Podcasts about jurors

Jurors aren't just weighing evidence in the Brian Walshe case — they're weighing behavior. They're deciding which version of events feels psychologically possible, which narrative aligns with human behavior, and which actions simply don't match the story being told. Today, psychotherapist Shavaun Scott helps us understand the psychological patterns prosecutors are highlighting. We explore why certain types of deception — calculated lies, rehearsed narratives, contradictory explanations — point to deeper issues than simple panic or misunderstanding. Shavaun walks us through the mechanics of deceit: how people maintain double lives, how they separate public persona from private behavior, and what happens internally when the truth starts closing in. We look at the early-morning searches revealed in court and discuss what they suggest about planning, awareness, and emotional state. We also examine the defense's theory that Ana died suddenly and Brian responded in fear rather than violence. Shavaun explains what a real shock response looks like, how grief manifests, and why certain behaviors line up more with self-protection than panic. Then we broaden the view: the warning signs in troubled relationships, the risk spike when someone prepares to leave, the emotional danger of perceived betrayal, and what it means when financial motive intersects with escalating conflict. These are the patterns professionals see every day in cases that end in violence. Shavaun's perspective gives viewers the tools to understand not only this case, but the psychology behind deception itself — and why credibility is often the real battleground inside the courtroom. #HiddenKillers #BrianWalsheTrial #PsychologyExplained #TrueCrimeInsights #ShavaunScott #CrimeBehavior #CourtroomCoverage #AnaWalshe #ManipulationTactics #TrueCrimeCommunity Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

Jurors aren't just weighing evidence in the Brian Walshe case — they're weighing behavior. They're deciding which version of events feels psychologically possible, which narrative aligns with human behavior, and which actions simply don't match the story being told. Today, psychotherapist Shavaun Scott helps us understand the psychological patterns prosecutors are highlighting. We explore why certain types of deception — calculated lies, rehearsed narratives, contradictory explanations — point to deeper issues than simple panic or misunderstanding. Shavaun walks us through the mechanics of deceit: how people maintain double lives, how they separate public persona from private behavior, and what happens internally when the truth starts closing in. We look at the early-morning searches revealed in court and discuss what they suggest about planning, awareness, and emotional state. We also examine the defense's theory that Ana died suddenly and Brian responded in fear rather than violence. Shavaun explains what a real shock response looks like, how grief manifests, and why certain behaviors line up more with self-protection than panic. Then we broaden the view: the warning signs in troubled relationships, the risk spike when someone prepares to leave, the emotional danger of perceived betrayal, and what it means when financial motive intersects with escalating conflict. These are the patterns professionals see every day in cases that end in violence. Shavaun's perspective gives viewers the tools to understand not only this case, but the psychology behind deception itself — and why credibility is often the real battleground inside the courtroom. #HiddenKillers #BrianWalsheTrial #PsychologyExplained #TrueCrimeInsights #ShavaunScott #CrimeBehavior #CourtroomCoverage #AnaWalshe #ManipulationTactics #TrueCrimeCommunity Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

The trial of Brian Walshe is exposing a divide that runs straight through the center of the courtroom — a divide between a prosecution building its case with timestamps, metadata, and DNA, and a defense leaning into emotional possibility and human frailty. It's not just a legal battle. It's a narrative war. Prosecutors say the evidence speaks for itself: searches about body disposal in the early morning hours, trips to multiple stores buying tools that prosecutors argue were used to dispose of Anna, lies told to friends, family, and police, and physical evidence recovered from a trash facility far from home — evidence they say directly connects Brian to a deliberate cover-up. The defense counters with a different story entirely. They say Anna died suddenly. Naturally. Tragically. And Brian, terrified the authorities would seize his children, made the worst decision of his life — hiding her death instead of reporting it. Not planning. Not malice. Fear. But jurors must decide not just which story makes sense — but which story they can live with. Can sudden, unexplained death explain Google searches that happened before the alleged death window? Can panic explain purchasing gloves, masks, tarps, and cutting tools all over Massachusetts? Can panic explain a disposal process so elaborate it spanned multiple towns? The defense doesn't need a full acquittal. They just need one person willing to say, “I don't know. It's bizarre, but maybe.” That's the real battleground. Tonight we break down the evidence, the psychology, the storytelling, and the stakes — and ask the question that may decide this entire trial: How much doubt is enough? #BrianWalsheTrial #AnaWalshe #JuryDuty #CrimeStory #HiddenKillers #ForensicBreakdown #LegalExpert #TrueCrimeCommunity #CourtroomAnalysis #BobMottaDefenseDiaries Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

The trial of Brian Walshe is exposing a divide that runs straight through the center of the courtroom — a divide between a prosecution building its case with timestamps, metadata, and DNA, and a defense leaning into emotional possibility and human frailty. It's not just a legal battle. It's a narrative war. Prosecutors say the evidence speaks for itself: searches about body disposal in the early morning hours, trips to multiple stores buying tools that prosecutors argue were used to dispose of Anna, lies told to friends, family, and police, and physical evidence recovered from a trash facility far from home — evidence they say directly connects Brian to a deliberate cover-up. The defense counters with a different story entirely. They say Anna died suddenly. Naturally. Tragically. And Brian, terrified the authorities would seize his children, made the worst decision of his life — hiding her death instead of reporting it. Not planning. Not malice. Fear. But jurors must decide not just which story makes sense — but which story they can live with. Can sudden, unexplained death explain Google searches that happened before the alleged death window? Can panic explain purchasing gloves, masks, tarps, and cutting tools all over Massachusetts? Can panic explain a disposal process so elaborate it spanned multiple towns? The defense doesn't need a full acquittal. They just need one person willing to say, “I don't know. It's bizarre, but maybe.” That's the real battleground. Tonight we break down the evidence, the psychology, the storytelling, and the stakes — and ask the question that may decide this entire trial: How much doubt is enough? #BrianWalsheTrial #AnaWalshe #JuryDuty #CrimeStory #HiddenKillers #ForensicBreakdown #LegalExpert #TrueCrimeCommunity #CourtroomAnalysis #BobMottaDefenseDiaries Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

The trial of Brian Walshe is exposing a divide that runs straight through the center of the courtroom — a divide between a prosecution building its case with timestamps, metadata, and DNA, and a defense leaning into emotional possibility and human frailty. It's not just a legal battle. It's a narrative war. Prosecutors say the evidence speaks for itself: searches about body disposal in the early morning hours, trips to multiple stores buying tools that prosecutors argue were used to dispose of Anna, lies told to friends, family, and police, and physical evidence recovered from a trash facility far from home — evidence they say directly connects Brian to a deliberate cover-up. The defense counters with a different story entirely. They say Anna died suddenly. Naturally. Tragically. And Brian, terrified the authorities would seize his children, made the worst decision of his life — hiding her death instead of reporting it. Not planning. Not malice. Fear. But jurors must decide not just which story makes sense — but which story they can live with. Can sudden, unexplained death explain Google searches that happened before the alleged death window? Can panic explain purchasing gloves, masks, tarps, and cutting tools all over Massachusetts? Can panic explain a disposal process so elaborate it spanned multiple towns? The defense doesn't need a full acquittal. They just need one person willing to say, “I don't know. It's bizarre, but maybe.” That's the real battleground. Tonight we break down the evidence, the psychology, the storytelling, and the stakes — and ask the question that may decide this entire trial: How much doubt is enough? #BrianWalsheTrial #AnaWalshe #JuryDuty #CrimeStory #HiddenKillers #ForensicBreakdown #LegalExpert #TrueCrimeCommunity #CourtroomAnalysis #BobMottaDefenseDiaries Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

Exit Interview: Fifth Juror on Survivor 49 Rob Cesternino (@RobCesternino) interviews the latest castaway voted off the Survivor 49 island, followed by This Week In Survivor History with Jordan Kalish (@JordanKalish) where Rob plays against an RHAP patron. Survivor 49's final seven exit interview takes center stage as Rob Cesternino sits down with Sophie Segretti to unravel one of the most dramatic blindsides of the season. Rob explores Sophie's perspective being off the radar early on to suddenly becoming the unifying target for two rival alliances. Rob opens the interview by spotlighting Sophie's unique journey through Survivor 49: after flying under the radar, she emerged as a key strategic player whose moves drew the attention of both warring factions at Tribal Council. Sophie describes her genuine shock at being unanimously voted out, connecting the blindside to her close bond and fallout with Sage. She explains the critical decision to vote out Jawan, believing her relationship with Sage was her biggest asset, yet recognizing, too late, that her choice may have sparked Sage's determination for revenge. Listen in for these standout moments and Survivor insights: – Sophie's reaction to becoming the rare player taken out by two opposing groups working together – The emotional and strategic ripple effect from voting out Jawan instead of Sage – Why Sophie chose to stick with Savannah and Rizzo, balancing the numbers in alliances – How lack of information-sharing from one group contrasted with Savannah's open gameplay – Steven's pivotal immunity win sealing Sophie's fate as the only viable target As Rob and Sophie break the episode down, they consider: Did trusting Sage cost Sophie her game? How much do alliances depend on sharing secrets and advantages at crunch time? And what does this vote signal for future blindsides as Survivor 49 hurtles toward the finale? To pre-order Rob’s book, The Tribe and I Have Spoken, visit www.robhasabook.com Chapters: 0:00 Sophie's Unanimous Blindside Explained 6:16 Sage Relationship Becomes Double-Edged Sword 9:43 Learning the Truth Post-Episode 12:33 Soph Navigates Shifting Alliances 14:22 Reflections on MC Vote Flip 18:12 TWISH Never miss a minute of RHAP's extensive Survivor coverage! LISTEN: Subscribe to the Survivor podcast feed WATCH:  Watch and subscribe to the podcast on YouTube SUPPORT:  Become a RHAP Patron for bonus content, access to Facebook and Discord groups plus more great perks!

Exit Interview: Fifth Juror on Survivor 49 Rob Cesternino (@RobCesternino) interviews the latest castaway voted off the Survivor 49 island, followed by This Week In Survivor History with Jordan Kalish (@JordanKalish) where Rob plays against an RHAP patron. Survivor 49's final seven exit interview takes center stage as Rob Cesternino sits down with Sophie Segretti to unravel one of the most dramatic blindsides of the season. Rob explores Sophie's perspective being off the radar early on to suddenly becoming the unifying target for two rival alliances. Rob opens the interview by spotlighting Sophie's unique journey through Survivor 49: after flying under the radar, she emerged as a key strategic player whose moves drew the attention of both warring factions at Tribal Council. Sophie describes her genuine shock at being unanimously voted out, connecting the blindside to her close bond and fallout with Sage. She explains the critical decision to vote out Jawan, believing her relationship with Sage was her biggest asset, yet recognizing, too late, that her choice may have sparked Sage's determination for revenge. Listen in for these standout moments and Survivor insights: – Sophie's reaction to becoming the rare player taken out by two opposing groups working together – The emotional and strategic ripple effect from voting out Jawan instead of Sage – Why Sophie chose to stick with Savannah and Rizzo, balancing the numbers in alliances – How lack of information-sharing from one group contrasted with Savannah's open gameplay – Steven's pivotal immunity win sealing Sophie's fate as the only viable target As Rob and Sophie break the episode down, they consider: Did trusting Sage cost Sophie her game? How much do alliances depend on sharing secrets and advantages at crunch time? And what does this vote signal for future blindsides as Survivor 49 hurtles toward the finale? To pre-order Rob’s book, The Tribe and I Have Spoken, visit www.robhasabook.com Chapters: 0:00 Sophie's Unanimous Blindside Explained 6:16 Sage Relationship Becomes Double-Edged Sword 9:43 Learning the Truth Post-Episode 12:33 Soph Navigates Shifting Alliances 14:22 Reflections on MC Vote Flip 18:12 TWISH Never miss a minute of RHAP's extensive Survivor coverage! LISTEN: Subscribe to the Survivor podcast feed WATCH:  Watch and subscribe to the podcast on YouTube SUPPORT:  Become a RHAP Patron for bonus content, access to Facebook and Discord groups plus more great perks!

Jurors aren't just weighing evidence in the Brian Walshe case — they're weighing behavior. They're deciding which version of events feels psychologically possible, which narrative aligns with human behavior, and which actions simply don't match the story being told. Today, psychotherapist Shavaun Scott helps us understand the psychological patterns prosecutors are highlighting. We explore why certain types of deception — calculated lies, rehearsed narratives, contradictory explanations — point to deeper issues than simple panic or misunderstanding. Shavaun walks us through the mechanics of deceit: how people maintain double lives, how they separate public persona from private behavior, and what happens internally when the truth starts closing in. We look at the early-morning searches revealed in court and discuss what they suggest about planning, awareness, and emotional state. We also examine the defense's theory that Ana died suddenly and Brian responded in fear rather than violence. Shavaun explains what a real shock response looks like, how grief manifests, and why certain behaviors line up more with self-protection than panic. Then we broaden the view: the warning signs in troubled relationships, the risk spike when someone prepares to leave, the emotional danger of perceived betrayal, and what it means when financial motive intersects with escalating conflict. These are the patterns professionals see every day in cases that end in violence. Shavaun's perspective gives viewers the tools to understand not only this case, but the psychology behind deception itself — and why credibility is often the real battleground inside the courtroom. #HiddenKillers #BrianWalsheTrial #PsychologyExplained #TrueCrimeInsights #ShavaunScott #CrimeBehavior #CourtroomCoverage #AnaWalshe #ManipulationTactics #TrueCrimeCommunity Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

Jurors aren't just weighing evidence in the Brian Walshe case — they're weighing behavior. They're deciding which version of events feels psychologically possible, which narrative aligns with human behavior, and which actions simply don't match the story being told. Today, psychotherapist Shavaun Scott helps us understand the psychological patterns prosecutors are highlighting. We explore why certain types of deception — calculated lies, rehearsed narratives, contradictory explanations — point to deeper issues than simple panic or misunderstanding. Shavaun walks us through the mechanics of deceit: how people maintain double lives, how they separate public persona from private behavior, and what happens internally when the truth starts closing in. We look at the early-morning searches revealed in court and discuss what they suggest about planning, awareness, and emotional state. We also examine the defense's theory that Ana died suddenly and Brian responded in fear rather than violence. Shavaun explains what a real shock response looks like, how grief manifests, and why certain behaviors line up more with self-protection than panic. Then we broaden the view: the warning signs in troubled relationships, the risk spike when someone prepares to leave, the emotional danger of perceived betrayal, and what it means when financial motive intersects with escalating conflict. These are the patterns professionals see every day in cases that end in violence. Shavaun's perspective gives viewers the tools to understand not only this case, but the psychology behind deception itself — and why credibility is often the real battleground inside the courtroom. #HiddenKillers #BrianWalsheTrial #PsychologyExplained #TrueCrimeInsights #ShavaunScott #CrimeBehavior #CourtroomCoverage #AnaWalshe #ManipulationTactics #TrueCrimeCommunity Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

Jurors aren't just weighing evidence in the Brian Walshe case — they're weighing behavior. They're deciding which version of events feels psychologically possible, which narrative aligns with human behavior, and which actions simply don't match the story being told. Today, psychotherapist Shavaun Scott helps us understand the psychological patterns prosecutors are highlighting. We explore why certain types of deception — calculated lies, rehearsed narratives, contradictory explanations — point to deeper issues than simple panic or misunderstanding. Shavaun walks us through the mechanics of deceit: how people maintain double lives, how they separate public persona from private behavior, and what happens internally when the truth starts closing in. We look at the early-morning searches revealed in court and discuss what they suggest about planning, awareness, and emotional state. We also examine the defense's theory that Ana died suddenly and Brian responded in fear rather than violence. Shavaun explains what a real shock response looks like, how grief manifests, and why certain behaviors line up more with self-protection than panic. Then we broaden the view: the warning signs in troubled relationships, the risk spike when someone prepares to leave, the emotional danger of perceived betrayal, and what it means when financial motive intersects with escalating conflict. These are the patterns professionals see every day in cases that end in violence. Shavaun's perspective gives viewers the tools to understand not only this case, but the psychology behind deception itself — and why credibility is often the real battleground inside the courtroom. #HiddenKillers #BrianWalsheTrial #PsychologyExplained #TrueCrimeInsights #ShavaunScott #CrimeBehavior #CourtroomCoverage #AnaWalshe #ManipulationTactics #TrueCrimeCommunity Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

Brian Walshe, 50, initially told authorities that his wife, Ana Walshe, 39, disappeared after leaving for the airport on Sunday, January 1, 2023. However, in court on Monday, December 1, his attorney presented a different narrative.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The defendant, Jeremiah Sweeney, had been convicted by a Maryland jury of second‑degree murder (among other crimes. After his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal and a state post‑conviction relief effort failed, Sweeney filed a federal habeas petition. He argued that his criminal trial counsel had been constitutionally ineffective. Specifically, his claim was that after one juror (Juror 4) visited the crime scene on his own initiative — and was subsequently dismissed — counsel should have asked to voir dire (i.e. question) the remaining jurors to assess whether any had been tainted by that visit. The lower federal district court denied habeas relief. But the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed and ordered a new trial — even though the theory they relied on (ineffective counsel for not voir‑direing the full jury) was one Sweeney never had raised. Thus, the core issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Fourth Circuit acted properly in granting habeas relief — i.e., ordering a new trial — on a claim that was never presented by the defendant, in violation of the “party‑presentation principle.” In a unanimous, per curiam decision issued November 24, 2025, the Court reversed the Fourth Circuit's decision and remanded the case.  The Court held that the Fourth Circuit “departed dramatically from the principle of party presentation” by granting habeas relief based on a claim that the petitioner never had presented. In other words: courts should not raise new arguments or theories unprompted by the parties. By doing so, the Fourth Circuit abused its discretion. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.

The question dominating the Brian Walshe trial isn't simply what happened — it's whether the behavior on record looks like panic, planning, or something far more calculated. Prosecutors have presented a forensic roadmap: digital breadcrumbs, timestamped searches about dismemberment and body disposal, trips across multiple towns to buy cutting tools and protective gear, and DNA recovered from a commercial trash site miles away. It's the kind of evidence chain that leaves very little space to hide. But the defense is asking jurors to look past the logistics and focus on emotional chaos — a man stunned by sudden loss, reacting in a moment of complete psychological collapse. They concede the actions. They deny the intent. And they're hoping the jury is willing to accept that an overwhelmed husband could behave in ways that look almost identical to someone trying to erase a crime. Here's the problem: the digital evidence existed before the timeframe in which the defense claims Anna died. Panic doesn't travel backward in time. Google searches don't anticipate events that haven't happened yet. And juries know that. Add to this Brian's history — the fraud conviction, the pattern of deception — and the emotional gut-punch of a mother's remains being scattered across Massachusetts with no burial, no dignity, no closure. Jurors don't just weigh facts. They weigh humanity. They weigh what feels believable. In this episode, we break down why the defense strategy may hinge on one or two jurors who are willing to hesitate, how emotional storytelling collides with timestamped evidence, and why this trial is quickly becoming one of the most dissected, debated, and polarizing cases of the year. #BrianWalshe #AnaWalsheCase #TrueCrimeToday #CrimeAnalysis #HiddenKillersPodcast #CourtroomDrama #DigitalEvidence #JuryPsychology #LegalBreakdown #BobMottaInterview Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

The trial of Brian Walshe is exposing a divide that runs straight through the center of the courtroom — a divide between a prosecution building its case with timestamps, metadata, and DNA, and a defense leaning into emotional possibility and human frailty. It's not just a legal battle. It's a narrative war. Prosecutors say the evidence speaks for itself: searches about body disposal in the early morning hours, trips to multiple stores buying tools that prosecutors argue were used to dispose of Anna, lies told to friends, family, and police, and physical evidence recovered from a trash facility far from home — evidence they say directly connects Brian to a deliberate cover-up. The defense counters with a different story entirely. They say Anna died suddenly. Naturally. Tragically. And Brian, terrified the authorities would seize his children, made the worst decision of his life — hiding her death instead of reporting it. Not planning. Not malice. Fear. But jurors must decide not just which story makes sense — but which story they can live with. Can sudden, unexplained death explain Google searches that happened before the alleged death window? Can panic explain purchasing gloves, masks, tarps, and cutting tools all over Massachusetts? Can panic explain a disposal process so elaborate it spanned multiple towns? The defense doesn't need a full acquittal. They just need one person willing to say, “I don't know. It's bizarre, but maybe.” That's the real battleground. Tonight we break down the evidence, the psychology, the storytelling, and the stakes — and ask the question that may decide this entire trial: How much doubt is enough? #BrianWalsheTrial #AnaWalshe #JuryDuty #CrimeStory #HiddenKillers #ForensicBreakdown #LegalExpert #TrueCrimeCommunity #CourtroomAnalysis #BobMottaDefenseDiaries Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

The trial of Brian Walshe is exposing a divide that runs straight through the center of the courtroom — a divide between a prosecution building its case with timestamps, metadata, and DNA, and a defense leaning into emotional possibility and human frailty. It's not just a legal battle. It's a narrative war. Prosecutors say the evidence speaks for itself: searches about body disposal in the early morning hours, trips to multiple stores buying tools that prosecutors argue were used to dispose of Anna, lies told to friends, family, and police, and physical evidence recovered from a trash facility far from home — evidence they say directly connects Brian to a deliberate cover-up. The defense counters with a different story entirely. They say Anna died suddenly. Naturally. Tragically. And Brian, terrified the authorities would seize his children, made the worst decision of his life — hiding her death instead of reporting it. Not planning. Not malice. Fear. But jurors must decide not just which story makes sense — but which story they can live with. Can sudden, unexplained death explain Google searches that happened before the alleged death window? Can panic explain purchasing gloves, masks, tarps, and cutting tools all over Massachusetts? Can panic explain a disposal process so elaborate it spanned multiple towns? The defense doesn't need a full acquittal. They just need one person willing to say, “I don't know. It's bizarre, but maybe.” That's the real battleground. Tonight we break down the evidence, the psychology, the storytelling, and the stakes — and ask the question that may decide this entire trial: How much doubt is enough? #BrianWalsheTrial #AnaWalshe #JuryDuty #CrimeStory #HiddenKillers #ForensicBreakdown #LegalExpert #TrueCrimeCommunity #CourtroomAnalysis #BobMottaDefenseDiaries Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

The question dominating the Brian Walshe trial isn't simply what happened — it's whether the behavior on record looks like panic, planning, or something far more calculated. Prosecutors have presented a forensic roadmap: digital breadcrumbs, timestamped searches about dismemberment and body disposal, trips across multiple towns to buy cutting tools and protective gear, and DNA recovered from a commercial trash site miles away. It's the kind of evidence chain that leaves very little space to hide. But the defense is asking jurors to look past the logistics and focus on emotional chaos — a man stunned by sudden loss, reacting in a moment of complete psychological collapse. They concede the actions. They deny the intent. And they're hoping the jury is willing to accept that an overwhelmed husband could behave in ways that look almost identical to someone trying to erase a crime. Here's the problem: the digital evidence existed before the timeframe in which the defense claims Anna died. Panic doesn't travel backward in time. Google searches don't anticipate events that haven't happened yet. And juries know that. Add to this Brian's history — the fraud conviction, the pattern of deception — and the emotional gut-punch of a mother's remains being scattered across Massachusetts with no burial, no dignity, no closure. Jurors don't just weigh facts. They weigh humanity. They weigh what feels believable. In this episode, we break down why the defense strategy may hinge on one or two jurors who are willing to hesitate, how emotional storytelling collides with timestamped evidence, and why this trial is quickly becoming one of the most dissected, debated, and polarizing cases of the year. #BrianWalshe #AnaWalsheCase #TrueCrimeToday #CrimeAnalysis #HiddenKillersPodcast #CourtroomDrama #DigitalEvidence #JuryPsychology #LegalBreakdown #BobMottaInterview Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

The trial of Brian Walshe is exposing a divide that runs straight through the center of the courtroom — a divide between a prosecution building its case with timestamps, metadata, and DNA, and a defense leaning into emotional possibility and human frailty. It's not just a legal battle. It's a narrative war. Prosecutors say the evidence speaks for itself: searches about body disposal in the early morning hours, trips to multiple stores buying tools that prosecutors argue were used to dispose of Anna, lies told to friends, family, and police, and physical evidence recovered from a trash facility far from home — evidence they say directly connects Brian to a deliberate cover-up. The defense counters with a different story entirely. They say Anna died suddenly. Naturally. Tragically. And Brian, terrified the authorities would seize his children, made the worst decision of his life — hiding her death instead of reporting it. Not planning. Not malice. Fear. But jurors must decide not just which story makes sense — but which story they can live with. Can sudden, unexplained death explain Google searches that happened before the alleged death window? Can panic explain purchasing gloves, masks, tarps, and cutting tools all over Massachusetts? Can panic explain a disposal process so elaborate it spanned multiple towns? The defense doesn't need a full acquittal. They just need one person willing to say, “I don't know. It's bizarre, but maybe.” That's the real battleground. Tonight we break down the evidence, the psychology, the storytelling, and the stakes — and ask the question that may decide this entire trial: How much doubt is enough? #BrianWalsheTrial #AnaWalshe #JuryDuty #CrimeStory #HiddenKillers #ForensicBreakdown #LegalExpert #TrueCrimeCommunity #CourtroomAnalysis #BobMottaDefenseDiaries Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

The question dominating the Brian Walshe trial isn't simply what happened — it's whether the behavior on record looks like panic, planning, or something far more calculated. Prosecutors have presented a forensic roadmap: digital breadcrumbs, timestamped searches about dismemberment and body disposal, trips across multiple towns to buy cutting tools and protective gear, and DNA recovered from a commercial trash site miles away. It's the kind of evidence chain that leaves very little space to hide. But the defense is asking jurors to look past the logistics and focus on emotional chaos — a man stunned by sudden loss, reacting in a moment of complete psychological collapse. They concede the actions. They deny the intent. And they're hoping the jury is willing to accept that an overwhelmed husband could behave in ways that look almost identical to someone trying to erase a crime. Here's the problem: the digital evidence existed before the timeframe in which the defense claims Anna died. Panic doesn't travel backward in time. Google searches don't anticipate events that haven't happened yet. And juries know that. Add to this Brian's history — the fraud conviction, the pattern of deception — and the emotional gut-punch of a mother's remains being scattered across Massachusetts with no burial, no dignity, no closure. Jurors don't just weigh facts. They weigh humanity. They weigh what feels believable. In this episode, we break down why the defense strategy may hinge on one or two jurors who are willing to hesitate, how emotional storytelling collides with timestamped evidence, and why this trial is quickly becoming one of the most dissected, debated, and polarizing cases of the year. #BrianWalshe #AnaWalsheCase #TrueCrimeToday #CrimeAnalysis #HiddenKillersPodcast #CourtroomDrama #DigitalEvidence #JuryPsychology #LegalBreakdown #BobMottaInterview Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

Tinseltown's most notorious pimp was convicted of providing high-class ‘call girls' to undercover police officers on 2nd December, 1994. It followed a dramatic sting involving the LAPD, the Beverly Hills police department, the state alcoholic beverage control agency and the state attorney General's office. They seized her ‘little black book' (actually a red Gucci diary) full of high-profile names, but the only celebrity client of hers that testified was Charlie Sheen. In this episode, Arion, Rebecca and Olly consider whether Fleiss' own desire for profile was part of her undoing; explain how she had unseated ‘Madam Alex' from the top of the tree; and reveal the role of Travellers Cheques in her most famous client's downfall… There was a surprising next chapter to Fleiss' career - as a carer for parrots - which we discuss in today's bonus bit, only available for supporters of the show. Just click Subscribe in Apple Podcasts, or head over to Patreon.com/Retrospectors (top two tiers only) to hear it, and a weekly bit of bonus content every single week. By so doing, you're also supporting our show - so, thanks! Further Reading: • ‘HEIDI FLEISS GUILTY OF PANDERING' (The Washington Post, 1994): https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1994/12/03/heidi-fleiss-guilty-of-pandering/d836cdbd-4461-47d2-9038-45842269c3c9/ • ‘Heidi Fleiss on Her Arrest, Macaw Cause and “Drug Addict” Ex Tom Sizemore' (The Hollywood Reporter, 2018): https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lifestyle/lifestyle-news/heidi-fleiss-her-arrest-macaw-cause-drug-addict-tom-sizemore-1117449/ • ‘Jurors in the Heidi Fleiss trial watch videotape of police arresting four alleged prostitutes' (AP, 16 Nov 1994): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gO0mQUA0bVw This episode first aired in 2021 Love the show? Support us!  Join 

Survivor 49's drama heats up as Rob Cesternino returns with a jam-packed exit interview with Jawan Pitts. This Exit Interview episode dives right into Jawan's shocking blindside—the big Tribal Council move that left viewers and players buzzing. Rob guides the discussion through Jawan's journey from the bottom to a powerful mid-game position, and what ultimately sent him packing.

Survivor 49's drama heats up as Rob Cesternino returns with a jam-packed exit interview with Jawan Pitts. This Exit Interview episode dives right into Jawan's shocking blindside—the big Tribal Council move that left viewers and players buzzing. Rob guides the discussion through Jawan's journey from the bottom to a powerful mid-game position, and what ultimately sent him packing.

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. expands on the “disruptive voir dire” approach, focusing on how to neutralize juror confirmation bias, which is one of the most dangerous psychological forces in the courtroom, and in life. Bill explains why all humans are hardwired to make rapid, belief-driven judgments and how those cognitive shortcuts can lock jurors into the plaintiff's narrative before the defense even begins its case. He outlines a structured voir dire method that exposes confirmation bias directly. Bill emphasizes the importance of normalizing confirmation bias through the sharing of personal examples and guiding jurors to reflect on times when they changed their minds after learning more. By forcing jurors to engage cognitively rather than reactively, attorneys can dramatically reduce the likelihood of premature, biased conclusions. Bill closes with specific question structures and strategic sequencing that reprogram juror thinking and prevent snap judgments during trial.

As part of our Hidden Killers 2025 Year in Review series, we're going beyond the headlines to examine the psychological machinery behind one of the most explosive celebrity trials of the decade — Sean “Diddy” Combs and the disturbing allegations that have shattered his empire. In this powerful two-part special, Tony Brueski is joined by psychotherapist Shavaun Scott to break down the alleged behavioral profile of Diddy — not from a place of gossip, but through a clinical lens. Scott explores whether Combs' reported actions align with narcissistic personality traits, psychopathic tendencies, and patterns of coercive control often seen in long-term cycles of abuse. From alleged emotional domination and financial control to threats, surveillance, and sexual coercion, Scott unpacks how power and pathology intertwine — and how high-profile abusers weaponize influence, fear, and fame to keep victims silent. It's a chilling look at how manipulation can masquerade as charisma, and how the psychology of celebrity can distort accountability on a global scale. Then, in the second half, Tony delivers a full breakdown of the most pivotal week of the Diddy federal trial (June 12–16, 2025) — a stretch of testimony and evidence that could decide whether the hip-hop mogul spends life in prison or walks free. Among the bombshell moments: Six firearms with defaced serial numbers found near alleged “freak-off” supplies. Homeland Security's discovery of AR-15 parts, drugs, and lubricants allegedly tied to a sex-trafficking operation. The emotional testimony of “Jane,” who confronted Diddy in court after describing years of abuse and coercion. Immunity witness Jonathan Perez, Diddy's former assistant, whose drug procurement testimony both strengthened and complicated the government's case. Kanye West's surreal courthouse appearance, adding a spectacle to an already volatile trial. And the controversial dismissal of Juror #6, a decision now under scrutiny for potential bias. Together, these two lenses — the psychological and the procedural — reveal the full picture of a man once untouchable, now facing the reckoning of his own creation.

As part of our Hidden Killers 2025 Year in Review series, we're going beyond the headlines to examine the psychological machinery behind one of the most explosive celebrity trials of the decade — Sean “Diddy” Combs and the disturbing allegations that have shattered his empire. In this powerful two-part special, Tony Brueski is joined by psychotherapist Shavaun Scott to break down the alleged behavioral profile of Diddy — not from a place of gossip, but through a clinical lens. Scott explores whether Combs' reported actions align with narcissistic personality traits, psychopathic tendencies, and patterns of coercive control often seen in long-term cycles of abuse. From alleged emotional domination and financial control to threats, surveillance, and sexual coercion, Scott unpacks how power and pathology intertwine — and how high-profile abusers weaponize influence, fear, and fame to keep victims silent. It's a chilling look at how manipulation can masquerade as charisma, and how the psychology of celebrity can distort accountability on a global scale. Then, in the second half, Tony delivers a full breakdown of the most pivotal week of the Diddy federal trial (June 12–16, 2025) — a stretch of testimony and evidence that could decide whether the hip-hop mogul spends life in prison or walks free. Among the bombshell moments: Six firearms with defaced serial numbers found near alleged “freak-off” supplies. Homeland Security's discovery of AR-15 parts, drugs, and lubricants allegedly tied to a sex-trafficking operation. The emotional testimony of “Jane,” who confronted Diddy in court after describing years of abuse and coercion. Immunity witness Jonathan Perez, Diddy's former assistant, whose drug procurement testimony both strengthened and complicated the government's case. Kanye West's surreal courthouse appearance, adding a spectacle to an already volatile trial. And the controversial dismissal of Juror #6, a decision now under scrutiny for potential bias. Together, these two lenses — the psychological and the procedural — reveal the full picture of a man once untouchable, now facing the reckoning of his own creation.

As part of our Hidden Killers 2025 Year in Review series, we're going beyond the headlines to examine the psychological machinery behind one of the most explosive celebrity trials of the decade — Sean “Diddy” Combs and the disturbing allegations that have shattered his empire. In this powerful two-part special, Tony Brueski is joined by psychotherapist Shavaun Scott to break down the alleged behavioral profile of Diddy — not from a place of gossip, but through a clinical lens. Scott explores whether Combs' reported actions align with narcissistic personality traits, psychopathic tendencies, and patterns of coercive control often seen in long-term cycles of abuse. From alleged emotional domination and financial control to threats, surveillance, and sexual coercion, Scott unpacks how power and pathology intertwine — and how high-profile abusers weaponize influence, fear, and fame to keep victims silent. It's a chilling look at how manipulation can masquerade as charisma, and how the psychology of celebrity can distort accountability on a global scale. Then, in the second half, Tony delivers a full breakdown of the most pivotal week of the Diddy federal trial (June 12–16, 2025) — a stretch of testimony and evidence that could decide whether the hip-hop mogul spends life in prison or walks free. Among the bombshell moments: Six firearms with defaced serial numbers found near alleged “freak-off” supplies. Homeland Security's discovery of AR-15 parts, drugs, and lubricants allegedly tied to a sex-trafficking operation. The emotional testimony of “Jane,” who confronted Diddy in court after describing years of abuse and coercion. Immunity witness Jonathan Perez, Diddy's former assistant, whose drug procurement testimony both strengthened and complicated the government's case. Kanye West's surreal courthouse appearance, adding a spectacle to an already volatile trial. And the controversial dismissal of Juror #6, a decision now under scrutiny for potential bias. Together, these two lenses — the psychological and the procedural — reveal the full picture of a man once untouchable, now facing the reckoning of his own creation.

As part of our Hidden Killers 2025 Year in Review series, we're going beyond the headlines to examine the psychological machinery behind one of the most explosive celebrity trials of the decade — Sean “Diddy” Combs and the disturbing allegations that have shattered his empire. In this powerful two-part special, Tony Brueski is joined by psychotherapist Shavaun Scott to break down the alleged behavioral profile of Diddy — not from a place of gossip, but through a clinical lens. Scott explores whether Combs' reported actions align with narcissistic personality traits, psychopathic tendencies, and patterns of coercive control often seen in long-term cycles of abuse. From alleged emotional domination and financial control to threats, surveillance, and sexual coercion, Scott unpacks how power and pathology intertwine — and how high-profile abusers weaponize influence, fear, and fame to keep victims silent. It's a chilling look at how manipulation can masquerade as charisma, and how the psychology of celebrity can distort accountability on a global scale. Then, in the second half, Tony delivers a full breakdown of the most pivotal week of the Diddy federal trial (June 12–16, 2025) — a stretch of testimony and evidence that could decide whether the hip-hop mogul spends life in prison or walks free. Among the bombshell moments: Six firearms with defaced serial numbers found near alleged “freak-off” supplies. Homeland Security's discovery of AR-15 parts, drugs, and lubricants allegedly tied to a sex-trafficking operation. The emotional testimony of “Jane,” who confronted Diddy in court after describing years of abuse and coercion. Immunity witness Jonathan Perez, Diddy's former assistant, whose drug procurement testimony both strengthened and complicated the government's case. Kanye West's surreal courthouse appearance, adding a spectacle to an already volatile trial. And the controversial dismissal of Juror #6, a decision now under scrutiny for potential bias. Together, these two lenses — the psychological and the procedural — reveal the full picture of a man once untouchable, now facing the reckoning of his own creation.

Happy Thanksgiving, Jurors! And Happy Thursday to our international friends! The love triangles are beginning as we are introduced to cutie patootie Charley and watch the beginning of the end of Austen and Audrey. We also meet new cast member, Whitner (not to be confused with Whitney), who seems like a great addition. Are they gearing up to make Salley the villain this season? Hopefully friendships can survive (because we know some relationships won't)! Come judge with us!You can find us:Instagram & Threads: @twojudgeygirlsTikTok: @marytwojudgeygirls & @courtneytjgFacebook: www.facebook.com/twojudgeygirlsPodcast: ACast, iTunes, Spotify, wherever you listen!Merch: www.etsy.com/shop/twojudgeygirlsPatreon: www.patreon.com/twojudgeygirls Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Department of Justice has opened an investigation into the "Seditious Six," the Democrats who urged service members to disregard what they called illegal orders from the Trump administration.U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie, a Clinton appointee, threw out the cases against former FBI director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James on the grounds that the prosecutor was illegally appointed. The cases against Comey and James were dismissed without prejudice, meaning they could be re-filed.A 26-year-old woman was set on fire on Chicago's Blue Line after reportedly getting into an argument with a career criminal named Lawrence Reed. According to the initial reporting, Reed had 22 prior arrests. And while that's certainly bad enough, that was incorrect. It turns out Reed had 72 prior arrests with 15 convictions, with at least 10 of them being felonies, including for arson. (And despite an upward adjustment from the early reporting, the real numbers were not made public until federal authorities got involved.) And oh, by the way, Reed and his victim didn't get into an argument either. Reed just came up to her, doused her with gasoline, and set her on fire. Jurors are outraged after a Minnesota judge overturned the conviction of 45-year-old Abdifatah Yusuf for stealing $7.2 million through a fraudulent health care company.President Donald Trump announced that he will end the Temporary Protected Status (TPS Program) for Somali migrants in Minnesota, who've been connected to a massive welfare fraud and funding of Al-Shabaab.Researchers at the University of Minnesota's Institute of Child Development are facing criticism after launching a website claiming that America is suffering from a “Whiteness Pandemic.”Bethany MaGee's GoFundMeBecome a supporter of Tapp into the Truth: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/tapp-into-the-truth--556114/support Tapp into the Truth on Rumble. Follow, watch the older shows, and join the live streams.“Remember Pop Rocks? Now, imagine they gave you superpowers.” Please let me introduce you to Energy Rocks! Born from the grit and ambition of a competitive athlete who wanted a better, cleaner way to fuel the body and mind, without the hassle of mixing powders, messy bottles, or caffeine crashes. Energy Rocks is a reimagining of energy into something fun, functional, and fantastically effective. A delicious popping candy energy supplement that delivers a rapid boost of clean energy and focus — anytime, anywhere. No water. No mixing. No bulky bottles. Just open, pop it in your mouth, and get ready to rock. Making any time the right time to “Get in the Zone, One Pop at a Time.”Take This Free Quiz To Find Out The Best & Worst Foods To Avoid For Joint Pain!Do you wake up in the morning with stiff joints or pain in your hips, back, knees, or elbows? Then, chances are you're feeling the effects of chronic inflammation taking its toll on your body. The good news is that it is NEVER too late to help get this under control. And the best part is certain foods help you do this naturally, without the need for prescription medications.If recent events have proven anything, you need to be as prepared as possible for when things go sideways. You certainly can't count on the government for help. True liberty requires self-reliance. My Patriot SupplySupport American jobs! Support the show! Get great products at great prices! Go to My Pillow and use promo code TAPP to save! Visit Patriot Mobile or Call (817) 380-9081 to take advantage of a FREE Month of service when you switch using promo code TAPP! Morning Kick is a revolutionary new daily drink from Roundhouse Provisions that combines ultra-potent greens like spirulina and kale with probiotics, prebiotics, collagen, and even ashwagandha. Just mix with water, stir, and enjoy!Follow Tapp into the Truth on Locals Follow Tapp into the Truth on SubstackHero SoapPatriot DepotBlue CoolersKoa CoffeeBrainMDDiamond CBDSauce Bae2nd SkullEinstokBeanstoxBelle IsleMomento AIHoneyFund"Homegrown" Boone's BourbonBlackout Coffee Co.Full Circle Brewing Co.Pasmosa Sangria  

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:17532056201798502,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-9437-3289"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");pt> Click On Picture To See Larger PictureTrump is leading the economy and the Fed is trying to crash it. The people will see that in the end we do not need the Fed. The fake news/[CB] narrative is falling apart. Trump puts up graph showing they are lying. The economy, Bitcoin and Gold/Silver are about to boom. The [DS] infiltration runs deep in DC and across the country. The [DS] players, Obama/Soros and other had many years to create their system. Trump is exposing and dismantling their system at lightening speed. Trump is now pushing for peace in regards to Ukraine and Russia, the [DS]/EU/NATO do not want peace and they will fight back to the very end. The entire corrupt criminal system is being exposed to the people . Economy (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:18510697282300316,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-8599-9832"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); https://twitter.com/TKL_Adam/status/1993316668232417726?s=20  https://twitter.com/BitcoinMagazine/status/1993075213194740140?s=20 Political/Rights https://twitter.com/RichardGrenell/status/1993306352358506974?s=20 https://twitter.com/esaagar/status/1993054375854719415?s=20 https://twitter.com/CMDROpAtLargeCA/status/1993018252466045032?s=20 https://twitter.com/MJTruthUltra/status/1993124677582033146?s=20 the grand jury in the Epstein (Southern District of Florida) and Maxwell (Southern District of New York) cases. This includes a broad set of DOJ-held files related to Epstein, including: – Investigative materials from Epstein’s cases. – Internal DOJ communications about the investigations. – Files referencing individuals involved in Epstein’s prior cases (e.g., potential “client list” mentions). – Details on sex-trafficking allegations. – Records concerning Epstein’s 2019 death in custody (initially ruled a suicide but long questioned). These materials stem from Epstein’s 2008 Florida plea deal, his 2019 federal charges (which ended with his death), and Maxwell’s 2021 conviction. This targeted unsealing could reveal long-buried details about Epstein’s network, high-profile associates, and DOJ coverups. DOGE https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/1993106213480112322?s=20 https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1993087579105775858?s=20 What is Trump Going to Use It For?The executive order positions the Genesis Mission as a tool to unleash a “new age of AI-accelerated innovation and discovery” to solve 21st-century challenges and maintain U.S. technological dominance. Specifically, Trump intends to use it for: Accelerating Scientific Breakthroughs: By harnessing the world’s largest collection of federal scientific datasets (built over decades) to train AI foundation models and create AI agents that test hypotheses, automate research workflows, and drive discoveries comparable to historical efforts like the Manhattan Project. Combining National Resources: Integrating efforts from American scientists (including at DOE national labs), pioneering businesses, world-renowned universities, existing research infrastructure, data repositories, production plants, and national security sites to achieve dramatic advancements in AI development and utilization. Addressing Key Domains: Focusing on national priorities to revolutionize areas like infrastructure, data management, production, and security; build on innovations in semiconductors and high-performance computing; and secure energy dominance. Economic and Strategic Benefits: Dramatically enhancing workforce productivity, multiplying returns on taxpayer investments in research and development, strengthening national security, and furthering America’s global strategic leadership in technology. Broader Impacts: Enabling AI-directed experimentation, manufacturing, and problem-solving to tackle existential risks and opportunities, while ensuring secure, interoperable systems across government and partners. This initiative is framed as a response to global competition in AI, building on prior actions like America’s AI Action Plan, with an emphasis on urgency to outpace adversaries and foster economic growth. Geopolitical https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/1993073948704096715?s=20  Second Amendment rights for MILLIONS of Americans,” AG Bondi said https://twitter.com/MJTruthUltra/status/1993094085570126026?s=20  prohibited on private property open to the public unless the owner explicitly opts in. It would establish nationwide that the Second Amendment, post-Bruen, FORBIDS states from inverting the historical presumption—carry is allowed on such property unless the owner affirmatively prohibits it—forcing Maryland, California, New Jersey, New York, and any similar regimes to FLIP their private-property rules and dramatically expand where permit holders may carry for self-defense. It's set to be ruled on likely in June 2026, and to me, it's a GUARANTEED WIN Trump ready to talk with Maduro – Axios US President Donald Trump plans to speak directly with Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro despite Washington's move to designate him as the head of a terrorist organization, Axios reported on Tuesday, citing administration officials. The US has formally designated the ‘Cartel of the Suns' – a purported criminal network alleged to operate within Venezuela's security services – as a foreign terrorist organization, putting it in the same category as Al-Qaeda and Islamic State. Announcing the step on Monday, the US Treasury reiterated long-standing allegations that Maduro, whose legitimacy Washington disputes, heads the group. Source: rt.com War/Peace https://twitter.com/WallStreetMav/status/1993323843482427656?s=20 EU Approves €1.5BN Plan To Build Up Ukraine’s Military-Industrial Sector Even as the Trump-backed Ukraine peace plan is said to be advancing as negotiations intensify ahead of a Washington-imposed deadline of Thursday, the European Union continues its efforts to ramp up support to Ukraine’s defense sector. On Tuesday European Parliament voted to approve a 1.5 billion euros ($1.7bn) program which seeks to deepen integration between Ukraine and Europe on military-industrial relations.  Source: zerohedge.com Ukraine Tentatively Agrees To Trump-Backed Peace Plan, Sending Oil Sliding A US official privy to negotiations is claiming major progress Tuesday, telling ABC News the Ukrainian delegation has agreed to the United States’ potential peace plan, at a moment it’s still being hotly debated, especially among the Europeans. “The Ukrainians have agreed to the peace deal,” the US official said, but without specifying much in the way of details. “There are some minor details to be sorted out but they have agreed to a peace deal.” Of course, the proverbial devil is in the details, along with each side’s ‘red lines’ – and so this claim should be taken with caution at this still very early point. The Trump White House has set a deadline of Thursday, or Thanksgiving Day in America, for the warring sides to reach a deal. This suggests these talks are moving along with intensity and a sense of urgency. Source: zerohedge.com Proceed Carefully: U.S. Media Reporting Zelenskyy Has Agreed to President Trump Terms for End to Ukraine-Russia Conflict Remember, (1) Zelenskyy is ideologically opposed to coming to terms for a ceasefire against Russia. (2) Zelenskyy has the full support of the European nations to continue fighting. (3) Ukraine has a habit of using positive statements as tools to try and box in President Trump, only to hold firm to certain positions in an effort to derail peace negotiations. Source: theconservativetreehouse.com Medical/False Flags https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1993298834714403297?s=20 [DS] Agenda https://twitter.com/amuse/status/1993329083606827182?s=20  defender, acquitted Abdi Fatah Yusuf on all charges after jurors found he and his wife ran a fake home-health business out of a mailbox and stole $7.2M in Medicaid funds. Jurors say they are stunned because the evidence of fraud, overbilling and luxury spending was “obvious.” Community pressure and political considerations are now being blamed for the decision. Yusuf walks free while taxpayers eat the loss. Abdi will get to keep his new wardrobe from Coach, Canada Goose, Michael Kors, Third Degree Heat, Nike, and Nordstrom and his whip a Porsche 911. https://twitter.com/drawandstrike/status/1993178893960851620?s=20 housing.   affiliates in our major cities start going under. Because their cheap illegal labor is no longer going to be affordable. And I’m going to enjoy watching every minute of it. President Trump's Plan https://twitter.com/JoeLang51440671/status/1993319619403169935?s=20  to do anything. “Sen. Rand Paul on Sunday warned that President Donald Trump's focus on Venezuela may lead to a “fracture” among those who were drawn in by his campaign promise of avoiding foreign wars.” “Over the last few months, Trump has launched a campaign to eliminate alleged drug trafficking in international waters near Central and South America, mostly through controversial boat strikes – although he has also floated the idea of taking the strikes to land. On Monday, the Trump administration will officially designate Venezuela's Cartel de los Soles as a foreign terrorist organization – a decision Paul on Sunday criticized. “I think by doing this, they are pretending as if we are at war,” said Paul, chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. “They're pretending as if they've gotten some imprimatur to do what they want,” he warned. “When you have war, the rules of engagement are lessened.” How many years has Rand Paul, been in office and when has he ever lifted a finger to go after the drug cartels? Trump is the first president who is waging a real war against drug cartels worldwide and Rand is doing his best to try and stop him. Trump cares about the millions of Americans who are dying from drug addiction and the families, who have lost loved ones. Rand Paul cares more about the drug cartels. And he's crying because Trump doesn't need him for anything. “Democrats in Congress have also expressed outrage over the strikes and the lack of briefings on the administration's actions – something Paul said he too has not received despite his position on the Senate Homeland Security Committee.” “I've been given zero, not one briefing because I am skeptical of what they are doing,” Paul said. “They don't brief me or the general Senate at all. A few hand-selected people may have gotten a briefing but I have not been invited to any briefings on Venezuela.” Why isn't Trump briefing Rand Paul or the democrats? Because you don't brief your enemies on your plans, when you are engaged in war. Rand Paul is nothing but a grandstanding politician and he can't stand the fact, that Trump ignores him and doesn't need him for anything. Do you want to know why else, Trump doesn't listen to him about fighting drug cartels? Here's Rand's solution to the problem: “Paul conceded that the flow of drugs into the country remains an issue but insisted that the government should focus on eliminating the demand for drugs here at home. “We should be trying to work on the demand side, treating it as a health problem, as an addiction problem in our country and trying to lessen demand. And that is part of the overall solution,” he said.” https://politico.com/news/2025/11/23/rand-paul-gop-venezuelan-strikes-00666488 To Rand Paul, millions of Americans dying from “illegal” drugs is just an “issue.” He thinks the solution is to pass legislation that takes more money from the American taxpayer and puts a bandaid on the problem. Trump on the other hand, is enforcing the laws already on the books and waging war against narco drug trafficking states that are clearly killing Americans for profit. We don't need Rand Paul in the Republican Party. He's only trying to get in the way and slow down Trump's efforts to Make America Great Again. The sooner he is removed from Congress the better.  Marjorie Taylor Greene's Resignation Could Spark Another Shutdown Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene's (R-GA) resignation from Congress could handicap Republicans in a critical period during which government funding expires, with dire consequences for the MAGA movement. Georgia law dictates that within ten days of a congressman's resignation, the state's governor must call a special election to take place after at least 30 days from his pronouncement. If no candidate wins a majority in the jungle election (during which all candidates run against one another regardless of party), a runoff with the top two vote-getters takes place 28 days later. By prolonging her election, Greene all but assures her seat will be empty during a period where Trump and Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) — and the American people dependent on a functioning federal government — may need every vote they can get. Greene, by prolonging her resignation for a month and a half, removes much of the urgency of scheduling a special election. Georgia political operatives project Kemp to set a date in March. Source: breitbart.com Vindman Brothers, Who Helped Impeach Trump In 2020, Are Now Under Investigation Rep. Eugene Vindman, D-Va., and his twin brother Alexander are reportedly under investigation for illegally acting as “paid brokers” for U.S. defense firms seeking business in Ukraine. “Pentagon General Counsel Earl Matthews alleges that Vindman and his twin brother Alex did not have approval from the U.S. government before seeking to act as ‘paid brokers' for American defense firms pursuing contracts with Ukraine after Russia's 2022 full-scale invasion,” the Washington Post revealed over the weekend, citing a Nov. 19 letter for War Secretary Pete Hegseth.   https://twitter.com/YVindman/status/1992069421372985528?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1992069421372985528%7Ctwgr%5E5f28cda2d29a3d17d474e14a7cdd0e88aa077fe9%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fgeopolitical%2Fvindman-brothers-who-helped-impeach-trump-2020-are-now-under-investigation Source:zerohedge.com https://twitter.com/mrddmia/status/1993025823268651228?s=20  application and committed bank fraud. The prior U.S. attorney refused to prosecute these Democrat operatives. So the Attorney General picked a new one who is unafraid to follow the law. What is the Democrats' response? Unsurprisingly, an Obama judge hand-selected a Clinton judge. Then the Clinton judge tossed both indictments. And the first sentence in both nearly identical orders, in which the Clinton judge personally and gratuitously attacks Lindsey Halligan, makes it crystal clear this judge is a Democrat partisan. Democrat politicians, including in robes, shamefully protect their own. Unfortunately, we have two systems of justice. One Democrats weaponize against enemies. And one Democrats weaponize to protect allies. The Justice Department must appeal. And it must move aggressively to bring charges against the Lawfare Democrats in Fort Pierce, Florida. https://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/1993096660734689379?s=20 https://twitter.com/WarClandestine/status/1993064224420249957?s=20 https://twitter.com/mrddmia/status/1993348171221659741   the Senate Judiciary Committee. Because too many Republicans would vote NO. Home-state senators do not want to give away their power to hand-select the U.S. attorney who would prosecute them, the U.S. district judge who would oversee their trial, and the U.S. marshal who would escort them to prison. The solution is simple: Have all Senate Judiciary Republicans and at least 50 Senate Republicans sign a letter saying this: “We will vote to confirm President Trump’s U.S. attorney nominees who lack blue slips from home-state senators.” Then Grassley can move forward with a committee vote. But why would Grassley anger all his colleagues and waste limited committee resources, if the nominees will fail? https://twitter.com/DataRepublican/status/1993291465137831953?s=20 https://twitter.com/C__Herridge/status/1993308443667472479?s=20 Kash Patel Talks In Depth About Attempted Trump Assassin And His Motives FBI Director Kash Patel told investigative journalist Catherine Herridge that hatred for the U.S. government and the two-party system played a role in Thomas Matthew Crooks' attempt to assassinate President Donald Trump on July 13, 2024 in Butler, Pa. Herridge asked Patel what motivated Crooks, 20, to try to kill Trump, then the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. Patel's answer appeared to depart from previous FBI statements when bureau officials said they were unable to find a motive or ideology behind the assassination attempt. The FBI director — appearing on Herridge's show “Straight to the Point” by the Los Angeles Times Media Group — told her that Trump was “satisfied” with his agency's investigation into that fateful day. Patel stopped short of saying the case was closed. “He [Crooks], as has been publicized, had a basically hateful relationship with the United States government, talked disparagingly about both political parties, to include President Trump, and talked about the need to take matters into his own hands. And, unfortunately, that's what he did,” Patel said when Herridge asked about Crooks' motive.  Patel was later asked if Trump was satisfied with the FBI's findings regarding the July 2024 assassination attempt. He emphatically responded “yes.” Herridge asked Patel, “Is the Thomas Crooks case a closed case?” “How we treat cases like this of such great public importance is we put them in a pending-slash-inactive status, so if there's new information that comes in, we can receive it and react to it, and we don't want to foreclose that possibility,” the director said. Source: dailycaller.com https://twitter.com/amuse/status/1993323400173887975?s=20   like the Kuwait Liberation Medal, Southwest Asia Service Medal, and National Defense Service Medal sit in more prominent inboard positions. On the ribbon bar, the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal and Sea Service Deployment Ribbon are placed ahead of higher-precedence decorations such as the Air Medal and Navy Commendation Medal. On the medal cluster below, the Legion of Merit and Air Medal are buried beneath service medals like the NATO Medal and National Defense Service Medal, which should be near the bottom of the stack. These reversals violate Navy precedence rules requiring the highest honors to appear inboard and for full-size medals to match the order of their corresponding ribbons. https://twitter.com/overton_news/status/1993150617770996056?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1993150617770996056%7Ctwgr%5E44d0521508949894625558b46595b8eb2aec23cc%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fredstate.com%2Fsister-toldjah%2F2025%2F11%2F25%2Fmark-kelly-makes-a-damning-admission-when-asked-specifically-about-illegal-orders-n2196541   specific, potentially illegal orders that you were thinking about that were the sort of precipitating cause for you guys to get together and do that?” KELLY: “Here's the thing, Rachel. You don't want to wait for your kid to get hit by a car before you tell them to look both ways.” In other words, no examples and no specifics. https://twitter.com/amuse/status/1993282070152724582?s=20 https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1993345626067853800?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1993345626067853800%7Ctwgr%5Eca09c94a37f7c22b3856e0c640694000c3fafa26%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fredstate.com%2Fnick-arama%2F2025%2F11%2F25%2Ffbi-to-interview-the-six-democrats-who-made-illegal-orders-video-n2196542 https://twitter.com/CynicalPublius/status/1993367383281746424  the lower ranks of the nation's military against said elected leadership. https://twitter.com/JoeLang51440671/status/1993138036385701971?s=20   confirmed plans to designate the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) as a foreign terrorist organization (FTO), the White House formally announced on Monday evening that the president has initiated the process to classify specific chapters and subdivisions of MB as FTOs.” “Trump’s order cites MB’s violent activities and support for militant factions, including participation in attacks on Israeli civilians and military targets after October 7, 2023, as well as calls for violence against U.S. allies. These actions, the order says, threaten American citizens and destabilize the Middle East.” https://zerohedge.com/political/trump-tells-john-solomon-muslim-brotherhood-terrorist-designation-imminent Do you think it's just a coincidence, that Mamdani just met with Trump at the White House and the meeting was nothing like what anybody expected? Instead of the meeting being tense, Trump and Mamdani were joking around and acting like old friends. Both willing to work together for the benefit of the people in New York. And now Trump just designated the group that was one of Mamdani's biggest fundraisers, as a terrorist organization. Just a coincidence? The ball is now in Mamdani's court. Trump proved to the world, by how he treated Mamdani, that what he really cares about, are the people of New York. Is Mamdani going to work with Trump, or choose to be a puppet of the Muslim Brotherhood? Mamdani now gets to choose which side he is on. https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1993079037611397563?s=20 President Trump Recognizes Certain Muslim Brotherhood Chapters for Potential Foreign Terrorist Designation The Muslim Brotherhood is the political arm of authentic Islam, and can be considered much like the umbrella organization for a host of different factions of Islamic fundamentalism. The Brotherhood is the unified political voice of many regional chapters, each with a varying degree of authentic Islam behind it. Qatar is the central bank for the Muslim Brotherhood; Turkey represents the Brotherhood's biggest national support network, and Egypt is the intellectual or scholastic battleground where the values of political Islam are debated. The executive order instructs the State Dept to officially begin the process to look at each chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood as a separate entity, and then see if the designation of a terrorist organization can apply to that chapter. As noted in the Executive Order, “relevant here, its chapters in Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt engage in or facilitate and support violence and destabilization campaigns.”  It looks like Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt chapters of the Brotherhood will get the first review. Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi already dealt with the extremist Muslim Brotherhood once, kicking their leadership out of Egypt.  The leaders fled to Qatar, and then ultimately ended up in Turkey, where Recep Erdogan absolutely loves the usefulness of the Brotherhood. Jordanian King Abdullah has been balancing the Muslim Brotherhood influence for years, and Lebanon is a hot mess with the Hezbollah faction of the Brotherhood.  The Muslim Brotherhood, as a political structure, holds all kinds of extremist factions under its umbrella (al-Qaeda, al-Nusra etc.).   Source: theconservativetreehouse.com 1237 Apr 22, 2018 1:31:31 AM EDT Q !xowAT4Z3VQ ID: 3e4934 No. 1141069  “The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process' with all the word means. The Ikhwan [MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers…” https://clarionproject.org/muslim_brotherhood_explanatory_memorandum/ Q 3881 Feb 24, 2020 8:36:43 PM EST Q !!Hs1Jq13jV6 ID: b03e04 No. 8238822  EMHyS2xXkAA8JrB.png https://twitter.com/cain_nate/status/1231066589996318720 Listen carefully. Think: re: why [no] arrests (justice) yet? What if (almost) every critical position [sr] within the US GOV apparatus was infiltrated? WHAT MUST BE DONE FIRST? THE SWAMP RUNS DEEP. +Sleepers Backgrounds are important. MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD List of ‘in the news now [names]‘ w/ known ties to Islam? THIS IS NOT ANOTHER 4-YEAR ELECTION. [assumptions correct – package well rec [known]] Q (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:13499335648425062,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7164-1323"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.customads.co/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");

Relebogile Mabotja speaks to Adelaide Moeng the Award Winning Camera Operator and Founder of MoviesAndStuffSA about Slow Horses(Apple TV), Eternity( Film ), Juror 2 (Showmax ) and The Girlfriend on Primevideo. 702 Afternoons with Relebogile Mabotja is broadcast live on Johannesburg based talk radio station 702 every weekday afternoon. Relebogile brings a lighter touch to some of the issues of the day as well as a mix of lifestyle topics and a peak into the worlds of entertainment and leisure. Thank you for listening to a 702 Afternoons with Relebogile Mabotja podcast. Listen live on Primedia+ weekdays from 13:00 to 15:00 (SA Time) to Afternoons with Relebogile Mabotja broadcast on 702 https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj For more from the show go to https://buff.ly/2qKsEfu or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/DTykncj Subscribe to the 702 Daily and Weekly Newsletters https://buff.ly/v5mfetc Follow us on social media: 702 on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/Radio702 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Survivor 49's exit interview is back, with Rob Cesternino at the helm as he sits down with the latest castaway sent packing—Alex Moore. Rob and Alex dig into the dramatic turns, alliance shake-ups, and blindsides that shaped this week's episode. Survivor history and gameplay collide as Alex opens up about the strategy and emotion fueling his run on Survivor 49.

Survivor 49's exit interview is back, with Rob Cesternino at the helm as he sits down with the latest castaway sent packing—Alex Moore. Rob and Alex dig into the dramatic turns, alliance shake-ups, and blindsides that shaped this week's episode. Survivor history and gameplay collide as Alex opens up about the strategy and emotion fueling his run on Survivor 49.

Howie Kurtz on recent polls showing Democrats with a 14-point lead over Republicans to take control of Congress, former Harvard President Larry Summers and his ties to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, and the federal appeals court upholding the dismissal of President Trump's defamation lawsuit against CNN.  Follow Howie on Twitter: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@HowardKurtz⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠For more #MediaBuzz click here Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this episode of 'One in Ten,' host Teresa Huizar speaks with Dr. Maggie Stevenson, Associate Professor of Psychology at Kenyon College, about the interplay between jurors' personal histories of child sexual abuse and their attitudes and decisions in similar cases. The conversation delves into Dr. Stevenson's meta-analysis study, which explores whether adult survivors of child sexual abuse exhibit more empathy toward child victims and examines the implications for jury selection. The discussion highlights how severity of past abuse impacts juror empathy, potential biases, and the need for more trauma-informed practices within the court system. The episode raises important questions about practical legal implications and suggests areas for future research to ensure fairness in child sexual abuse trials.  Time Stamps: TimeTopic 00:00 Introduction to Today's Topic 01:28 Meet Dr. Maggie Stevenson 02:06 Research Background and Study Design 04:53 Key Findings and Implications 10:17 Challenges in Defining Severity 21:01 Practical Implications for the Court System 26:04 Future Research Directions 31:12 Conclusion and Final Thoughts  Resources:More Severe Juror Sexual Abuse Strengthens Empathy for Child Sexual Abuse Victims: Meta-Analyses - Tayler M. Jones-Cieminski, Margaret Stevenson, Bette L. Bottoms, 2025Support the showDid you like this episode? Please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts.

Tonight, on The Panel, Wallace Chapman is joined by panellists Ali Mau and Mark Knoff-Thomas. First up, the government is hitting pause on puberty blockers, saying the medication is unproven and potentially damaging. But some doctors are calling it an "inappropriate overreach of politics into healthcare." Then, jury duty is enough of a cost on time, but one law lecturer says jurors are taking a financial hit, too. Jurors are paid about $10 an hour, a figure that hasn't changed for over 20 years.

Send us a textA Minnesota businessman explains how he was the victim of check forgery and how the suspect was released after committing other crimes—including the attempted bribery of "Juror #52" in the massive Feeding Our Future fraud scheme.Support the show

In today's episode, I spill the juicy details of my wild jury duty experience as Juror #1! From getting called in for a criminal case, making friends with the court security guard, to the intense courtroom drama, I've got a lot to share! You'll learn about the crazy court schedule, the stressful selection process, and the shocking moments during the trial. Why did the defendant and victim still show up together? And what made this case so heart-wrenching?

Steve Wood, Ph.D. and Linda Khzam, M.A. break down the topic of hindsight bias and its impact on juror decision-making. They explain how learning an outcome makes jurors believe it was predictable all along, leading to exaggerated foreseeability and unrealistic expectations of what defendants “should have known.” Steve and Linda discuss how hindsight bias appears across different case types from trucking and transportation to incidents involving police officers to decades-old sexual assault and molestation cases where jurors often apply modern norms and knowledge to past events. They also highlight how technology, especially video evidence, further expands hindsight bias by giving jurors clarity and insight that defendants never had in real time. Steve and Linda also cover counterfactual thinking (i.e., “If only they had done X”) and how plaintiffs use it to oversimplify causation. Lastly, they outline how defense counsel can confront hindsight bias during voir dire by using relatable examples and consistently reframing what was knowable in the moment rather than after the fact.

Actor Daniel Wozniak had no money, a wedding he could not afford, and a plan that would shock California. Instead of working to fix his problems, he chose murder. His first victim was 26-year-old Army veteran Sam Herr, a friend who trusted him and had more than $60,000 in savings. Wozniak lured Sam to a theater, shot him twice, and began staging a twisted cover-up.To make Sam look like a killer on the run, Wozniak tricked 23-year-old Julie Kibuishi into visiting Sam's apartment. He murdered her and staged the scene to look like a jealous rage killing. Then he put on his costume, walked on stage, and performed in a musical as if nothing had happened.But the illusion fell apart fast. Police traced ATM withdrawals to a teenager who exposed Wozniak's scheme. Confronted with overwhelming evidence, he confessed. Jurors took only one hour to convict him.Was this the desperate act of a man cornered by debt, or the performance of a cold-blooded killer who valued applause more than human life?Follow True Crime Recaps for more stories where the truth is darker than fiction.

In the months leading up to her trial, Ghislaine Maxwell and her defense team attempted a calculated smear campaign against her accusers, portraying them as opportunists motivated by money, fame, and distorted memories. They tried to cast doubt on the credibility of the women who came forward, suggesting that their stories were inconsistent and influenced by the substantial compensation fund set up by the Epstein estate. Maxwell's attorneys argued that she was being scapegoated for Epstein's crimes after his death, positioning her as a victim of the public's need for retribution. But the strategy backfired badly. Jurors were turned off by the tone of personal attacks, and prosecutors effectively countered with evidence showing decades of coordinated sexual abuse that Maxwell enabled, organized, and facilitated.By the time the trial reached its closing arguments, Maxwell's attempt to discredit her accusers had collapsed under the weight of her own history and the testimony of those who once worked alongside her. The women's accounts—harrowing, consistent, and corroborated by flight logs, photos, and financial records—left little room for doubt. Rather than appearing as a wrongfully accused associate, Maxwell came across as a manipulative enabler whose arrogance and lack of remorse sealed her fate. Her smear tactics, which may have once worked in Epstein's world of influence and intimidation, had no power in a courtroom stripped of his protection. The verdict proved that the jury—and the public—saw through her defense, rejecting the narrative that these women were anything but victims of a long-running and calculated pattern of abuse.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

For the first time ever, a key juror from the Katie Magbanua trial is coming forward to speak openly about the case that ignited the long, twisting road toward justice for Dan Markel. In this exclusive STS interview, the juror shares what really happened inside the deliberation room—and how those decisions ultimately paved the way for the Adelson convictions that followed. Welcome to Surviving the Survivor, the show that brings you the #BestGuests in all of #Truecrime. In this STS special episode, Emmy Award-Winning Host and Journalist Joel Waldman is joined by esteemed Tallahassee Defense Attorney Tim Jansen and a Juror from Katie Magbanua's trial. Dan Markel, a father of two and a well-respected FSU law professor, was murdered in a cold-blooded murder-for-hire plot in 2014. Katie Magbanua, Luis Rivera and Sigfredo Garcia have all been convicted along with Dan's ex brother-in-law Charlie Adelson and his ex mother-in-law Donna Adelson. The fight for justice for Dan continues and questions still swirl around who else may be held accountable next...Support the show & be a part of #STSNation:Donate to STS' Trial Travel: Https://www.paypal.com/ncp/payment/GJ...VENMO: @STSPodcast or Https://www.venmo.com/stspodcastCheck out STS Merch: Https://www.bonfire.com/store/sts-store/Joel's Book: Https://amzn.to/48GwbLxSupport the show on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/SurvivingTheSurvivorEmail: SurvivingTheSurvivor@gmail.com Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In the months leading up to her trial, Ghislaine Maxwell and her defense team attempted a calculated smear campaign against her accusers, portraying them as opportunists motivated by money, fame, and distorted memories. They tried to cast doubt on the credibility of the women who came forward, suggesting that their stories were inconsistent and influenced by the substantial compensation fund set up by the Epstein estate. Maxwell's attorneys argued that she was being scapegoated for Epstein's crimes after his death, positioning her as a victim of the public's need for retribution. But the strategy backfired badly. Jurors were turned off by the tone of personal attacks, and prosecutors effectively countered with evidence showing decades of coordinated sexual abuse that Maxwell enabled, organized, and facilitated.By the time the trial reached its closing arguments, Maxwell's attempt to discredit her accusers had collapsed under the weight of her own history and the testimony of those who once worked alongside her. The women's accounts—harrowing, consistent, and corroborated by flight logs, photos, and financial records—left little room for doubt. Rather than appearing as a wrongfully accused associate, Maxwell came across as a manipulative enabler whose arrogance and lack of remorse sealed her fate. Her smear tactics, which may have once worked in Epstein's world of influence and intimidation, had no power in a courtroom stripped of his protection. The verdict proved that the jury—and the public—saw through her defense, rejecting the narrative that these women were anything but victims of a long-running and calculated pattern of abuse.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In the months leading up to her trial, Ghislaine Maxwell and her defense team attempted a calculated smear campaign against her accusers, portraying them as opportunists motivated by money, fame, and distorted memories. They tried to cast doubt on the credibility of the women who came forward, suggesting that their stories were inconsistent and influenced by the substantial compensation fund set up by the Epstein estate. Maxwell's attorneys argued that she was being scapegoated for Epstein's crimes after his death, positioning her as a victim of the public's need for retribution. But the strategy backfired badly. Jurors were turned off by the tone of personal attacks, and prosecutors effectively countered with evidence showing decades of coordinated sexual abuse that Maxwell enabled, organized, and facilitated.By the time the trial reached its closing arguments, Maxwell's attempt to discredit her accusers had collapsed under the weight of her own history and the testimony of those who once worked alongside her. The women's accounts—harrowing, consistent, and corroborated by flight logs, photos, and financial records—left little room for doubt. Rather than appearing as a wrongfully accused associate, Maxwell came across as a manipulative enabler whose arrogance and lack of remorse sealed her fate. Her smear tactics, which may have once worked in Epstein's world of influence and intimidation, had no power in a courtroom stripped of his protection. The verdict proved that the jury—and the public—saw through her defense, rejecting the narrative that these women were anything but victims of a long-running and calculated pattern of abuse.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. discusses a recurring problem in wrongful death cases: jurors' tendency to mistakenly believe their job is to assign a monetary value to a life. Bill explains how this cognitive shortcut often leads to inflated damage awards because jurors default to emotional reasoning rather than following the legal instructions. To prevent this, Bill emphasizes that the issue must be addressed proactively during voir dire. He outlines a process that begins with exposing the problem - acknowledging that jurors will naturally think, “How do we put a value on a life?” - and then clearly explaining that the law does not ask them to do that. Instead, jurors are asked to compensate surviving family members for measurable economic and emotional losses. Bill walks through a step-by-step strategy for correcting this misconception: expose and normalize the cognitive shortcut, redefine the juror's task in line with the law, and secure public, verbal pre-commitments from jurors to follow the court's instructions. He also recommends going a step further by asking jurors to commit to keeping one another on track during deliberations. Bill concludes by noting that this structured approach not only prevents confusion and emotional decision-making by jurors but also strengthens the defense's position by grounding jurors in rational, law-based reasoning right from the start.

A pastor preaching virtue. A mistress promised “truth.” A wife who knew nothing. And a murder that ripped the mask off a so-called “ethical non-monogamy.” In 2019, Executive Pastor Brodes Perry of Mississippi Boulevard Christian Church was shot to death inside his Tennessee apartment by Latoshia Daniels, a woman who believed she was part of a consensual “open” relationship — one the pastor insisted his wife had approved. Except… she hadn't. Now, years later, Daniels is on trial for first-degree murder and attempted murder of Perry's wife Tabatha, who survived the attack and took the stand to tell a very different story. Jurors have seen videos of Perry himself describing “ethical non-monogamy” — claiming transparency, honesty, and divine understanding — while prosecutors say those same words expose the lies that fueled the killing. In this episode, Tony Brueski breaks down how a pastor's moral branding turned into manipulation, how a so-called modern “ethic” became a weapon of deceit, and why this trial isn't just about one shooting — it's about the danger of self-righteous hypocrisy hiding behind the language of enlightenment. This is not about alternative lifestyles. This is about control, delusion, and the rot that grows when a man of God decides the rules no longer apply to him.

A pastor preaching virtue. A mistress promised “truth.” A wife who knew nothing. And a murder that ripped the mask off a so-called “ethical non-monogamy.” In 2019, Executive Pastor Brodes Perry of Mississippi Boulevard Christian Church was shot to death inside his Tennessee apartment by Latoshia Daniels, a woman who believed she was part of a consensual “open” relationship — one the pastor insisted his wife had approved. Except… she hadn't. Now, years later, Daniels is on trial for first-degree murder and attempted murder of Perry's wife Tabatha, who survived the attack and took the stand to tell a very different story. Jurors have seen videos of Perry himself describing “ethical non-monogamy” — claiming transparency, honesty, and divine understanding — while prosecutors say those same words expose the lies that fueled the killing. In this episode, Tony Brueski breaks down how a pastor's moral branding turned into manipulation, how a so-called modern “ethic” became a weapon of deceit, and why this trial isn't just about one shooting — it's about the danger of self-righteous hypocrisy hiding behind the language of enlightenment. This is not about alternative lifestyles. This is about control, delusion, and the rot that grows when a man of God decides the rules no longer apply to him.

This episode examines Juror #2, Clint Eastwood's most recent—and perhaps final—film. Juror #2 centers around the trial of a man accused of murdering his girlfriend after a fight at a bar, leaving her in a ditch by the side of a road. The twist comes early: Justin Kemp a/k/a Juror #2 (played by Nicholas Hoult) soon realizes that the wrong man is on trial—as he hears the evidence, Kemp figures out that he, and not the defendant, killed the victim. Kemp realizes that he accidentally hit the defendant's girlfriend with his car while she was walking along the side of a road on a dark and rainy night—thinking at the time, that he had hit a deer. Kemp, otherwise portrayed as a good man—a loving husband with a baby on the way—must navigate the moral dilemma as he serves on a jury that seems prepared to condemn an innocent man. Eastwood's first courtroom drama in a long and legendary career, Juror #2 explores themes of justice, morality, and the imperfections of the legal system. Timestamps:0:00      Introduction2:46       A flawed process7:05       The ex-police detective on the jury and the motion for a mistrial15:40     The lawyer's problematic advice23:16     A prosecutor who eventually does the right thing27:17      The public defender31:28      A good person caught in terrible circumstances?40:40    Missing scenes in the legal narrative44:46     A dark picture of the U.S. criminal justice systemFurther reading:“A Forensic Review of ‘Juror #2,'” J. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, vol. 53(1) (2025)  Banner, Adam, “Honesty in jury pool examined in ‘Juror #2,'” ABA Bar Journal (Jan. 28, 2025)Brody, Richard, “In ‘Juror #2,' Clint Eastwood Judges the System Harshly,” New Yorker (Oct 30, 2024)Melonic, Emina, “The Storytelling of Clint Eastwood,” Law & Liberty (Jan. 10, 2025)Upendra, Chidella, “The Ethical Vision of Clint Eastwood,” Journal of Religion & Film, vol. 17(2) (Oct. 2013)Zagha, Muriel, “Clint Eastwood's Puritan Morality Tale,” Engelsberg Ideas (Dec. 2, 2024)  Law on Film is created and produced by Jonathan Hafetz. Jonathan is a professor at Seton Hall Law School. He has written many books and articles about the law. He has litigated important cases to protect civil liberties and human rights while working at the ACLU and other organizations. Jonathan is a huge film buff and has been watching, studying, and talking about movies for as long as he can remember. For more information about Jonathan, here's a link to his bio: https://law.shu.edu/profiles/hafetzjo.htmlYou can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.comYou can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilmYou can follow the podcast on Instagram @lawonfilmpodcast

At Scott Peterson's 2004 trial, one expert witness sealed his fate. Dr. Terry D'Vor told jurors that baby Connor's fetal measurements proved Laci Peterson died on or before Christmas Eve 2002—the same day Scott went fishing. Jurors called his testimony “the nail in the coffin.” Now, in 2024, D'Vor has recanted. After reviewing modern NIH and WHO fetal-growth studies, he signed an affidavit admitting the old 1990s charts he used were scientifically obsolete. The updated data show Connor's gestational age was consistent with a January death, not December 24. That's when Scott Peterson was already under 24-hour police surveillance. Meaning: he couldn't have done it. This episode dissects the science that collapsed and the law that lets outdated forensics destroy lives. We'll explain California's Penal Code § 1473 (b)(2), written for exactly this scenario—when an expert's own recantation proves the state's theory was wrong. If modern science shows Laci and Connor died while Scott was being followed by cops, what's left of the prosecution's timeline? #ScottPeterson #LaciPeterson #LAInnocenceProject #HiddenKillers #TrueCrime #TonyBrueski #WrongfulConviction #ForensicScience #JusticeForLaci #CrimePodcast Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video?  Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod

At Scott Peterson's 2004 trial, one expert witness sealed his fate. Dr. Terry D'Vor told jurors that baby Connor's fetal measurements proved Laci Peterson died on or before Christmas Eve 2002—the same day Scott went fishing. Jurors called his testimony “the nail in the coffin.” Now, in 2024, D'Vor has recanted. After reviewing modern NIH and WHO fetal-growth studies, he signed an affidavit admitting the old 1990s charts he used were scientifically obsolete. The updated data show Connor's gestational age was consistent with a January death, not December 24. That's when Scott Peterson was already under 24-hour police surveillance. Meaning: he couldn't have done it. This episode dissects the science that collapsed and the law that lets outdated forensics destroy lives. We'll explain California's Penal Code § 1473 (b)(2), written for exactly this scenario—when an expert's own recantation proves the state's theory was wrong. If modern science shows Laci and Connor died while Scott was being followed by cops, what's left of the prosecution's timeline? #ScottPeterson #LaciPeterson #LAInnocenceProject #HiddenKillers #TrueCrime #TonyBrueski #WrongfulConviction #ForensicScience #JusticeForLaci #CrimePodcast Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video?  Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod

At Scott Peterson's 2004 trial, one expert witness sealed his fate. Dr. Terry D'Vor told jurors that baby Connor's fetal measurements proved Laci Peterson died on or before Christmas Eve 2002—the same day Scott went fishing. Jurors called his testimony “the nail in the coffin.” Now, in 2024, D'Vor has recanted. After reviewing modern NIH and WHO fetal-growth studies, he signed an affidavit admitting the old 1990s charts he used were scientifically obsolete. The updated data show Connor's gestational age was consistent with a January death, not December 24. That's when Scott Peterson was already under 24-hour police surveillance. Meaning: he couldn't have done it. This episode dissects the science that collapsed and the law that lets outdated forensics destroy lives. We'll explain California's Penal Code § 1473 (b)(2), written for exactly this scenario—when an expert's own recantation proves the state's theory was wrong. If modern science shows Laci and Connor died while Scott was being followed by cops, what's left of the prosecution's timeline? #ScottPeterson #LaciPeterson #LAInnocenceProject #HiddenKillers #TrueCrime #TonyBrueski #WrongfulConviction #ForensicScience #JusticeForLaci #CrimePodcast Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video?  Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod