Podcast appearances and mentions of jane doe

Summary of the Case and Victims:The discovery of Shannan Gilbert: The case came to light in May 2010 when 24-year-old Shannan Gilbert, an escort, disappeared in the Oak Beach area of Long Island. Her disappearance sparked an extensive search, and during that process, police discovered the remains of other bodies in the vicinity.The initial findings: In December 2010, the remains of four women were found along the remote stretch of Ocean Parkway near Gilgo Beach. All of them were wrapped in burlap sacks. These victims were later identified as:a. Maureen Brainard-Barnes (25): She had gone missing in July 2007. b. Melissa Barthelemy (24): She disappeared in July 2009. c. Amber Lynn Costello (27): She went missing in September 2010. d. Megan Waterman (22): She disappeared in June 2010.Additional victims: In April 2011, the remains of six more people were discovered along Ocean Parkway, including:a. Jessica Taylor (20): She had been missing since July 2003. b. Jane Doe #6: Unidentified victim. c. Jane Doe #7: Unidentified victim. d. Jane Doe #8: Unidentified victim.Disappearance of an escort: In March 2012, 22-year-old escort, Shannan Gilbert's remains were finally found in a marshy area near Oak Beach. Her death was ruled as an accidental drowning, but some believe she might have been connected to the killer.Other potential victims: The investigation also probed the possibility of additional victims connected to the Long Island Serial Killer. Among them was an unidentified Asian male found in Nassau County in 2000, and a dismembered female found in 1996 in Manorville, New York, which was also attributed to a potential serial killer.Now, after the arrest of Rex Heuermann other cold cases are being looked at to see if he has any connection. One of those cases is Carmen Vargas. In this episode we hear form Carmen's niece who tells her aunts story and why she thinks that her death is connected to Rex Heuermann.(commercial at 11:31)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Gilgo Beach victims & 'LISK's potential first kill Carmen Vargas' remains share disturbing similarities,' niece reveals | The US Sun (the-sun.com)

Tracklist and full info at: bestdrumandbass.com/podcast539/Another week of absolute killer material! This week we have Nox in for a high energy guest mix for all the Neurofunk lovers out there, as well as your resident Bad Syntax mix prepping for the 11 Years on Earth LP dropping next week. Lock it in, and lets get the weekend started! Subscribe to the podcast: bestdnb.com/podcast  Diode - BVCK / Bad Syntax - Wildfire (Diode Remix) [OUT NOW on Abducted LTD]Buy / Stream: bestdrumandbass.com/altd120/Supported by: Aphrodite, Transforma, 5ah5h / Eatbrain Radio, Bad Ace, Bytecode, X.Morph, Stonx, Sindicate, Jane Doe, Nightstalker, Close 2 Death, ESKR, Korax, Guddah, MYGR and More!

Summary of the Case and Victims:The discovery of Shannan Gilbert: The case came to light in May 2010 when 24-year-old Shannan Gilbert, an escort, disappeared in the Oak Beach area of Long Island. Her disappearance sparked an extensive search, and during that process, police discovered the remains of other bodies in the vicinity.The initial findings: In December 2010, the remains of four women were found along the remote stretch of Ocean Parkway near Gilgo Beach. All of them were wrapped in burlap sacks. These victims were later identified as:a. Maureen Brainard-Barnes (25): She had gone missing in July 2007. b. Melissa Barthelemy (24): She disappeared in July 2009. c. Amber Lynn Costello (27): She went missing in September 2010. d. Megan Waterman (22): She disappeared in June 2010.Additional victims: In April 2011, the remains of six more people were discovered along Ocean Parkway, including:a. Jessica Taylor (20): She had been missing since July 2003. b. Jane Doe #6: Unidentified victim. c. Jane Doe #7: Unidentified victim. d. Jane Doe #8: Unidentified victim.Disappearance of an escort: In March 2012, 22-year-old escort, Shannan Gilbert's remains were finally found in a marshy area near Oak Beach. Her death was ruled as an accidental drowning, but some believe she might have been connected to the killer.Other potential victims: The investigation also probed the possibility of additional victims connected to the Long Island Serial Killer. Among them was an unidentified Asian male found in Nassau County in 2000, and a dismembered female found in 1996 in Manorville, New York, which was also attributed to a potential serial killer.After years of inaction and ineptitude shown by the Suffolk County Police department, a new regime came into town and did something that we rarely see from politicians: They kept their word. In this episode, we hear from Commissioner Harrison who sat down with Newsday to talk about the arrest of Rex Heuermann and where things currently stand.(commercial at 9:37)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Rex Heuermann engaged in ‘disturbing' behavior up to arrest (nypost.com)

This week on the episode we touch onTrump Administration Exempts iPhones, Laptops, and Key Tech Gear from Steep TariffsChina Slaps 125% Tariffs on U.S. Goods; Could This Be the Beginning of the End for Shein, Temu, and AliExpress in America?These Chinese factories on TikTok flex that they're making Chanel, Dior, and Lululemon and now want to pitch sell directly to consumers?Beauty Supply Owners Brace For Price Hikes Due to 145% Tariffs On Hair Extensions & Wigs - theJasmineBRANDNetflix's ‘Pop The Balloon Live' Draws Criticism from Viewers Over Lack of Black Contestants Kendrick Lamar & SZA "Luther" music video was directed by Toronto native Karena EvansTrapsNTrunks Top 10 list of Trap Rappers Is it accurateSix people—three adults and three children—died in a helicopter crash into the Hudson River in Manhattan.Man expresses his disappointment with family and friends after no one showed up to his and his baby mama's baby shower!!BREAKING! LSU superstar Kyren Lacy allegedly took his own life last night according to sources from his neighborhood. He was previously considered a potential first-round pick in the NFLEarlier this year, Lacy was arrested for a deadly hit-and-run, with a grand jury scheduled to start hearing evidence on MondayBow Wow Says Karrine Steffans Taught Him How to Wash ClothesSongwriter Ester Dean Apologizes for Writing Beyoncé Diss After Keri Hilson Says She Was Pressured to Record ItEster Dean publicly apologizes and says she co-wrote the “Turnin Me On” remix with Keri Hilson but admits it was “childish and didn't age well”Tyreek Hill's Wife Files for Divorce Following Domestic Dispute at Florida CondoLeBron James Becomes First NBA Player to Get His Own Ken Doll in New Barbie CollectionSoulja Boy was ordered to pay $4 million to a Jane Doe who accused him of sexual battery and abuse during their two-year relationship.Zion Williamson's alleged stalker, Ahkeema Love, reportedly assaulted a romantic rival inside his home hitting her with keys, tearing off her nails, and threatening her: “Count your days… it's going to be your head next when I drop this baby.” She also allegedly egged Zion's houseFlorida Assistant Principal Charged After Allegedly Making Student Rub Her Feet & Showing Him What “Foreplay” IsDeath Toll Rises to 218 After DominicanRepublic Nightclub Roof Collapses During Merengue ConcertLil Durk Reportedly erased his iCloud and stopped carrying phones on him in April 2024Football player Quaydarius Davis was captured on camera assaulting his girlfriend, Ja' Yunna Monae, after she broke up with him.Billboards featuring NBA legends are popping up everywhere for Quavo and Lil Baby's new single 'Legends,'Gillie advises mothers not to bail their sons out of jail, so they can learn the hard way and turn themselves to God!!Grandmother speaks with her 15-year-old grandson in an interrogation chamber before he's sentenced to 35 years for murderHusband says he will not give up caring for his beloved wife, who can't walk or speak and relies on a feeding tube, she was struck by a hit-and-run driver while jogging.The family of 17-year-old Karmelo Anthony is receiving major support online as he faces a m*rder charge in the fatal stabbing of fellow track runner Austin MetcalfA plane crashes into a car in Florida near a major highway, reportedly leaving several people deadMan says his date didn't go well, the moment the girl saw his outfit, she told him “naw im good luv” and walked out of the restaurant. What would you do if you were in his situation???The mother of Big U's alleged murder victim says he's guilty as charged."I know for a fact he's responsible."YSL Rapper Yak Gotti Has Been Released from Fulton County Jail After Plea Deal: “I'm Ready to Go Home, Bro”Maryland Man Found De@d In the Bahamas Hours After He Arrived, Family Believes He Was ‘Beaten'Tay-K's Ex-Girlfriend Testifies Against Him in Capital Murder Trial for 2017 Photographer Killing

[03:15] Power Showers: The Debate Over Water Flow & Conservation[06:15] Art vs. Probation: Can Creativity Survive Supervision?[13:40] Navigating Confusing PFR Reporting Rules in Michigan[21:21] Challenging Missouri’s SORA: What Went Wrong?[44:48] Gorsuch and Alito: A Threat to Defendants’ Rights? https://www.registrymatters.co/podcast/rm337-missouri-jane-doe-v-michael-turner-et-al/Email us: registrymatterscast@gmail.comSupport us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/registrymattersJoin the Discord server: https://discord.gg/6FnxwAQm57Want to support Registry Matters with some...

This week, we went to Fat Angelo's, with a few locations in the area, this one located at 152 Thompson Dr, Bridgeport, WV, in the back of the lot past Gabes. Open Mon-Thur 10-9, Fri-Sat 10-10, Sun 11-9Here's what we tried:Hot honey calzone loaded with pepperoni, ricotta, mozzarella, provolone, and jalapenos, covered in a hot honey drizzle; and fried hot pepper cheese ballsThen, Kelsey discusses a local Jane Doe who was found dead in 1983 in Wetzel County, and how the case may be possibly tied to the Redhead murders. The case remains unsolved as of recording. Matt also gets political talking about Chevrolet. Note: there is an odd interference noise near the end just before the outro, unsure what that was, unable to edit out.

Tracklist and full info: https://www.bestdrumandbass.com/podcast538/HOLY COW! A massive thank you to everyone supporting the new Diode release, we are currently #7 DNB and #29 all genre release on Beatport! This week we have a silky smooth guest mix by Mischief & Reason, alongside your resident mix chalk full of fresh tunes from the promo list by Bad Syntax. Lock it in, and lets get this weekend started!Subscribe to the podcast: bestdnb.com/podcast  Diode - BVCK / Bad Syntax - Wildfire (Diode Remix) [OUT NOW on Abducted LTD]Buy / Stream: bestdrumandbass.com/altd120/Supported by: Aphrodite, Transforma, 5ah5h / Eatbrain Radio, Bad Ace, Bytecode, X.Morph, Stonx, Sindicate, Jane Doe, Nightstalker, Close 2 Death, ESKR, Korax, Guddah, MYGR and More!

​British actor and comedian Russell Brand has been formally charged with multiple sexual offenses by the Metropolitan Police Service. The charges include one count each of rape, indecent assault, and oral rape, along with two counts of sexual assault. These allegations involve four separate women and pertain to incidents that allegedly occurred between 1999 and 2005 in locations such as Bournemouth and Westminster, London. The investigation was initiated in September 2023 following reports by Channel 4's Dispatches and The Sunday Times. Brand has consistently denied these accusations, asserting that all his relationships during that period were consensual. He is scheduled to appear at Westminster Magistrates' Court on May 2, 2025.In addition to the charges in the United Kingdom, Brand is facing legal challenges in the United States. An anonymous woman, identified as Jane Doe, has filed a civil lawsuit in New York, alleging that Brand sexually assaulted her during the filming of the 2011 movie "Arthur." The lawsuit also names Warner Bros. as a defendant. Brand's legal team has expressed concern about the potential for criminal charges in the U.S., citing the overlap between the U.S. civil case and the U.K. criminal proceedings. Despite these legal issues, Brand is scheduled to speak at Florida's New College on April 12, 2025, discussing topics related to free speech and cancel culture. The college's decision to proceed with his appearance has sparked debate, given the serious nature of the allegations against him.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Russell Brand hit with five sexual assault charges | Fox News

​British actor and comedian Russell Brand has been formally charged with multiple sexual offenses by the Metropolitan Police Service. The charges include one count each of rape, indecent assault, and oral rape, along with two counts of sexual assault. These allegations involve four separate women and pertain to incidents that allegedly occurred between 1999 and 2005 in locations such as Bournemouth and Westminster, London. The investigation was initiated in September 2023 following reports by Channel 4's Dispatches and The Sunday Times. Brand has consistently denied these accusations, asserting that all his relationships during that period were consensual. He is scheduled to appear at Westminster Magistrates' Court on May 2, 2025.In addition to the charges in the United Kingdom, Brand is facing legal challenges in the United States. An anonymous woman, identified as Jane Doe, has filed a civil lawsuit in New York, alleging that Brand sexually assaulted her during the filming of the 2011 movie "Arthur." The lawsuit also names Warner Bros. as a defendant. Brand's legal team has expressed concern about the potential for criminal charges in the U.S., citing the overlap between the U.S. civil case and the U.K. criminal proceedings. Despite these legal issues, Brand is scheduled to speak at Florida's New College on April 12, 2025, discussing topics related to free speech and cancel culture. The college's decision to proceed with his appearance has sparked debate, given the serious nature of the allegations against him.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Russell Brand hit with five sexual assault charges | Fox NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Episode 141 Doe ID: Evelyn 'Dottie' Lees    On June 28,1988, the remains of a woman were found in a remote area of Pinal County, AZ along state Route 79 South of US 60. The body was found in a shallow grave, and appeared to have been placed there with care leading police to believe that someone close to her may have placed here there. She was determined to be an elderly woman and it appeared that she had been strangled to death. She has been there for about a year. Police were stumped as they didn't have any missing women that matched her description in the area. The case of this Jane Doe went cold until years later when genealogy finally provided answers. She was Evelyn "Dottie" Lees, a grandmother who was in her late 80's when she died. Investigators learned that Evelyn had never been reported missing, and for years following her death, benefit checks to her were being cashed. A background check revealed that Evelyn, who had spent her life in Utah, had moved to Arizona at the insistence of family. Since this family member, who Evelyn lived with at the time of her death was never reported missing, it has caused investigators to view them with suspicion. The only problem is, those family members that may have had answers, all died before Evelyn was identified. If they had any answers, they took them to the grave. This Jane Doe has her name back; it's Evelyn 'Dottie' Lees, and this is her story.  

Le 24 octobre 2003, une femme nue est retrouvée près du Grand Canyon, en Arizona. Elle deviendra la Devil Dog Jane Doe. Encore aujourd'hui, son corps reste non-identifié.Si tu as des informations, contacte le FBI juste ici : https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/vicap/unidentified-persons/jane-doe-6 Mes sources :https://www.doenetwork.org/cases/software/main.html?id=411ufaz https://www.namus.gov/UnidentifiedPersons/Case#/9967 https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/vicap/unidentified-persons/jane-doe-6 https://www.reddit.com/r/UnresolvedMysteries/comments/x21art/in_october_2003_the_body_of_a_woman_was/?rdt=36307 Attention, cette vidéo peut contenir des images ou des propos qui sont déconseillés aux plus jeunes. Chanson Intro : Danse of questionable tuning - Kevin MacLeod Vidéo Intro par https://www.instagram.com/frenchyartist/ ♥Suis-moi sur les réseaux sociaux: INSTAGRAM: https://www.instagram.com/victoria.charlton/ FACEBOOK : https://www.facebook.com/victoriacharltonofficiel TIKTOK : https://www.tiktok.com/@victoriacharltonn EMAIL : victoriacharltonpro@gmail.com ♥Podcast Over n Out : APPLE PODCAST : https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/over-n-out/id1545187858?uo=4 SPOTIFY : https://open.spotify.com/show/6OgK35AojAk4emWYfq5sk8 ♥Podcast Post-Mortem : SPOTIFY : https://open.spotify.com/show/1m0Yx1jAOos8ewx5o2OgJA QUB RADIO : https://www.qub.ca/radio/balado/post-mortem-avec-victoria-charlton-saison-1-roxanne-luce Logiciel de montage : Final Cut Pro Monteur : Sebastian Messinger Camera : Canon G7X Tout commentaire incitant à la haine ou au manque de respect sera supprimé. Je veux que mon espace commentaire soit positif et amical ☺ Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

​In the case of Jane Doe v. Sean Combs, the plaintiff, Jane Doe, filed a lawsuit against Sean Combs and associated entities, alleging that Combs sexually assaulted her at a charity event he co-sponsored in 1991. The plaintiff sought to proceed anonymously, citing the sensitive nature of the allegations and potential harm if her identity were disclosed. Initially, the court granted a temporary order allowing her to proceed under a pseudonym, pending further review.Upon subsequent evaluation, the court applied the ten-factor balancing test from Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant to determine whether the plaintiff could continue anonymously. The court found that while the case involved sensitive personal matters, other factors—such as the significant public interest in the proceedings, potential prejudice to the defendants, and the plaintiff's ability to present her case without anonymity—outweighed the arguments for anonymity. Consequently, the court denied the plaintiff's motion to proceed under a pseudonym, emphasizing the importance of transparency and public access in judicial proceedings.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.633975.44.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

​In the case of Jane Doe v. Sean Combs, the plaintiff, Jane Doe, filed a lawsuit against Sean Combs and associated entities, alleging that Combs sexually assaulted her at a charity event he co-sponsored in 1991. The plaintiff sought to proceed anonymously, citing the sensitive nature of the allegations and potential harm if her identity were disclosed. Initially, the court granted a temporary order allowing her to proceed under a pseudonym, pending further review.Upon subsequent evaluation, the court applied the ten-factor balancing test from Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant to determine whether the plaintiff could continue anonymously. The court found that while the case involved sensitive personal matters, other factors—such as the significant public interest in the proceedings, potential prejudice to the defendants, and the plaintiff's ability to present her case without anonymity—outweighed the arguments for anonymity. Consequently, the court denied the plaintiff's motion to proceed under a pseudonym, emphasizing the importance of transparency and public access in judicial proceedings.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.633975.44.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Episode info and tracklisting: https://www.bestdrumandbass.com/podcast537/ITS RELEASE DAY!!! Were celebrating the new Diode single with an absolute bang. Long time friend of the podcast SB1 is in the guest mix with an absolute heater of a mix, and you know Bad Syntax has the resident duties covered. So lock it in, your weekend starts now!Subscribe to the podcast: bestdnb.com/podcast Diode - BVCK / Bad Syntax - Wildfire (Diode Remix) [OUT NOW on Abducted LTD]Buy / Stream: bestdrumandbass.com/altd120/Supported by: Aphrodite, Transforma, 5ah5h / Eatbrain Radio, Bad Ace, Bytecode, X.Morph, Stonx, Sindicate, Jane Doe, Nightstalker, Close 2 Death, ESKR, Korax, Guddah, MYGR and More!

​In the case of Jane Doe v. Sean Combs, the plaintiff, Jane Doe, filed a lawsuit against Sean Combs and associated entities, alleging that Combs sexually assaulted her at a charity event he co-sponsored in 1991. The plaintiff sought to proceed anonymously, citing the sensitive nature of the allegations and potential harm if her identity were disclosed. Initially, the court granted a temporary order allowing her to proceed under a pseudonym, pending further review.Upon subsequent evaluation, the court applied the ten-factor balancing test from Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant to determine whether the plaintiff could continue anonymously. The court found that while the case involved sensitive personal matters, other factors—such as the significant public interest in the proceedings, potential prejudice to the defendants, and the plaintiff's ability to present her case without anonymity—outweighed the arguments for anonymity. Consequently, the court denied the plaintiff's motion to proceed under a pseudonym, emphasizing the importance of transparency and public access in judicial proceedings.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.633975.44.0.pdf

​In the case of Jane Doe v. Sean Combs, the plaintiff, Jane Doe, filed a lawsuit against Sean Combs and associated entities, alleging that Combs sexually assaulted her at a charity event he co-sponsored in 1991. The plaintiff sought to proceed anonymously, citing the sensitive nature of the allegations and potential harm if her identity were disclosed. Initially, the court granted a temporary order allowing her to proceed under a pseudonym, pending further review.Upon subsequent evaluation, the court applied the ten-factor balancing test from Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant to determine whether the plaintiff could continue anonymously. The court found that while the case involved sensitive personal matters, other factors—such as the significant public interest in the proceedings, potential prejudice to the defendants, and the plaintiff's ability to present her case without anonymity—outweighed the arguments for anonymity. Consequently, the court denied the plaintiff's motion to proceed under a pseudonym, emphasizing the importance of transparency and public access in judicial proceedings.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.633975.44.0.pdf

​In the case of Jane Doe v. Sean Combs et al., the defendants have submitted a memorandum opposing the plaintiff's motion to proceed anonymously. They argue that the plaintiff has not sufficiently demonstrated the need for anonymity, as required by the factors established in Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant. The defendants contend that the plaintiff's claims, while sensitive, do not involve matters that typically warrant anonymity, such as challenging governmental actions or involving minors.They also assert that there is no substantial risk of physical retaliation or mental harm to the plaintiff if her identity is disclosed. Furthermore, they highlight that the plaintiff's identity has not been kept confidential, pointing to prior public disclosures related to the case. The defendants emphasize that allowing the plaintiff to remain anonymous would prejudice their ability to defend themselves, as it hampers the investigation and gathering of evidence. They also argue that the public has a legitimate interest in open judicial proceedings, which includes knowing the identities of the parties involved. In conclusion, the defendants request that the court deny the plaintiff's motion for anonymity, asserting that the balance of factors weighs against permitting her to proceed under a pseudonym.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.630375.54.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In the case of Jane Doe v. Sean Combs et al., the defendants have submitted a memorandum opposing the plaintiff's motion to proceed anonymously. They argue that the plaintiff has not sufficiently demonstrated the need for anonymity, as required by the factors established in Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant. The defendants contend that the plaintiff's claims, while sensitive, do not involve matters that typically warrant anonymity, such as challenging governmental actions or involving minors.They also assert that there is no substantial risk of physical retaliation or mental harm to the plaintiff if her identity is disclosed. Furthermore, they highlight that the plaintiff's identity has not been kept confidential, pointing to prior public disclosures related to the case. The defendants emphasize that allowing the plaintiff to remain anonymous would prejudice their ability to defend themselves, as it hampers the investigation and gathering of evidence. They also argue that the public has a legitimate interest in open judicial proceedings, which includes knowing the identities of the parties involved. In conclusion, the defendants request that the court deny the plaintiff's motion for anonymity, asserting that the balance of factors weighs against permitting her to proceed under a pseudonym.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.630375.54.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In the case of Jane Doe v. Sean Combs et al., the defendants have submitted a memorandum opposing the plaintiff's motion to proceed anonymously. They argue that the plaintiff has not sufficiently demonstrated the need for anonymity, as required by the factors established in Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant. The defendants contend that the plaintiff's claims, while sensitive, do not involve matters that typically warrant anonymity, such as challenging governmental actions or involving minors.They also assert that there is no substantial risk of physical retaliation or mental harm to the plaintiff if her identity is disclosed. Furthermore, they highlight that the plaintiff's identity has not been kept confidential, pointing to prior public disclosures related to the case. The defendants emphasize that allowing the plaintiff to remain anonymous would prejudice their ability to defend themselves, as it hampers the investigation and gathering of evidence. They also argue that the public has a legitimate interest in open judicial proceedings, which includes knowing the identities of the parties involved. In conclusion, the defendants request that the court deny the plaintiff's motion for anonymity, asserting that the balance of factors weighs against permitting her to proceed under a pseudonym.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.630375.54.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Leather Mask & Celebrity Party? Inside Diddy's Most Disturbing Lawsuit Yet  In this episode, we dig deep into the shocking new civil lawsuit filed against Sean “Diddy” Combs—one that reads more like a Hollywood horror film than a legal complaint. A Florida man named Joseph Manzaro claims he was drugged, abducted, and sexually assaulted at a 2015 “freak-off” party allegedly hosted by Diddy. Among the most disturbing details? The accuser says he was forced to wear a leather penis mask and paraded through a Miami mansion in front of celebrity guests including Beyoncé, Jay-Z, and LeBron James. These jaw-dropping claims are outlined in a lawsuit filed on April 1st, 2025. We break down exactly what's in the court documents—no speculation, just the facts. What makes this case different from the other lawsuits Diddy is facing? Why are celebrities named as witnesses, and how have they responded? And what does this lawsuit say about a possible pattern of behavior tied to power, humiliation, and control? From the legal context to the celebrity denials, we'll walk you through what's public, what's verified, and what it all could mean as Diddy's legal challenges continue to pile up. Also in this episode: a new lawsuit from a photographer who claims he was coerced into a sex act during a commercial shoot—and the quiet dismissal of a separate Jane Doe case after the accuser refused to go public. These three stories together offer a revealing look at how sexual assault lawsuits, celebrity influence, and fear of retaliation intersect in America's legal system. If you're searching for real facts behind the headlines, this is the breakdown you've been waiting for.    Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com 

In this episode, we dig deep into the shocking new civil lawsuit filed against Sean “Diddy” Combs—one that reads more like a Hollywood horror film than a legal complaint. A Florida man named Joseph Manzaro claims he was drugged, abducted, and sexually assaulted at a 2015 “freak-off” party allegedly hosted by Diddy. Among the most disturbing details? The accuser says he was forced to wear a leather penis mask and paraded through a Miami mansion in front of celebrity guests including Beyoncé, Jay-Z, and LeBron James. These jaw-dropping claims are outlined in a lawsuit filed on April 1st, 2025. We break down exactly what's in the court documents—no speculation, just the facts. What makes this case different from the other lawsuits Diddy is facing? Why are celebrities named as witnesses, and how have they responded? And what does this lawsuit say about a possible pattern of behavior tied to power, humiliation, and control? From the legal context to the celebrity denials, we'll walk you through what's public, what's verified, and what it all could mean as Diddy's legal challenges continue to pile up. Also in this episode: a new lawsuit from a photographer who claims he was coerced into a sex act during a commercial shoot—and the quiet dismissal of a separate Jane Doe case after the accuser refused to go public. These three stories together offer a revealing look at how sexual assault lawsuits, celebrity influence, and fear of retaliation intersect in America's legal system. If you're searching for real facts behind the headlines, this is the breakdown you've been waiting for.    Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com 

​In the case of Jane Doe v. Sean Combs, the plaintiff, Jane Doe, filed a lawsuit against Sean Combs and associated entities, alleging that Combs sexually assaulted her at a charity event he co-sponsored in 1991. The plaintiff sought to proceed anonymously, citing the sensitive nature of the allegations and potential harm if her identity were disclosed. Initially, the court granted a temporary order allowing her to proceed under a pseudonym, pending further review.Upon subsequent evaluation, the court applied the ten-factor balancing test from Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant to determine whether the plaintiff could continue anonymously. The court found that while the case involved sensitive personal matters, other factors—such as the significant public interest in the proceedings, potential prejudice to the defendants, and the plaintiff's ability to present her case without anonymity—outweighed the arguments for anonymity. Consequently, the court denied the plaintiff's motion to proceed under a pseudonym, emphasizing the importance of transparency and public access in judicial proceedings.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.633975.44.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In the case of Jane Doe v. Sean Combs, the plaintiff, Jane Doe, filed a lawsuit against Sean Combs and associated entities, alleging that Combs sexually assaulted her at a charity event he co-sponsored in 1991. The plaintiff sought to proceed anonymously, citing the sensitive nature of the allegations and potential harm if her identity were disclosed. Initially, the court granted a temporary order allowing her to proceed under a pseudonym, pending further review.Upon subsequent evaluation, the court applied the ten-factor balancing test from Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant to determine whether the plaintiff could continue anonymously. The court found that while the case involved sensitive personal matters, other factors—such as the significant public interest in the proceedings, potential prejudice to the defendants, and the plaintiff's ability to present her case without anonymity—outweighed the arguments for anonymity. Consequently, the court denied the plaintiff's motion to proceed under a pseudonym, emphasizing the importance of transparency and public access in judicial proceedings.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.633975.44.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

0:00 - Election Day 12:03 - Meanwhile...kids being silly 32:27 - Democrat Brand 47:47 - TCU's Hailey Van Lith after win into the Sweet 16 50:50 - Why DP is Single: Zoe… 01:08:24 - In-depth History with Frank from Arlington Heights 01:12:14 - CAMPUS BEAT 01:24:54 - Life as a member at a private golf club 01:32:03 - President at Wirepoints,Ted Dabrowksi, on the accelerated decline of Illinois. Get Ted’s latest at wirepoints.org 01:48:11 - Chicago injury attorney, Richard Craig, discusses the lawsuit he filed on behalf of "Jane Doe" against an Illinois abortionist after a late-term abortion took a "horrific" turn 02:02:38 - UK: toddler suspended for being transphobic02:05:30 - Amity Shlaes, board chair of the Calvin Coolidge Presidential Foundation and winner of the Hyek Prize: Fast-Forwarding Tax Cuts. Check out Amity’s most recent books The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression and Great Society: A New HistorySee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On today's MJ Morning Show: Airline attendant warns to lock up your toothbrush in a hotel Morons in the news 6'4" female employee fired from Walmart A $6,000 Buc-ees toy beaver? Fitness influencer makes Saratoga Springs water go viral 67-year-old woman survives car crash, dies in well Gen Z employees are never at their desk Gen Z's aren't taking leftovers home from restaurants Florida woman charged with felony battery with a conch shell Station House BBQ wins 'best Cuban sandwich' at Cuban Sandwich Festival Footlocker brings corporate HQ to Pinellas County Polk County school principal accused of skip-scanning at Wal-Mart Station House BBQ owner Allison Fonseca called in MJ driving on fumes IG post Woman turns down coffee meet-up as a cheap date FAA tower fight ends in arrest Kanye does interview dressed in KKK style outfit, says he didn't want kids so early with Kim 'Coyote VS. Acme' movie finally getting a release Jeffrey Epstein accuser says she has 4 days to live Elon Musk's baby-mama (maybe, one of them...) is upset he's cutting child support Children's jewelry-making kit recalled Missing police officer scam Carbon monoxide deaths 8 foods for brain health according to a neurologist 7-Eleven shooting in Tampa Basketball Final 4 this weekend Jane Doe vs Diddy Airplane data may be kept secret by request by FAA Images and videos from Gene Hackman sealed by judge

​In March 2025, a New York federal judge dismissed a sexual assault lawsuit against Sean "Diddy" Combs. The plaintiff, identified only as "Jane Doe," alleged that Combs assaulted her at a 1995 party. The court had previously granted her until March 20 to refile the complaint under her real name, but she failed to do so, leading to the case's dismissal.Combs' legal team responded by highlighting this dismissal as indicative of a broader pattern of meritless claims brought by anonymous individuals. They emphasized that this is the second such case dismissed in its entirety and expressed confidence that other similar claims would not withstand legal scrutiny.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Diddy Gets Rare Legal Win As Judge Tosses Out 1995 Rape Allegations

​In March 2025, a New York federal judge dismissed a sexual assault lawsuit against Sean "Diddy" Combs. The plaintiff, identified only as "Jane Doe," alleged that Combs assaulted her at a 1995 party. The court had previously granted her until March 20 to refile the complaint under her real name, but she failed to do so, leading to the case's dismissal.Combs' legal team responded by highlighting this dismissal as indicative of a broader pattern of meritless claims brought by anonymous individuals. They emphasized that this is the second such case dismissed in its entirety and expressed confidence that other similar claims would not withstand legal scrutiny.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Diddy Gets Rare Legal Win As Judge Tosses Out 1995 Rape AllegationsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Episode 140 Gayla McNeil In October 1983, a young homicide detective caught his first case when a woman turned up floating in a canal in Palm Beach County, Florida.  The Jane Doe was a homicide victim, with brutal injuries and evidence of rape.  A complex investigation failed to identify her – but then her fingerprints did.  She was Gayla Ann McNeil, a former US Airforce service member. Detective Bill Springer began a 40 year quest to solve Gayla's murder – which involved figuring out where she had last been seen and by whom.  It turned out, her last known contact was with law enforcement – and a clerical error may have cost her her life.    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. For all things DNA: ID, visit the show's homepage Visit this link to buy DNA ID Merch  

​In the case of Jane Doe v. Sean Combs et al., the defendants have submitted a memorandum opposing the plaintiff's motion to proceed anonymously. They argue that the plaintiff has not sufficiently demonstrated the need for anonymity, as required by the factors established in Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant. The defendants contend that the plaintiff's claims, while sensitive, do not involve matters that typically warrant anonymity, such as challenging governmental actions or involving minors.They also assert that there is no substantial risk of physical retaliation or mental harm to the plaintiff if her identity is disclosed. Furthermore, they highlight that the plaintiff's identity has not been kept confidential, pointing to prior public disclosures related to the case. The defendants emphasize that allowing the plaintiff to remain anonymous would prejudice their ability to defend themselves, as it hampers the investigation and gathering of evidence. They also argue that the public has a legitimate interest in open judicial proceedings, which includes knowing the identities of the parties involved. In conclusion, the defendants request that the court deny the plaintiff's motion for anonymity, asserting that the balance of factors weighs against permitting her to proceed under a pseudonym.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.630375.54.0.pdf

​In the case of Jane Doe v. Sean Combs et al., the defendants have submitted a memorandum opposing the plaintiff's motion to proceed anonymously. They argue that the plaintiff has not sufficiently demonstrated the need for anonymity, as required by the factors established in Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant. The defendants contend that the plaintiff's claims, while sensitive, do not involve matters that typically warrant anonymity, such as challenging governmental actions or involving minors.They also assert that there is no substantial risk of physical retaliation or mental harm to the plaintiff if her identity is disclosed. Furthermore, they highlight that the plaintiff's identity has not been kept confidential, pointing to prior public disclosures related to the case. The defendants emphasize that allowing the plaintiff to remain anonymous would prejudice their ability to defend themselves, as it hampers the investigation and gathering of evidence. They also argue that the public has a legitimate interest in open judicial proceedings, which includes knowing the identities of the parties involved. In conclusion, the defendants request that the court deny the plaintiff's motion for anonymity, asserting that the balance of factors weighs against permitting her to proceed under a pseudonym.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.630375.54.0.pdf

​In the case of Jane Doe v. Sean Combs et al., the defendants have submitted a memorandum opposing the plaintiff's motion to proceed anonymously. They argue that the plaintiff has not sufficiently demonstrated the need for anonymity, as required by the factors established in Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant. The defendants contend that the plaintiff's claims, while sensitive, do not involve matters that typically warrant anonymity, such as challenging governmental actions or involving minors.They also assert that there is no substantial risk of physical retaliation or mental harm to the plaintiff if her identity is disclosed. Furthermore, they highlight that the plaintiff's identity has not been kept confidential, pointing to prior public disclosures related to the case. The defendants emphasize that allowing the plaintiff to remain anonymous would prejudice their ability to defend themselves, as it hampers the investigation and gathering of evidence. They also argue that the public has a legitimate interest in open judicial proceedings, which includes knowing the identities of the parties involved. In conclusion, the defendants request that the court deny the plaintiff's motion for anonymity, asserting that the balance of factors weighs against permitting her to proceed under a pseudonym.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.630375.54.0.pdf

​In the case of Jane Doe v. Sean Combs et al. (Civ. No. 1:24-cv-08054-MKV), Defendant Marriott International, Inc. has submitted a reply memorandum in further support of its motion to dismiss the complaint. Marriott argues that the plaintiff's allegations fail to establish a legal basis for holding the company liable for the alleged actions of the co-defendants. They contend that the complaint lacks specific factual assertions linking Marriott to any wrongful conduct and that mere association with other defendants does not suffice to state a claim.Furthermore, Marriott emphasizes that the plaintiff's claims against it are speculative and unsupported by concrete evidence. The company asserts that the complaint does not demonstrate how Marriott had any control over or direct involvement in the alleged incidents. As a result, Marriott requests that the court dismiss the claims against it, arguing that allowing the case to proceed without substantive allegations would set a concerning precedent for corporate liability based on tenuous connections.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - Reply ISO MTD (Marriott _ McCrary)(1618681774.5).docx

In the March 2025 Opinion and Order for case Rodney Jones v. Sean Combs et al. (24-CV-1457), Judge J. Paul Oetken ruled on motions to dismiss brought by Sean Combs and several co-defendants. While five of Jones's seventeen claims were dismissed—including claims under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) against Combs Global and Love Records—multiple key allegations were allowed to proceed. These surviving claims include sexual assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and premises liability against Sean Combs, Kristina Khorram, Justin Combs, Cuba Gooding Jr., and Jane Doe 1 (allegedly “Yung Miami's cousin”). The court found that many of Jones's accusations, including being drugged, sexually assaulted, and trafficked across state and international lines, were sufficiently detailed to survive the defendants' efforts to have the case dismissed entirely.The ruling outlines severe and graphic allegations, including incidents where Jones claims he was sexually assaulted, manipulated, and trafficked while working closely with Sean Combs between 2022 and 2023. Jones alleges Combs used power and influence in the music industry to coerce him into unwanted sexual activity, promising professional success in return. The complaint details incidents in Los Angeles, Miami, New York, the US Virgin Islands, and Saint-Barthélemy, including claims of being drugged, groped, and assaulted by Combs and others in his circle. The court emphasized that while some claims lacked sufficient legal basis or specificity, the core allegations—particularly those describing direct physical and psychological abuse—were compelling enough to proceed to discovery and potentially trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:24cv1457 Jones v Combs MTD Opn.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the March 2025 Opinion and Order for case Rodney Jones v. Sean Combs et al. (24-CV-1457), Judge J. Paul Oetken ruled on motions to dismiss brought by Sean Combs and several co-defendants. While five of Jones's seventeen claims were dismissed—including claims under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) against Combs Global and Love Records—multiple key allegations were allowed to proceed. These surviving claims include sexual assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and premises liability against Sean Combs, Kristina Khorram, Justin Combs, Cuba Gooding Jr., and Jane Doe 1 (allegedly “Yung Miami's cousin”). The court found that many of Jones's accusations, including being drugged, sexually assaulted, and trafficked across state and international lines, were sufficiently detailed to survive the defendants' efforts to have the case dismissed entirely.The ruling outlines severe and graphic allegations, including incidents where Jones claims he was sexually assaulted, manipulated, and trafficked while working closely with Sean Combs between 2022 and 2023. Jones alleges Combs used power and influence in the music industry to coerce him into unwanted sexual activity, promising professional success in return. The complaint details incidents in Los Angeles, Miami, New York, the US Virgin Islands, and Saint-Barthélemy, including claims of being drugged, groped, and assaulted by Combs and others in his circle. The court emphasized that while some claims lacked sufficient legal basis or specificity, the core allegations—particularly those describing direct physical and psychological abuse—were compelling enough to proceed to discovery and potentially trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:24cv1457 Jones v Combs MTD Opn.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the March 2025 Opinion and Order for case Rodney Jones v. Sean Combs et al. (24-CV-1457), Judge J. Paul Oetken ruled on motions to dismiss brought by Sean Combs and several co-defendants. While five of Jones's seventeen claims were dismissed—including claims under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) against Combs Global and Love Records—multiple key allegations were allowed to proceed. These surviving claims include sexual assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and premises liability against Sean Combs, Kristina Khorram, Justin Combs, Cuba Gooding Jr., and Jane Doe 1 (allegedly “Yung Miami's cousin”). The court found that many of Jones's accusations, including being drugged, sexually assaulted, and trafficked across state and international lines, were sufficiently detailed to survive the defendants' efforts to have the case dismissed entirely.The ruling outlines severe and graphic allegations, including incidents where Jones claims he was sexually assaulted, manipulated, and trafficked while working closely with Sean Combs between 2022 and 2023. Jones alleges Combs used power and influence in the music industry to coerce him into unwanted sexual activity, promising professional success in return. The complaint details incidents in Los Angeles, Miami, New York, the US Virgin Islands, and Saint-Barthélemy, including claims of being drugged, groped, and assaulted by Combs and others in his circle. The court emphasized that while some claims lacked sufficient legal basis or specificity, the core allegations—particularly those describing direct physical and psychological abuse—were compelling enough to proceed to discovery and potentially trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:24cv1457 Jones v Combs MTD Opn.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the March 2025 Opinion and Order for case Rodney Jones v. Sean Combs et al. (24-CV-1457), Judge J. Paul Oetken ruled on motions to dismiss brought by Sean Combs and several co-defendants. While five of Jones's seventeen claims were dismissed—including claims under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) against Combs Global and Love Records—multiple key allegations were allowed to proceed. These surviving claims include sexual assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and premises liability against Sean Combs, Kristina Khorram, Justin Combs, Cuba Gooding Jr., and Jane Doe 1 (allegedly “Yung Miami's cousin”). The court found that many of Jones's accusations, including being drugged, sexually assaulted, and trafficked across state and international lines, were sufficiently detailed to survive the defendants' efforts to have the case dismissed entirely.The ruling outlines severe and graphic allegations, including incidents where Jones claims he was sexually assaulted, manipulated, and trafficked while working closely with Sean Combs between 2022 and 2023. Jones alleges Combs used power and influence in the music industry to coerce him into unwanted sexual activity, promising professional success in return. The complaint details incidents in Los Angeles, Miami, New York, the US Virgin Islands, and Saint-Barthélemy, including claims of being drugged, groped, and assaulted by Combs and others in his circle. The court emphasized that while some claims lacked sufficient legal basis or specificity, the core allegations—particularly those describing direct physical and psychological abuse—were compelling enough to proceed to discovery and potentially trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:24cv1457 Jones v Combs MTD Opn.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the March 2025 Opinion and Order for case Rodney Jones v. Sean Combs et al. (24-CV-1457), Judge J. Paul Oetken ruled on motions to dismiss brought by Sean Combs and several co-defendants. While five of Jones's seventeen claims were dismissed—including claims under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) against Combs Global and Love Records—multiple key allegations were allowed to proceed. These surviving claims include sexual assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and premises liability against Sean Combs, Kristina Khorram, Justin Combs, Cuba Gooding Jr., and Jane Doe 1 (allegedly “Yung Miami's cousin”). The court found that many of Jones's accusations, including being drugged, sexually assaulted, and trafficked across state and international lines, were sufficiently detailed to survive the defendants' efforts to have the case dismissed entirely.The ruling outlines severe and graphic allegations, including incidents where Jones claims he was sexually assaulted, manipulated, and trafficked while working closely with Sean Combs between 2022 and 2023. Jones alleges Combs used power and influence in the music industry to coerce him into unwanted sexual activity, promising professional success in return. The complaint details incidents in Los Angeles, Miami, New York, the US Virgin Islands, and Saint-Barthélemy, including claims of being drugged, groped, and assaulted by Combs and others in his circle. The court emphasized that while some claims lacked sufficient legal basis or specificity, the core allegations—particularly those describing direct physical and psychological abuse—were compelling enough to proceed to discovery and potentially trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:24cv1457 Jones v Combs MTD Opn.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Episode info: https://www.bestdrumandbass.com/podcast536/ ‎WOO BOY, do we have a jet fueled, action packed, balls to the wall episode for you all out there! M85 steps in with an absolutely wicked guest mix, and your weekly resident mix by Bad Syntax is packed with goodies. Lock it in, its time to kick the weekend off proper! Subscribe to the podcast: bestdnb.com/podcast The Smell of Males - We Not Found / Skynet Error [OUT NOW on Abducted LTD]Buy / Stream: bestdrumandbass.com/altd119/Supported by: Eatbrain, Aphrodite, Manta, Evol Intent, Transforma, 2whales, Diode, Stonx, Sindicate, Scout 22, MV, Jane Doe, ESKR, Korax, Lee UHF, drone, 4mulate and More!

In the March 2025 Opinion and Order for case Rodney Jones v. Sean Combs et al. (24-CV-1457), Judge J. Paul Oetken ruled on motions to dismiss brought by Sean Combs and several co-defendants. While five of Jones's seventeen claims were dismissed—including claims under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) against Combs Global and Love Records—multiple key allegations were allowed to proceed. These surviving claims include sexual assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and premises liability against Sean Combs, Kristina Khorram, Justin Combs, Cuba Gooding Jr., and Jane Doe 1 (allegedly “Yung Miami's cousin”). The court found that many of Jones's accusations, including being drugged, sexually assaulted, and trafficked across state and international lines, were sufficiently detailed to survive the defendants' efforts to have the case dismissed entirely.The ruling outlines severe and graphic allegations, including incidents where Jones claims he was sexually assaulted, manipulated, and trafficked while working closely with Sean Combs between 2022 and 2023. Jones alleges Combs used power and influence in the music industry to coerce him into unwanted sexual activity, promising professional success in return. The complaint details incidents in Los Angeles, Miami, New York, the US Virgin Islands, and Saint-Barthélemy, including claims of being drugged, groped, and assaulted by Combs and others in his circle. The court emphasized that while some claims lacked sufficient legal basis or specificity, the core allegations—particularly those describing direct physical and psychological abuse—were compelling enough to proceed to discovery and potentially trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:24cv1457 Jones v Combs MTD Opn.pdf

In the March 2025 Opinion and Order for case Rodney Jones v. Sean Combs et al. (24-CV-1457), Judge J. Paul Oetken ruled on motions to dismiss brought by Sean Combs and several co-defendants. While five of Jones's seventeen claims were dismissed—including claims under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) against Combs Global and Love Records—multiple key allegations were allowed to proceed. These surviving claims include sexual assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and premises liability against Sean Combs, Kristina Khorram, Justin Combs, Cuba Gooding Jr., and Jane Doe 1 (allegedly “Yung Miami's cousin”). The court found that many of Jones's accusations, including being drugged, sexually assaulted, and trafficked across state and international lines, were sufficiently detailed to survive the defendants' efforts to have the case dismissed entirely.The ruling outlines severe and graphic allegations, including incidents where Jones claims he was sexually assaulted, manipulated, and trafficked while working closely with Sean Combs between 2022 and 2023. Jones alleges Combs used power and influence in the music industry to coerce him into unwanted sexual activity, promising professional success in return. The complaint details incidents in Los Angeles, Miami, New York, the US Virgin Islands, and Saint-Barthélemy, including claims of being drugged, groped, and assaulted by Combs and others in his circle. The court emphasized that while some claims lacked sufficient legal basis or specificity, the core allegations—particularly those describing direct physical and psychological abuse—were compelling enough to proceed to discovery and potentially trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:24cv1457 Jones v Combs MTD Opn.pdf

In the March 2025 Opinion and Order for case Rodney Jones v. Sean Combs et al. (24-CV-1457), Judge J. Paul Oetken ruled on motions to dismiss brought by Sean Combs and several co-defendants. While five of Jones's seventeen claims were dismissed—including claims under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) against Combs Global and Love Records—multiple key allegations were allowed to proceed. These surviving claims include sexual assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and premises liability against Sean Combs, Kristina Khorram, Justin Combs, Cuba Gooding Jr., and Jane Doe 1 (allegedly “Yung Miami's cousin”). The court found that many of Jones's accusations, including being drugged, sexually assaulted, and trafficked across state and international lines, were sufficiently detailed to survive the defendants' efforts to have the case dismissed entirely.The ruling outlines severe and graphic allegations, including incidents where Jones claims he was sexually assaulted, manipulated, and trafficked while working closely with Sean Combs between 2022 and 2023. Jones alleges Combs used power and influence in the music industry to coerce him into unwanted sexual activity, promising professional success in return. The complaint details incidents in Los Angeles, Miami, New York, the US Virgin Islands, and Saint-Barthélemy, including claims of being drugged, groped, and assaulted by Combs and others in his circle. The court emphasized that while some claims lacked sufficient legal basis or specificity, the core allegations—particularly those describing direct physical and psychological abuse—were compelling enough to proceed to discovery and potentially trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:24cv1457 Jones v Combs MTD Opn.pdf

In the March 2025 Opinion and Order for case Rodney Jones v. Sean Combs et al. (24-CV-1457), Judge J. Paul Oetken ruled on motions to dismiss brought by Sean Combs and several co-defendants. While five of Jones's seventeen claims were dismissed—including claims under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) against Combs Global and Love Records—multiple key allegations were allowed to proceed. These surviving claims include sexual assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and premises liability against Sean Combs, Kristina Khorram, Justin Combs, Cuba Gooding Jr., and Jane Doe 1 (allegedly “Yung Miami's cousin”). The court found that many of Jones's accusations, including being drugged, sexually assaulted, and trafficked across state and international lines, were sufficiently detailed to survive the defendants' efforts to have the case dismissed entirely.The ruling outlines severe and graphic allegations, including incidents where Jones claims he was sexually assaulted, manipulated, and trafficked while working closely with Sean Combs between 2022 and 2023. Jones alleges Combs used power and influence in the music industry to coerce him into unwanted sexual activity, promising professional success in return. The complaint details incidents in Los Angeles, Miami, New York, the US Virgin Islands, and Saint-Barthélemy, including claims of being drugged, groped, and assaulted by Combs and others in his circle. The court emphasized that while some claims lacked sufficient legal basis or specificity, the core allegations—particularly those describing direct physical and psychological abuse—were compelling enough to proceed to discovery and potentially trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:24cv1457 Jones v Combs MTD Opn.pdf

In the March 2025 Opinion and Order for case Rodney Jones v. Sean Combs et al. (24-CV-1457), Judge J. Paul Oetken ruled on motions to dismiss brought by Sean Combs and several co-defendants. While five of Jones's seventeen claims were dismissed—including claims under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) against Combs Global and Love Records—multiple key allegations were allowed to proceed. These surviving claims include sexual assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and premises liability against Sean Combs, Kristina Khorram, Justin Combs, Cuba Gooding Jr., and Jane Doe 1 (allegedly “Yung Miami's cousin”). The court found that many of Jones's accusations, including being drugged, sexually assaulted, and trafficked across state and international lines, were sufficiently detailed to survive the defendants' efforts to have the case dismissed entirely.The ruling outlines severe and graphic allegations, including incidents where Jones claims he was sexually assaulted, manipulated, and trafficked while working closely with Sean Combs between 2022 and 2023. Jones alleges Combs used power and influence in the music industry to coerce him into unwanted sexual activity, promising professional success in return. The complaint details incidents in Los Angeles, Miami, New York, the US Virgin Islands, and Saint-Barthélemy, including claims of being drugged, groped, and assaulted by Combs and others in his circle. The court emphasized that while some claims lacked sufficient legal basis or specificity, the core allegations—particularly those describing direct physical and psychological abuse—were compelling enough to proceed to discovery and potentially trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:24cv1457 Jones v Combs MTD Opn.pdf

​In the case of Jane Doe 1 et al. v. Government of the United States Virgin Islands et al., the plaintiffs—six anonymous women—allege that they were coerced into commercial sex acts by Jeffrey Epstein and his associates. They claim that the defendants, including the Government of the United States Virgin Islands (USVI) and several USVI political figures, facilitated Epstein's sex trafficking operations by providing various forms of assistance and, in return, received financial benefits such as loans, payments, and campaign donations. The plaintiffs assert violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) and New York tort law.Upon review, the court dismissed all claims except those against Stacey Plaskett, the USVI's delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives. The court found insufficient evidence to establish personal jurisdiction over the other defendants or to substantiate the claims against them. As a result, the case will proceed solely against Plaskett, focusing on her alleged involvement in facilitating Epstein's activities during her tenure as General Counsel for the Virgin Islands Economic Development Authority.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.610915.202.0.pdf

​In the case of Jane Doe 1 et al. v. Government of the United States Virgin Islands et al., the plaintiffs—six anonymous women—allege that they were coerced into commercial sex acts by Jeffrey Epstein and his associates. They claim that the defendants, including the Government of the United States Virgin Islands (USVI) and several USVI political figures, facilitated Epstein's sex trafficking operations by providing various forms of assistance and, in return, received financial benefits such as loans, payments, and campaign donations. The plaintiffs assert violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) and New York tort law.Upon review, the court dismissed all claims except those against Stacey Plaskett, the USVI's delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives. The court found insufficient evidence to establish personal jurisdiction over the other defendants or to substantiate the claims against them. As a result, the case will proceed solely against Plaskett, focusing on her alleged involvement in facilitating Epstein's activities during her tenure as General Counsel for the Virgin Islands Economic Development Authority.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.610915.202.0.pdf

​In the case of Jane Doe 1 et al. v. Government of the United States Virgin Islands et al., the plaintiffs—six anonymous women—allege that they were coerced into commercial sex acts by Jeffrey Epstein and his associates. They claim that the defendants, including the Government of the United States Virgin Islands (USVI) and several USVI political figures, facilitated Epstein's sex trafficking operations by providing various forms of assistance and, in return, received financial benefits such as loans, payments, and campaign donations. The plaintiffs assert violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) and New York tort law.Upon review, the court dismissed all claims except those against Stacey Plaskett, the USVI's delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives. The court found insufficient evidence to establish personal jurisdiction over the other defendants or to substantiate the claims against them. As a result, the case will proceed solely against Plaskett, focusing on her alleged involvement in facilitating Epstein's activities during her tenure as General Counsel for the Virgin Islands Economic Development Authority.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.610915.202.0.pdf

After getting an early morning call about a body at an apartment complex, police officers canvass the area and interview the neighbors for clues. Detectives suspect it’s a so-called “body dump,” especially since nobody at the apartment complex seems to have heard anything the night before, and nobody recognizes the victim. That is, until a 13-year-old boy is called upon to identify the body. That’s when everything changes and the full scale of the tragedy comes into focus. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Thanks to all of you who've helped us hit 30k subscribers! Please continue to check out our content on all platforms, including Instagram, Substack, Apple Podcasts, and much more. We have some big news in the coming weeks… But we're giving you a chance to guess this week!Is WOKE dead in Hollywood, and is SNOW WHITE the killer?The new Snow White movie is an anti-romance, socialist nightmare, and shocker… nobody went to see it. We discuss if woke is finally dead and if Rachel Zegler is the poisoned apple that killed it.Racially diverse casting only goes one way, it seems. The vilification of white males continues in Netflix's crime drama ADOLESCENCE. We examine why the story of a black teenage knife-killer is being used to promote an anti-white-male narrative. Also, we mourn the death of the great American writer and, of course, wokeness is killing it off.Lastly, we bring you the unfortunate news that there's a new Gosnell, but hopefully not for long. Ann brings you the latest on the malpractice lawsuit against the so-called “Equity” clinic in Illinois and the horrors that “Jane Doe” had to endure at the hands of Dr. Keith Reisinger-Kindle, and the lies that could've killed her. There are many, many Gosnells out there, and we will continue to expose them.

In 2003, construction workers in Hell's Kitchen, New York, discovered a concrete tomb hidden in the basement of a run-down building. Inside were the remains of a young woman, hogtied with pantyhose and electrical cords, this gruesome scene was more than shocking—it was deeply calculated. It took more than two decades for investigators to identify her as 16-year-old Patricia McGlone, who was last seen in 1969. But despite finally giving her a name, her killer remains at large. Now, police are asking for your help to find the person responsible and bring Patricia the justice she's been denied for far too long.If you know anything about Patricia McGlone or the circumstances of her murder, please contact Crime Stoppers at 1-800-577-TIPS.$Patricia's childhood home was located at 375 52nd Street in Brooklyn, New York. She went to the following schools:P.S. 94, 5010 6th Ave, Brooklyn: Attended 1959 - 1963Our Lady of Perpetual Help School, 5902 6th Ave, Brooklyn: Attended Sept. 9, 1963 – 1966St Michael School, 4222 Fourth Ave, Brooklyn: Attended Sept. 12, 1966 – December 1968I.S. 136 Charles O. Dewey Junior High School, 4004 4th Ave, Brooklyn: Attended Dec. 3, 1968 - May 7, 1969 You can learn more about The Good segment and even submit a story of your own by visiting The Good page on our website! Source materials for this episode cannot be listed here due to character limitations. For a full list of sources, please visit: crimejunkiepodcast.com/identified-midtown-jane-doe/Did you know you can listen to this episode ad-free? Join the Fan Club! Visit crimejunkie.app/library/ to view the current membership options and policies.The Crime Junkie Merch Store is NOW OPEN! Shop the exclusive Life Rule #10 Tour collection before it's gone for good! Don't miss your chance - visit the store now! Don't miss out on all things Crime Junkie!Instagram: @crimejunkiepodcast | @audiochuckTwitter: @CrimeJunkiePod | @audiochuckTikTok: @crimejunkiepodcastFacebook: /CrimeJunkiePodcast | /audiochuckllcCrime Junkie is hosted by Ashley Flowers and Brit Prawat. Instagram: @ashleyflowers | @britprawatTwitter: @Ash_Flowers | @britprawatTikTok: @ashleyflowerscrimejunkieFacebook: /AshleyFlowers.AF Text Ashley at 317-733-7485 to talk all things true crime, get behind the scenes updates, and more!

Episode 139 Doe: ID 'Wayne County Jane Doe' Connie Christensen  In December, 1982, deer hunters in Wayne County, Indiana, found skeletal remains in the woods along Martindale Creek. When the remains were first found, authorities were unable to tell much about the skeletonized remains other than that they belonged to an adult female. There was no ID found with the remains, but police theorized that they had a homicide on their hands. Later they would be proven right when it was discovered that the victim had died from a gunshot. Police were stumped as they had no missing females in their area that matched the clues that they had for this victim, and the investigation slowed. The unknown homicide victim became known as 'Wayne County Jane Doe'. Years later, DNA & genealogy would be used to finally identify this victim. Her name was Connie L. Christensen, and she had last been seen by her family in March, 1982, when she dropped her young daughter off with family saying that she was leaving the area. Connie was believed to have been pregnant when she was last seen by her family. Subsequent investigation revealed that Connie spent time in Nashville, TN, in April, 1982. After that, she vanished. An older man that had a relationship with Connie is a suspect in her murder. Unfortunately, this suspect has passed away, and perhaps took anything he knew about Connie's death to his grave. Although Wayne County Jane Doe's killer has never been brought to justice, she at least has her name back; it's Connie Christensen, and this is her story.