Podcast appearances and mentions of jane doe

In the case of Doe 1 v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. (1:22-cv-10019), Judge Jed S. Rakoff issued an opinion and order on a motion to unseal judicial records filed by The New York Times. The motion sought to unseal certain exhibits that were submitted with summary judgment motions and class certification motions.Judge Rakoff's ruling granted the motion in part and denied it in part. Specifically, the judge denied the motion to unseal the exhibits submitted with the summary judgment motions, but he granted the motion to unseal the exhibits submitted with the motion for class certification. However, this was conditioned on redactions to protect the anonymity of Jane Doe and other victims involved in the case. Judge Rakoff directed class counsel to submit proposed redactions for the court's review within two weeks of the order​.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.367.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)

In February, South Carolina US House of Representative, Nancy Mace gave a "scorched earth" speech on the house floor. In the speech she accused several men of serious crimes, including rape, physical abuse and sex trafficking. None of the men Mace accused have been charged with any of the crimes she accused them of and all have denied her allegations. In this episode aan important ruling by the judge and an arrest has been made. Four previous Impact episodes have been about her February speech. In the August 7 episode, a Jane Doe lawsuit has been filed and a you will hear what was said in a deposition given by a former Mace colleague. In the July 30th episode the discussion was around the lawsuits and lawsuit responses that have followed Mace's speech. In the July 18th episode on the topic you will can the part of her speech attacking South Carolina Attorney General, Alan Wilson. Wilson is running for governor of SC and you will hear his response from an interview with Fitsnews. https://www.fitsnews.com In the Impact of Influence July 10th episode you can hear part of that speech and a discussion of some off the fallout. Seton Tucker and Matt Harris began the Impact of Influence podcast shortly after the murders of Maggie and Paul Murdaugh. Now they cover true crime past and present from the southeast region of the U.S. Impact of Influence is part of the Evergreen Podcast Company. Look for Impact of Influence on Facebook and Youtube. Please support our sponsors Mint Mobile new customer offer and your 3 month Unlimited wireless plan for just 15 bucks a month MintMobile.com/ioi Upfront payment of $45 required (equivalent to $15/mo.). Limited time new customer offer for first 3 months only. Speeds may slow above 35GB on Unlimited plan. Taxes & fees extra. See MINTMOBILE for details. Elevate your closet with Quince. Go to Quince dot com slash impact for free shipping on your order and three hundred and sixty-five -day returns Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In the case of Doe 1 v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. (1:22-cv-10019), Judge Jed S. Rakoff issued an opinion and order on a motion to unseal judicial records filed by The New York Times. The motion sought to unseal certain exhibits that were submitted with summary judgment motions and class certification motions.Judge Rakoff's ruling granted the motion in part and denied it in part. Specifically, the judge denied the motion to unseal the exhibits submitted with the summary judgment motions, but he granted the motion to unseal the exhibits submitted with the motion for class certification. However, this was conditioned on redactions to protect the anonymity of Jane Doe and other victims involved in the case. Judge Rakoff directed class counsel to submit proposed redactions for the court's review within two weeks of the order​.(commercial at 9:21)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.367.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

July 16, 1952. Salisbury, Connecticut. While spending the summer at Camp Sloane, ten-year old Connie Smith skips breakfast and leaves the campground. Numerous witnesses see Connie walking down the road and attempting to hitchhike, but before she reaches the nearest town, she vanishes without a trace. Since Connie's grandfather is the former Governor of Wyoming, there is a massive search effort and her case receives extensive publicity. Over the years, there are a number of unusual leads, including an anonymous letter stating that Connie might be an unidentified murder victim named “Little Miss X”, whose skeletal remains were found in Arizona in 1958. Did Connie Smith become an unidentified Jane Doe? If not, what actually happened to her? And what compelled her to walk away from Camp Sloane to begin with? We explore one of America's most baffling unsolved missing children's cases on this week's episode of “The Path Went Chilly”.Support the show: Patreon.com/thetrailwentcoldPatreon.com/julesandashleyAdditional Reading:http://charleyproject.org/case/constance-christine-smithhttps://www.registercitizen.com/news/article/Missing-girl-s-unsolved-case-draws-theories-13164163.phphttps://www.courant.com/hc-cc-smith-051709-story.htmlhttp://www.doenetwork.org/cases/1193ufaz.htmlhttp://charleyproject.org/case/donnis-marie-redmanhttp://charleyproject.org/case/michael-lawrence-griffin

In the case of Doe v. Black (Case No. 1:23-cv-06418-JGLC), Defendant Leon Black filed a reply memorandum supporting his motion to dismiss Plaintiff Jane Doe's complaint. Black's legal team argues that Doe's allegations are time-barred under the applicable statute of limitations and fail to meet the necessary legal standards for the claims presented. They assert that the complaint lacks specific factual details to substantiate the accusations, rendering the claims insufficient under federal pleading requirements.Additionally, the defense contends that certain claims are legally deficient, as they do not establish essential elements required for such causes of action. Black's attorneys emphasize that the complaint does not provide adequate grounds to proceed and request the court to dismiss the case in its entirety. The reply memorandum serves to reinforce these points, aiming to persuade the court to rule in favor of dismissal.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.602764.70.0.pdf

In the case of Doe v. Black (Case No. 1:23-cv-06418-JGLC), Defendant Leon Black filed a reply memorandum supporting his motion to dismiss Plaintiff Jane Doe's complaint. Black's legal team argues that Doe's allegations are time-barred under the applicable statute of limitations and fail to meet the necessary legal standards for the claims presented. They assert that the complaint lacks specific factual details to substantiate the accusations, rendering the claims insufficient under federal pleading requirements.Additionally, the defense contends that certain claims are legally deficient, as they do not establish essential elements required for such causes of action. Black's attorneys emphasize that the complaint does not provide adequate grounds to proceed and request the court to dismiss the case in its entirety. The reply memorandum serves to reinforce these points, aiming to persuade the court to rule in favor of dismissal.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.602764.70.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The lawsuits stem from parallel cases in the Southern District of New York: one brought by Jane Doe on behalf of Epstein's victims and another by the Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands, both targeting JPMorgan Chase for its alleged role in enabling Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operation. JPMorgan, in turn, filed third-party claims against former executive James Edward Staley, arguing that he should bear responsibility for any liability tied to Epstein, given his close personal and professional ties to the financier. These cases became highly significant in exposing the financial networks that allegedly allowed Epstein's crimes to flourish.In response, Staley filed a motion to exclude JPMorgan Chase's proffered expert opinions, challenging the credibility and admissibility of the bank's expert witnesses. His brief sought to limit the evidence that could be used against him, aiming to weaken JPMorgan's case for shifting liability onto him. This move reflects Staley's broader defense strategy of resisting being scapegoated as the primary enabler within JPMorgan, while the bank itself faced mounting scrutiny for its role in maintaining Epstein as a client despite numerous red flags.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.342.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)

The third amended complaint filed in the Southern District of New York involves six plaintiffs—Jane Does 1 through 6—who have brought claims against Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, acting as co-executors of the estate of Jeffrey Epstein, as well as the estate itself and other unnamed defendants. The case, docketed as No. 1:19-cv-07675-GBD, seeks a jury trial and continues the broader wave of litigation aimed at holding Epstein's estate accountable for his long history of alleged sexual abuse and exploitationThe complaint underscores the plaintiffs' pursuit of justice against Epstein's estate following his death, placing responsibility on those managing his assets to provide restitution for the harm they allege they suffered. By naming “Roes 2–10,” the filing also leaves room for additional defendants who may later be identified as complicit in Epstein's crimes or responsible for enabling his conduct. This legal action highlights the ongoing efforts by Epstein's victims to find accountability in civil court, given that his death cut short criminal proceedings.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.521195.45.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The lawsuits stem from parallel cases in the Southern District of New York: one brought by Jane Doe on behalf of Epstein's victims and another by the Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands, both targeting JPMorgan Chase for its alleged role in enabling Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operation. JPMorgan, in turn, filed third-party claims against former executive James Edward Staley, arguing that he should bear responsibility for any liability tied to Epstein, given his close personal and professional ties to the financier. These cases became highly significant in exposing the financial networks that allegedly allowed Epstein's crimes to flourish.In response, Staley filed a motion to exclude JPMorgan Chase's proffered expert opinions, challenging the credibility and admissibility of the bank's expert witnesses. His brief sought to limit the evidence that could be used against him, aiming to weaken JPMorgan's case for shifting liability onto him. This move reflects Staley's broader defense strategy of resisting being scapegoated as the primary enabler within JPMorgan, while the bank itself faced mounting scrutiny for its role in maintaining Epstein as a client despite numerous red flags.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.342.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The third amended complaint filed in the Southern District of New York involves six plaintiffs—Jane Does 1 through 6—who have brought claims against Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, acting as co-executors of the estate of Jeffrey Epstein, as well as the estate itself and other unnamed defendants. The case, docketed as No. 1:19-cv-07675-GBD, seeks a jury trial and continues the broader wave of litigation aimed at holding Epstein's estate accountable for his long history of alleged sexual abuse and exploitationThe complaint underscores the plaintiffs' pursuit of justice against Epstein's estate following his death, placing responsibility on those managing his assets to provide restitution for the harm they allege they suffered. By naming “Roes 2–10,” the filing also leaves room for additional defendants who may later be identified as complicit in Epstein's crimes or responsible for enabling his conduct. This legal action highlights the ongoing efforts by Epstein's victims to find accountability in civil court, given that his death cut short criminal proceedings.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.521195.45.0.pdf

The third amended complaint filed in the Southern District of New York involves six plaintiffs—Jane Does 1 through 6—who have brought claims against Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, acting as co-executors of the estate of Jeffrey Epstein, as well as the estate itself and other unnamed defendants. The case, docketed as No. 1:19-cv-07675-GBD, seeks a jury trial and continues the broader wave of litigation aimed at holding Epstein's estate accountable for his long history of alleged sexual abuse and exploitationThe complaint underscores the plaintiffs' pursuit of justice against Epstein's estate following his death, placing responsibility on those managing his assets to provide restitution for the harm they allege they suffered. By naming “Roes 2–10,” the filing also leaves room for additional defendants who may later be identified as complicit in Epstein's crimes or responsible for enabling his conduct. This legal action highlights the ongoing efforts by Epstein's victims to find accountability in civil court, given that his death cut short criminal proceedings.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.521195.45.0.pdf

The Government of the United States Virgin Islands, through its Attorney General, filed a civil complaint against the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein, his 1953 Trust, and several affiliated companies including Plan D, LLC, Great St. Jim, LLC, Nautilus, Inc., Hyperion Air, LLC, and Poplar, Inc., along with unnamed John and Jane Doe defendants. The lawsuit was brought in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands, Division of St. Thomas and St. John, seeking damages and demanding a jury trial. The filing emphasizes the Attorney General's authority to protect the public interest, safety, and well-being of residents under Virgin Islands law.The action highlights the government's effort to hold Epstein's estate and business entities accountable for alleged violations of Virgin Islands statutes tied to his criminal enterprise. By targeting the estate and related shell companies, the complaint seeks to recover damages and address the systemic abuse and misconduct that Epstein was able to perpetuate within the territory.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:GVI v Estate of Jeffrey E Epstein Et Al - DocumentCloudBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Government of the United States Virgin Islands, through its Attorney General, filed a civil complaint against the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein, his 1953 Trust, and several affiliated companies including Plan D, LLC, Great St. Jim, LLC, Nautilus, Inc., Hyperion Air, LLC, and Poplar, Inc., along with unnamed John and Jane Doe defendants. The lawsuit was brought in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands, Division of St. Thomas and St. John, seeking damages and demanding a jury trial. The filing emphasizes the Attorney General's authority to protect the public interest, safety, and well-being of residents under Virgin Islands law.The action highlights the government's effort to hold Epstein's estate and business entities accountable for alleged violations of Virgin Islands statutes tied to his criminal enterprise. By targeting the estate and related shell companies, the complaint seeks to recover damages and address the systemic abuse and misconduct that Epstein was able to perpetuate within the territory.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:GVI v Estate of Jeffrey E Epstein Et Al - DocumentCloudBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Government of the United States Virgin Islands, through its Attorney General, filed a civil complaint against the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein, his 1953 Trust, and several affiliated companies including Plan D, LLC, Great St. Jim, LLC, Nautilus, Inc., Hyperion Air, LLC, and Poplar, Inc., along with unnamed John and Jane Doe defendants. The lawsuit was brought in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands, Division of St. Thomas and St. John, seeking damages and demanding a jury trial. The filing emphasizes the Attorney General's authority to protect the public interest, safety, and well-being of residents under Virgin Islands law.The action highlights the government's effort to hold Epstein's estate and business entities accountable for alleged violations of Virgin Islands statutes tied to his criminal enterprise. By targeting the estate and related shell companies, the complaint seeks to recover damages and address the systemic abuse and misconduct that Epstein was able to perpetuate within the territory.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:GVI v Estate of Jeffrey E Epstein Et Al - DocumentCloudBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In March 2023, JPMorgan Chase filed a lawsuit against Jes Staley—its former head of private banking—alleging that he concealed knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse and trafficking in order to maintain Epstein as a lucrative client. The bank sought to claw back eight years' worth of compensation—potentially over $80 million—and held Staley financially accountable for any penalties stemming from lawsuits brought against JPMorgan by the U.S. Virgin Islands and an Epstein survivor known as Jane Doe 1. JPMorgan accused Staley of prioritizing his own and Epstein's interests over those of the firm, seeking punitive damages for his alleged failure to disclose key information.    A federal judge allowed the case to proceed, declining to dismiss it, which enabled JPMorgan to continue its legal push.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:JP Morgan sues former executive over claims he hid Jeffrey Epstein's sex abuse | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The third amended complaint filed in the Southern District of New York involves six plaintiffs—Jane Does 1 through 6—who have brought claims against Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, acting as co-executors of the estate of Jeffrey Epstein, as well as the estate itself and other unnamed defendants. The case, docketed as No. 1:19-cv-07675-GBD, seeks a jury trial and continues the broader wave of litigation aimed at holding Epstein's estate accountable for his long history of alleged sexual abuse and exploitationThe complaint underscores the plaintiffs' pursuit of justice against Epstein's estate following his death, placing responsibility on those managing his assets to provide restitution for the harm they allege they suffered. By naming “Roes 2–10,” the filing also leaves room for additional defendants who may later be identified as complicit in Epstein's crimes or responsible for enabling his conduct. This legal action highlights the ongoing efforts by Epstein's victims to find accountability in civil court, given that his death cut short criminal proceedings.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.521195.45.0.pdfIf you'd like to help support my work:https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support

The third amended complaint filed in the Southern District of New York involves six plaintiffs—Jane Does 1 through 6—who have brought claims against Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, acting as co-executors of the estate of Jeffrey Epstein, as well as the estate itself and other unnamed defendants. The case, docketed as No. 1:19-cv-07675-GBD, seeks a jury trial and continues the broader wave of litigation aimed at holding Epstein's estate accountable for his long history of alleged sexual abuse and exploitationThe complaint underscores the plaintiffs' pursuit of justice against Epstein's estate following his death, placing responsibility on those managing his assets to provide restitution for the harm they allege they suffered. By naming “Roes 2–10,” the filing also leaves room for additional defendants who may later be identified as complicit in Epstein's crimes or responsible for enabling his conduct. This legal action highlights the ongoing efforts by Epstein's victims to find accountability in civil court, given that his death cut short criminal proceedings.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.521195.45.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The third amended complaint filed in the Southern District of New York involves six plaintiffs—Jane Does 1 through 6—who have brought claims against Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, acting as co-executors of the estate of Jeffrey Epstein, as well as the estate itself and other unnamed defendants. The case, docketed as No. 1:19-cv-07675-GBD, seeks a jury trial and continues the broader wave of litigation aimed at holding Epstein's estate accountable for his long history of alleged sexual abuse and exploitationThe complaint underscores the plaintiffs' pursuit of justice against Epstein's estate following his death, placing responsibility on those managing his assets to provide restitution for the harm they allege they suffered. By naming “Roes 2–10,” the filing also leaves room for additional defendants who may later be identified as complicit in Epstein's crimes or responsible for enabling his conduct. This legal action highlights the ongoing efforts by Epstein's victims to find accountability in civil court, given that his death cut short criminal proceedings.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.521195.45.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the mid-2000s, Jeffrey Epstein faced mounting allegations in Palm Beach, Florida, that he had sexually abused dozens of underage girls under the guise of paying them for massages. The case began in 2005 when the parents of a 14-year-old girl reported him to local police, prompting a months-long investigation that uncovered a network of young girls—many recruited by other minors—who said they were coerced into sexual acts at Epstein's Palm Beach mansion. Police gathered statements, physical evidence, and corroborating accounts, ultimately identifying over 30 potential victims. The Palm Beach Police Department recommended multiple felony charges, including unlawful sexual activity with minors and lewd and lascivious acts.Instead of proceeding to a state trial, the case was taken over by the U.S. Attorney's Office, leading to the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Brokered behind closed doors, the NPA allowed Epstein to plead guilty in state court to two lesser prostitution-related charges—one involving a minor—in exchange for federal prosecutors agreeing not to pursue broader sex trafficking charges. He served 13 months in the Palm Beach County jail under a work-release program that let him leave six days a week. The deal also granted immunity to “any potential co-conspirators,” effectively shielding alleged enablers from prosecution. This resolution, kept secret from victims in violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act, became a flashpoint for public outrage and later federal litigation when it was revealed just how sweeping and lenient the agreement had been.In this episode, we see that corruption in action as we hear from one of Jeffrey Epstein's first accusers during a deposition given in 2008.to contact me:gov.uscourts.flsd.318730.1.0.pdf

In the mid-2000s, Jeffrey Epstein faced mounting allegations in Palm Beach, Florida, that he had sexually abused dozens of underage girls under the guise of paying them for massages. The case began in 2005 when the parents of a 14-year-old girl reported him to local police, prompting a months-long investigation that uncovered a network of young girls—many recruited by other minors—who said they were coerced into sexual acts at Epstein's Palm Beach mansion. Police gathered statements, physical evidence, and corroborating accounts, ultimately identifying over 30 potential victims. The Palm Beach Police Department recommended multiple felony charges, including unlawful sexual activity with minors and lewd and lascivious acts.Instead of proceeding to a state trial, the case was taken over by the U.S. Attorney's Office, leading to the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Brokered behind closed doors, the NPA allowed Epstein to plead guilty in state court to two lesser prostitution-related charges—one involving a minor—in exchange for federal prosecutors agreeing not to pursue broader sex trafficking charges. He served 13 months in the Palm Beach County jail under a work-release program that let him leave six days a week. The deal also granted immunity to “any potential co-conspirators,” effectively shielding alleged enablers from prosecution. This resolution, kept secret from victims in violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act, became a flashpoint for public outrage and later federal litigation when it was revealed just how sweeping and lenient the agreement had been.In this episode, we see that corruption in action as we hear from one of Jeffrey Epstein's first accusers during a deposition given in 2008.to contact me:gov.uscourts.flsd.318730.1.0.pdf

In a long-overdue act of transparency, a federal judge ordered the names of roughly 170 individuals—once shaded behind the label “John Doe” or “Jane Doe”—to be unsealed in court filings stemming from Virginia Giuffre's defamation lawsuit against Ghislaine Maxwell. The documents revealed luminaries like Bill Clinton (previously “Doe 36”), Prince Andrew (“actually Jane Doe 162” in context of testimony), hedge fund titan Glenn Dubin, modeling mogul Jean-Luc Brunel, and others represented alongside Epstein's victims, employees, and passersby.Rather than simple exposure of identities, this unmasking lifted the curtain on how deeply entrenched Epstein's network was, reaching into the upper echelons of finance, royalty, and politics.But make no mistake: public exposure doesn't mean public accountability. Unsealing the names confirmed countless high‑profile connections, yet it stops short of revealing misconduct or initiating investigations. In many cases, the inclusion in these documents wasn't tied to wrongdoing—people merely appeared in correspondence or witness lists. Still, the moral stain lingers. If Epstein's proximity wasn't disqualifying, what is? That these names remained cloaked so long—until a lawsuit ended in 2024—speaks volumes about the protection privilege continues to afford the powerful.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Over 170 of Jeffrey Epstein's high-profile associates will be NAMED in court documents set to be unsealed in the first days of 2024 | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the mid-2000s, Jeffrey Epstein faced mounting allegations in Palm Beach, Florida, that he had sexually abused dozens of underage girls under the guise of paying them for massages. The case began in 2005 when the parents of a 14-year-old girl reported him to local police, prompting a months-long investigation that uncovered a network of young girls—many recruited by other minors—who said they were coerced into sexual acts at Epstein's Palm Beach mansion. Police gathered statements, physical evidence, and corroborating accounts, ultimately identifying over 30 potential victims. The Palm Beach Police Department recommended multiple felony charges, including unlawful sexual activity with minors and lewd and lascivious acts.Instead of proceeding to a state trial, the case was taken over by the U.S. Attorney's Office, leading to the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Brokered behind closed doors, the NPA allowed Epstein to plead guilty in state court to two lesser prostitution-related charges—one involving a minor—in exchange for federal prosecutors agreeing not to pursue broader sex trafficking charges. He served 13 months in the Palm Beach County jail under a work-release program that let him leave six days a week. The deal also granted immunity to “any potential co-conspirators,” effectively shielding alleged enablers from prosecution. This resolution, kept secret from victims in violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act, became a flashpoint for public outrage and later federal litigation when it was revealed just how sweeping and lenient the agreement had been.In this episode, we see that corruption in action as we hear from one of Jeffrey Epstein's first accusers during a deposition given in 2008.to contact me:gov.uscourts.flsd.318730.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the mid-2000s, Jeffrey Epstein faced mounting allegations in Palm Beach, Florida, that he had sexually abused dozens of underage girls under the guise of paying them for massages. The case began in 2005 when the parents of a 14-year-old girl reported him to local police, prompting a months-long investigation that uncovered a network of young girls—many recruited by other minors—who said they were coerced into sexual acts at Epstein's Palm Beach mansion. Police gathered statements, physical evidence, and corroborating accounts, ultimately identifying over 30 potential victims. The Palm Beach Police Department recommended multiple felony charges, including unlawful sexual activity with minors and lewd and lascivious acts.Instead of proceeding to a state trial, the case was taken over by the U.S. Attorney's Office, leading to the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Brokered behind closed doors, the NPA allowed Epstein to plead guilty in state court to two lesser prostitution-related charges—one involving a minor—in exchange for federal prosecutors agreeing not to pursue broader sex trafficking charges. He served 13 months in the Palm Beach County jail under a work-release program that let him leave six days a week. The deal also granted immunity to “any potential co-conspirators,” effectively shielding alleged enablers from prosecution. This resolution, kept secret from victims in violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act, became a flashpoint for public outrage and later federal litigation when it was revealed just how sweeping and lenient the agreement had been.In this episode, we see that corruption in action as we hear from one of Jeffrey Epstein's first accusers during a deposition given in 2008.to contact me:gov.uscourts.flsd.318730.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the mid-2000s, Jeffrey Epstein faced mounting allegations in Palm Beach, Florida, that he had sexually abused dozens of underage girls under the guise of paying them for massages. The case began in 2005 when the parents of a 14-year-old girl reported him to local police, prompting a months-long investigation that uncovered a network of young girls—many recruited by other minors—who said they were coerced into sexual acts at Epstein's Palm Beach mansion. Police gathered statements, physical evidence, and corroborating accounts, ultimately identifying over 30 potential victims. The Palm Beach Police Department recommended multiple felony charges, including unlawful sexual activity with minors and lewd and lascivious acts.Instead of proceeding to a state trial, the case was taken over by the U.S. Attorney's Office, leading to the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Brokered behind closed doors, the NPA allowed Epstein to plead guilty in state court to two lesser prostitution-related charges—one involving a minor—in exchange for federal prosecutors agreeing not to pursue broader sex trafficking charges. He served 13 months in the Palm Beach County jail under a work-release program that let him leave six days a week. The deal also granted immunity to “any potential co-conspirators,” effectively shielding alleged enablers from prosecution. This resolution, kept secret from victims in violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act, became a flashpoint for public outrage and later federal litigation when it was revealed just how sweeping and lenient the agreement had been.In this episode, we see that corruption in action as we hear from one of Jeffrey Epstein's first accusers during a deposition given in 2008.to contact me:gov.uscourts.flsd.318730.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The National Parks are Untamed and Jackie and Christy are UNLEASHED! We talk all things Yosemite after watching Netflix's Untamed and we went live during recording so you get to hear what a minimally edited show sounds like.Email us: KillerFunPodcast@gmail.comFollow us on Facebook: fb.me/KillerFunPodcastAll the Tweets, er, POSTS: https://x.com/KillerFunPodInstagram: killerfunpodcast

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.pdf

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.pdf

In the case of Jane Doe v. Leon Black (Civil Action No.: 1:23-cv-06418-JGLC), Plaintiff Jane Doe has filed a memorandum opposing Defendant Leon Black's motion to compel her to publicly disclose her full name. Doe argues that revealing her identity would subject her to undue harassment and invasion of privacy, especially given the sensitive nature of the allegations, which include sexual assault. She emphasizes that proceeding under a pseudonym is essential to protect her from potential retaliation and to preserve her privacy.Doe further contends that maintaining her anonymity does not prejudice the defendant, as Black is already aware of her true identity and can adequately prepare his defense. She asserts that courts often permit plaintiffs to proceed pseudonymously in cases involving sexual assault to encourage victims to come forward without fear of public exposure. Therefore, Doe requests that the court deny Black's motion and allow her to continue using a pseudonym throughout the proceedings.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.602764.127.0.pdf

In the mid-2000s, Jeffrey Epstein faced mounting allegations in Palm Beach, Florida, that he had sexually abused dozens of underage girls under the guise of paying them for massages. The case began in 2005 when the parents of a 14-year-old girl reported him to local police, prompting a months-long investigation that uncovered a network of young girls—many recruited by other minors—who said they were coerced into sexual acts at Epstein's Palm Beach mansion. Police gathered statements, physical evidence, and corroborating accounts, ultimately identifying over 30 potential victims. The Palm Beach Police Department recommended multiple felony charges, including unlawful sexual activity with minors and lewd and lascivious acts.Instead of proceeding to a state trial, the case was taken over by the U.S. Attorney's Office, leading to the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Brokered behind closed doors, the NPA allowed Epstein to plead guilty in state court to two lesser prostitution-related charges—one involving a minor—in exchange for federal prosecutors agreeing not to pursue broader sex trafficking charges. He served 13 months in the Palm Beach County jail under a work-release program that let him leave six days a week. The deal also granted immunity to “any potential co-conspirators,” effectively shielding alleged enablers from prosecution. This resolution, kept secret from victims in violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act, became a flashpoint for public outrage and later federal litigation when it was revealed just how sweeping and lenient the agreement had been.In this episode, we see that corruption in action as we hear from one of Jeffrey Epstein's first accusers during a deposition given in 2008.to contact me:gov.uscourts.flsd.318730.1.0.pdf

In the mid-2000s, Jeffrey Epstein faced mounting allegations in Palm Beach, Florida, that he had sexually abused dozens of underage girls under the guise of paying them for massages. The case began in 2005 when the parents of a 14-year-old girl reported him to local police, prompting a months-long investigation that uncovered a network of young girls—many recruited by other minors—who said they were coerced into sexual acts at Epstein's Palm Beach mansion. Police gathered statements, physical evidence, and corroborating accounts, ultimately identifying over 30 potential victims. The Palm Beach Police Department recommended multiple felony charges, including unlawful sexual activity with minors and lewd and lascivious acts.Instead of proceeding to a state trial, the case was taken over by the U.S. Attorney's Office, leading to the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Brokered behind closed doors, the NPA allowed Epstein to plead guilty in state court to two lesser prostitution-related charges—one involving a minor—in exchange for federal prosecutors agreeing not to pursue broader sex trafficking charges. He served 13 months in the Palm Beach County jail under a work-release program that let him leave six days a week. The deal also granted immunity to “any potential co-conspirators,” effectively shielding alleged enablers from prosecution. This resolution, kept secret from victims in violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act, became a flashpoint for public outrage and later federal litigation when it was revealed just how sweeping and lenient the agreement had been.In this episode, we see that corruption in action as we hear from one of Jeffrey Epstein's first accusers during a deposition given in 2008.to contact me:gov.uscourts.flsd.318730.1.0.pdf

In a long-overdue act of transparency, a federal judge ordered the names of roughly 170 individuals—once shaded behind the label “John Doe” or “Jane Doe”—to be unsealed in court filings stemming from Virginia Giuffre's defamation lawsuit against Ghislaine Maxwell. The documents revealed luminaries like Bill Clinton (previously “Doe 36”), Prince Andrew (“actually Jane Doe 162” in context of testimony), hedge fund titan Glenn Dubin, modeling mogul Jean-Luc Brunel, and others represented alongside Epstein's victims, employees, and passersby.Rather than simple exposure of identities, this unmasking lifted the curtain on how deeply entrenched Epstein's network was, reaching into the upper echelons of finance, royalty, and politics.But make no mistake: public exposure doesn't mean public accountability. Unsealing the names confirmed countless high‑profile connections, yet it stops short of revealing misconduct or initiating investigations. In many cases, the inclusion in these documents wasn't tied to wrongdoing—people merely appeared in correspondence or witness lists. Still, the moral stain lingers. If Epstein's proximity wasn't disqualifying, what is? That these names remained cloaked so long—until a lawsuit ended in 2024—speaks volumes about the protection privilege continues to afford the powerful.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Over 170 of Jeffrey Epstein's high-profile associates will be NAMED in court documents set to be unsealed in the first days of 2024 | Daily Mail Online

In the mid-2000s, Jeffrey Epstein faced mounting allegations in Palm Beach, Florida, that he had sexually abused dozens of underage girls under the guise of paying them for massages. The case began in 2005 when the parents of a 14-year-old girl reported him to local police, prompting a months-long investigation that uncovered a network of young girls—many recruited by other minors—who said they were coerced into sexual acts at Epstein's Palm Beach mansion. Police gathered statements, physical evidence, and corroborating accounts, ultimately identifying over 30 potential victims. The Palm Beach Police Department recommended multiple felony charges, including unlawful sexual activity with minors and lewd and lascivious acts.Instead of proceeding to a state trial, the case was taken over by the U.S. Attorney's Office, leading to the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Brokered behind closed doors, the NPA allowed Epstein to plead guilty in state court to two lesser prostitution-related charges—one involving a minor—in exchange for federal prosecutors agreeing not to pursue broader sex trafficking charges. He served 13 months in the Palm Beach County jail under a work-release program that let him leave six days a week. The deal also granted immunity to “any potential co-conspirators,” effectively shielding alleged enablers from prosecution. This resolution, kept secret from victims in violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act, became a flashpoint for public outrage and later federal litigation when it was revealed just how sweeping and lenient the agreement had been.In this episode, we see that corruption in action as we hear from one of Jeffrey Epstein's first accusers during a deposition given in 2008.to contact me:gov.uscourts.flsd.318730.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the mid-2000s, Jeffrey Epstein faced mounting allegations in Palm Beach, Florida, that he had sexually abused dozens of underage girls under the guise of paying them for massages. The case began in 2005 when the parents of a 14-year-old girl reported him to local police, prompting a months-long investigation that uncovered a network of young girls—many recruited by other minors—who said they were coerced into sexual acts at Epstein's Palm Beach mansion. Police gathered statements, physical evidence, and corroborating accounts, ultimately identifying over 30 potential victims. The Palm Beach Police Department recommended multiple felony charges, including unlawful sexual activity with minors and lewd and lascivious acts.Instead of proceeding to a state trial, the case was taken over by the U.S. Attorney's Office, leading to the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Brokered behind closed doors, the NPA allowed Epstein to plead guilty in state court to two lesser prostitution-related charges—one involving a minor—in exchange for federal prosecutors agreeing not to pursue broader sex trafficking charges. He served 13 months in the Palm Beach County jail under a work-release program that let him leave six days a week. The deal also granted immunity to “any potential co-conspirators,” effectively shielding alleged enablers from prosecution. This resolution, kept secret from victims in violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act, became a flashpoint for public outrage and later federal litigation when it was revealed just how sweeping and lenient the agreement had been.In this episode, we see that corruption in action as we hear from one of Jeffrey Epstein's first accusers during a deposition given in 2008.to contact me:gov.uscourts.flsd.318730.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In early December 2022, dismembered body parts were found scattered over a 3 mile radius in Georgia. The Jane Doe remained anonymous for 6 months, but due to genetic geneology, her identity was discovered. The victim was 40-year old Mindi Kassotis. Her parents were shocked to learn that she had not only been murdered, but dismembered, because they had been told Mindi died at a hospital from a stroke. Authorities then arrested Mindi's husband, Nicholas Kassotis, a veteran and former navy judge advocate.  This episode contains coverage from Day 1 of his trial.  Check out The Alternate Podcast: Inside America's Biggest Trials to follow along as Margot and Tabitha break down each day's courtroom testimony.  ⸻

Classroom Coverup: Border-Hopping Monster - Gregor's Terrifying Multi-State Spree! Witness a predator's interstate nightmare that spans decades and exposes deadly gaps in school oversight! Gary Gregor abused kids across Utah, Montana, and New Mexico starting in the 1990s—beginning with rubbing their backs and legs inappropriately, kissing them on the head or cheeks, and making lewd comments like "you look sexy" to young girls in Utah's Wasatch County School District at Heber Valley Elementary around 1995. Multiple students accused him, leading to a police investigation and charges of two counts of sexual abuse of a child, but the case fell apart when key witnesses recanted under pressure—possibly due to community backlash or fear—and the charges were dismissed. Despite this, the Utah Professional Practices Advisory Commission reprimanded Gregor in 1996 for "unprofessional conduct," placing a letter in his file but not revoking his license. Instead of firing him or reporting to a central database, the district allowed a resignation with a $10,000 severance package and a neutral reference letter that omitted the allegations, praising his "creativity in the classroom." This "golden parachute" was a classic "pass the trash" move, motivated by avoiding lawsuits and publicity in a small town where educators are community fixtures. Gregor's file wasn't flagged nationally, so he moved seamlessly to Montana's Bozeman School District in 1996, teaching elementary grades again. Complaints followed almost immediately: Students reported similar behaviors—excessive physical contact, like massaging shoulders or holding hands too long, and inviting kids for overnight stays at his home under the guise of "mentoring." Parents raised concerns, but the district conducted a superficial internal review, concluding no criminal acts but warning him about boundaries. Undeterred, Gregor resigned in 1998 with another neutral reference, citing "personal reasons," and crossed into New Mexico, landing at Española Public Schools in 1999 as a fourth-grade teacher at Fairview Elementary. Española, a district serving a largely Hispanic and low-income population in northern New Mexico, hired him after a background check that missed the prior red flags due to interstate silos. Here, the abuses intensified: Students accused him of touching their thighs under desks, rubbing their backs while they worked, and making comments like "you're my favorite" to isolate girls. He allegedly invited several for sleepovers, where inappropriate contact occurred, including fondling.  The pattern continued when Gregor transferred within New Mexico to Santa Fe Public Schools in 2005, teaching at Agua Fria Elementary. Complaints piled up: More thigh-touching, kisses on the forehead, and lewd remarks during class. Parents reported to administrators, but the district's response mirrored others—an internal probe that ended with a resignation in 2007, again with a neutral reference and no report to authorities. This shuffle allowed Gregor to evade detection until 2016, when a former Española student, now an adult, came forward to Santa Fe police about being raped by him in 2001 when she was 10. This sparked a cascade: Investigators uncovered dozens of victims across his career, leading to a 2018 indictment on 13 felonies, including criminal sexual penetration of a minor. In 2022, after delays from COVID and pretrial motions, Gregor was convicted in Santa Fe County of two counts of child rape and kidnapping, receiving a 108-year sentence (effectively life) for the assaults on two fourth-graders—one from Española in 2001 and another from Santa Fe in 2006. Additional charges from Utah and Montana were pursued but dropped due to statutes of limitations, though civil suits kept the pressure on. Victims' testimonies from trial transcripts and lawsuits are devastating, revealing a predator who exploited trust over years—in Utah, the 1995 complainants described feeling "dirty" after the touches, with one girl suffering panic attacks that led to homeschooling; Montana victims reported emotional scars like a boy avoiding school from unwanted hugs, developing anxiety into adulthood; New Mexico's cases were the most severe, with the 2001 rape victim from Española, identified as Jane Doe, detailing how Gregor groomed her with special attention before assaulting her during an overnight, leaving her with PTSD, depression, and substance abuse issues that derailed her life—she dropped out of high school and struggled with relationships. The 2006 Santa Fe victim recounted being pulled into his lap and penetrated, suffering nightmares and self-harm that required years of therapy. Overall, at least 20 victims across states reported impacts like higher suicide risks (victims of child sexual abuse are 4 times more likely, per CDC data), academic failure, and chronic health problems. Families spoke of guilt for not recognizing signs sooner, with one Española parent telling the Santa Fe New Mexican, "He destroyed our daughter's childhood—we trusted the school, and they failed us." Stats: GAO says repeats average 73 victims if unchecked. Ties: Like McGann's crosses (Episode 2). Fallout: NM's Erin's Law 2019. On X, demands for registry. Watch the spree unfold—subscribe!  Hashtags: #ClassroomCoverup #BorderHoppingPredator #GregorAbuse #MultiStateMonster #SchoolShuffleHorror #VictimTrauma #NoDatabaseFail #TrueCrimeTeacher #PredatorPassed #ReformNow Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

Classroom Coverup: Border-Hopping Monster - Gregor's Terrifying Multi-State Spree! Witness a predator's interstate nightmare that spans decades and exposes deadly gaps in school oversight! Gary Gregor abused kids across Utah, Montana, and New Mexico starting in the 1990s—beginning with rubbing their backs and legs inappropriately, kissing them on the head or cheeks, and making lewd comments like "you look sexy" to young girls in Utah's Wasatch County School District at Heber Valley Elementary around 1995. Multiple students accused him, leading to a police investigation and charges of two counts of sexual abuse of a child, but the case fell apart when key witnesses recanted under pressure—possibly due to community backlash or fear—and the charges were dismissed. Despite this, the Utah Professional Practices Advisory Commission reprimanded Gregor in 1996 for "unprofessional conduct," placing a letter in his file but not revoking his license. Instead of firing him or reporting to a central database, the district allowed a resignation with a $10,000 severance package and a neutral reference letter that omitted the allegations, praising his "creativity in the classroom." This "golden parachute" was a classic "pass the trash" move, motivated by avoiding lawsuits and publicity in a small town where educators are community fixtures. Gregor's file wasn't flagged nationally, so he moved seamlessly to Montana's Bozeman School District in 1996, teaching elementary grades again. Complaints followed almost immediately: Students reported similar behaviors—excessive physical contact, like massaging shoulders or holding hands too long, and inviting kids for overnight stays at his home under the guise of "mentoring." Parents raised concerns, but the district conducted a superficial internal review, concluding no criminal acts but warning him about boundaries. Undeterred, Gregor resigned in 1998 with another neutral reference, citing "personal reasons," and crossed into New Mexico, landing at Española Public Schools in 1999 as a fourth-grade teacher at Fairview Elementary. Española, a district serving a largely Hispanic and low-income population in northern New Mexico, hired him after a background check that missed the prior red flags due to interstate silos. Here, the abuses intensified: Students accused him of touching their thighs under desks, rubbing their backs while they worked, and making comments like "you're my favorite" to isolate girls. He allegedly invited several for sleepovers, where inappropriate contact occurred, including fondling.  The pattern continued when Gregor transferred within New Mexico to Santa Fe Public Schools in 2005, teaching at Agua Fria Elementary. Complaints piled up: More thigh-touching, kisses on the forehead, and lewd remarks during class. Parents reported to administrators, but the district's response mirrored others—an internal probe that ended with a resignation in 2007, again with a neutral reference and no report to authorities. This shuffle allowed Gregor to evade detection until 2016, when a former Española student, now an adult, came forward to Santa Fe police about being raped by him in 2001 when she was 10. This sparked a cascade: Investigators uncovered dozens of victims across his career, leading to a 2018 indictment on 13 felonies, including criminal sexual penetration of a minor. In 2022, after delays from COVID and pretrial motions, Gregor was convicted in Santa Fe County of two counts of child rape and kidnapping, receiving a 108-year sentence (effectively life) for the assaults on two fourth-graders—one from Española in 2001 and another from Santa Fe in 2006. Additional charges from Utah and Montana were pursued but dropped due to statutes of limitations, though civil suits kept the pressure on. Victims' testimonies from trial transcripts and lawsuits are devastating, revealing a predator who exploited trust over years—in Utah, the 1995 complainants described feeling "dirty" after the touches, with one girl suffering panic attacks that led to homeschooling; Montana victims reported emotional scars like a boy avoiding school from unwanted hugs, developing anxiety into adulthood; New Mexico's cases were the most severe, with the 2001 rape victim from Española, identified as Jane Doe, detailing how Gregor groomed her with special attention before assaulting her during an overnight, leaving her with PTSD, depression, and substance abuse issues that derailed her life—she dropped out of high school and struggled with relationships. The 2006 Santa Fe victim recounted being pulled into his lap and penetrated, suffering nightmares and self-harm that required years of therapy. Overall, at least 20 victims across states reported impacts like higher suicide risks (victims of child sexual abuse are 4 times more likely, per CDC data), academic failure, and chronic health problems. Families spoke of guilt for not recognizing signs sooner, with one Española parent telling the Santa Fe New Mexican, "He destroyed our daughter's childhood—we trusted the school, and they failed us." Stats: GAO says repeats average 73 victims if unchecked. Ties: Like McGann's crosses (Episode 2). Fallout: NM's Erin's Law 2019. On X, demands for registry. Watch the spree unfold—subscribe!  Hashtags: #ClassroomCoverup #BorderHoppingPredator #GregorAbuse #MultiStateMonster #SchoolShuffleHorror #VictimTrauma #NoDatabaseFail #TrueCrimeTeacher #PredatorPassed #ReformNow Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

On the 468th episode of Piecing It Together, we are LIVE from Maya Cinemas in Las Vegas with Celine Ochoa, William Moessinger and Ernest Curcio to talk about Zach Cregger's wildly anticipated Weapons! Puzzle pieces include Longlegs, Lost Highway, The Hunt and Tangled.As always, SPOILER ALERT for Weapons and the movies we discuss!Written by Zach CreggerDirected by Zach CreggerStarring Josh Brolin, Julia Garner, Alden Ehrenreich, Austin Abrams, Amy MadiganWarner BrosCeline Ochoa is a filmmaker from Las Vegas, NV.Follow her on Instagram @celine0ch0aErnest Curcio is a versatile stage and film actor known for his dynamic performances in both classical and contemporary roles.He will next be seen in the horror feature Jane Doe with production starting in February 2026.Check out Ernest's IMDb at https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1661978/And follow Ernest on Instagram @ernestcurcioWilliam Moessinger is an actor known for his roles in Exposure (2014) and All I Am (2024).He will next be seen in the horror feature Jane Doe with production starting in February 2026.Check out William's IMDb at https://www.imdb.com/name/nm6847112/My latest David Rosen album MISSING PIECES: 2018-2024 is a compilation album that fills in the gaps in unreleased music made during the sessions for 2018's A Different Kind Of Dream, 2020's David Rosen, 2022's MORE CONTENT and 2025's upcoming And Other Unexplained Phenomena. Find it on Bandcamp, Apple Music, Spotify and everywhere else you can find music.You can also find more about all of my music on my website https://www.bydavidrosen.comMy latest music video is “Shaking" which you can watch at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzm8s4nuqlAThe song at the end of the episode is from my next David Rosen album, coming sometime soon.Make sure to “Like” Piecing It Together on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/PiecingPodAnd “Follow” us on Twitter @PiecingPodAnd Join the Conversation in our Facebook Group, Piecing It Together – A Movie Discussion Group.And check out https://www.piecingpod.com for more about our show!And if you want to SUPPORT THE SHOW, you can now sign up for our Patreon at

In the case of Jane Doe v. Leon Black (Civil Action No.: 1:23-cv-06418-JGLC), Plaintiff Jane Doe has filed a memorandum opposing Defendant Leon Black's motion to compel her to publicly disclose her full name. Doe argues that revealing her identity would subject her to undue harassment and invasion of privacy, especially given the sensitive nature of the allegations, which include sexual assault. She emphasizes that proceeding under a pseudonym is essential to protect her from potential retaliation and to preserve her privacy.Doe further contends that maintaining her anonymity does not prejudice the defendant, as Black is already aware of her true identity and can adequately prepare his defense. She asserts that courts often permit plaintiffs to proceed pseudonymously in cases involving sexual assault to encourage victims to come forward without fear of public exposure. Therefore, Doe requests that the court deny Black's motion and allow her to continue using a pseudonym throughout the proceedings.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.602764.127.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/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.pdf

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.pdf

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-epstein-chronicles--5003294/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-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

She was tiny, fierce, and fighting for survival from the moment she was born. On October 4, 1978, Wilma June Nissen's body was discovered along a quiet country road in Lyon County, Iowa. For decades, no one knew her name—only that someone had brutally taken her life. Today, we explore the haunting questions: Who wanted Wilma gone? What really happened at the parties she attended that summer? And why, all these years later, has no one been held accountable?If you know anything, please contact the Lyon County Sheriff's Office at (712) 472-8326 or amy.stoner@lyoncountyia.com, call the main office at (712) 472-8300, or submit an anonymous tip to Crime Stoppers at (800) 222-TIPS.To connect with Wilma's daughter, Krissi Haas, visit Justice4WilmaJuneNissen.com or email justiceforwilma@aol.com. You can also sign and share her Change.org petition to strengthen transparency for families of cold case victims.If you are interested in bonus content for our show or in getting some Coffee and Cases swag, please consider joining Patreon. There are various levels to fit your needs, all of which can be found here: https://www.patreon.com/coffeeandcases

We are preparing for the ANARCHY in North Carolina next week, we have another epic adventure for you on the podcast. Kozee is in the guest mix with a rager of a mix, and you know how we do in the resident spot. Buckle up, its about to get rowdy! LOST IN THE WOODS 2025 IS NEXT WEEKEND!CLICK HERE to read more info and buy tickets!Subscribe to the podcast: bestdnb.com/podcast  Neolyth - Lithica EP [OUT NOW on Abducted LTD]Download / Stream: bestdrumandbass.com/altd125/Supported by: Figure, Noisia Radio, Gydra, The Sect, Jane Doe, Bytecode, Nuvertal, Eatbrain Radio, Stonx, X.morph, Transforma, Noisesmith, Psidream, Pish Posh, Bad Ace and more!

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-epstein-chronicles--5003294/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-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In February, South Carolina US House of Representative, Nancy Mace gave a "scorched earth" speech on the house floor. In the speech she accused several men of serious crimes, including rape, physical abuse and sex trafficking. None of the men Mace accused have been charged with any of the crimes she accused them of and all have denied her allegations. In this episode, a Jane Doe lawsuit has been filed and a you will hear what was said in a deposition given by a former Mace colleague. Three previous Impact episodes have been about her February speech. In the July 30th episode the discussion was around the lawsuits and lawsuit responses that have followed Mace's speech. In the July 18th episode on the topic you will can the part of her speech attacking South Carolina Attorney General, Alan Wilson. Wilson is running for governor of SC and you will hear his response from an interview with Fitsnews. https://www.fitsnews.com In the Impact of Influence July 10th episode you can hear part of that speech and a discussion of some off the fallout. Seton Tucker and Matt Harris began the Impact of Influence podcast shortly after the murders of Maggie and Paul Murdaugh. Now they cover true crime past and present from the southeast region of the U.S. Impact of Influence is part of the Evergreen Podcast Company. Look for Impact of Influence on Facebook and Youtube. Please support our sponsors Mint Mobile new customer offer and your 3 month Unlimited wireless plan for just 15 bucks a month MintMobile.com/ioi Upfront payment of $45 required (equivalent to $15/mo.). Limited time new customer offer for first 3 months only. Speeds may slow above 35GB on Unlimited plan. Taxes & fees extra. See MINTMOBILE for details. Elevate your closet with Quince. Go to Quince dot com slash impact for free shipping on your order and three hundred and sixty-five -day returns Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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 Filing

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 Filing

Cathy Terkanian: Find Aundria M BowmanREWARD $25,000 for information leading to the arrest of the person responsible for the disappearance of Aundria M Bowman aka Alexis Badger.Last seen by "grandfathered in sexual offender/predator," Dennis Lee Bowman aka Denny, of Hamilton, MI.November 1988, 14 y.o. Aundria/Alexis reported Bowman had sexually molested her. A brief investigation was done, but Bowman's background wasn't looked into and Aundria/Alexis was sent back.March 11, 1989 Bowman a habitual liar,and still on parole for "criminal sexual conduct with intent to rape a teenage girl by gunpoint," reported to police Aundria had "stolen his money and run away!" For 20 years Bowman was listed as a victim missing endangered, 14 years old Aundria/Alexis'.In 1999 the dead body of a Jane Doe was found in Racine,WI. and in 2008 Carl Koppelman reported to Racine WI. detective that "RJD" might be missing/endangered Aundria M Bowman.The detective from WI. contacted the Allegan Co. Sheriff's department to report the tip. A detective from Allegan Co. set out to learn who Aundria M Bowman was in hopes of identifying, "Racine Jane Doe." In 2014 my DNA ruled out "RJD" as Aundria M Bowman aka Alexis Badger. Then the detective's primary question became "What really happened to Aundria???" The detective knew Bowman from the 80's and 90's and knew what he was capable of doing to a helpless teenage girl. He also knew Bowman a judge had said Bowman was a "threat to women if not locked up."Police changed the status Aundria/Alexis' case to an "open criminal investigation" and offered Bowman the opportunity to clear himself of causing the disappearance of his adopted teenage daughter, but he refuses. Brenda Bowman isn't cooperating either but has said, "the only thing I'm guilty of is staying married to Dennis Bowman."Aundria/Alexis was never seen in Holland, MI. in the weeks/months after she vanished. She never ran away from a youth center as per Doe Network and she never stole Dennis Bowman's money and ran away.If u have a tip and wish to remain anonymous u can at www.tipsubmit.com. Someone knows someone who has been there all along.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-opperman-report--1198501/support.