Podcast appearances and mentions of jane doe

In this 2008 case, Jane Doe No. 1 v. Jeffrey Epstein, Haley Robson, and Sarah Kellen, the plaintiff sought to have her lawsuit returned to state court after the defendants removed it to federal court. Epstein and his co-defendants argued for keeping the case at the federal level, while the plaintiff maintained that state jurisdiction was proper. The motion to remand, filed on August 18, 2008, was fully briefed with responses and replies from both sides, giving the court a complete record for review.After considering the arguments and reviewing the filings, the court issued its opinion and order remanding the matter back to state court. The judge determined that federal jurisdiction was not appropriate in this instance, meaning the claims against Epstein, Robson, and Kellen would proceed through the state court system rather than in federal court. This ruling ensured that the case would be handled under state-level legal procedures rather than federal oversight.to conctact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:USCOURTS-flsd-9_08-cv-80804-0.pdf (govinfo.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The AG team worked with Wilma's daughter, Krissi, to compile an episode on Wilma's journey from Jane Doe to murder victim in need of justice. Written and researched by Charity Dodd, Audio Production by Bill Bert. Anyone with information about Wilma's homicide, “Sugar” or “Peaches” is urged to contact the Lyon County Sheriff's Office at (712) 472-8300  Head to https://www.homeaglow.com/alreadygone to get your first 3 hours of cleaning for only $19. Thanks so much to Homeaglow for sponsoring this episode! #Iowa #SouthDakota #unsolved #unidentified

A detective stumbles upon the case of a Jane Doe and begins to reassemble a mystery that law enforcement had long abandoned. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Let us know your thoughtsDust down the chalkboard, grab your scalpel and unzip the body bag, we are discussing The Autopsy of Jane Doe.The Horror Cut heads back into Glasgow for a special live screening and discussion of André Øvredal's chilling 2016 horror mystery The Autopsy of Jane Doe. Recorded in front of an audience at The Old Hairdressers, this episode dives into the film's claustrophobic setting, slow-burn tension, and the eerie layers beneath its simple premise.IG - @thehorrorcutshow | @HewittGPro | @StephenkerrActor_Performer FB - Facebook.com/profile.php?id=61573701383591

Send us a textYears into their relationship Wolfie, Ravenshadow, and MZ find themselves at a crossroads as they move to the country. With tensions already flaring, an encounter with an unnatural force threatens to corrupt their lives, their loathing, and their run of consecutive shows. On Episode 685 of Trick or Treat Radio we discuss the film Together from director Michael Shanks! We also talk about the very long storied history of the Amityville films, plagiarism in cinema, and the process of building a relationship into a single entity. So grab your girth certificate, unbox your colorectal kit, and strap on for the world's most dangerous podcast!Stuff we talk about: Presence, Conjuring: Last Rites, Good Boy, haunted house movies, Amityville Horror, David Sandberg, Lights Out, The Autopsy of Jane Doe, Dead Stream, all the Amityville movies, Superman, DCU, James Gunn, Marvel Filmmaking, The Ghostbreaker, The Hound of the Baskervilles, The Blob, Endangered Species, Witchboard 2, Stigmata, Stir of Echoes, Malevolence, Resident Evil: Apocalypse, Black Sheep, Deadgirl, Resident Evil: Afterlife, Almost Human, A Low Budget Nightmare, Psycho Goreman, Joe Begos, Slumber Party Massacre, Masters of Horror, Ryan Phillipe, Way of the Gun, 54, James Duval, Night of the Living Dead Contagion, May, Donnie Darko, That Thing You Do, Jonathan Schaech, Chris Columbus, Gremlins, The VVitch, Polly Holliday, Joe Perry, The Lost Boys, Lords of Salem, Doomwatch, Torso, Alligator, The Tell Tale Heart, The Day the Earth Stood Still, The Haunting, RIP Scott Spiegel, Thou Shall Not Kill… Except, Intruder, Renee Estevez, The West Wing, Emilio Estevez, Addams Family Reunion, GLOW, Community, Marc Mero, Chavo Guerrero, Coca-Cola-rectol, Cologuard, trailer reactions, 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple, Warm Bodies, Fright Night, The Thing, Society, Brian Yuzna, Together, Allison Brie, Dave Franco, James Franco, body horror, plagiarism, living in sin, codependence, The Sexy Skeksis, Spice Girls, Barbarian, Love Justin Long Time, Weapons, Zach Cregger, Robot Chicken, Josh Brolin, Carnivale, The Sexy Skeksis, Stuck in a Hole, Girth Certificate, Conjuring Karen, and Don't Plagiarize Me Bro!Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/trickortreatradioJoin our Discord Community: discord.trickortreatradio.comSend Email/Voicemail: mailto:podcast@trickortreatradio.comVisit our website: http://trickortreatradio.comStart your own podcast: https://www.buzzsprout.com/?referrer_id=386Use our Amazon link: http://amzn.to/2CTdZzKFB Group: http://www.facebook.com/groups/trickortreatradioTwitter: http://twitter.com/TrickTreatRadioFacebook: http://facebook.com/TrickOrTreatRadioYouTube: http://youtube.com/TrickOrTreatRadioInstagram: http://instagram.com/TrickorTreatRadioSupport the show

The Long Island Serial Killings, also known as the Gilgo Beach Murders or the Craigslist Ripper case, is an unsolved serial murder investigation centered around the discovery of numerous human remains on Long Island, New York. The case has been ongoing since 2010 and remains unsolved as of my knowledge cutoff in September 2021.The initial discovery took place on December 11, 2010, when police were searching for a missing woman named Shannan Gilbert, a sex worker who had gone to meet a client in Oak Beach, Suffolk County. During the search, police found the remains of four women in the vicinity of Gilgo Beach. These victims were later identified as Megan Waterman, Maureen Brainard-Barnes, Melissa Barthelemy, and Amber Lynn Costello, all of whom were also involved in sex work.As the investigation progressed, additional remains were discovered in the same area. In March and April 2011, six more sets of remains were found, along with the remains of an unidentified toddler, who came to be known as "Baby Doe" or "Jane Doe #6." The additional victims were identified as Jessica Taylor, Valerie Mack, Jane Doe #6 (the toddler), and an Asian male dressed in women's clothing.The police discovered that many of the victims had connections to the sex trade and had advertised their services on websites like Craigslist. This led investigators to suspect that a serial killer, dubbed the "Long Island Serial Killer" or "Craigslist Ripper," was specifically targeting sex workers in the area.The case gained significant media attention and sparked a large-scale investigation involving local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies.The search for additional evidence continued over the years, including the use of cadaver dogs, aerial searches, and the excavation of specific areas. Despite these efforts, no further bodies were found.The investigation faced various challenges and controversies. Shannan Gilbert's disappearance and death were initially treated as unrelated to the serial killings. However, her death was later attributed to accidental drowning.The mishandling of the case and the delayed response to her initial 911 call raised questions about the police's handling of the investigation.In September 2017, the Suffolk County Police released new evidence, including photos of a belt that they believed may have belonged to the killer. They also released a recording of an anonymous phone call made by a man claiming to have information about the murders. However, no significant breakthroughs occurred following these releases.Now after more than a decade, a suspect has been arrested. This is a developing story.(commercial at 7:51)to contact me:bobbycapucci@porotonmail.comsource:Gilgo Beach serial killer suspect arrested for murders of 10 women on Long Island | The IndependentBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

A disclaimer to Brandon Rafi and his associates as well as his attorneys , including Andrew Gould, this podcast is for fun and not to be taken literal. However, everything that comes out of the podcast is based on conversations, events, and communications with others that we simply share on this podcast. The FBI part is true , don't get it twisted. In this episode we share that Raees Mohamed and Geoff Sturr will have a Rule 16(d) Conference with Judge Pineda on September 24, 2025. We reason that after all this time, Judge Pineda will simply advise Raees to give us dates for a deposition. We remind Brandon again that the FBI is watching and they visited my home several months ago. We are not telling him this to extort him for money. But we would like him to sit down for a deposition. It's the least he can do for making us wait 18 months to get us any type of discovery. We recount Andrew Gould taking a loss in the Republican Primary for Attorney General. Good Move! We also recount his loss he took in the Appeal. Speaking of Appeal, Jane Doe hired Tiffany & Bosco to file her response in the Order of Protection appeal. We now wait 6-9 months for the ruling. Stay tuned.

In this enlightening episode, we delve into the intricacies of statutes of limitation and repose, unraveling their significance in the legal landscape. Discover how these legal timeframes impact both plaintiffs and defendants, and why understanding them is crucial for navigating the justice system effectively. Join us as we explore real-world examples and expert insights to shed light on these often misunderstood legal concepts.Imagine you're involved in a legal dispute, and just when you think you're ready to take action, you find out that time has run out. This is where the concepts of statutes of limitation and repose come into play. These legal timeframes can make or break a case, and understanding them is essential for anyone navigating the legal system.Understanding Statutes of Limitation: Statutes of limitation set the maximum time after an event within which legal proceedings may be initiated. As legal expert Jane Doe explains, "These statutes are designed to ensure fairness by preventing the indefinite threat of a lawsuit." They vary by jurisdiction and type of claim, so it's crucial to know the specific limitations that apply to your case.The Role of Statutes of Repose: While similar to statutes of limitation, statutes of repose serve a different purpose. They provide a final deadline for filing a lawsuit, regardless of when the harm was discovered. John Smith, a seasoned attorney, notes, "Statutes of repose are about providing certainty and finality, especially in industries like construction and manufacturing."Real-World Implications: Consider a scenario where a construction defect is discovered years after a building is completed. The statute of repose may bar any legal action, even if the defect was hidden. This highlights the importance of understanding these legal timeframes and seeking timely legal advice.Navigating the complexities of statutes of limitation and repose can be daunting, but it's a critical aspect of legal strategy. By understanding these concepts, individuals and businesses can better protect their rights and make informed decisions. Subscribe now to stay informed about more legal insights and updates.TakeawaysStatutes of limitation are essential for fairness and efficiency in law.The discovery rule allows for fairness in cases of hidden injuries.Civil statutes of limitation apply to various types of claims, including torts and contracts.Breach of contract claims have specific limitation periods that must be adhered to.Medical malpractice cases often involve complex interactions between statutes of limitation and repose.Criminal law has its own set of statutes of limitation that protect defendants' rights.Certain serious crimes have no statute of limitations, reflecting societal interests in justice.Tolling provisions can pause the statute of limitations under specific circumstances.Continuing violations can reset the limitation period for ongoing wrongs.Understanding these legal timeframes is crucial for effective client representation.statutes of limitation, statutes of repose, legal doctrines, discovery rule, civil law, criminal law, medical malpractice, breach of contract, tolling provisions, legal strategy

Episode 155 Doe ID: Tisha Ann Dyer In 2003, human skeletal remains were found in a very remote area of Mt. Hood, Oregon.  Not much was determined about the person the scant bones belonged to, other than she was a female.  The Hood River County Sheriff's Office attempted to identify the remains by scouring the many missing person's cases in the area, but was unable to give a name to the deceased.  In 2020, a Parabon phenotype analysis predicted that the Jane Doe had brown hair, fair skin, and green or hazel eyes.  The Parabon genealogist used IGG to identify the bones as belonging to Tisha Ann Dyer.  Tisha was last known to be living in Portland, and was last in contact with her family in 2002.  What happened to Tisha, and how did she end up on Mt. Hood? After two decades, Tisha finally has her name back and this is her story.    To listen to every episode of DNA: ID ad-free and get other benefits, simply  visit our channel page on Apple Podcasts to get started with an AbJack Insider subscription. Of course, you can also support DNA: ID with a Patreon subscription. Follow us on social media;  find all of our social media links in one spot at our Linktree:  linktr.ee/dnaidpodcast

The Long Island Serial Killings, also known as the Gilgo Beach Murders or the Craigslist Ripper case, is an unsolved serial murder investigation centered around the discovery of numerous human remains on Long Island, New York. The case has been ongoing since 2010 and remains unsolved as of my knowledge cutoff in September 2021.The initial discovery took place on December 11, 2010, when police were searching for a missing woman named Shannan Gilbert, a sex worker who had gone to meet a client in Oak Beach, Suffolk County. During the search, police found the remains of four women in the vicinity of Gilgo Beach. These victims were later identified as Megan Waterman, Maureen Brainard-Barnes, Melissa Barthelemy, and Amber Lynn Costello, all of whom were also involved in sex work.As the investigation progressed, additional remains were discovered in the same area. In March and April 2011, six more sets of remains were found, along with the remains of an unidentified toddler, who came to be known as "Baby Doe" or "Jane Doe #6." The additional victims were identified as Jessica Taylor, Valerie Mack, Jane Doe #6 (the toddler), and an Asian male dressed in women's clothing.The police discovered that many of the victims had connections to the sex trade and had advertised their services on websites like Craigslist.This led investigators to suspect that a serial killer, dubbed the "Long Island Serial Killer" or "Craigslist Ripper," was specifically targeting sex workers in the area.The case gained significant media attention and sparked a large-scale investigation involving local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies. The search for additional evidence continued over the years, including the use of cadaver dogs, aerial searches, and the excavation of specific areas.Despite these efforts, no further bodies were found.The investigation faced various challenges and controversies. Shannan Gilbert's disappearance and death were initially treated as unrelated to the serial killings. However, her death was later attributed to accidental drowning. The mishandling of the case and the delayed response to her initial 911 call raised questions about the police's handling of the investigation.Then on July 13th, 2023 an arrest in the case was finally made. The man arrested? Rex Heuermann. In this episode, we hear from Dave Schaller, the man who gave the police the tip about who Heuermann was over a decade ago and even gave them a description of the vehicle the alleged serial killer was driving.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:He came face to face with an alleged serial killer. 12 years later, his tip helped crack the case | AP News

In 2020, an accuser known as “Jane Doe” filed a lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein's estate and Ghislaine Maxwell, alleging she was recruited and sexually abused as a minor. According to her attorney, estate lawyers engaged in a “concerted and coordinated effort” to pressure her into the Epstein Victims' Compensation Fund—a voluntary, non-adversarial program—rather than allowing her claim to proceed through the courts. Her attorney further claimed that the estate had “resorted to belittling” her simply for resisting, asserting she was being penalized for exercising her legal right to pursue the claim in court.Estate attorney Mary Grace Metcalfe formally denied these allegations, stating in court that they were “completely untrue” and that the claim of belittlement reflected a lack of good faith from the plaintiff's side. Meanwhile, the judge handling the case delayed a deposition of Epstein's co-executor, Darren Indyke, pending considerations over a motion to stay the case. The ongoing dispute highlighted tensions between pursuing judicial redress and channeling claims into the estate's established compensation structure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jane Doe v. Pamela Bondi

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

Join me and my guest Emma from the Beyond the screams podcast as we chat about another movie i am covering since my return that is absolutely under appreciated and under seen and it deserves alot more loveThe Autopsy of Jane Doe is a fantastic movie and we had a super fun and in depth chat all about itbe sure to listen right to the end to hear a first time horror movie memory that was sent over to me to read out and also hear Emma's first horror memory also Please be sure to check out everything Emma does with Beyond the Screams podcast on the below linkshttps://www.instagram.com/beyondthescreampodcast?utm_source=ig_web_button_share_sheet&igsh=ZDNlZDc0MzIxNw==https://open.spotify.com/show/0GEFYvNSi79KAgoBQXzp3c?si=571dfa323efa4314and if you are somebody that prefers to watch video versions of podcasts rather than listening, then you can click the below link to go to our YouTube channel to watch this episode and so many more⁠https://youtube.com/@theletstalkhorrorchannel?si=TGME1PTgfgG0VaL9⁠

There are so many unidentified human remains in the United States that the ⁠National Missing and Unidentified Persons System⁠ calls it “the nation's silent mass disaster.” Roughly 4,400 human remains are found every year, and nearly one-quarter of those remain unidentified after one year. Some people were never reported missing. Some went missing decades ago. Some remains are incomplete, parts of them still out there like missing pieces to a puzzle. Cases run cold. The unidentified remains are placed in boxes and left on evidence room shelves, waiting for another shot at an investigation. Or maybe just a chance to be remembered. And that's if their cardboard tombs are not lost or forgotten first. In Oregon, there are 120 unidentified persons cases. Cold cases exist in 33 of Oregon's 36 counties. Regan Mertz spent months delving into this issue for The Oregonian/OregonLive. She obtained and reviewed missing persons case files, interviewed current and former law enforcement officers, anthropologists and experts around the country. She also interviewed family members of missing people. This is ⁠The Unidentifieds⁠, a podcast that investigates four long-forgotten cases in Oregon and how online genealogy and forensic anthropology helped families get closure. Cases that long seemed hopeless, now seem solvable. People who've existed for decades as lonely, nameless phantoms can, if nothing else, get their identities back. In episode one, Regan and co-host Dave Killen go on a trip to southern Oregon's Redwood Highway, where in 1971 a father and son discovered what looked liked a human spine and ribs while on a camping trip near mile marker 35. Upon initial investigation, the remains appeared to belong to a young woman, 18 to 20 years old, tall and slim. But the case went cold. And the remains became known as Jane Doe 79-940. Subscribe to The Unidentifieds anywhere you listen to podcasts and give it a five-star rating on Apple Podcasts. ⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In November 2023, U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff granted final approval to a $290 million settlement in Jane Doe 1 et al. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., resolving claims that the bank had maintained a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein despite awareness of his sex‑trafficking activities. Describing the deal as “a really excellent settlement” in a case of such complexity, Judge Rakoff emphasized its broader significance—sending a clear signal to financial institutions about their duty to avoid facilitating illegal conductRakoff also rejected a late objection filed by attorneys general from multiple states, who argued that certain settlement terms might impair governments from bringing future claims. He determined the language was not overly restrictive and did not block legitimate enforcement actions. Alongside settlement approval, he authorized attorney fees at 30% of the recovery, recognizing the scale of work required to secure the agreement. Survivors' counsel characterized the outcome as a landmark result, while Rakoff emphasized the broader accountability message to Wall Street.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:JPMorgan's $290 million settlement with Epstein accusers approved by US judge | ReutersSen. Blackburn Requests Subpoena Of Jeffrey Epstein's Estate, Demanding Infamous Flight Logs | The Daily WireBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Epstein survivors—led in the legal action by a figure known as Jane Doe 1—petitioned Judge Jed S. Rakoff to grant preliminary approval to a proposed $290 million settlement with JPMorgan Chase. They argued that the bank had turned a blind eye to Epstein's sex-trafficking activities, even after his 2008 conviction as a registered sex offender, and continued to provide financial services that enabled his operations. The survivors and their counsel described the settlement as "fair, adequate, and reasonable,” given the risks and uncertainties inherent in prolonged litigation and JPMorgan's continuing denial of direct liabilityIn the hearing, Judge Rakoff expressed that, while the settlement was substantial, it would not undo the survivors' suffering. He sought clarification from the plaintiffs' attorneys—particularly David Boies—on why there was no guaranteed minimum distribution per victim, as had been the case in parallel litigation against Deutsche Bank. Ultimately, he appointed settlement administrator Simone Lelchuk to review and allocate funds based on individual claims and oversee the disbursement process under his supervisionto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein victims ask judge to approve $290 million settlement with JPMorgan (nbcnews.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

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 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-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/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 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-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

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 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.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 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

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

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

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