Podcast appearances and mentions of jane doe

Background of the LawsuitDefendants:Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn: Both are lawyers who were appointed as co-executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate following his death in August 2019. They have been responsible for managing the estate's affairs, including financial assets and legal claims against Epstein.Plaintiffs:Danielle Benskey: An alleged victim of Jeffrey Epstein who, along with other plaintiffs, has brought forward claims against the estate.Jane Doe 3: Another individual who has accused Epstein of abuse and is seeking justice through the legal system.Allegations and ClaimsMismanagement and Negligence:Estate Administration: The plaintiffs allege that Indyke and Kahn have mishandled the administration of Epstein's estate. This includes accusations of mismanagement of financial assets, failure to properly address claims from victims, and overall negligence in managing the estate's affairs.Financial Irregularities: There are claims that the executors may have engaged in or failed to address financial irregularities that negatively impacted the estate's value and its ability to settle claims.Failure to Address Victims' Claims:Inadequate Settlements: The lawsuit argues that Indyke and Kahn did not adequately handle or settle claims made by Epstein's victims. This includes allegations that they were unresponsive or failed to provide fair compensation to survivors like Benskey and Jane Doe 3.Lack of Transparency: The plaintiffs accuse the executors of being opaque about the handling of the estate's assets and the status of the victims' claims.Legal ProceedingsFiling and Court Actions:Lawsuit Details: The lawsuit has been filed in a civil court, where the plaintiffs seek financial damages and other remedies for the alleged mismanagement and failures in addressing their claims.Court Hearings: There have been ongoing court hearings and legal maneuvers as the case progresses, including motions, evidence submissions, and testimonies.Recent Developments:Settlement Talks: There have been discussions and negotiations regarding potential settlements, though the specifics of these talks are not always publicly disclosed.Court Orders: The court has issued various orders related to the case, including directives on evidence disclosure and procedural matters.Broader ContextEpstein's Estate:Complexity: Jeffrey Epstein's estate is highly complex, involving significant financial assets, multiple claims from survivors, and legal disputes. The estate's management has been under scrutiny, given Epstein's criminal activities and the large number of victims involved.Public Scrutiny: The handling of Epstein's estate, including the actions of Indyke and Kahn, has attracted considerable public and media attention, adding to the pressure on the executors to address the allegations and claims appropriately.Victims' Advocacy:Support for Survivors: The lawsuit is part of broader efforts by victims and their advocates to seek justice and accountability for the abuse they endured. It reflects ongoing challenges in achieving fair compensation and redress for survivors of Epstein's abuse.(commercial at 7:23)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 2024.02.16 Kahn Indyke Complaint (FINAL) (wallstreetonparade.com)

Background of the LawsuitDefendants:Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn: Both are lawyers who were appointed as co-executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate following his death in August 2019. They have been responsible for managing the estate's affairs, including financial assets and legal claims against Epstein.Plaintiffs:Danielle Benskey: An alleged victim of Jeffrey Epstein who, along with other plaintiffs, has brought forward claims against the estate.Jane Doe 3: Another individual who has accused Epstein of abuse and is seeking justice through the legal system.Allegations and ClaimsMismanagement and Negligence:Estate Administration: The plaintiffs allege that Indyke and Kahn have mishandled the administration of Epstein's estate. This includes accusations of mismanagement of financial assets, failure to properly address claims from victims, and overall negligence in managing the estate's affairs.Financial Irregularities: There are claims that the executors may have engaged in or failed to address financial irregularities that negatively impacted the estate's value and its ability to settle claims.Failure to Address Victims' Claims:Inadequate Settlements: The lawsuit argues that Indyke and Kahn did not adequately handle or settle claims made by Epstein's victims. This includes allegations that they were unresponsive or failed to provide fair compensation to survivors like Benskey and Jane Doe 3.Lack of Transparency: The plaintiffs accuse the executors of being opaque about the handling of the estate's assets and the status of the victims' claims.Legal ProceedingsFiling and Court Actions:Lawsuit Details: The lawsuit has been filed in a civil court, where the plaintiffs seek financial damages and other remedies for the alleged mismanagement and failures in addressing their claims.Court Hearings: There have been ongoing court hearings and legal maneuvers as the case progresses, including motions, evidence submissions, and testimonies.Recent Developments:Settlement Talks: There have been discussions and negotiations regarding potential settlements, though the specifics of these talks are not always publicly disclosed.Court Orders: The court has issued various orders related to the case, including directives on evidence disclosure and procedural matters.Broader ContextEpstein's Estate:Complexity: Jeffrey Epstein's estate is highly complex, involving significant financial assets, multiple claims from survivors, and legal disputes. The estate's management has been under scrutiny, given Epstein's criminal activities and the large number of victims involved.Public Scrutiny: The handling of Epstein's estate, including the actions of Indyke and Kahn, has attracted considerable public and media attention, adding to the pressure on the executors to address the allegations and claims appropriately.Victims' Advocacy:Support for Survivors: The lawsuit is part of broader efforts by victims and their advocates to seek justice and accountability for the abuse they endured. It reflects ongoing challenges in achieving fair compensation and redress for survivors of Epstein's abuse.(commercial at 7:23)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 2024.02.16 Kahn Indyke Complaint (FINAL) (wallstreetonparade.com)

Background of the LawsuitDefendants:Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn: Both are lawyers who were appointed as co-executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate following his death in August 2019. They have been responsible for managing the estate's affairs, including financial assets and legal claims against Epstein.Plaintiffs:Danielle Benskey: An alleged victim of Jeffrey Epstein who, along with other plaintiffs, has brought forward claims against the estate.Jane Doe 3: Another individual who has accused Epstein of abuse and is seeking justice through the legal system.Allegations and ClaimsMismanagement and Negligence:Estate Administration: The plaintiffs allege that Indyke and Kahn have mishandled the administration of Epstein's estate. This includes accusations of mismanagement of financial assets, failure to properly address claims from victims, and overall negligence in managing the estate's affairs.Financial Irregularities: There are claims that the executors may have engaged in or failed to address financial irregularities that negatively impacted the estate's value and its ability to settle claims.Failure to Address Victims' Claims:Inadequate Settlements: The lawsuit argues that Indyke and Kahn did not adequately handle or settle claims made by Epstein's victims. This includes allegations that they were unresponsive or failed to provide fair compensation to survivors like Benskey and Jane Doe 3.Lack of Transparency: The plaintiffs accuse the executors of being opaque about the handling of the estate's assets and the status of the victims' claims.Legal ProceedingsFiling and Court Actions:Lawsuit Details: The lawsuit has been filed in a civil court, where the plaintiffs seek financial damages and other remedies for the alleged mismanagement and failures in addressing their claims.Court Hearings: There have been ongoing court hearings and legal maneuvers as the case progresses, including motions, evidence submissions, and testimonies.Recent Developments:Settlement Talks: There have been discussions and negotiations regarding potential settlements, though the specifics of these talks are not always publicly disclosed.Court Orders: The court has issued various orders related to the case, including directives on evidence disclosure and procedural matters.Broader ContextEpstein's Estate:Complexity: Jeffrey Epstein's estate is highly complex, involving significant financial assets, multiple claims from survivors, and legal disputes. The estate's management has been under scrutiny, given Epstein's criminal activities and the large number of victims involved.Public Scrutiny: The handling of Epstein's estate, including the actions of Indyke and Kahn, has attracted considerable public and media attention, adding to the pressure on the executors to address the allegations and claims appropriately.Victims' Advocacy:Support for Survivors: The lawsuit is part of broader efforts by victims and their advocates to seek justice and accountability for the abuse they endured. It reflects ongoing challenges in achieving fair compensation and redress for survivors of Epstein's abuse.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 2024.02.16 Kahn Indyke Complaint (FINAL) (wallstreetonparade.com)

Background of the LawsuitDefendants:Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn: Both are lawyers who were appointed as co-executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate following his death in August 2019. They have been responsible for managing the estate's affairs, including financial assets and legal claims against Epstein.Plaintiffs:Danielle Benskey: An alleged victim of Jeffrey Epstein who, along with other plaintiffs, has brought forward claims against the estate.Jane Doe 3: Another individual who has accused Epstein of abuse and is seeking justice through the legal system.Allegations and ClaimsMismanagement and Negligence:Estate Administration: The plaintiffs allege that Indyke and Kahn have mishandled the administration of Epstein's estate. This includes accusations of mismanagement of financial assets, failure to properly address claims from victims, and overall negligence in managing the estate's affairs.Financial Irregularities: There are claims that the executors may have engaged in or failed to address financial irregularities that negatively impacted the estate's value and its ability to settle claims.Failure to Address Victims' Claims:Inadequate Settlements: The lawsuit argues that Indyke and Kahn did not adequately handle or settle claims made by Epstein's victims. This includes allegations that they were unresponsive or failed to provide fair compensation to survivors like Benskey and Jane Doe 3.Lack of Transparency: The plaintiffs accuse the executors of being opaque about the handling of the estate's assets and the status of the victims' claims.Legal ProceedingsFiling and Court Actions:Lawsuit Details: The lawsuit has been filed in a civil court, where the plaintiffs seek financial damages and other remedies for the alleged mismanagement and failures in addressing their claims.Court Hearings: There have been ongoing court hearings and legal maneuvers as the case progresses, including motions, evidence submissions, and testimonies.Recent Developments:Settlement Talks: There have been discussions and negotiations regarding potential settlements, though the specifics of these talks are not always publicly disclosed.Court Orders: The court has issued various orders related to the case, including directives on evidence disclosure and procedural matters.Broader ContextEpstein's Estate:Complexity: Jeffrey Epstein's estate is highly complex, involving significant financial assets, multiple claims from survivors, and legal disputes. The estate's management has been under scrutiny, given Epstein's criminal activities and the large number of victims involved.Public Scrutiny: The handling of Epstein's estate, including the actions of Indyke and Kahn, has attracted considerable public and media attention, adding to the pressure on the executors to address the allegations and claims appropriately.Victims' Advocacy:Support for Survivors: The lawsuit is part of broader efforts by victims and their advocates to seek justice and accountability for the abuse they endured. It reflects ongoing challenges in achieving fair compensation and redress for survivors of Epstein's abuse.(commercial at 7:23)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 2024.02.16 Kahn Indyke Complaint (FINAL) (wallstreetonparade.com)

SPONSORS: 1) Get $10 Off @ BRUNT with code JULIAN at https://bruntworkwear.com/JULIAN #bruntpod WATCH JESSE WEBER'S FIRST PODCAST WITH JULIAN: https://youtu.be/Hn09JVA9-cs (***TIMESTAMPS in description below) ~ Jesse Cord Weber is a host, anchor, attorney, and legal analyst. He anchors for the Law & Crime Network and hosts the nationally syndicated true crime show Prime Crime. Jesse co-hosts Always In Fashion on 710 WOR and major podcast platforms, and is a freelance radio host on SiriusXM POTUS. He has appeared as a legal analyst on Fox News, CNN, CBS, CNBC, NewsNation, and more. His past work includes hosting for HLN, Crime Watch Daily with Chris Hansen, and The Jam in Chicago.  @LawAndCrime  PATREON: https://www.patreon.com/JulianDorey JESSE'S LINKS - YT: https://www.youtube.com/@LawAndCrime - X: https://x.com/jessecordweber?lang=en - WEBSITE: https://www.jessecordweber.com/ FOLLOW JULIAN DOREY INSTAGRAM (Podcast): https://www.instagram.com/juliandoreypodcast/ INSTAGRAM (Personal): https://www.instagram.com/julianddorey/ X: https://twitter.com/julianddorey ****TIMESTAMPS**** 00:00 - Intro 01:41 - Brian McMonagle, Diddy Trial (NY Zero Cameras), Using AI to Recreate Trail (Law & Crime) 09:05 - Downside of Recording & Releasing Yesterday, Johnny Depp & Amber Heard AI & Transcripts, Diddy Case Smoking Gun (Punching) 19:35 - Diddy's 5 Charges, Proving Racketering & Failed, Diddy Misinfo Online, Beating Cassie & Freak Off & Jury's Statement 32:01 - Diddy's Lawyer's Closing Statement (Wow), Diddy Not Charged w/ Domestic Abuse, Key Testimonies from Industry Witnesses, Power Dynamics and Celebrity Bystanders, How Witnesses Added Credibility to Cassies Claims, Cross-examination Strategies and Limitations, Why the Jury May Have Missed Key Emotional Cues 40:51 - News Cycles of Diddy & Epstein, 7 Week Trial & What Diddy was Guilty of, Shawn Combs Eviserated Witness Tossing Off Building 51:45 - Freak Offs but Witnesses Getting Paid by Shawn Combes, Breakdown of Underlying Crimes and Legal Hurdles, Civil vs Criminal Court, 3rd Witness Missing 56:26 - Diddy's Jane Doe''s Testimony (Pros & Cons), Statue of Limitations of Sex Trafficking 01:01:06 - Diddy's Court Trial (Day by Day) Reporting, Inside Diddy's Court Room (Family, Jury, and Friends) 01:08:56 - Judge Reprimands Diddy, Defiant Ones Series & Diddy's Interview, Not Convicted of Cassie's Tape 01:17:41 - Diddy's Reaction to No Bail, Prisoners were Celebrating Beating System, Sex Trafficking Blurry Lines, 01:23:31 - Bryan McMonagle Breaking Down Case 01:25:27 - Julian Getting Waterboarded, Tommy G & Crew Orchestrating w/ Bustamante Torture  01:43:29 - 5 Days of Jury Selection, 1 of the Juries Refused to Follow Instructions,  01:50:15 - Kohberger Case (Idaho Murders) 01:57:05 - Professor Serial Killer Speciality Interview  02:03:41 - Diddy's Jury Selection Process 02:09:41 - Cassie's Testifying & Charges She Made Up 02:14:08 - Kid Cudi's Key Testimony, Freak Off When Arrested (Firearms), Cristina Corner (Co-Conspriator) Not Called as Witness 02:22:35 - Immediate Trial, No Minors in Case, Cassie's Truth or Lies 02:27:05 - Text Messages of Cassie, 2 People Who Jumped In 02:32:39 - The Punishers Testimonies, Diddy's Defense Team, Kanye West 02:38:04 - Espionage Angle, Diddy's Aftermath 02:42:23 - Epstein Legal Breakdown CREDITS: - Host & Producer: Julian Dorey - Producer & Editor: Alessi Allaman - https://www.youtube.com/@UCyLKzv5fKxGmVQg3cMJJzyQ Julian Dorey Podcast Episode 320 - Jesse Weber Music by Artlist.io Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Send us your movie recommendations!In this episode, we dive deep into the morgue with our review of "The Autopsy of Jane Doe," the 2016 supernatural horror film starring Brian Cox and Emile Hirsch. Before tackling this clinical nightmare, we talk about a Cult-O-Rama film event and Sydney Sweeney's controversial bath soap.The film discussion begins around 13:51.

The Autopsy of Jane Doe ist eine kleine Spukgeschichte mit einer nackten Leiche, vielen Jumpscares und jeder Menge offener Fragen. Wie zum Beispiel: Hat uns der Film gefallen? Darüber sprechen Kolja und Wolf in Folge 85!Intro & Was wir zuletzt gesehen haben: Anfang bis 10:52The Autopsy of Jane Doe: 10:52Hier kannst du uns unterstützen:https://steadyhq.com/de/horrohrpodcastHier gibt's schickes Merch:https://horrohrshop.de/[Unser Community Discord!](https://discord.gg/ME9ar8XK4f)Infos zu neuen Folgen und genereller Schwachsinn auf X: [HorrOhrPodcast](https://twitter.com/HorrOhrPodcast)Wie oben, nur mit mehr Bildern bei Instagram: [HorrOhrPodcast](https://www.instagram.com/horrohrpodcast/)[Wolf auf X](https://twitter.com/GameWolf)[Wolf auf Insta](https://www.instagram.com/gamewerwolf/)[Kolja auf X](https://twitter.com/KeylesArt)[Kolja auf Insta](https://www.instagram.com/itskeyles)Fanpost, Liebesbriefe, schlechte Horrorfilme an:Postnummer 1061644681Packstation 14920148 HamburgImpressum: https://www.deinimpressum.com/horrohrpodcastTheme by [Dave_Lo_](https://twitter.com/Dave_Lo_)[Steady](https://steadyhq.com/de/horrohrpodcast/) Allerschrecklichsten Dank an unsere allerbesten Supporter:Anja WinklerBennyGrobiMarkus G.Kerstin G.McLovin008Slightly UncomfortableIndy JonezMartin B.KiritainmentGordon H.Gees TorbenLucas R.Patryk K.PaettschyPatrickSytroS12MattBroetchenLuuChristian FreyFredward the BrainMaxemizerInaKetchup im BartPhil Riverdragon Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Anson Maddocks returns to discuss the case of Samuel Little, the "Choke & Stroke" killer - the most prolific serial murderer in United States History. Little was convicted of killing four women, but then confessed to 89 more murders. He used his photographic memory to paint his vicims, and helped the authorities close 60 (yes, SIXTY!!!) Jane Doe murder cases before he died in 2020. If you'd like to hear more about Little, as well as Anson's opinion of a serial killer's artistic ability, and a story about eight-year-old Mark Tedin, then this is the Kinda Murdery episode for you...Explore the art of Anson Maddocks: https://ansonmaddocks.com/Sources: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/31/us/samuel-little-dead.htmlhttps://www.dps.texas.gov/news/new-details-released-unsolved-samuel-little-murders https://www.insider.com/samuel-little-fbi-most-prolific-serial-killer-us-history-2019-10 https://www.insider.com/samuel-little-portraits-victims-paint-drawings-2019-10#:~:text=America's%20most%20prolific%20serial%20killer%2C%20Samuel%20Little%2C%20has%20been%20helping,victims%20by%20painting%20their%20portraits.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/kinda-murdery--5496890/support.

Jane Doe 1001, a plaintiff in the civil suits against Jeffrey Epstein's estate, alleges that she was lured into his orbit in 2019 under the guise of giving him a massage—and instead was subjected to sustained sexual abuse. According to her complaint, Epstein groomed and trafficked her across multiple locations over approximately a year and a half, using coercion, emotional manipulation, and abuse of power. The lawsuit asserts she suffered repeated sexual exploitation during this captivity period and then continued to endure psychological and emotional trauma long after the abuse ended.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:DisplayFile.aspx (vicourts.org)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jane Doe 17, who filed a lawsuit against the estate of Jeffrey Epstein, alleges that Epstein began grooming and sexually abusing her in 2008, when she was 26 years old and working in Florida. According to her complaint, Epstein, with assistance from Ghislaine Maxwell, lured her into his circle through promises of career help and lavish gifts. He then trafficked her across multiple locations—including Florida and New York—where she endured repeated rape, coercion, and threats that left her fearing for her life, including a chilling threat of being “fed to alligators” if she spoke out. Doe also claims she was forced to recruit other victims and that these abuses were photographed and videotaped to ensure her silence.  to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:DisplayFile.aspx (vicourts.org)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In November 2024, a woman identified as Jane Doe filed a lawsuit against Sean "Diddy" Combs, alleging that he sexually assaulted her on Halloween night in 2001. According to the complaint, the plaintiff, then 18 years old, attended a Halloween party in New York City, where she was escorted by one of Combs' security guards to a black SUV limousine. Inside the vehicle, she alleges that after consuming a drink, she began to feel dizzy, and Combs, along with his security team, forced her to perform oral sex on them. During the assault, Combs allegedly called her derogatory names and sprayed champagne on her. She claims she was not allowed to leave the limo until she complied with their demands.This lawsuit is part of a series of legal challenges Combs has faced in recent times, with multiple individuals accusing him of sexual misconduct spanning over two decades. Combs' representatives have not publicly responded to these specific allegations. The plaintiff is represented by attorney Tony Buzbee, who is also handling several other cases against Combs. The legal proceedings are ongoing, and further developments are anticipated as the case progresses.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.632024.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Happy 4th of July! Hope you enjoy today's episode it was definite fun one to record. Topics below!- Passing out running due to the heat wave- Dominican Republic Trip recap- How much should you spend on vacation?- Hospitality- Should Apple create their own internal international carrier aka embedded E-sim- Having a personal Tailor- Crotchet clothing- Jamaican dialect Patois-Love Island USA has everyone shook- Diddy Acquited of sex trafficking In Music News - Burna Boy - Dont let me Drown , Don Toliver - FWUFollow @degreescouchchronicles on all podcast platforms.Tune into our social for all updates.Click the link here for fitness by Phoenix fit workouts, meals, and more https://www.etsy.com/shop/FitnesswithphoenixGlow Nude @Glow.nude on IG

Sexual assault survivors are often allowed to proceed anonymously during court trials for several reasons, primarily aimed at protecting their privacy, safety, and well-being:Reducing Trauma: Testifying about sexual assault can be an incredibly traumatic experience for survivors. Allowing them to proceed anonymously can help reduce the additional stress and trauma associated with public exposure and scrutiny.Protecting Privacy: Anonymity shields survivors from unwanted public attention and intrusion into their personal lives. It allows them to maintain a level of privacy and control over their own narrative.Encouraging Reporting: Fear of public exposure can deter survivors from reporting sexual assault or seeking justice. Anonymity can help encourage survivors to come forward and participate in legal proceedings without the fear of being publicly identified and stigmatized.Ensuring Safety: In some cases, survivors may fear retaliation or harassment from the accused or their supporters. Anonymity can provide an added layer of protection and help ensure the safety of the survivor and their loved ones.However, there are also potential problems that may arise from allowing an accuser to remain anonymous:Fairness to the Accused: Anonymity for the accuser can raise concerns about fairness in the legal process. It may limit the accused's ability to fully defend themselves if they cannot know the identity of their accuser or access potentially relevant information about them.Presumption of Innocence: Anonymity may undermine the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" by creating an imbalance in the perception of the case. The accused may face increased scrutiny and presumption of guilt, especially in the absence of transparency regarding the accuser's identity.Potential for False Accusations: Without the accuser's identity being disclosed, there may be concerns about false accusations going unchallenged. Anonymity could make it more difficult for the accused to present evidence or witnesses that could refute the allegations.Impact on Public Confidence: Anonymity can sometimes lead to skepticism or distrust in the legal process, as it may be perceived as favoring one party over the other. This could affect public confidence in the fairness and integrity of the judicial system.In this episode we get a look at the Judge's order denying the request to proceed anonymously for the duration of the proceedings.(commercial at 11:57)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.611545.49.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The case Doe v. Combs, Case No.: 23-cv-10628 (JGLC) involves a civil lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by a plaintiff identified as Jane Doe against Sean "Diddy" Combs, Bad Boy Entertainment Holdings, and other entities. The lawsuit alleges sexual assault, coercion, and other forms of abuse dating back several years. The claims are part of a larger set of accusations against Combs involving misconduct at parties, often referred to as "freak-offs."Jane Doe asserts that she was sexually assaulted by Combs and his associates when she was a minor. She is now in her late 30s, and her complaint argues that she suffered significant harm during these events. The case also touches on other previous legal actions involving Combs, including allegations made by Cassie, another former associate. The defense has raised concerns about the fairness of the proceedings due to Jane Doe's anonymity, arguing that it hampers their ability to investigate and defend against the claims.This lawsuit is part of a wave of legal challenges against Combs, with over 120 alleged victims coming forward, many of whom claim they were minors at the time of the abuse. The case continues to develop as more evidence is gathered, including videos and witness statements that could play a crucial role in the proceedings. Combs and his legal team have denied all allegations and are preparing for trial​.(commercial at 7:43)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.611545.64.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Sexual assault survivors are often allowed to proceed anonymously during court trials for several reasons, primarily aimed at protecting their privacy, safety, and well-being:Reducing Trauma: Testifying about sexual assault can be an incredibly traumatic experience for survivors. Allowing them to proceed anonymously can help reduce the additional stress and trauma associated with public exposure and scrutiny.Protecting Privacy: Anonymity shields survivors from unwanted public attention and intrusion into their personal lives. It allows them to maintain a level of privacy and control over their own narrative.Encouraging Reporting: Fear of public exposure can deter survivors from reporting sexual assault or seeking justice. Anonymity can help encourage survivors to come forward and participate in legal proceedings without the fear of being publicly identified and stigmatized.Ensuring Safety: In some cases, survivors may fear retaliation or harassment from the accused or their supporters. Anonymity can provide an added layer of protection and help ensure the safety of the survivor and their loved ones.However, there are also potential problems that may arise from allowing an accuser to remain anonymous:Fairness to the Accused: Anonymity for the accuser can raise concerns about fairness in the legal process. It may limit the accused's ability to fully defend themselves if they cannot know the identity of their accuser or access potentially relevant information about them.Presumption of Innocence: Anonymity may undermine the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" by creating an imbalance in the perception of the case. The accused may face increased scrutiny and presumption of guilt, especially in the absence of transparency regarding the accuser's identity.Potential for False Accusations: Without the accuser's identity being disclosed, there may be concerns about false accusations going unchallenged. Anonymity could make it more difficult for the accused to present evidence or witnesses that could refute the allegations.Impact on Public Confidence: Anonymity can sometimes lead to skepticism or distrust in the legal process, as it may be perceived as favoring one party over the other. This could affect public confidence in the fairness and integrity of the judicial system.In this episode we get a look at the Judge's order denying the request to proceed anonymously for the duration of the proceedings.(commercial at 11:57)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.611545.49.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Step into the chilling world of unresolved mysteries with "5 True Crime Cases Still Unsolved in 2025." These five haunting stories remain clouded in uncertainty, leaving families and communities yearning for answers and justice.

In the case of Doe v. Combs et al., No. 1:24-cv-01457-JPO, the plaintiff, Jane Doe, filed a lawsuit against Sean Combs and associated entities, alleging personal injury. The court issued a Memorandum and Order addressing several key motions. Firstly, the court granted the plaintiff's motion to proceed under a pseudonym, allowing her to maintain anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the allegations. Secondly, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the case, finding that the plaintiff's claims were sufficiently plausible to proceed to discovery.Additionally, the court addressed the defendants' motion to strike certain allegations from the complaint, which was denied. The court found that the contested allegations were relevant to the plaintiff's claims and did not prejudice the defendants. The Memorandum and Order concluded by setting a schedule for discovery and encouraging both parties to consider settlement discussions. This decision allows the case to move forward, with both sides preparing for the next stages of litigation.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:24cv1457 Jones v. Combs Sanctions Order.pdf

Please check out our other episodes and don't forget to drop a like and subscribe.

This week we talk about Jane Doe, a woman getting donations from a friend's house. The man attacks her and ties her up. We also talk about Ada Blackjack, an Iñupiaq woman in the 1920s. She signs up to do an Arctic expedition to be able to get her son back from an orphanage. Things start out just fine until the winter sets in. Listen to how they survived now! Drink of the Week: Fresh Cut

Hey Everyone!Fresh out the reactor this week we've got bangers from Tobax, Constructive Sine, Jane Doe, and Mind Theory.In Demos, WIPs, and Promos, we're diving into new heat from IMMERR & Vecster, Ekwols, Project Zeus, and SLWDWN.As always, Ollie's locked in to guide you through the sharpest selections of the week.Check out the track list below and let's dive in!H_Man - Exile EPhttps://cygnusmusic.link/xzmldrrTRACKLIST AND MORE INFO: www.stonxmusic.co.uk/stonxcast-ep146

Have you ever come across one of those rare true crime cases that keep you scratching your head. Things just don't add up and it seems helpless not having more answers. Well, this case will leave you asking questions for sure. Today KCC discusses the case of a Jane Doe who has been nameless for almost 40 years. She was discovered at the scene of a semi-truck crash. The twist, she was found under the trailer. So many theories surround this case and how she ended up underneath a tractor trailer. It was recently thrust back into the media because Fayette County is determined to give her back her name. 

The lawsuit filed by Jane Doe, represented by Tony Buzbee, accuses Sean "Diddy" Combs of sexual assault, coercion, and control from 2020 through 2024. Doe alleges she was drugged during visits to Combs' homes, subjected to abuse, and monitored by his associates. The complaint describes an instance where Doe became pregnant after an assault and was pressured to terminate the pregnancy. Seeking damages for emotional and physical harm, Doe's case forms part of broader legal action involving over 120 accusers represented by Buzbee against Combs for similar misconduct.(commercial at 8:41)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:combs-biggie-video-party-complaint.pdf (courthousenews.com)

The lawsuit filed by Jane Doe, represented by Tony Buzbee, accuses Sean "Diddy" Combs of sexual assault, coercion, and control from 2020 through 2024. Doe alleges she was drugged during visits to Combs' homes, subjected to abuse, and monitored by his associates. The complaint describes an instance where Doe became pregnant after an assault and was pressured to terminate the pregnancy. Seeking damages for emotional and physical harm, Doe's case forms part of broader legal action involving over 120 accusers represented by Buzbee against Combs for similar misconduct.(commercial at 8:41)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:combs-biggie-video-party-complaint.pdf (courthousenews.com)

The lawsuit filed by Jane Doe, represented by Tony Buzbee, accuses Sean "Diddy" Combs of sexual assault, coercion, and control from 2020 through 2024. Doe alleges she was drugged during visits to Combs' homes, subjected to abuse, and monitored by his associates. The complaint describes an instance where Doe became pregnant after an assault and was pressured to terminate the pregnancy. Seeking damages for emotional and physical harm, Doe's case forms part of broader legal action involving over 120 accusers represented by Buzbee against Combs for similar misconduct.(commercial at 8:41)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:combs-biggie-video-party-complaint.pdf (courthousenews.com)

Sean "Diddy" Combs, a prominent music mogul and entrepreneur, has faced multiple allegations of sexual assault spanning several decades. One such allegation involves a woman identified as Jane Doe, who claims she was assaulted by Combs during an event related to the MTV reality show Making the Band.BackgroundIn 2004, Jane Doe, then 19 years old, was a college student in Brooklyn. She met Combs during a promotional event for Making the Band, a reality show he produced that aimed to form a new music group.According to Jane Doe's lawsuit:Invitation to Hotel Room: Combs invited her and a friend to his hotel room in Manhattan under the pretense of discussing potential opportunities in the music industry.Unwanted Advances: Once in the room, Combs allegedly made unsolicited sexual advances, including inappropriate touching and attempts to kiss her.Physical Resistance: Jane Doe resisted his advances, leading to a physical struggle where she was reportedly pushed onto the bed.Assault: She alleges that Combs then sexually assaulted her despite her protests.Following the alleged incident, Jane Doe states she experienced significant emotional distress, including feelings of shame and humiliation. She also claims to have faced professional setbacks as a result of the assault.Jane Doe filed a lawsuit against Combs, seeking compensatory and punitive damages for the alleged assault. The case is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New YorkThis allegation is part of a series of accusations against Combs, with multiple individuals coming forward with claims of sexual assault and misconduct. Combs has denied these allegations, and his legal team has stated that he intends to defend himself against these claims.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:combs-da-band-photoshoot-complaint.pdf

Sean "Diddy" Combs, a prominent music mogul and entrepreneur, has faced multiple allegations of sexual assault spanning several decades. One such allegation involves a woman identified as Jane Doe, who claims she was assaulted by Combs during an event related to the MTV reality show Making the Band.BackgroundIn 2004, Jane Doe, then 19 years old, was a college student in Brooklyn. She met Combs during a promotional event for Making the Band, a reality show he produced that aimed to form a new music group.According to Jane Doe's lawsuit:Invitation to Hotel Room: Combs invited her and a friend to his hotel room in Manhattan under the pretense of discussing potential opportunities in the music industry.Unwanted Advances: Once in the room, Combs allegedly made unsolicited sexual advances, including inappropriate touching and attempts to kiss her.Physical Resistance: Jane Doe resisted his advances, leading to a physical struggle where she was reportedly pushed onto the bed.Assault: She alleges that Combs then sexually assaulted her despite her protests.Following the alleged incident, Jane Doe states she experienced significant emotional distress, including feelings of shame and humiliation. She also claims to have faced professional setbacks as a result of the assault.Jane Doe filed a lawsuit against Combs, seeking compensatory and punitive damages for the alleged assault. The case is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New YorkThis allegation is part of a series of accusations against Combs, with multiple individuals coming forward with claims of sexual assault and misconduct. Combs has denied these allegations, and his legal team has stated that he intends to defend himself against these claims.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:combs-da-band-photoshoot-complaint.pdf

Sean "Diddy" Combs, a prominent music mogul and entrepreneur, has faced multiple allegations of sexual assault spanning several decades. One such allegation involves a woman identified as Jane Doe, who claims she was assaulted by Combs during an event related to the MTV reality show Making the Band.BackgroundIn 2004, Jane Doe, then 19 years old, was a college student in Brooklyn. She met Combs during a promotional event for Making the Band, a reality show he produced that aimed to form a new music group.According to Jane Doe's lawsuit:Invitation to Hotel Room: Combs invited her and a friend to his hotel room in Manhattan under the pretense of discussing potential opportunities in the music industry.Unwanted Advances: Once in the room, Combs allegedly made unsolicited sexual advances, including inappropriate touching and attempts to kiss her.Physical Resistance: Jane Doe resisted his advances, leading to a physical struggle where she was reportedly pushed onto the bed.Assault: She alleges that Combs then sexually assaulted her despite her protests.Following the alleged incident, Jane Doe states she experienced significant emotional distress, including feelings of shame and humiliation. She also claims to have faced professional setbacks as a result of the assault.Jane Doe filed a lawsuit against Combs, seeking compensatory and punitive damages for the alleged assault. The case is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New YorkThis allegation is part of a series of accusations against Combs, with multiple individuals coming forward with claims of sexual assault and misconduct. Combs has denied these allegations, and his legal team has stated that he intends to defend himself against these claims.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:combs-da-band-photoshoot-complaint.pdf

Count 3 of the federal indictment against Sean "Diddy" Combs, which charges him with sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion in relation to Victim 2, referred to as "Jane" Doe, accuses him of orchestrating and benefiting from the exploitation of this victim. The charge alleges that Combs used force, manipulation, or deceit to coerce Jane into engaging in sex acts for his benefit, potentially with the knowledge or complicity of his associates. The prosecution's claim hinges on the idea that the victim was not participating in these acts voluntarily but was instead forced or misled into doing so under duress, a key aspect of the trafficking charge under federal law. If the prosecution's evidence is found to be credible, it would prove that Combs played a central role in exploiting Jane, using his power and influence to subject her to coercive circumstances.During the trial, the government presented testimony and evidence suggesting that Combs exerted significant pressure on Jane, using both coercive tactics and the manipulation of power dynamics to force her into sexual acts. Witnesses have claimed that Combs used threats, promises of career advancement, and other forms of psychological manipulation to control Jane's actions, effectively using his position in the entertainment industry to trap her in a situation of trafficking. The defense, on the other hand, has attempted to discredit the victim's testimony, arguing that any interactions between Combs and Jane were consensual, and they are expected to continue challenging the validity of the coercion claims. With the prosecution's evidence already on the table, the key question remains whether the jury will find that the victim was truly coerced or if the defense can sway them to doubt the severity of the alleged trafficking.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

A Michigan woman, identified as Jane Doe, has filed a lawsuit against Sean "Diddy" Combs and Harve Pierre, alleging sexual assault and exploitation. She claims that in 2015, during a visit to New York City, Combs and Pierre coerced her into non-consensual sexual activities under the pretense of discussing a potential music career. The alleged incident occurred after a party at Combs' residence, where the plaintiff asserts she was manipulated and intimidated into compliance.The lawsuit further alleges that Combs and Pierre leveraged their positions of power within the music industry to silence Jane Doe, threatening to blacklist her if she disclosed the assault. This, she claims, led to significant emotional and psychological distress, as well as detrimental impacts on her professional aspirations. The legal action seeks damages for the alleged assault, emotional suffering, and career harm. Both Combs and Pierre have denied these allegations, describing them as baseless attempts to damage their reputations.(commercial at 8:28)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Doe v. Combs, 1:23-cv-10628 – CourtListener.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Count 3 of the federal indictment against Sean "Diddy" Combs, which charges him with sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion in relation to Victim 2, referred to as "Jane" Doe, accuses him of orchestrating and benefiting from the exploitation of this victim. The charge alleges that Combs used force, manipulation, or deceit to coerce Jane into engaging in sex acts for his benefit, potentially with the knowledge or complicity of his associates. The prosecution's claim hinges on the idea that the victim was not participating in these acts voluntarily but was instead forced or misled into doing so under duress, a key aspect of the trafficking charge under federal law. If the prosecution's evidence is found to be credible, it would prove that Combs played a central role in exploiting Jane, using his power and influence to subject her to coercive circumstances.During the trial, the government presented testimony and evidence suggesting that Combs exerted significant pressure on Jane, using both coercive tactics and the manipulation of power dynamics to force her into sexual acts. Witnesses have claimed that Combs used threats, promises of career advancement, and other forms of psychological manipulation to control Jane's actions, effectively using his position in the entertainment industry to trap her in a situation of trafficking. The defense, on the other hand, has attempted to discredit the victim's testimony, arguing that any interactions between Combs and Jane were consensual, and they are expected to continue challenging the validity of the coercion claims. With the prosecution's evidence already on the table, the key question remains whether the jury will find that the victim was truly coerced or if the defense can sway them to doubt the severity of the alleged trafficking.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

A Michigan woman, identified as Jane Doe, has filed a lawsuit against Sean "Diddy" Combs and Harve Pierre, alleging sexual assault and exploitation. She claims that in 2015, during a visit to New York City, Combs and Pierre coerced her into non-consensual sexual activities under the pretense of discussing a potential music career. The alleged incident occurred after a party at Combs' residence, where the plaintiff asserts she was manipulated and intimidated into compliance.The lawsuit further alleges that Combs and Pierre leveraged their positions of power within the music industry to silence Jane Doe, threatening to blacklist her if she disclosed the assault. This, she claims, led to significant emotional and psychological distress, as well as detrimental impacts on her professional aspirations. The legal action seeks damages for the alleged assault, emotional suffering, and career harm. Both Combs and Pierre have denied these allegations, describing them as baseless attempts to damage their reputations.(commercial at 8:28)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Doe v. Combs, 1:23-cv-10628 – CourtListener.com

A Michigan woman, identified as Jane Doe, has filed a lawsuit against Sean "Diddy" Combs and Harve Pierre, alleging sexual assault and exploitation. She claims that in 2015, during a visit to New York City, Combs and Pierre coerced her into non-consensual sexual activities under the pretense of discussing a potential music career. The alleged incident occurred after a party at Combs' residence, where the plaintiff asserts she was manipulated and intimidated into compliance.The lawsuit further alleges that Combs and Pierre leveraged their positions of power within the music industry to silence Jane Doe, threatening to blacklist her if she disclosed the assault. This, she claims, led to significant emotional and psychological distress, as well as detrimental impacts on her professional aspirations. The legal action seeks damages for the alleged assault, emotional suffering, and career harm. Both Combs and Pierre have denied these allegations, describing them as baseless attempts to damage their reputations.(commercial at 8:28)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Doe v. Combs, 1:23-cv-10628 – CourtListener.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Recent judicial decisions denying anonymity to plaintiffs in sexual assault lawsuits against Sean "Diddy" Combs could significantly influence other pending and future cases against him. In October 2024, U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ruled that a woman accusing Combs of rape in 2004 must reveal her identity to proceed with her lawsuit. The judge emphasized the public's interest in open judicial proceedings and Combs' right to investigate the accuser's background and credibility. This decision sets a precedent that may compel other plaintiffs to disclose their identities, potentially deterring some from pursuing legal action due to fears of public exposure and retaliation. The implications of this ruling extend beyond individual cases, potentially affecting the broader landscape of sexual assault litigation involving high-profile figures. Legal experts suggest that requiring plaintiffs to identify themselves could discourage victims from coming forward, especially when the accused holds significant power and influence. This development may lead to a chilling effect on the filing of similar lawsuits, as potential plaintiffs weigh the personal risks of public identification against seeking justice. Consequently, the balance between a defendant's right to a fair trial and a plaintiff's right to privacy remains a contentious issue in the legal system.Let's dive in!(commercial at 8:46)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Sean ‘Diddy' Combs case: What the Jane Doe ruling could mean for the other already-filed cases | CNN

Count 3 of the federal indictment against Sean "Diddy" Combs, which charges him with sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion in relation to Victim 2, referred to as "Jane" Doe, accuses him of orchestrating and benefiting from the exploitation of this victim. The charge alleges that Combs used force, manipulation, or deceit to coerce Jane into engaging in sex acts for his benefit, potentially with the knowledge or complicity of his associates. The prosecution's claim hinges on the idea that the victim was not participating in these acts voluntarily but was instead forced or misled into doing so under duress, a key aspect of the trafficking charge under federal law. If the prosecution's evidence is found to be credible, it would prove that Combs played a central role in exploiting Jane, using his power and influence to subject her to coercive circumstances.During the trial, the government presented testimony and evidence suggesting that Combs exerted significant pressure on Jane, using both coercive tactics and the manipulation of power dynamics to force her into sexual acts. Witnesses have claimed that Combs used threats, promises of career advancement, and other forms of psychological manipulation to control Jane's actions, effectively using his position in the entertainment industry to trap her in a situation of trafficking. The defense, on the other hand, has attempted to discredit the victim's testimony, arguing that any interactions between Combs and Jane were consensual, and they are expected to continue challenging the validity of the coercion claims. With the prosecution's evidence already on the table, the key question remains whether the jury will find that the victim was truly coerced or if the defense can sway them to doubt the severity of the alleged trafficking.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Recent judicial decisions denying anonymity to plaintiffs in sexual assault lawsuits against Sean "Diddy" Combs could significantly influence other pending and future cases against him. In October 2024, U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ruled that a woman accusing Combs of rape in 2004 must reveal her identity to proceed with her lawsuit. The judge emphasized the public's interest in open judicial proceedings and Combs' right to investigate the accuser's background and credibility. This decision sets a precedent that may compel other plaintiffs to disclose their identities, potentially deterring some from pursuing legal action due to fears of public exposure and retaliation. The implications of this ruling extend beyond individual cases, potentially affecting the broader landscape of sexual assault litigation involving high-profile figures. Legal experts suggest that requiring plaintiffs to identify themselves could discourage victims from coming forward, especially when the accused holds significant power and influence. This development may lead to a chilling effect on the filing of similar lawsuits, as potential plaintiffs weigh the personal risks of public identification against seeking justice. Consequently, the balance between a defendant's right to a fair trial and a plaintiff's right to privacy remains a contentious issue in the legal system.Let's dive in!(commercial at 8:46)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Sean ‘Diddy' Combs case: What the Jane Doe ruling could mean for the other already-filed cases | CNNBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

She is one of Sean Combs's latest girlfriends. She was dating Sean Combs when Cassie Ventura's lawsuit went public. She was in the room with him when he found out that CNN had just released the hotel video of him assaulting Cassie. AND - she had plans to visit Sean Combs in New York City, on the very trip that he was arrested on. Jane Doe. Testifying under a pseudonym. There are so many questions that the prosecution, defense, and even the public have for her. Such as - what happened during her relationship?What was Sean Combs's reaction to the hotel video being released?Were her experiences similar to Cassie's?But the most interesting question in the courtroom is - why is Sean Combs still paying for her attorney?And - what does that mean for the case?

As the prosecution works to land its final blows, one witness may have just swung the spotlight in the wrong direction—and Aubrey’s here to unpack every twist Joined by attorney Emily Simpson, Aubrey breaks down the bizarre turns in Jane Doe’s cross-examination: from a warm courtroom hug with Diddy’s defense attorney to the bombshell claim that her legal fees are being paid by the very man she’s testifying against. Together, they dissect what it means when the last victim on the stand appears to blur the lines between accuser and ally. Is Jane caught between trauma and loyalty—or executing a strategy no one saw coming? The prosecution’s case has been powerful. But this witness? She’s a wildcard.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

As the prosecution works to land its final blows, one witness may have just swung the spotlight in the wrong direction—and Aubrey’s here to unpack every twist Joined by attorney Emily Simpson, Aubrey breaks down the bizarre turns in Jane Doe’s cross-examination: from a warm courtroom hug with Diddy’s defense attorney to the bombshell claim that her legal fees are being paid by the very man she’s testifying against. Together, they dissect what it means when the last victim on the stand appears to blur the lines between accuser and ally. Is Jane caught between trauma and loyalty—or executing a strategy no one saw coming? The prosecution’s case has been powerful. But this witness? She’s a wildcard.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In the case of Doe v. Combs et al., No. 1:24-cv-01457-JPO, the plaintiff, Jane Doe, filed a lawsuit against Sean Combs and associated entities, alleging personal injury. The court issued a Memorandum and Order addressing several key motions. Firstly, the court granted the plaintiff's motion to proceed under a pseudonym, allowing her to maintain anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the allegations. Secondly, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the case, finding that the plaintiff's claims were sufficiently plausible to proceed to discovery.Additionally, the court addressed the defendants' motion to strike certain allegations from the complaint, which was denied. The court found that the contested allegations were relevant to the plaintiff's claims and did not prejudice the defendants. The Memorandum and Order concluded by setting a schedule for discovery and encouraging both parties to consider settlement discussions. This decision allows the case to move forward, with both sides preparing for the next stages of litigation.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:24cv1457 Jones v. Combs Sanctions Order.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Sam raimi was given a lot of money to do whatever he wanted. Things get silly, talking goat silly. Why does that old hag keep puking? Man, who knows man.NEXT EPISODE ➟ Alaina pending (maybe Autopsy of Jane Doe?)PATREON (BONUS EPISODES, VIDEO CONTENT, AND MORE!) ➟ https://patreon.com/screampodcastSCREAM! SOCIALS: Instagram ➟ https://z-p42.www.instagram.com/screampodcast/ Facebook ➟ https://www.facebook.com/thescreampod/?ref=py_cSCREAMPODCAST@YAHOO.COMHORROR SOUP SOCIALS: Instagram ➟ https://www.instagram.com/horrorsoup/?hl=enYOUTUBE ➟ https://www.youtube.com/c/HorrorSoupLETTERBOXD (MOVIE REVIEW APP) ➟ https://letterboxd.com/horrorsoupcaleb/~Music Credits~ETHAN HURT – WWW.ETHANHURT.COMKYLE HERMAN - @iamkyleherman on InstagramSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Sean "Diddy" Combs is facing a new lawsuit from a woman identified as "Jane Doe," who alleges that in 2004, at the age of 17, she was sexually assaulted during one of Combs' renowned Fourth of July White Parties in the Hamptons. According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff, then an aspiring model, was invited to the exclusive event, where she was introduced to Combs. She claims that after being offered a drink, she became disoriented and was led to a secluded area, where the alleged assault occurred.This lawsuit is among several recent legal actions against Combs, with multiple individuals accusing him of sexual misconduct spanning over two decades. Combs' legal team has denied these allegations, describing them as baseless and asserting his innocence. The plaintiff in this case is represented by attorney Tony Buzbee, who is also handling numerous other cases against Combs.(commercial at 7:41)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:New Diddy lawsuit claims he raped girl, 17, at infamous White Party in the Hamptons | Daily Mail Online

Sean "Diddy" Combs, a prominent music mogul and entrepreneur, has faced multiple allegations of sexual assault spanning several decades. One such allegation involves a woman identified as Jane Doe, who claims she was assaulted by Combs during an event related to the MTV reality show Making the Band.BackgroundIn 2004, Jane Doe, then 19 years old, was a college student in Brooklyn. She met Combs during a promotional event for Making the Band, a reality show he produced that aimed to form a new music group.According to Jane Doe's lawsuit:Invitation to Hotel Room: Combs invited her and a friend to his hotel room in Manhattan under the pretense of discussing potential opportunities in the music industry.Unwanted Advances: Once in the room, Combs allegedly made unsolicited sexual advances, including inappropriate touching and attempts to kiss her.Physical Resistance: Jane Doe resisted his advances, leading to a physical struggle where she was reportedly pushed onto the bed.Assault: She alleges that Combs then sexually assaulted her despite her protests.Following the alleged incident, Jane Doe states she experienced significant emotional distress, including feelings of shame and humiliation. She also claims to have faced professional setbacks as a result of the assault.Jane Doe filed a lawsuit against Combs, seeking compensatory and punitive damages for the alleged assault. The case is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New YorkThis allegation is part of a series of accusations against Combs, with multiple individuals coming forward with claims of sexual assault and misconduct. Combs has denied these allegations, and his legal team has stated that he intends to defend himself against these claims.(commercial at 7:30)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:combs-da-band-photoshoot-complaint.pdf

Diddy Trial Jane Doe Cross examination Diddy is a confirmed cuckold+ she was jealous of Caresha

Amy, T.J, and Aubrey O’Day explore the layered testimony of Jane Doe — with one foot planted in survivor advocacy, and the other stepping into the uncomfortable complexities of testimony that doesn’t fit neatly into one box. While abuse is always the abuser’s fault, Jane’s story raises hard questions: What happens when love turns transactional, and survival means knowing your price? From contradictions on the stand to Diddy still footing her legal bills, Aubrey asks- how much power can you reclaim when the man you're testifying against you still willingly have signing the checks?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

As we wrap up the fourth full week of testimony, Amy and T.J. discuss another crazy day in court that included the judge threatening to kick Diddy out of his own trial for trying to communicate with jurors. Also, a star witness is discredited by the defense and the highly anticipated “Jane Doe” takes the stand.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

As we wrap up the fourth full week of testimony, Amy and T.J. discuss another crazy day in court that included the judge threatening to kick Diddy out of his own trial for trying to communicate with jurors. Also, a star witness is discredited by the defense and the highly anticipated “Jane Doe” takes the stand.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

As we wrap up the fourth full week of testimony, Amy and T.J. discuss another crazy day in court that included the judge threatening to kick Diddy out of his own trial for trying to communicate with jurors. Also, a star witness is discredited by the defense and the highly anticipated “Jane Doe” takes the stand.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Bryan and Anderson review Bring Her Back, Pee-Wee as Himself, The Conversation and The Autopsy of Jane Doe. Then the boys pay tribute to sore thumbs with Top 5 Out of Place Scenes! Listener Survey Loaded for Bear New Promo Video! The Film Vault on Youtube TFV Patreon is Here for Even More Film Vault Anderson's new doc: Loaded for Bear Atty's Antiques Baldywood Newsletter COMEDY CONFESSIONAL  Listener Art:  Jonathan Oxorn and Clark Featured Artist: The Atomic Aces The Film Vault on Twitch Buy Bryan's Book Shrinkage Here The Film Vaulters “Kubrick is Everywhere” Shirt CONNECT WITH US: Instagram: @AndersonAndBryan Facebook.com/TheFilmVault Twitter: @TheFilmVault HAVE A CHAT WITH ANDY HERE ATTY & ANDY: DIRECTED BY A FOUR-YEAR-OLD Subscribe Atty and Andy's Youtube Channel Here THE COLD COCKLE SHORTS RULES OF REDUCTION MORMOAN THE CULT OF CARANO Please Give Groupers a Rotten Tomatoes Audience Score Here Please Rate It on IMDB Here The Blu-ray, US The Blu-ray, International Groupers is now available on these platforms. On Amazon On Google Play  On iTunes On Youtube On Tubi On Vudu Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Investigative journalists Mandy Matney and Liz Farrell are back and we begin today's episode revisiting (01:02) how Scott Spivey was shot to death in his vehicle by Weldon Boyd and Bradley Williams in September 2023.  A significant development comes in the form of a "legal filing", an "absurd 9-page motion to stay" by Bradley Williams' attorney, Robert E. Lee… yup, that's the name he prefers… We'll also share a disturbing, but pertinent call between Weldon and his granny discussing the incident.  Then (23:00) we share updates on the 'updated' sentence of suspended Hilton Head Island attorney Peter Strauss, the as-yet-unscheduled sentencing for Russell Laffitte, Michael Colucci's retrial scheduled for June 16th and Lee Gilley's Houston status hearing on June 4th for his murder trial.   As our primary focus, (25:06) Mandy and Liz critically examine the 2025 Horry County Police investigation into the 2021 death of Chris Skinner, husband of JP Miller's alleged mistress, highlighting discrepancies between the official ruling of accidental death and video evidence suggesting something else. We'll share police interviews with Chris Skinner's friends, noting the friend's belief the death was a suicide possibly influenced by JP Miller, and questioning the wife's inconsistent statements and demeanor.  Ultimately, we are advocating for truth and justice in all these cases.  Lots to cover, so let's dive in...