Podcast appearances and mentions of jane doe

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCX

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCX

In November 2024, a woman identified as Jane Doe filed a lawsuit against Sean "Diddy" Combs, alleging that he sexually assaulted her on Halloween night in 2001. According to the complaint, the plaintiff, then 18 years old, attended a Halloween party in New York City, where she was escorted by one of Combs' security guards to a black SUV limousine. Inside the vehicle, she alleges that after consuming a drink, she began to feel dizzy, and Combs, along with his security team, forced her to perform oral sex on them. During the assault, Combs allegedly called her derogatory names and sprayed champagne on her. She claims she was not allowed to leave the limo until she complied with their demands.This lawsuit is part of a series of legal challenges Combs has faced in recent times, with multiple individuals accusing him of sexual misconduct spanning over two decades. Combs' representatives have not publicly responded to these specific allegations. The plaintiff is represented by attorney Tony Buzbee, who is also handling several other cases against Combs. The legal proceedings are ongoing, and further developments are anticipated as the case progresses.(commercial at 7:36)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.632024.1.0.pdf

In November 2024, a woman identified as Jane Doe filed a lawsuit against Sean "Diddy" Combs, alleging that he sexually assaulted her on Halloween night in 2001. According to the complaint, the plaintiff, then 18 years old, attended a Halloween party in New York City, where she was escorted by one of Combs' security guards to a black SUV limousine. Inside the vehicle, she alleges that after consuming a drink, she began to feel dizzy, and Combs, along with his security team, forced her to perform oral sex on them. During the assault, Combs allegedly called her derogatory names and sprayed champagne on her. She claims she was not allowed to leave the limo until she complied with their demands.This lawsuit is part of a series of legal challenges Combs has faced in recent times, with multiple individuals accusing him of sexual misconduct spanning over two decades. Combs' representatives have not publicly responded to these specific allegations. The plaintiff is represented by attorney Tony Buzbee, who is also handling several other cases against Combs. The legal proceedings are ongoing, and further developments are anticipated as the case progresses.(commercial at 7:36)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.632024.1.0.pdf

In November 2024, a woman identified as Jane Doe filed a lawsuit against Sean "Diddy" Combs, alleging that he sexually assaulted her on Halloween night in 2001. According to the complaint, the plaintiff, then 18 years old, attended a Halloween party in New York City, where she was escorted by one of Combs' security guards to a black SUV limousine. Inside the vehicle, she alleges that after consuming a drink, she began to feel dizzy, and Combs, along with his security team, forced her to perform oral sex on them. During the assault, Combs allegedly called her derogatory names and sprayed champagne on her. She claims she was not allowed to leave the limo until she complied with their demands.This lawsuit is part of a series of legal challenges Combs has faced in recent times, with multiple individuals accusing him of sexual misconduct spanning over two decades. Combs' representatives have not publicly responded to these specific allegations. The plaintiff is represented by attorney Tony Buzbee, who is also handling several other cases against Combs. The legal proceedings are ongoing, and further developments are anticipated as the case progresses.(commercial at 7:36)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.632024.1.0.pdf

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In 2009, Giuffre (then known as Virginia Roberts) filed a civil lawsuit against Epstein (under the pseudonym “Jane Doe 102”) alleging she was recruited as a minor, trafficked, and sexually exploited at his Palm Beach estate and other properties. That lawsuit was resolved in a private settlement: Epstein agreed to pay Giuffre US$500,000 plus “other valuable consideration.” As part of the agreement, Giuffre released Epstein — and “anyone else who could have been included as a potential defendant” — from any future civil claims arising from her allegations. In essence, the deal not only ended the case but also broadly shielded Epstein and his associates from further civil liability on that claim.The full text of the 2009 deal remained sealed for many years. That changed in early 2022, when court filings related to a separate lawsuit by Giuffre against Prince Andrew forced the Epstein settlement into the public record. With the terms revealed, it became clear that the settlement extinguished Giuffre's ability to sue Epstein — or many of his associates — over the events she described decades earlier. What remains unknown, however, is the identity of the “other valuable consideration” beyond the cash payment; any non-monetary terms, confidentiality clauses, or conditions remain off the public record.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCX

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCX

In November 2024, a woman identified as Jane Doe filed a lawsuit against Sean "Diddy" Combs, alleging that he sexually assaulted her on Halloween night in 2001. According to the complaint, the plaintiff, then 18 years old, attended a Halloween party in New York City, where she was escorted by one of Combs' security guards to a black SUV limousine. Inside the vehicle, she alleges that after consuming a drink, she began to feel dizzy, and Combs, along with his security team, forced her to perform oral sex on them. During the assault, Combs allegedly called her derogatory names and sprayed champagne on her. She claims she was not allowed to leave the limo until she complied with their demands.This lawsuit is part of a series of legal challenges Combs has faced in recent times, with multiple individuals accusing him of sexual misconduct spanning over two decades. Combs' representatives have not publicly responded to these specific allegations. The plaintiff is represented by attorney Tony Buzbee, who is also handling several other cases against Combs. The legal proceedings are ongoing, and further developments are anticipated as the case progresses.(commercial at 7:36)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.632024.1.0.pdf

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCX

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

En France, on les appellerait Monsieur ou Madame X. Aux États-Unis, c'est John et Jane Doe. Pour comprendre d'où vient ces noms, il faut remonter au 14e siècle pendant le règne du roi Britannique Edouard III. À cette période de l'Histoire, les propriétaires peu scrupuleux pouvaient se débarrasser sans difficulté des squatteurs de leurs terres. Grâce à une invention aussi rude que son époque ! Dans "Ah Ouais ?", Florian Gazan répond en une minute chrono à toutes les questions essentielles, existentielles, parfois complètement absurdes, qui vous traversent la tête. Un podcast RTL Originals.Hébergé par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In 2009, Giuffre (then known as Virginia Roberts) filed a civil lawsuit against Epstein (under the pseudonym “Jane Doe 102”) alleging she was recruited as a minor, trafficked, and sexually exploited at his Palm Beach estate and other properties. That lawsuit was resolved in a private settlement: Epstein agreed to pay Giuffre US$500,000 plus “other valuable consideration.” As part of the agreement, Giuffre released Epstein — and “anyone else who could have been included as a potential defendant” — from any future civil claims arising from her allegations. In essence, the deal not only ended the case but also broadly shielded Epstein and his associates from further civil liability on that claim.The full text of the 2009 deal remained sealed for many years. That changed in early 2022, when court filings related to a separate lawsuit by Giuffre against Prince Andrew forced the Epstein settlement into the public record. With the terms revealed, it became clear that the settlement extinguished Giuffre's ability to sue Epstein — or many of his associates — over the events she described decades earlier. What remains unknown, however, is the identity of the “other valuable consideration” beyond the cash payment; any non-monetary terms, confidentiality clauses, or conditions remain off the public record.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCX

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCX

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCX

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCX

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

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome 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-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/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:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.318730.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/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:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.318730.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/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 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/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:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource: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:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.318730.1.0.pdf

In December 2024, a woman identified as Jane Doe filed a lawsuit against Sean "Diddy" Combs, alleging that he sexually assaulted her during a charity basketball event at the City College of New York on December 28, 1991. According to the lawsuit, Doe and a friend attended the event, which was co-sponsored by Combs, then an emerging music producer. Upon arrival, they were escorted to a makeshift dressing room where Combs was present. Doe alleges that Combs offered her a drink, purportedly Coca-Cola, which caused her to feel disoriented after consumption. She claims that when she attempted to leave, Combs blocked her exit, proceeded to fondle her, and ultimately raped her. The assault allegedly ended when Combs was interrupted by a bodyguard informing him of a developing situation outside—a stampede that tragically resulted in nine fatalities.Combs' legal team has categorically denied the allegations, describing them as "facially ridiculous or demonstrably false." They assert that Combs has never engaged in sexual assault or sex trafficking and express confidence that the judicial process will exonerate him. This lawsuit adds to a series of legal challenges Combs has faced, including multiple allegations of sexual misconduct spanning several decades. As of December 2024, Combs is in federal custody, awaiting trial on charges including sex trafficking and racketeering, to which he has pleaded not guilty.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.633975.1.0_1.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:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.318730.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

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

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In December 2024, a woman identified as Jane Doe filed a lawsuit against Sean "Diddy" Combs, alleging that he sexually assaulted her during a charity basketball event at the City College of New York on December 28, 1991. According to the lawsuit, Doe and a friend attended the event, which was co-sponsored by Combs, then an emerging music producer. Upon arrival, they were escorted to a makeshift dressing room where Combs was present. Doe alleges that Combs offered her a drink, purportedly Coca-Cola, which caused her to feel disoriented after consumption. She claims that when she attempted to leave, Combs blocked her exit, proceeded to fondle her, and ultimately raped her. The assault allegedly ended when Combs was interrupted by a bodyguard informing him of a developing situation outside—a stampede that tragically resulted in nine fatalities.Combs' legal team has categorically denied the allegations, describing them as "facially ridiculous or demonstrably false." They assert that Combs has never engaged in sexual assault or sex trafficking and express confidence that the judicial process will exonerate him. This lawsuit adds to a series of legal challenges Combs has faced, including multiple allegations of sexual misconduct spanning several decades. As of December 2024, Combs is in federal custody, awaiting trial on charges including sex trafficking and racketeering, to which he has pleaded not guilty.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.633975.1.0_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

A detective gets Shawn Grate to admit to his brutal attacks on Jane Doe. But what about the other missing women? To catch new episodes early, follow "The Hand in the Window" for free on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠Amazon Music⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, or wherever you listen to podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

When 23 year old Wilma Nissen stopped communicating with her various foster families, they hoped she found a better life somewhere. But the truth was she was a Jane Doe, far from home, and it would take diligent police work and the daughter she left behind to start to put the pieces together. This case is *unsolved*If you know anything, you can email tips to justice4wilma@aol.com or call the Lyon County Sheriff's Office at (712) 472-8300 or Crime Stoppers at (800) 222-TIPSTo learn more, follow Krissi's Medium page at https://medium.com/@justice4wilma To sign the petition, go to https://chng.it/GF2BW4zPvSWebsite: https://www.justice4wilmajunenissen.com/ Support the show!Get the exclusive show Beyond the Files plus Crimelines episodes ad free onSupercast: https://crimelines.supercast.com/Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/crimelinesApple Subscriptions: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/crimelines-true-crime/id1112004494 For one time support:https://www.basementfortproductions.com/supportLinks to all my socials and more:https://linktr.ee/crimelinesSources:2025 Crimelines Podcast Source List Transcript: https://app.podscribe.ai/series/3790If an exact transcript is needed, please request at crimelinespodcast@gmail.com Licensing and credits:Theme music by Scott Buckley https://www.scottbuckley.com.au/Cover Art by Lars Hacking from Rusty HingesCrimelines is a registered trademark of Crimelines LLC.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Reports indicate that newly unsealed court records reveal Jeffrey Epstein's estate discovered a previously unknown cache of videos and photographs that may contain highly sensitive or potentially illegal material. According to the filings, the estate alerted federal authorities and legal representatives for survivors once the cache was located, and the material is now being reviewed under restricted access. The revelation has raised immediate questions about how such evidence remained undiscovered during prior raids and investigations, and why it is only surfacing years after Epstein's death, despite the public insistence that all relevant materials were already collected by law enforcement.These reports also note that the discovery aligns with long-standing claims from survivors and insiders that Epstein systematically recorded activities inside his properties, allegedly capturing compromising encounters involving high-profile individuals. Advocates have argued for years that Epstein used surveillance as leverage and protection, and the existence of a hidden archive intensifies speculation about who may be depicted on the recovered media. The finding further fuels concerns about transparency, chain of custody, and the possibility that critical evidence was concealed, misplaced, or withheld, leaving the public once again questioning whether the full truth surrounding Epstein's network has ever genuinely been revealed.Former Barclays CEO Jes Staley and his legal team forcefully rejected allegations made by JPMorgan Chase, describing them as “slanderous” and “baseless but serious.” The dispute emerged during litigation in Manhattan, where lawsuits filed by the U.S. Virgin Islands and a survivor identified as Jane Doe 1 accused Staley of having closely associated with Jeffrey Epstein's trafficking network, including claims that he exchanged hundreds of emails with Epstein containing disturbing content. Staley's lawyers argued that the accelerated trial schedule was unnecessary and unfair, insisting that he had been given insufficient time to prepare an adequate defense. JPMorgan, in turn, pursued legal action against Staley, seeking to recover compensation and asserting that he was central to decisions that allowed Epstein to operate as a client for years. The bank maintained that Staley was “inextricably linked” to the case, pointing to his long relationship with Epstein dating back to his tenure at JPMorgan in the early 2000s. Staley ultimately resigned as CEO of Barclays in 2021 amid scrutiny from UK regulators over his Epstein ties, and the legal confrontation highlighted the reputational fallout and lingering uncertainty surrounding the financial institutions and executives connected to Epstein's network.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In a lawsuit filed in October 2024, a woman identified as Jane Doe alleges that Sean "Diddy" Combs raped her during a Las Vegas afterparty in 2014. According to the complaint, Doe and her two friends were in Las Vegas over Memorial Day Weekend 2014. Doe claims she connected with Combs' party promoter, known only as "Internamtikonal Smoove," who invited her to an exclusive party at Club Rehab, where she met several celebrities, including Mary J. Blige, Lil' Kim, and Nicki Minaj. After the party, Doe attended an afterparty at Combs' suite at the Planet Hollywood hotel. After consuming one or two drinks from a Ciroc vodka bottle, Doe began to feel disoriented. Smoove directed her to an empty bedroom where she could rest, assuring her that the door would be locked. The next thing Doe recalls is waking up the following morning feeling very groggy and sore, with her entire body hurting and difficulty moving. She saw Combs in the corner of the room, shirtless and yelling loudly at someone over the phone. He was the only person in the room with her, and it was clear that someone else had been in the bed with her. Doe returned to her friends and slept for two days, vaguely remembering her friends trying to help with periodic offers of water.Doe's lawsuit is part of a broader wave of legal actions against Combs, with over 100 individuals alleging sexual abuse. The allegations span decades and include claims of drugging, sexual assault, and rape. Combs has denied all allegations, with his legal team describing them as false and opportunistic. The legal proceedings are ongoing, with Combs currently facing federal charges of racketeering and sex trafficking, to which he has pleaded not guilty.(commercial at 14:02)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.630246.1.0.pdf

Le 15 juin 2008, une jeune femme dans la vingtaine se fait frapper par un train dans la ville de Brielle, au NJ. Encore aujourd'hui, elle reste non-identifiée. On la connait comme la « Brielle Jane Doe » ou la « Monmouth County Jane Doe ».Pour accéder à sa fiche : https://www.namus.gov/UnidentifiedPersons/Case#/2274/details Mes Sources : https://www.shorenewsnetwork.com/2022/05/18/police-seeking-to-identify-body-of-jane-doe-struck-and-killed-by-a-train/ https://www.namus.gov/UnidentifiedPersons/Case#/2274/details https://www.doenetwork.org/cases/770ufnj.html https://www.reddit.com/r/UnresolvedMysteries/comments/175ujf6/resurrecting_the_brielle_jane_doe_case_with_new/ https://old.reddit.com/r/UnresolvedMysteries/comments/lysl52/jane_doe_brielle_nj/ 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.

For more than 50 years, the world knew her only as Little Miss Panasoffkee—a Jane Doe science once “proved” was a young woman from Greece. In this episode, we revisit her case now that she finally has her name back: Maureen “Cookie” Minor Rowan. Her daughter, Ann, shares with us the truth of growing up in the shadow of her mother's disappearance and reveals the haunting, intimate details of her life and memory that may finally lead to answers. If you know anything that could help investigators fill in those gaps, call (352) 569-1915, email sumtertips@sumtercountysheriff.org, or contact Crimelines at 1-800-423-TIPS. We would appreciate you liking, following, rating, and sharing the podcast. The more you share, the more likely it is that someone with answers will hear the episode and THAT is, as always, our ultimate goal. If you are interested, please consider supporting the pod by joining us over on Patreon! Are you up-to-date on all our regular content? Be a part of the C & C Fam by going to https://www.patreon.com/coffeeandcases to register! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

01. Brookes Brothers - Big Love 02. Feint & Kate Mc Gill - It's True 03. Katya Nova, Venger Collective - Vnov (KROT remix) 04. Jon Void & RIENK - Here With Me 05. Metrik, Grafix - Waves 06. NELSON - Leave You Alone 07. Voicians - Above The Sky 08. [IVY] & Adalaide Adams - Devotion 09. SLESS - Astrogirl 10. Wuki, Devo - Whip It 11. Modefunk - Weisses Rauschen 12. Yehor - Where Do We Go 13. Armodine - Can't Go On 14. Malaa (Alter Ego) - Badman 15. DisasZt - Synco 16. Symplex - Nightmares 17. Malinoviy John - Armatura 18. KROT & Vecster - My Universe 19. Malinoviy John - Zavod 20. DisasZt feat. The Clamps - Popcorn Machine 21. Ekwols & Hrspx - The Vigil Abyss 22. Dxfferentxal - Can't Forget 23. t0ku1-t3n - Mechalophobos 24. Ferraz - Poseidon 25. KJK9 KJK9 - Chingatchguk 26. Goddard. - In The Wild 27. Neinzge - Empty Words 28. Gui, DKN - Kaioken 29. Massent - Atomic. 30. VRUM - Holocene feat. Cuepric 31. Phace & Skylark - HALT 32. The Balaclavas - Busted 33. Jane Doe, Dialective, FauxReal - Feel 34. Alyness - Fissure 35. Sigjir - Diaspora 36. NEMY - Silent Screams 37. NickBee, Hkay - Dreaming In Neon 38. Alix Perez - Lost Connection 39. Nemy - Breda 40. Louis Leon - The Infinite 41. Quartz - Watermark 42. jjames - Nasty Plot 43. TypeCell - Dawn 44. HELICOPTER - Make It 45. Viiah, Malign - Drawn Out 46. Objectiv, Teej - Club Sarny 47. BASSLENITSA - Купило Притупило 48. Deekline, zylo, Fats, Milson - Tainted Love 49. DJ Limited - Ton 6-1-8 50. Levela - Groundhog 51. Korshoon - Mr. Mc'Duck 52. Tesen & Slipz - Gerrit 53. Maze - Victory 54. Kneecap, Sub Focus - No Comment 55. Dutta, Alphaze - Power By Numbers 56. CS Gas - Invader 57. Annix - Troubleshooter 58. Lee UHF & Noise Souls - Introspective Thoughts 59. Zombie Cats - Close (IYRE Remix) 60. Zapya, DJ Millz - Warehouse Party 61. Inmotion, Rider Shafique, Ella Monnery - Between Those Lines 62. 42CLO - SPECIE 63. Sam Space - Metro 64. Zero T / Bruk Rogers - Get Low (Get Low Zero T Remix) 65. Rainforest - Black Lion Riddim (FLeCK Remix) 66. Sully - Lies 67. Dubplate union - This time 68. Jaise - Void 69. Quartz - Duplicity 70. H3nry - Love 71. L-side - Never Feels Enough 72. Gabriella Bongo & Dogger - Where We Are (ft. Sam McAlister) 73. Alpha Rhythm, Actraiser - Silent Dawn 74. Aperio - Taksim 75. Alexus - Life 76. BCee, Omar Meho - Scarlett 77. Wasabi Cru, Pablo Dread - Kaijuu

For more than 50 years, the world knew her only as Little Miss Panasoffkee—a Jane Doe science once “proved” was a young woman from Greece. In this episode, we revisit her case now that she finally has her name back: Maureen “Cookie” Minor Rowan. Her daughter, Ann, shares with us the truth of growing up in the shadow of her mother's disappearance and reveals the haunting, intimate details of her life and memory that may finally lead to answers. If you know anything that could help investigators fill in those gaps, call (352) 569-1915, email sumtertips@sumtercountysheriff.org, or contact Crimelines at 1-800-423-TIPS. We would appreciate you liking, following, rating, and sharing the podcast. The more you share, the more likely it is that someone with answers will hear the episode and THAT is, as always, our ultimate goal. If you are interested, please consider supporting the pod by joining us over on Patreon! Are you up-to-date on all our regular content? Be a part of the C & C Fam by going to https://www.patreon.com/coffeeandcases to register! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices