met him at a Fashion Week party in 1998.Next up...Vice President J.D. Vance reportedly hosted a private strategy meeting initially planned at his residence but later moved to the White House, bringing together key Trump administration figures—including Attorney General Pam Bondi, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, FBI Director Kash Patel, and White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles—to coordinate the response to the Epstein investigation. Among the topics under discussion were whether to release audio or transcripts of Blanche's interview with Ghislaine Maxwell and how to shape the administration's public messaging amid mounting scrutiny. Although both Trump and Vance publicly dismissed the reports as “fake news,” sources confirmed the meeting took place at the White House to avoid media attention.next up...Democratic members of the House Oversight Committee have vigorously urged transparency in the Jeffrey Epstein investigation, pushing to subpoena the Department of Justice for the full, unredacted case files (with victim identities redacted), and seeking testimony from high‑profile figures, including Ghislaine Maxwell and the Clintons.   Alongside this, leading Democratic lawmakers such as Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi have called for Epstein survivors to be invited to testify before Congress—an appeal reinforced by survivor advocates like Alicia Arden and attorney Gloria Allred, who demand full disclosure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:James Carville apologizes and pulls video suggesting a Melania Trump ‘Epstein connection'Epstein files: Oversight Democrats call for hearing with victimsTop Trump officials discussed Epstein at White House meeting Wednesday night | CNN PoliticsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In her formal response to the government's motion, Ghislaine Maxwell opposed the unsealing of grand jury transcripts in her criminal case, arguing that such a release would violate long-standing principles of grand jury secrecy and unfairly prejudice her rights. Her legal team emphasized that the transcripts in question contain sensitive testimony and confidential material that should remain protected under Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Maxwell's attorneys insisted that the government's request lacked compelling justification and that releasing the materials would serve no legitimate public interest while potentially influencing public perception and undermining her right to a fair trial.Furthermore, Maxwell's response accused the government of attempting to circumvent established legal norms for tactical purposes. Her defense argued that any disclosure could taint potential jurors and further inflame the already intense media scrutiny surrounding her case. They maintained that the government had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances to override the presumption of secrecy traditionally afforded to grand jury proceedings. In closing, Maxwell's team urged the court to deny the motion and preserve the confidentiality of the grand jury materials to uphold judicial integrity and due process.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.539612.803.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In her deposition in the defamation lawsuit filed by Virginia Giuffre against Ghislaine Maxwell, Johanna Sjoberg described being recruited to work for Jeffrey Epstein under the impression that it was a legitimate job opportunity. According to her testimony, she was initially hired to help with office work but was soon asked to give massages to Epstein—something she testified quickly evolved into inappropriate and unwanted conduct. Sjoberg stated that Ghislaine Maxwell played a central role in managing the household and was often present during these encounters, contributing to the atmosphere of control and pressure. Her deposition supported claims made by Giuffre and other women who alleged they were misled into situations where they were exploited.Sjoberg also testified about interactions with well-known individuals while in Epstein's company, including an allegation involving Prince Andrew, which she said took place at Epstein's residence. She described an incident in which Maxwell, Epstein, and others were present during a moment she considered inappropriate and unsettling. While the full extent of those interactions remains the subject of legal scrutiny and public interest, Sjoberg's deposition contributed to the broader pattern of allegations suggesting a tightly controlled environment where young women were manipulated under false pretenses. Her account was one of several that added weight to the claims being investigated in both civil and criminal proceedings surrounding Epstein and Maxwell.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In her deposition in the defamation lawsuit filed by Virginia Giuffre against Ghislaine Maxwell, Johanna Sjoberg described being recruited to work for Jeffrey Epstein under the impression that it was a legitimate job opportunity. According to her testimony, she was initially hired to help with office work but was soon asked to give massages to Epstein—something she testified quickly evolved into inappropriate and unwanted conduct. Sjoberg stated that Ghislaine Maxwell played a central role in managing the household and was often present during these encounters, contributing to the atmosphere of control and pressure. Her deposition supported claims made by Giuffre and other women who alleged they were misled into situations where they were exploited.Sjoberg also testified about interactions with well-known individuals while in Epstein's company, including an allegation involving Prince Andrew, which she said took place at Epstein's residence. She described an incident in which Maxwell, Epstein, and others were present during a moment she considered inappropriate and unsettling. While the full extent of those interactions remains the subject of legal scrutiny and public interest, Sjoberg's deposition contributed to the broader pattern of allegations suggesting a tightly controlled environment where young women were manipulated under false pretenses. Her account was one of several that added weight to the claims being investigated in both civil and criminal proceedings surrounding Epstein and Maxwell.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In her deposition in the defamation lawsuit filed by Virginia Giuffre against Ghislaine Maxwell, Johanna Sjoberg described being recruited to work for Jeffrey Epstein under the impression that it was a legitimate job opportunity. According to her testimony, she was initially hired to help with office work but was soon asked to give massages to Epstein—something she testified quickly evolved into inappropriate and unwanted conduct. Sjoberg stated that Ghislaine Maxwell played a central role in managing the household and was often present during these encounters, contributing to the atmosphere of control and pressure. Her deposition supported claims made by Giuffre and other women who alleged they were misled into situations where they were exploited.Sjoberg also testified about interactions with well-known individuals while in Epstein's company, including an allegation involving Prince Andrew, which she said took place at Epstein's residence. She described an incident in which Maxwell, Epstein, and others were present during a moment she considered inappropriate and unsettling. While the full extent of those interactions remains the subject of legal scrutiny and public interest, Sjoberg's deposition contributed to the broader pattern of allegations suggesting a tightly controlled environment where young women were manipulated under false pretenses. Her account was one of several that added weight to the claims being investigated in both civil and criminal proceedings surrounding Epstein and Maxwell.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome 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.

Following the November 2022 murders of four University of Idaho students, suspect Bryan Kohberger's phone records revealed a series of unsettling activities. Investigators discovered that Kohberger, a criminology Ph.D. student at Washington State University, conducted online searches related to serial killer Ted Bundy and viewed pornography depicting nonconsensual acts, using keywords such as "forced," "passed out," "drugged," and "sleeping" . Additionally, surveillance footage showed a white Hyundai Elantra, matching Kohberger's vehicle, circling the victims' residence multiple times on the night of the murders . Cellphone tower data further indicated that Kohberger's phone connected near the victims' house 23 times in the four months leading up to the murders, often during nighttime hours .These findings, combined with DNA evidence linking Kohberger to the crime scene, have strengthened the prosecution's case against him. Despite this, Kohberger has pleaded not guilty and maintains his innocence, claiming he was out driving alone on the night of the murders . His trial is scheduled to begin on August 11, 2025, in Ada County, Idaho . If convicted, he could face the death penalty.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Explosive detail buried in Idaho murder suspect's phone records reveals who he called after the killings | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

​On April 24, 2025, Judge Steven Hippler issued a ruling on the admissibility of key evidence in the trial of Bryan Kohberger, who is accused of the November 2022 murders of four University of Idaho students. The judge determined that the majority of the 911 call made by one of the surviving roommates could be presented to the jury, as it falls under exceptions to the hearsay rule, such as present sense impression and excited utterance. However, certain portions of the call, including statements made by an unidentified woman relaying secondhand information, were deemed inadmissible due to lack of firsthand knowledge and contemporaneity. Additionally, the judge allowed the use of a transcript of the 911 call as a demonstrative aid during the trial, provided it is properly authenticated and accompanied by appropriate jury instructions. ​Regarding text messages exchanged between the two surviving roommates, D.M. and B.F., the court found that many of these messages are admissible under the same hearsay exceptions. These texts, sent in the early hours of November 13, 2022, include descriptions of a masked intruder and expressions of fear and confusion, which the court considered to be spontaneous reactions to a startling event. The judge emphasized that the admissibility of these messages is contingent upon the prosecution establishing the necessary foundation at trial. The defense had objected to the inclusion of these messages, arguing that they lacked context and could be misleading; however, the court concluded that, when properly contextualized, they are relevant and admissible.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Idaho judge deals more defeats to Bryan Kohberger's defense | Idaho StatesmanBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

On May 9, 2025, NBC's Dateline aired a two-hour special titled "The Terrible Night on King Road," delving into the 2022 murders of four University of Idaho students and the case against Bryan Kohberger. The episode presented previously unreleased evidence, including surveillance footage of a white Hyundai Elantra—matching Kohberger's vehicle—circling the victims' residence multiple times on the night of the murders. Additionally, cell phone data indicated that Kohberger's device connected to a tower near the crime scene 23 times in the months leading up to the incident. Investigators also uncovered disturbing online activity on Kohberger's devices, such as searches related to serial killer Ted Bundy and nonconsensual pornography, as well as images of female students in swimsuits linked to the victims or their acquaintances.The special featured interviews with individuals who had interacted with Kohberger prior to the crimes. One former graduate student recounted a peculiar text message from Kohberger following a brief meeting at a pool party, describing the message as overly formal and unsettling. The program also included conversations with friends of the victims and experts in criminology and genetics, providing context and analysis of the case. As Kohberger awaits his trial, scheduled to begin in August 2025, the episode offered viewers a comprehensive overview of the investigation and the evidence amassed against him.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Searches and selfies: Idaho college murder suspect Bryan Kohberger's online habits emerge in new detailsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The Epstein document dumps—comprising court filings, depositions, flight logs, emails, and internal records—have peeled back the curtain on a sprawling, meticulously maintained network of abuse, protection, and elite access. These disclosures have exposed how Jeffrey Epstein operated far beyond the scope of a lone predator, revealing a system supported by a tight inner circle that included assistants, recruiters, enablers, and powerful allies across finance, politics, academia, and royalty. Documents have confirmed the roles of figures like Ghislaine Maxwell, Sarah Kellen, and others who coordinated logistics, scheduled young girls for abuse, and even trained them on how to serve Epstein and his guests. The files also implicate high-profile individuals who appeared in flight logs, emails, or witness testimonies, making clear that Epstein's reach was global—and his connections were not accidental.What's most chilling is how the paper trail reveals a coordinated effort to insulate Epstein from consequences. The documents show how his wealth, social capital, and institutional relationships gave him a level of immunity that most predators never enjoy. Names were redacted for years to protect reputations, and many of the individuals mentioned in these dumps have still never been formally questioned or charged. Combined, the document releases confirm what survivors have long said: Epstein's crimes were not only widespread but systemically enabled. These weren't isolated incidents—they were industrial in scale and protected by a fortress of silence, complicity, and institutional failure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:New trove of Jeffrey Epstein's files entries reveals pedophile's network of power | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The Epstein document dumps—comprising court filings, depositions, flight logs, emails, and internal records—have peeled back the curtain on a sprawling, meticulously maintained network of abuse, protection, and elite access. These disclosures have exposed how Jeffrey Epstein operated far beyond the scope of a lone predator, revealing a system supported by a tight inner circle that included assistants, recruiters, enablers, and powerful allies across finance, politics, academia, and royalty. Documents have confirmed the roles of figures like Ghislaine Maxwell, Sarah Kellen, and others who coordinated logistics, scheduled young girls for abuse, and even trained them on how to serve Epstein and his guests. The files also implicate high-profile individuals who appeared in flight logs, emails, or witness testimonies, making clear that Epstein's reach was global—and his connections were not accidental.What's most chilling is how the paper trail reveals a coordinated effort to insulate Epstein from consequences. The documents show how his wealth, social capital, and institutional relationships gave him a level of immunity that most predators never enjoy. Names were redacted for years to protect reputations, and many of the individuals mentioned in these dumps have still never been formally questioned or charged. Combined, the document releases confirm what survivors have long said: Epstein's crimes were not only widespread but systemically enabled. These weren't isolated incidents—they were industrial in scale and protected by a fortress of silence, complicity, and institutional failure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:New trove of Jeffrey Epstein's files entries reveals pedophile's network of power | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

A high-level, closed-door meeting on Jeffrey Epstein was reportedly being organized by Senator JD Vance and others on the Hill, intended to address lingering questions around Epstein's federal connections, financial enablers, and the failures of law enforcement and intelligence oversight. However, the meeting was abruptly postponed without public explanation, sparking speculation that political pressure or institutional interference may have played a role. For those hoping this signaled a real appetite for accountability, the delay reads less like scheduling logistics—and more like the first crack in another whitewashed attempt at “review.”Next up...Despite renewed calls for congressional accountability in the Epstein case, it's now been confirmed that none of the key DOJ figures tied to the 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement—Alex Acosta, Michael Mukasey, or Mark Filip—will be subpoenaed. Their absence is not just conspicuous; it's damning. These are the men who greenlit, signed off on, or shielded the original sweetheart deal that let Epstein walk. If they're off-limits, what exactly is this investigation meant to uncover? Without their testimony, any so-called committee is little more than political theater—built to simulate scrutiny while protecting the architecture of the original cover-up.Next up...Following her transfer to the minimum-security Bryan Federal Prison Camp in Texas, Ghislaine Maxwell's conditions have reportedly changed—again. In contrast to the relatively relaxed environment that defines most federal prison camps, security around Maxwell has now been discreetly beefed up. Additional staff rotations, restricted movement during certain hours, and tighter monitoring protocols have been quietly implemented. The shift raises the question: If she's just another inmate serving time, why the sudden extra layers? Either she's not as low-risk as advertised, or someone's nervous about what—or who—might come calling.source:Congress doesn't want to talk to Alex Acosta, Epstein's 'sweetheart deal' makerVP Vance meeting to discuss Epstein fallout canceled, source says | ReutersGhislaine Maxwell's Texas ‘Club Fed' prison ups security after taking in Epstein sex trafficker | The IndependentBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In this lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Jane Doe 43 accuses Jeffrey Epstein and several of his closest associates—Ghislaine Maxwell, Sarah Kellen, Lesley Groff, and Natalya Malyshev—of participating in and facilitating Epstein's long-running sex trafficking operation. The complaint, brought through her legal counsel, alleges that the defendants were not only aware of the abuse but were active participants in grooming, recruiting, and coercing underage girls to engage in sexual acts with Epstein and his powerful associates. Jane Doe 43 claims she was one of the many young victims ensnared in this network, suffering serious emotional and physical harm as a result.The lawsuit paints a picture of an organized, high-functioning operation where each defendant played a specific role in maintaining Epstein's trafficking enterprise. Maxwell is described as the primary enabler who helped lure and manipulate girls, while Kellen, Groff, and Malyshev are portrayed as essential logistical coordinators who scheduled encounters, managed Epstein's properties, and ensured a steady supply of victims. By demanding a jury trial, Jane Doe 43 is seeking accountability not only from Epstein's estate but also from the living co-conspirators who, she alleges, helped facilitate the abuse and enabled his crimes to continue for years without interruption.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - RansomeComplaint - Final for FilingBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In this lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Jane Doe 43 accuses Jeffrey Epstein and several of his closest associates—Ghislaine Maxwell, Sarah Kellen, Lesley Groff, and Natalya Malyshev—of participating in and facilitating Epstein's long-running sex trafficking operation. The complaint, brought through her legal counsel, alleges that the defendants were not only aware of the abuse but were active participants in grooming, recruiting, and coercing underage girls to engage in sexual acts with Epstein and his powerful associates. Jane Doe 43 claims she was one of the many young victims ensnared in this network, suffering serious emotional and physical harm as a result.The lawsuit paints a picture of an organized, high-functioning operation where each defendant played a specific role in maintaining Epstein's trafficking enterprise. Maxwell is described as the primary enabler who helped lure and manipulate girls, while Kellen, Groff, and Malyshev are portrayed as essential logistical coordinators who scheduled encounters, managed Epstein's properties, and ensured a steady supply of victims. By demanding a jury trial, Jane Doe 43 is seeking accountability not only from Epstein's estate but also from the living co-conspirators who, she alleges, helped facilitate the abuse and enabled his crimes to continue for years without interruption.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - RansomeComplaint - Final for FilingBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In her deposition in the defamation lawsuit filed by Virginia Giuffre against Ghislaine Maxwell, Johanna Sjoberg described being recruited to work for Jeffrey Epstein under the impression that it was a legitimate job opportunity. According to her testimony, she was initially hired to help with office work but was soon asked to give massages to Epstein—something she testified quickly evolved into inappropriate and unwanted conduct. Sjoberg stated that Ghislaine Maxwell played a central role in managing the household and was often present during these encounters, contributing to the atmosphere of control and pressure. Her deposition supported claims made by Giuffre and other women who alleged they were misled into situations where they were exploited.Sjoberg also testified about interactions with well-known individuals while in Epstein's company, including an allegation involving Prince Andrew, which she said took place at Epstein's residence. She described an incident in which Maxwell, Epstein, and others were present during a moment she considered inappropriate and unsettling. While the full extent of those interactions remains the subject of legal scrutiny and public interest, Sjoberg's deposition contributed to the broader pattern of allegations suggesting a tightly controlled environment where young women were manipulated under false pretenses. Her account was one of several that added weight to the claims being investigated in both civil and criminal proceedings surrounding Epstein and Maxwell.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In her deposition in the defamation lawsuit filed by Virginia Giuffre against Ghislaine Maxwell, Johanna Sjoberg described being recruited to work for Jeffrey Epstein under the impression that it was a legitimate job opportunity. According to her testimony, she was initially hired to help with office work but was soon asked to give massages to Epstein—something she testified quickly evolved into inappropriate and unwanted conduct. Sjoberg stated that Ghislaine Maxwell played a central role in managing the household and was often present during these encounters, contributing to the atmosphere of control and pressure. Her deposition supported claims made by Giuffre and other women who alleged they were misled into situations where they were exploited.Sjoberg also testified about interactions with well-known individuals while in Epstein's company, including an allegation involving Prince Andrew, which she said took place at Epstein's residence. She described an incident in which Maxwell, Epstein, and others were present during a moment she considered inappropriate and unsettling. While the full extent of those interactions remains the subject of legal scrutiny and public interest, Sjoberg's deposition contributed to the broader pattern of allegations suggesting a tightly controlled environment where young women were manipulated under false pretenses. Her account was one of several that added weight to the claims being investigated in both civil and criminal proceedings surrounding Epstein and Maxwell.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The one year anniversary has now come and gone in Moscow and in that year much ground has been covered. Yet, there is still much more road to travel before the actual trial begins. So, where do things currently stand? In this epiosde, we take a look at the talking points of the case and where the investigation into the murders and the trial of Bryan kohberger currently stand. (commercial at 8:03)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Where Case Against Bryan Kohberger Stands More Than a Year After 4 Idaho Students Were Brutally Stabbed to Death - The MessengerBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

From the archives: 12-8-22Authorities in Moscow have released a statement asking for the public to help them identify a car that they say may have critical information about what happened to Madison, Ethan, Xana and Kaylee. The car that they are looking for is a white Hyundai Elantra (2011-2013) and they hope that when they locate the person or persons who were inside of the vehicle that they might have some information that will help the authorities crack the case.We also take a look at some of the other headlines from over night.(commercial at 10:12)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/idaho-college-student-murders-update-moscow-b2241157.htmlBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Bryan Kohbergers trial was delayed after recently waived his right to a speedy trial. This comes after his team failed to get the same desired result by asking for a stay in the proceedings due to irregularities with the way the jury was selected. After Judge John Judge denied that request, it was only a matter of time before they waived the right to a speedy trial and looking for a delay. In this episode, we hear from the Goncalves family who is, as you could imagine, not too happy with the news and who asked their supporters to continue to show them support as they try to navigate the minefield that is their new reality. (commercial at 9:44)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Idaho victim Kaylee Goncalves' family breaks their silence after quadruple murder suspect Bryan Kohberger waived his right to speedy trial - and ask supporters to 'stick with us' as 'things are going to get rough' | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

DNA (Deoxyribonucleic Acid) is a molecule found in the cells of all living organisms. It carries genetic instructions for the development, functioning, growth, and reproduction of these organisms. DNA is composed of four chemical bases: adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G), and thymine (T), which are arranged in a double helix structure.Here's a summary of what DNA is and how it's used in investigations:1. DNA Structure: DNA is made up of two long chains (strands) of nucleotides twisted into a double helix. Each nucleotide consists of a phosphate group, a sugar molecule (deoxyribose), and one of the four nitrogenous bases (A, C, G, or T). The sequence of these bases along the DNA strand forms the genetic code.2. Genetic Information: DNA contains the genetic information necessary for an organism's traits and characteristics. The specific sequence of bases in DNA encodes the instructions for building proteins, which are essential for various biological functions.3. DNA Replication: Before a cell divides, its DNA is copied through a process called replication, ensuring that each new cell receives an identical set of genetic instructions. This process is crucial for growth, development, and repair in living organisms.4. DNA in Investigations: DNA plays a pivotal role in forensic investigations and various other scientific fields:Forensic DNA Analysis: In criminal investigations, DNA from crime scenes (such as blood, hair, or saliva) can be compared to DNA from suspects. This process, known as DNA profiling or DNA fingerprinting, helps identify suspects, establish paternity, and exonerate the innocent.Identification: DNA is used for identifying individuals in disaster victim identification, missing persons cases, and in immigration procedures.Genealogy: DNA testing is used in genealogy research to trace ancestry and discover family connections.Medical Diagnostics: DNA analysis aids in diagnosing genetic disorders, identifying disease risk factors, and personalizing medical treatments.Biological Research: DNA is a fundamental tool in biological research, helping scientists understand genetics, evolution, and diseases.5. Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR): PCR is a technique used to amplify (make copies of) specific DNA segments, even from small or degraded samples. This is crucial in forensic DNA analysis where limited or damaged DNA is often encountered.6. DNA Sequencing: DNA sequencing methods determine the exact order of bases in a DNA strand. This is important for understanding genetic variations, mutations, and the genetic basis of diseases.Considering how often we refer to DNA and DNA testing, I thought that it was time for us to have a bit of a guide as to what DNA testing is and how it is used by investigators to help them solve crimes. (commercial at 9:21)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

One of the key pieces of evidence that the authorities offered in the PCA was the cell phone records of Bryan Kohberger. Using this data, investigators say that they were able to recreate Bryan Kohberger's movements on the morning in question by using the pings his cellphone made from the towers it connected to. How strong is that evidence though?In this episode, we hear from Ben Levitan, a telecommunications expert, who says that while the technology is helpful to build a case, it's not the kind of evidence that will convince a jury.(commercial at 6:41)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Expert: Cell records can't pinpoint someone's exact location | Idaho StatesmanBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.