Podcasts about Mega

Can you retire early with private equity, direct indexing, and a mega backdoor Roth? In this episode of Money Matters, Scott and Pat help one investor weigh big decisions—from helping adult children buy homes to managing portfolio risk—before an aggressive retirement. Then, they follow up with a high-income saver who put their "mega backdoor" advice into action and is now looking at direct indexing for better tax efficiency. From choosing the right advisor to making smarter investment moves, early retirement planning means getting the details right. Because a secure retirement isn't just about how much you've saved—it's what you do next. Join Money Matters:  Get your most pressing financial questions answered by Allworth's co-founders Scott Hanson and Pat McClain. Call 833-99-WORTH. Or ask a question by clicking here.  You can also be on the air by emailing Scott and Pat at questions@moneymatters.com. Download and rate our podcast here.    

*Bonus Compilation Episode*10 Hours of Deep Woods Horror Stories to fall asleep to. This is a compilation of stories from past episodes, gathered into one extended episode for listeners who prefer the longer format.New episodes Monday, Wednesday, and Friday.Linktree: https://linktr.ee/its_just_creepyStory Credits:►Sent in to https://www.justcreepy.net/Timestamps:00:00 Intro00:00:18 Story 100:52:21 Story 201:35:16 Story 302:25:53 Story 403:21:36 Story 504:14:01 Story 605:11:12 Story 706:09:12 Story 807:07:35 Story 907:47:23 Story 1008:42:18 Story 1109:32:08 Story 12Music by:►'Decoherence' by Scott Buckley - released under CC-BY 4.0. www.scottbuckley.com.auBusiness inquiries:►creepydc13@gmail.com#scarystories #horrorstories

Tova Noel, one of the two correctional officers assigned to the Metropolitan Correctional Center's Special Housing Unit on the night Jeffrey Epstein died, told the House Oversight Committee that she failed to conduct the required inmate checks and later signed records falsely indicating that the rounds had been completed. Noel described an understaffed, poorly managed facility in which she was exhausted, inadequately trained and assigned duties beyond her normal responsibilities. She maintained that she last saw Epstein alive during the evening medication round and observed nothing that made her believe he was preparing to harm himself. Noel also testified that Epstein received unusual accommodations, including extra bed linens, a CPAP machine and access to medication that appeared different from the treatment ordinarily given to other prisoners.Noel denied having any role in Epstein's death, receiving money in connection with him or knowing anything about an alleged payment to facilitate access to his cell. She also rejected claims that she was the unidentified orange-colored figure seen moving toward Epstein's tier at approximately 10:39 p.m., insisting that she never returned to the area and could not explain what—or who—the surveillance image showed. Although Noel said she believed Epstein died by suicide because he was supposedly alone inside the cell, her testimony did little to resolve the most important unanswered questions: why required checks were abandoned, why Epstein remained without a cellmate, who or what appeared near the tier, and how so many security procedures failed simultaneously. Instead, her account reinforced the picture of extraordinary negligence, special treatment and institutional dysfunction surrounding the death of the most consequential prisoner in federal custody.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Tova-Noel-Transcript.pdf

Prosecutors pushed back against Bryan Kohberger's scientific report supporting a change of venue by arguing that the defense had overstated what its survey data actually proved about potential juror bias in Latah County. The defense had relied on polling and expert analysis to argue that pretrial publicity had poisoned the local jury pool and made it impossible for Kohberger to receive a fair trial in Moscow. The State countered that widespread familiarity with the case was not the same thing as fixed prejudice and emphasized that jurors could know about the murders without having already decided Kohberger was guilty. Prosecutors also challenged the methodology and interpretation behind the defense study, arguing that some of the questions were leading, that attitudes measured in a survey did not necessarily predict how prospective jurors would behave under oath, and that voir dire remained the proper mechanism for identifying and removing biased jurors.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Moscow Police repeatedly warned that the flood of online sleuthing surrounding the University of Idaho murders was creating real problems for the investigation. As speculation exploded across Reddit, TikTok, Facebook, YouTube and other platforms, amateur investigators began naming supposed suspects, dissecting victims' relationships, scrutinizing friends and acquaintances, and circulating theories that often had little or no evidentiary foundation. Police stressed that rumors, misinformation and unsupported accusations could damage innocent people, overwhelm investigators with useless tips and make it harder to separate legitimate leads from internet noise. They also urged the public to stop contacting people connected to the case directly and to send credible information through official tip lines instead of trying to conduct their own parallel investigation.The department's frustration grew as online speculation increasingly targeted people whom investigators had already looked at and, in some cases, publicly ruled out. Moscow Police made clear that the public did not have access to the full body of evidence and therefore could not reliably reconstruct the case from scattered videos, social-media posts, photographs or partial timelines. Officials also warned that harassment and false accusations could have lasting consequences for people who were simply witnesses, friends, former partners or members of the community. Their message was essentially that crowdsourced attention could be useful when it produced genuine evidence, but internet vigilantism was something else entirely. In the end, Moscow Police treated the sleuth culture surrounding the murders as both a distraction and a potential threat to the integrity of the investigation, repeatedly asking people to let detectives follow the evidence rather than allowing rumor to dictate who should be considered suspicious.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In January 2023, former NYPD inspector Paul Mauro argued that five pieces of evidence outlined in the probable cause affidavit had already created a potentially powerful circumstantial case against Bryan Kohberger. At the center was DNA recovered from the snap of a Ka-Bar-style knife sheath found beside Madison Mogen's body, which investigators initially connected to Kohberger through a familial comparison involving his father. Mauro also pointed to surveillance footage of a white Hyundai Elantra traveling near the King Road residence before and after the murders, noting that the vehicle's movements appeared to correspond with Kohberger's cellphone activity. Phone records showed Kohberger's device had connected to cell towers serving the area around the victims' home on multiple occasions before the killings, while the phone stopped reporting to the network during the critical period surrounding the murders and reconnected afterward as it traveled south of Moscow and eventually back toward Pullman. Taken together, Mauro argued that the DNA, car footage and cellphone evidence reinforced one another and would have been difficult for the defense to explain away independently.Mauro also highlighted surviving roommate Dylan Mortensen's description of the masked man she saw leaving the house, saying her account of a tall, athletically built man with bushy eyebrows was broadly consistent with Kohberger's appearance. He noted that investigators had also discovered a latent shoeprint along the route Mortensen said the intruder had taken, creating another piece of evidence prosecutors could potentially attempt to connect to Kohberger. Finally, Mauro pointed to Kohberger's earlier criminology research, particularly a Reddit survey in which he had asked people who committed crimes about how they selected victims, prepared for offenses, approached targets and avoided detection. Mauro cautioned that Kohberger was still presumed innocent and that much remained unknown at that early stage, but he believed prosecutors already possessed several different categories of evidence that, when viewed together, could form a compelling narrative against him.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Meta reaches a landmark settlement with nearly every American state, promising $18 billion and new policies for teenage users. A landslide tears through towns in Nepal, leaving hundreds missing. And Democrat-controlled states sue the Trump Administration over new policies for mail ballots. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Can you help me make more podcasts? Consider supporting me on Patreon as the service is 100% funded by you: https://EVne.ws/patreon You can read all the latest news on the blog here: https://EVne.ws/blog Subscribe for free and listen to the podcast on audio platforms:➤ Apple: https://EVne.ws/apple➤ YouTube Music: https://EVne.ws/youtubemusic➤ Spotify: https://EVne.ws/spotify➤ TuneIn: https://EVne.ws/tunein➤ iHeart: https://EVne.ws/iheart YANGWANG U7 COMPLETES 350 FLASH CHARGES WITH MINIMAL DEGRADATION https://evne.ws/li2dz LEAPMOTOR ON TRACK FOR 1 MILLION 2026 DELIVERIES https://evne.ws/8xpcc LEAPMOTOR RANKS SECOND IN CHINA BEV REGISTRATIONS https://evne.ws/n5axy LI AUTO SETS 2 SEPTEMBER MEGA LAUNCH https://evne.ws/ek8as LEAPMOTOR AND FAW EXPAND EV PARTNERSHIP https://evne.ws/lc96e XIAOMI OPENS INTERNATIONAL SITE FOR 2027 EUROPE ENTRY https://evne.ws/dg5b1 CHINA PLANS TO TIGHTEN VEHICLE MARKET ENTRY https://evne.ws/xik5p

Splatoon Month reaches its epic conclusion with a Mega Ranking! Patrick and Mark rank five different aspects of the Splatoon series: from best weapon types to favorite Idols, the top story modes across every game, and more.SUPPORT US ON PATREON: https://www.patreon.com/nintendocartridgesocietyFRIEND US ON SWITCH / SWITCH 2Patrick: SW-1401-2882-4137Mark: SW-8112-0583-0050

Scott Wapner and the Investment Committee debate Nvidia's blowout earnings report last night and what it means for the market and your money. Plus, Josh Brown spotlights Airbnb in his "Best Stocks in the Market." And later, CNBC's Oliver Renick joins us to discuss the latest Options Action in SpaceX. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Sign up for IrishSportsDaily.com: https://irishsportsdaily.com/subscribeWebsite: https://irishsportsdaily.com/Twitter: https://twitter.com/ISDUpdateInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/irishsportsdaily/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/IrishSportsDailyOfficial YouTube channel of IrishSportsDaily.com, a Notre Dame community. The most trusted Fighting Irish source for Notre Dame Football, Baseball, Basketball and all recruiting information. Subscribe to watch our weekly Notre Dame podcasts: Power Hour with Mike Frank and Hit & Hustle with Greg Flammang and Jamie Uyeyama! A Special Thanks to ESQ:Looking to upgrade your wardrobe?Founded by ND alum and longtime ISD board member Ge Wang, you've seen ESQ's custom clothing on all of your favorite players and coaches. With over a decade of making the best bespoke clothing available, ESQ will help you look and feel your best in 2024. From a perfect fitting suit or sport coat, shirt or bomber jacket - or that perfect tuxedo for wedding season, check out esqclothing.com and book an appointment to upgrade your wardrobe today. Mention ISD and get 10% off your entire purchase.ESQClothing.com #notredame #notredamefootball #ndfootball #goirish #fightingirish

Bryan Kohberger's defense team has filed multiple motions to strike the death penalty in his case, which involves the murders of four University of Idaho students in November 2022. Kohberger faces four counts of first-degree murder and one count of burglary. The prosecution, led by Latah County Prosecutor Bill Thompson, intends to seek the death penalty, citing several aggravating factors, including the "heinous" nature of the crime and Kohberger's "disregard for human life".Kohberger's attorneys argue that Idaho's right to a speedy trial conflicts with their ability to effectively defend against the death penalty. They claim that insufficient time has been allocated for preparing a defense in such a complex and high-stakes case​. Additionally, the defense is challenging several of the aggravating factors used to justify the death penalty, arguing that they are unconstitutionally vague and do not offer clear guidelines for jurors to follow. One key argument is that the statute under which these aggravators fall does not meet constitutional standards.A hearing on the defense's motions is scheduled for November 7, 2024, while the prosecution must respond by October 10. The trial is set for June 2025​.(commercial at 9:03)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:090524-Motion-to-Strike-Death-Penalty-Grounds-State-Speedy-Trial-Preventing.pdf

The healing process at the University of Idaho was slow, uneven and deeply personal in the months and years after the murders of Kaylee Goncalves, Madison Mogen, Xana Kernodle and Ethan Chapin. The killings shattered the sense of safety in Moscow and left students, faculty and families trying to process the fact that four young people had been murdered just off campus in a crime that immediately drew national attention. Classes continued, memorials were held and counseling resources were expanded, but normal campus life did not simply snap back into place. Fear lingered, especially in the early weeks when no suspect had yet been arrested, and many students left town early, changed routines or remained uneasy about returning. Even after Bryan Kohberger was taken into custody, the grief did not disappear because the victims had been woven into the social fabric of the university, and reminders of them remained everywhere from classrooms and Greek life to vigils, scholarships and memorial efforts.As time passed, the university community tried to move forward without pretending that moving forward meant forgetting. The demolition of the King Road house, the creation of memorials and continued efforts to honor the four victims became part of a broader attempt to give the campus some measure of closure, but there was never a single moment when the trauma was simply over. Every major court hearing, anniversary, documentary, news report and development in the Kohberger case reopened wounds for students and families who had already spent months living under intense public scrutiny. The university had to balance remembrance with the needs of thousands of students who still had classes to attend, degrees to finish and lives to build. In that sense, recovery was less about returning to the campus that existed before November 2022 and more about learning how to live with what had happened. The community slowly rebuilt its sense of normalcy, but the murders became a permanent part of the university's history and an event that continued to shape how people there understood safety, grief and loss.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

After Bryan Kohberger was arrested and transferred to Idaho, reports about his life behind bars painted a picture of an intensely controlled and isolated existence as he waited for a trial that ultimately never happened. He was housed at the Latah County Jail under heightened security, separated from much of the general inmate population and closely monitored because of the extraordinary attention surrounding the case. Accounts from people familiar with the jail described Kohberger as largely quiet, disciplined and routine-oriented, spending much of his time meeting with attorneys, reading, reviewing case material and navigating the restrictions that came with being one of the most notorious pretrial detainees in the country. There were also periodic reports and rumors about his behavior, interactions with staff, food preferences and conditions of confinement, but much of that information came through unnamed sources or secondhand accounts and had to be treated cautiously. What was clear was that his life had become extremely regimented, with virtually every movement controlled as his defense team prepared for what was expected to be one of the most closely watched murder trials in recent memory.That waiting period stretched on for more than two and a half years as Kohberger's attorneys fought over evidence, expert testimony, the death penalty, venue, discovery, genetic genealogy, cellphone records and numerous other issues that would have shaped the eventual trial. During that time, Kohberger remained incarcerated while the case grew increasingly complex and expensive, and the public continued to speculate about how he was handling confinement and whether the pressure of jail was affecting him. The trial, however, never arrived. In July 2025, Kohberger pleaded guilty to murdering Kaylee Goncalves, Madison Mogen, Xana Kernodle and Ethan Chapin in exchange for prosecutors taking the death penalty off the table, bringing the long pretrial period to an abrupt end. What had been years of preparation for a courtroom showdown instead became a transition from pretrial detention to a life sentence, leaving those years in jail as the strange middle chapter between Kohberger's arrest and a trial the public had spent years expecting but would never see.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Happy National Dog Day!Episode 427 is the one we have all been waiting for…. The return of College Football! Week 0 is upon us and we are here to get into the weeds to talk ball. Don't listen to the propaganda about how CFB is a week away, it is here, and we are glad it's back. We have got Top 5 games of the week, an FCS marathon, Conference predictions, CFP final bracket, Upset Advisory, Picks of the week, and College football united over not allowing NFL players back into CFB… Smart. Plus, some NFL news as week 3 NFL preseason is underway.As for golf, it is the TOUR Championship and season finale at East Lake GC in Atlanta, GA where the top 30 compete for $10 million!! We have got our final Top 20 parlay of they year as we waive farewell to golf!We have got all the segments: Salute Your Sports/Headlines and How Dare You's. Also, it would not be a show without the Dad Joke and a new season for our inter-squad DraftKings DFS WOAT-A-MAKER challenge. Look alive, folks!Follow us on:Support NC High Country Recovery Belowhttps://www.ymcaavery.com/hurricane-helene-updates/Twitter - https://www.twitter.com/MillyGoatsInstagram - https://www.instagram.com/TheMillyGoatsYouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@TheMillyGoatsTwitch - https://www.twitch.tv/TheMillyGoatsPodcastTikTok - https://www.tiktok.com/@TheMillyGoatsApple Pod - https://rb.gy/0meu1Spotify Pod - https://t.ly/ZUfObWeb - https://themillygoats.godaddysites.com/

The State opposed Bryan Kohberger's effort to suppress evidence connected to investigative genetic genealogy, arguing that the IGG process had functioned only as an investigative lead and had not produced the DNA evidence prosecutors ultimately intended to use against him at trial. Prosecutors maintained that the genealogy work pointed investigators toward Kohberger, but that law enforcement then independently collected trash from his family's Pennsylvania home and later obtained a direct buccal swab after his arrest. According to the State, those later samples established the evidentiary comparison to the male DNA recovered from the knife sheath. Because prosecutors were not planning to introduce the family-tree research, genealogy database information or the identities of genetic relatives as proof of guilt, they argued that Kohberger was trying to suppress an investigative technique rather than evidence that would actually be presented to the jury.The State also rejected the defense argument that Kohberger's constitutional rights had been violated by investigators searching genetic genealogy databases. Prosecutors argued that Kohberger had no reasonable expectation of privacy in DNA information voluntarily uploaded by distant relatives to third-party genealogy services and therefore lacked standing to challenge those searches on their behalf. They further maintained that even if the court found some problem with the IGG investigation, suppression still would not automatically follow because investigators had developed additional evidence linking Kohberger to the crime and ultimately obtained his own DNA through lawful means. The prosecution's position was essentially that IGG helped generate a name, not courtroom evidence, and that the defense was attempting to transform a genealogical lead into a Fourth Amendment violation capable of excluding the later DNA comparison.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The Goncalves family had argued that jurors in Bryan Kohberger's case should have been allowed to visit 1122 King Road, the Moscow, Idaho, house where Kaylee Goncalves, Madison Mogen, Xana Kernodle and Ethan Chapin were murdered. The family believed photographs, diagrams and video could never fully convey the layout of the home, the distances between rooms, the stairways, sight lines and the physical relationship between the bedrooms and common areas. From their perspective, those details could have mattered enormously once jurors were asked to evaluate the prosecution's timeline, Dylan Mortensen's account of seeing a masked man, the movement of the killer through the house and the defense's inevitable challenges to how the State said the murders unfolded. Keeping the house standing, they argued, would have preserved the possibility that the judge could later decide a jury view was necessary.That possibility disappeared when the University of Idaho moved forward with demolition of the house in December 2023, well before Kohberger ever went to trial. Prosecutors and defense attorneys had both indicated they did not object to the demolition after investigators conducted additional measurements, photographs, scans and other documentation of the property, but the Goncalves family strongly objected and publicly pleaded for the house to remain standing until the criminal case was finished. The university nevertheless demolished 1122 King Road on December 28, 2023, saying the building no longer served an investigative purpose and that removing it was part of the community's effort to heal. The decision was irreversible: by the time the case progressed toward trial, jurors could no longer be taken through the actual crime scene even if a judge later concluded that seeing it firsthand would have been useful. For the Goncalves family, that was precisely the problem—they believed potentially important evidence had effectively been erased before anyone could know what questions would arise once the prosecution and defense finally presented their competing versions of what happened inside the house.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Bryan Kohberger's defense filed its third motion to compel discovery in June 2023, arguing that prosecutors had still not turned over important material connected primarily to the DNA investigation. The defense sought records concerning every DNA profile developed during the investigation, not just the male DNA recovered from the snap of the knife sheath. That included information about profiles uploaded into state and national DNA databases, any database hits generated during those searches, laboratory manuals governing the use of those systems, communications between laboratory personnel and investigators, records involving outsourced DNA testing, unexpected laboratory results and corrective actions. Kohberger's attorneys argued that simply receiving the final laboratory conclusions was not enough. They wanted the underlying material necessary for their own experts to evaluate how the testing had been conducted, whether alternative DNA profiles had been identified and whether anything occurring during the laboratory process could undermine or qualify the State's conclusions.The most consequential portion of the motion concerned investigative genetic genealogy, the process investigators used after the sheath DNA failed to produce a traditional CODIS identification. Kohberger's attorneys demanded the genealogy records behind the investigation, including DNA data uploaded to genealogy services, search results, family trees, communications, additional samples collected during the genealogy investigation and information identifying genetic relatives who had appeared as potential matches. The defense maintained that it needed this material to examine the reliability and legality of the process that ultimately helped investigators focus on Kohberger, while prosecutors sought a protective order limiting disclosure of some of the genealogy information because it involved private individuals who had never been suspects. The dispute eventually required extensive briefing, expert declarations and a hearing before Judge John Judge, who ultimately ordered prosecutors to submit certain IGG materials to the court for an in camera review. The third motion to compel therefore became one of the earliest major battles over whether the defense would be permitted to look behind the State's finished DNA evidence and scrutinize the investigative process that had helped lead authorities to Kohberger in the first place.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Brooks Month detours into more dramatic territory in week 3, as Screen Drafts Legends Ryan Marker and Oriana Nudo (Hollywood-ography) rank the 9 BEST films from Oscar-winning writer / director / producer RICHARD BROOKS! Next week: MEL BROOKS SUPER DRAFT with Matt Singer & Jordan Hoffman Want more Screen Drafts? Become a Booster! For just $5 a month get ad-free Main Feed episodes, plus monthly installments of The Franchise mini-Super Draft, The Marathon, Speed Drafts, and the Cool Kids Criterion Club Corner. Or, become a Lodge Member to get all of that, plus the brand new Mid-Budget Masterpiece Theatre! Visit www.patreon.com/screendrafts to join the Club and support the show!

Mark Epstein has remained adamant that his brother Jeffrey did not die by suicide at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan in August 2019, despite the official ruling by New York City's medical examiner and subsequent findings by federal investigators. Mark has said that he initially had no reason to question the suicide conclusion, but became deeply skeptical after speaking with forensic experts following the autopsy. He has repeatedly pointed to the fractures found in Jeffrey Epstein's neck, the questions surrounding the ligature marks, and the opinion of pathologist Dr. Michael Baden, who observed the autopsy on Mark's behalf and said some of the injuries were more commonly associated with homicidal strangulation. Mark has also cited the astonishing security failures that night: guards who failed to conduct required checks and later falsified records, Epstein being left alone despite previous suicide concerns, malfunctioning or unusable surveillance footage, and lingering uncertainty about exactly who had access to the housing tier. Taken together, Mark has argued that those circumstances make the government's suicide explanation impossible for him to acceptYears later, Mark has not softened that position. He has continued demanding what he calls a genuine investigation into the death, arguing that the Justice Department's reviews have explained institutional failures without adequately resolving the questions that led him to suspect homicide in the first place. He has questioned who else was housed on Epstein's tier, whether all relevant inmates and personnel were properly investigated, what happened to surveillance footage, and why so many critical safeguards seemingly failed simultaneously around one of the most consequential federal prisoners in the country. Mark has also said that his brother appeared focused on his legal defense and attempts to obtain bail, which he believes was inconsistent with the government's portrayal of a man preparing to take his own life. None of those arguments has produced official evidence establishing that Epstein was murdered, and federal authorities have continued to stand behind the suicide determination. But Mark Epstein has remained unwavering: in his view, the unanswered forensic questions, security breakdowns and gaps in the public record are not peripheral mysteries surrounding his brother's death—they are the reason he believes the official story cannot be trusted.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Bryan Kohberger's defense asked Judge Steven Hippler to postpone the scheduled August 2025 trial, arguing that the extraordinary size and complexity of the case had left his attorneys without enough time to adequately prepare. The defense pointed to the enormous volume of discovery still being reviewed, continuing changes and additions to the prosecution's expert disclosures, unfinished investigation related to the potential penalty phase, and difficulties completing witness interviews and preparing rebuttal evidence. His lawyers also argued that the intense publicity surrounding the case, including new reporting and media productions appearing shortly before trial, threatened to further contaminate the jury pool. In a death-penalty prosecution, the defense maintained that forcing the case forward simply to preserve the existing calendar risked sacrificing Kohberger's constitutional rights for the sake of speed. They argued that a modest delay was far less consequential than proceeding with attorneys who believed they had not completed critical work necessary to defend both the guilt and penalty phases of the case.The State of Idaho opposed the continuance and argued that Kohberger had not demonstrated good cause or shown that proceeding on schedule would actually prejudice his defense. Prosecutors emphasized that Kohberger had been in custody since December 2022, his attorneys had possessed substantial portions of the evidence for a lengthy period, and the defense had already received considerable time and accommodations to prepare. The state also invoked the interests of the victims' families and the public in bringing the case to trial without another major delay. Hippler ultimately agreed with prosecutors, ruling on June 26, 2025 that the defense had failed to establish either good cause for postponement or a threat to Kohberger's substantial rights sufficient to justify moving the trial. He also rejected the argument that delaying proceedings would necessarily solve the publicity problem, reasoning that additional time could simply expose prospective jurors to even more reporting and speculation. The trial therefore remained on essentially the same schedule, with jury selection set to begin August 4 and opening statements anticipated for August 18.to contact me:bobbyapucci@protonmail.com

Bryan Kohberger's defense asked Judge Steven Hippler to postpone the scheduled August 2025 trial, arguing that the extraordinary size and complexity of the case had left his attorneys without enough time to adequately prepare. The defense pointed to the enormous volume of discovery still being reviewed, continuing changes and additions to the prosecution's expert disclosures, unfinished investigation related to the potential penalty phase, and difficulties completing witness interviews and preparing rebuttal evidence. His lawyers also argued that the intense publicity surrounding the case, including new reporting and media productions appearing shortly before trial, threatened to further contaminate the jury pool. In a death-penalty prosecution, the defense maintained that forcing the case forward simply to preserve the existing calendar risked sacrificing Kohberger's constitutional rights for the sake of speed. They argued that a modest delay was far less consequential than proceeding with attorneys who believed they had not completed critical work necessary to defend both the guilt and penalty phases of the case.The State of Idaho opposed the continuance and argued that Kohberger had not demonstrated good cause or shown that proceeding on schedule would actually prejudice his defense. Prosecutors emphasized that Kohberger had been in custody since December 2022, his attorneys had possessed substantial portions of the evidence for a lengthy period, and the defense had already received considerable time and accommodations to prepare. The state also invoked the interests of the victims' families and the public in bringing the case to trial without another major delay. Hippler ultimately agreed with prosecutors, ruling on June 26, 2025 that the defense had failed to establish either good cause for postponement or a threat to Kohberger's substantial rights sufficient to justify moving the trial. He also rejected the argument that delaying proceedings would necessarily solve the publicity problem, reasoning that additional time could simply expose prospective jurors to even more reporting and speculation. The trial therefore remained on essentially the same schedule, with jury selection set to begin August 4 and opening statements anticipated for August 18.to contact me:bobbyapucci@protonmail.com

The Ringer's Bill Simmons is joined by Joe House to answer some mailbag questions. Then, Bill heads out to UCLA to chat with Bruins football coach Bob Chesney about his coaching history, changing the culture at UCLA, and much more! (0:00) Intro (2:43) Mailbag with House (01:27:41) Bob Chesney interview Host: Bill Simmons Guests: Joe House and Bob Chesney Producers: Chia Hao Tat, Eduardo Ocampo, and Jessie Lopez See what boring banking can do for you. Put ChatGPT to work on your most ambitious ideas and projects. Get started at https://ChatGPT.com by selecting Work mode. Available on Plus and Pro plans The Ringer is committed to responsible gaming. Please visit https://fanduel.com/playwithaplan to learn more about the resources and helplines Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Most teams are built with a one-size-fits-all playbook. Coach Dave Richards explains why that breaks around 20 agents—and what it takes to evolve from a rainmaker team into a true enterprise you can sell. With 20 years leading multi-state mortgage sales and now coaching mega teams through his Elite Edge operating system, Dave brings a corporate-grade framework to real estate, mortgage, and insurance teams. In this episode: Dave's path from mortgage exec to coaching top real estate mega teams Rainmaker vs. empire models—and why your "why" must drive the structure The messy middle: where many teams stall around ~20 agents and why Protecting client experience as you scale beyond the founder Leadership shifts: from leading by example to leading through others Team design, role segmentation, and the danger of mismatched frameworks Building enterprise value: how to create a sellable, diversified asset   Elite Performance Associates: https://eliteperformanceassociates.com Dave Richards Email: dave@eliteperformanceassociates.com Dave Richards Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/realdaverichards  

Karrie Shao chats with Mega Crit Games Co-Founder Casey Yano. Together they discuss developing the Slay the Spire series which helped kick off the deckbuilder genre; design pillars and an emphasis on clear information; how streamers picking it up lead to its meteoric rise; what they added to the formula in Slay the Spire II and how they implemented coop; how they parse feedback; and what happened when they upset a large portion of their Chinese audience. This episode is supported by  Xsolla iam8bit Episode Host: Karrie Shao Producers: Claudio Tapia and Josh Chu, The Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences If you enjoyed this episode, please consider subscribing and leaving us a rating and review. Follow us: linktr.ee/AIAS Please consider supporting game dev students with: AIAS Foundation

Bryan Kohberger's defense asked Judge John Judge to halt proceedings in the summer of 2023 while it investigated whether the grand jury that indicted him had been selected in violation of Idaho law. The first motion came after Kohberger was indicted on May 16, 2023, and his attorneys sought access to the full grand-jury record so they could examine how the panel had been assembled and whether there were grounds to challenge the indictment. The defense relied on Idaho Code § 2-213, which allowed a defendant to seek a stay or even have an indictment quashed if there had been a substantial failure to comply with the state's jury-selection laws. Judge Judge initially found the request premature, but temporarily stopped the speedy-trial clock for 37 days so Kohberger's attorneys could obtain and review the grand-jury materials. After that review, the defense renewed its request, arguing that an order had called for 45 prospective grand jurors to appear but only 32 actually reported, and also pointing to alleged inconsistencies in juror questionnaires and answers provided by prospective jurors.Prosecutors fought the request, arguing that Kohberger had failed to identify any actual, substantial violation of Idaho's Uniform Jury Selection and Service Act and was effectively asking the court to stop the entire prosecution based on speculation about the grand-jury process. The state maintained that a numerical difference between the number of jurors summoned and those who appeared did not, by itself, establish that the panel had been unlawfully selected, and it accused the defense of searching for a defect rather than demonstrating one. After hearing arguments, Judge Judge ultimately sided with prosecutors and denied Kohberger's second motion to stay, finding that the defense had not shown the kind of substantial statutory violation necessary to halt the case or disturb the indictment. The court also withdrew the temporary order stopping the speedy-trial clock. The fight was therefore part of a broader defense strategy aimed at attacking the legitimacy of the grand-jury proceedings, but the effort to freeze the prosecution on jury-selection grounds ultimately failed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Bryan Kohberger's defense and Idaho prosecutors ultimately found themselves largely on the same side of the fight over cameras in the courtroom, even though their concerns were somewhat different. Kohberger's attorneys argued that the extraordinary media attention surrounding the case had turned routine court appearances into a spectacle and threatened his right to a fair trial. They accused photographers and broadcasters of repeatedly focusing tightly on Kohberger despite earlier instructions from Judge John Judge to avoid making him the exclusive subject of coverage, and they pointed to sensational headlines and images as evidence that courtroom footage was being used in ways they believed were prejudicial. Prosecutors agreed that unrestricted cameras created serious problems, particularly once the case reached trial and victims' relatives or sensitive witnesses might testify. In September 2023, the state formally supported removing still and video cameras at least during the trial and during proceedings involving victim testimony, arguing that the intense public attention required greater protection for everyone involved.The dispute therefore became less of a traditional prosecution-versus-defense battle and more of a fight between the parties and news organizations seeking continued visual access to the proceedings. Media groups argued that cameras promoted transparency and allowed the public to observe one of the most consequential criminal cases in Idaho, while Kohberger's lawyers maintained that public access did not require permitting cameras capable of producing endless close-ups and viral imagery. Judge Judge initially resisted an outright ban and considered compromises, including moving the camera farther away and using a controlled, wide-angle feed. He eventually granted Kohberger's request to remove independent media cameras from the courtroom, while preserving public visual access by allowing the court itself to operate cameras and distribute the official feed. The resolution attempted to split the difference: Kohberger and the prosecution received greater control over potentially prejudicial coverage, while the public and press were not completely shut out of seeing the proceedings.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In the aftermath of Bryan Kohberger's December 2022 arrest, reports emerged that both of his sisters suffered serious professional consequences simply because of their relationship to the man accused of murdering Kaylee Goncalves, Madison Mogen, Xana Kernodle and Ethan Chapin. NewsNation reported in March 2023 that both women had lost their jobs and that the family was struggling financially as a result. One sister, Amanda Kohberger, had worked in counseling and education, while Melissa “Mel” Kohberger was preparing to begin work as a mental-health counselor. Years later, Mel provided more detail about what happened to her: she said she had been training for a new counseling position when her employer became inundated with inquiries after Bryan's arrest, and she ultimately agreed to walk away from the job before she could properly begin it.The fallout illustrated how quickly the notoriety surrounding the Idaho murders spread beyond Kohberger himself and engulfed members of his family who had not been accused of wrongdoing. Reporting at the time described his parents as retired and the household as being in extremely difficult financial circumstances after both daughters became unemployed. Mel later described the experience as confusing and painful, while also making clear that she did not equate her family's suffering with what the victims' families had endured. Whatever anyone believed about Bryan Kohberger, the employment consequences suffered by his sisters became an example of guilt by association: two women found their careers disrupted not because authorities accused them of participating in the murders, but because their last name suddenly became inseparable from one of the most notorious criminal cases in the country.to contact me;bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

A local business leader (⁠Micah Sterenberg⁠) wants to get some skits in front of the church. The full Mega experience is on Supercast. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

​In the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger (Case No. CR01-24-31665), the defense has submitted a response opposing the State's motion in limine, which seeks to exclude neuropsychological and psychiatric evidence from the trial. The defense intends to present expert testimony indicating that Mr. Kohberger exhibits behaviors consistent with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD). They argue that these conditions explain certain behaviors, such as a flat affect, intense gaze, and repetitive speech patterns, which might otherwise be misinterpreted by the jury as indicative of guilt or lack of remorse. Additionally, the defense contends that these behaviors are neurological in nature, supported by neuroimaging evidence, and are crucial for the jury to understand Mr. Kohberger's demeanor and actions accurately.The State, represented by Latah County Prosecutor Bill Thompson, has moved to prohibit the introduction of this evidence, arguing that it is inadmissible under Idaho rules. The prosecution asserts that the defense has not provided sufficient specific details about Mr. Kohberger's alleged conditions and that such evidence could unfairly prejudice the jury. They also contend that the defense failed to meet disclosure deadlines set by the court. The judge's decision on whether to allow the neuropsychological and psychiatric evidence will significantly impact the strategies employed by both parties in the upcoming trial, scheduled to begin on August 11, 2025.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Ty A

Bryan Kohberger's defense had sought to have the indictment against him thrown out by arguing that the grand jury process was fundamentally flawed. In a filing made in August 2023, defense attorney Jay Logsdon disclosed that Kohberger's team had identified 24 separate issues supporting dismissal, although the memorandum detailing those arguments was filed under seal. The publicly available filing indicated that the defense was challenging the indictment on several fronts, including alleged grand jury bias, the use of inadmissible evidence, insufficient evidence to support the charges and prosecutorial misconduct. Kohberger's attorneys also accused prosecutors of withholding potentially exculpatory material, arguing that the grand jury process had not provided the kind of fair and reliable basis necessary to sustain the indictment.The motion represented one of the defense's earliest major attempts to attack the prosecution before trial by targeting the integrity of the grand jury proceedings themselves. Because those proceedings were secret, the public could not see the specific 24 alleged defects, leaving only the broader categories of the defense challenge available for scrutiny. Prosecutors were given time to respond, and a hearing was scheduled to address the motion. At that point, Kohberger was facing four counts of first-degree murder and one count of felony burglary in connection with the deaths of Kaylee Goncalves, Madison Mogen, Xana Kernodle and Ethan Chapin, while the defense was simultaneously mounting separate challenges to the DNA evidence and other parts of the state's case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Prince Andrew became embroiled in another controversy after it emerged that he had received £750,000 from Selman Turk, a Turkish businessman who was later accused of fraud. The money was transferred in 2019 after Turk became involved with Nebahat Isbilen, a wealthy Turkish woman who had entrusted him with handling her financial affairs after her husband was imprisoned in Turkey. According to court allegations, Turk told Isbilen that the £750,000 payment was needed to help secure assistance from Prince Andrew in obtaining a new Turkish passport. The money ultimately reached Andrew, even though there was no clear conventional explanation for why a member of the royal family would receive such a large personal payment in connection with a passport matter. The transaction later surfaced as part of Isbilen's civil fraud case against Turk, placing Andrew in the uncomfortable position of having accepted a substantial sum originating from a woman who said she had been deceived.Andrew denied knowing that the money was connected to any alleged fraud, and the £750,000 was eventually repaid after the circumstances became public and lawyers began asking questions. But the episode reinforced a broader pattern of questionable financial relationships surrounding the prince, particularly his willingness to associate with wealthy businessmen whose backgrounds and motives later came under scrutiny. The controversy was especially damaging because Turk had reportedly been introduced into royal circles and had even received an award connected to Andrew's Pitch@Palace initiative. While Andrew was not accused of participating in Turk's alleged fraud, the payment raised obvious questions about his judgment, what he understood about the purpose of the money, and why basic safeguards apparently failed before such an extraordinary sum landed in his account.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The nearly six-hour congressional interview focused on why Bill Gates continued meeting with Jeffrey Epstein after Epstein's 2008 conviction, what Gates knew about Epstein's conduct, and whether Epstein attempted to gain leverage over him. Gates testified that he met Epstein roughly 12 to 14 times between 2011 and 2014, saying he believed Epstein could help attract major philanthropic donations to global health initiatives through the Gates Foundation. He repeatedly described those meetings as "a mistake," insisted he never visited Epstein's private island, New Mexico ranch, or Florida residence, and said he never witnessed criminal conduct or participated in any of Epstein's illegal activities. Gates told lawmakers he ultimately concluded that Epstein had exaggerated both his financial connections and his ability to raise money for philanthropy.One of the most closely watched portions of the transcript concerned allegations that Epstein sought to pressure Gates using knowledge of Gates' personal life. Gates acknowledged several extramarital affairs and testified that Epstein appeared to have learned about them, later making what Gates described as "veiled" attempts at blackmail by referencing those relationships and seeking money connected to one of the women. Gates said he believed Epstein "contemplated" blackmail but maintained he was never actually blackmailed, never paid Epstein to keep information secret, and never committed crimes with him. Throughout the interview, Gates emphasized that his association with Epstein damaged his judgment and reputation, expressed support for releasing the Epstein files and for continued investigations, and said survivors deserve justice while denying any involvement in Epstein's trafficking operation or abuse of minors.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Bill-Gates-Transcript.pdf

The nearly six-hour congressional interview focused on why Bill Gates continued meeting with Jeffrey Epstein after Epstein's 2008 conviction, what Gates knew about Epstein's conduct, and whether Epstein attempted to gain leverage over him. Gates testified that he met Epstein roughly 12 to 14 times between 2011 and 2014, saying he believed Epstein could help attract major philanthropic donations to global health initiatives through the Gates Foundation. He repeatedly described those meetings as "a mistake," insisted he never visited Epstein's private island, New Mexico ranch, or Florida residence, and said he never witnessed criminal conduct or participated in any of Epstein's illegal activities. Gates told lawmakers he ultimately concluded that Epstein had exaggerated both his financial connections and his ability to raise money for philanthropy.One of the most closely watched portions of the transcript concerned allegations that Epstein sought to pressure Gates using knowledge of Gates' personal life. Gates acknowledged several extramarital affairs and testified that Epstein appeared to have learned about them, later making what Gates described as "veiled" attempts at blackmail by referencing those relationships and seeking money connected to one of the women. Gates said he believed Epstein "contemplated" blackmail but maintained he was never actually blackmailed, never paid Epstein to keep information secret, and never committed crimes with him. Throughout the interview, Gates emphasized that his association with Epstein damaged his judgment and reputation, expressed support for releasing the Epstein files and for continued investigations, and said survivors deserve justice while denying any involvement in Epstein's trafficking operation or abuse of minors.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Bill-Gates-Transcript.pdf

Jerry Murdock is the Co-Founder of Insight Partners, which manages over $90 billion in assets. Jerry personally backed companies including Twitter, Nest and Docker, while Insight's portfolio includes giants such as Shopify, Wiz and monday.com. Across three decades, Insight has helped produce 55+ IPOs and become one of the most powerful technology investment firms in the world.  AGENDA: 00:00 — Is the AI Bubble About to Burst? 11:00 — Will Half of All Neoclouds Disappear Within 36 Months? 13:00 — Can Open Source Models Actually Beat OpenAI and Anthropic? 22:00 — Are We Entering the Golden Age of Cybersecurity Attacks? 32:00 — Have AI Valuations Completely Lost Touch With Reality? 42:00 — Is AI About to Wipe Out an Entire Generation of SaaS & Private Equity? 47:00 — Should We Ban U.S. Chips From Being Exported to China? 48:00 — Should We Be Fearful of Open-Source Chinese Models? 49:00 — Will Continuous Learning Kill Every AI Model We Use Today? 53:00 — Why Microsoft Remains a Mega Buy 56:00 — Which Mag 7 Giant Would You Short — and Is Apple's AI Strategy a Disaster?  

After her July 2020 arrest, Ghislaine Maxwell launched an almost continuous campaign of complaints about the conditions of her confinement at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn. Through her attorneys, Maxwell argued that she was being treated more harshly than an ordinary pretrial detainee because of Jeffrey Epstein's death in federal custody the year before. She complained that correctional officers repeatedly awakened her during the night with flashlight checks, depriving her of sleep and making it difficult to prepare for trial. Her lawyers objected to constant surveillance, searches of her cell, body scans and strip searches, and claimed she was subjected to invasive treatment even though she had shown no signs of being suicidal. They complained about being monitored while meeting with attorneys, inadequate access to legal materials and computers, difficulties reviewing the enormous volume of discovery, limited exercise, poor food, unsanitary conditions and even problems with sewage and vermin. At various points, Maxwell's attorneys also claimed she had lost significant weight, suffered hair loss, experienced declining health and was forced to endure conditions they described as extraordinarily restrictive for someone who had not yet been convicted.Those complaints became intertwined with Maxwell's repeated attempts to obtain bail, with her attorneys portraying her detention as punitive and prosecutors portraying the extraordinary precautions as reasonable given the circumstances surrounding Epstein's death and Maxwell's substantial flight risk. Maxwell complained that she had effectively been placed under round-the-clock observation because the Bureau of Prisons was determined not to suffer another catastrophe involving an Epstein defendant, and her lawyers repeatedly asked the court to intervene. Judge Alison Nathan did scrutinize some of the allegations and required the government to respond to complaints about Maxwell's treatment, but she repeatedly refused to release her, finding that the measures proposed by the defense did not adequately address the risk that Maxwell could flee. The result was a remarkable pretrial battle in which Maxwell, once accustomed to enormous wealth, private aircraft, luxury homes and extraordinary freedom of movement, spent month after month arguing over mattresses, meals, flashlights, surveillance cameras, strip searches, legal calls and sleep. Whatever the merits of individual complaints about conditions at the MDC, they became a persistent feature of her defense strategy from arrest through trial, as Maxwell portrayed herself as the victim of unusually harsh federal treatment while prosecutors remained focused on the far more consequential allegations that had put her behind bars in the first place.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In the case of Bryan Kohberger (case number CR29-22-2805), the defense has filed multiple motions, including one to strike the State's notice of intent to seek the death penalty. This motion argues that pursuing the death penalty violates contemporary standards of decency, citing international law, vagueness in Idaho's capital punishment laws, and issues with the aggravating factors presented by the prosecution. The defense is challenging each of the state's claims, aiming to have the death penalty removed as an option in the trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:090524-Motion-Strike-States-Notice-Intent-Seek-Death-Penalty-Grounds-Contemporary.pdf

The nearly six-hour congressional interview focused on why Bill Gates continued meeting with Jeffrey Epstein after Epstein's 2008 conviction, what Gates knew about Epstein's conduct, and whether Epstein attempted to gain leverage over him. Gates testified that he met Epstein roughly 12 to 14 times between 2011 and 2014, saying he believed Epstein could help attract major philanthropic donations to global health initiatives through the Gates Foundation. He repeatedly described those meetings as "a mistake," insisted he never visited Epstein's private island, New Mexico ranch, or Florida residence, and said he never witnessed criminal conduct or participated in any of Epstein's illegal activities. Gates told lawmakers he ultimately concluded that Epstein had exaggerated both his financial connections and his ability to raise money for philanthropy.One of the most closely watched portions of the transcript concerned allegations that Epstein sought to pressure Gates using knowledge of Gates' personal life. Gates acknowledged several extramarital affairs and testified that Epstein appeared to have learned about them, later making what Gates described as "veiled" attempts at blackmail by referencing those relationships and seeking money connected to one of the women. Gates said he believed Epstein "contemplated" blackmail but maintained he was never actually blackmailed, never paid Epstein to keep information secret, and never committed crimes with him. Throughout the interview, Gates emphasized that his association with Epstein damaged his judgment and reputation, expressed support for releasing the Epstein files and for continued investigations, and said survivors deserve justice while denying any involvement in Epstein's trafficking operation or abuse of minors.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Bill-Gates-Transcript.pdf

The order granting Bryan Kohberger's motion for a change of venue concluded that the extraordinary level of publicity surrounding the University of Idaho murders, combined with the relatively small population of Latah County and the intense local connection to the case, created too great a risk that an impartial jury could not realistically be seated in Moscow. Judge John Judge emphasized that the issue was not simply whether residents had heard about the case, but the degree to which the murders had saturated the community and affected people personally through the university, local businesses, law enforcement, friends and family. The court also considered defense polling and expert testimony showing that potential jurors in Latah County were significantly more likely to have formed strong opinions about Kohberger's guilt and, in some cases, about whether he should receive the death penalty. Although prosecutors argued that careful jury selection could address those concerns, the judge ultimately determined that voir dire alone was not enough to eliminate the risk of prejudice.The court therefore ordered the trial moved out of Latah County, finding that a larger population center would provide a substantially broader jury pool and reduce the influence of the intense local atmosphere surrounding the killings. The Idaho Supreme Court subsequently assigned the case to Ada County and District Judge Steven Hippler, effectively transferring the prosecution from Moscow to Boise. The ruling was a major victory for Kohberger's defense, which had argued for months that Ada County offered the best chance of assembling jurors who were less personally connected to the case and less saturated by local coverage. The order did not suggest that every potential Latah County juror was biased; rather, it concluded that the combination of community impact, pretrial publicity, the size of the jury pool and the stakes of a capital murder prosecution made relocation necessary to better protect Kohberger's constitutional right to a fair trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Bryan Kohberger's defense pushed to move his trial out of Moscow, Idaho, arguing that the extraordinary publicity surrounding the murders of Kaylee Goncalves, Madison Mogen, Xana Kernodle and Ethan Chapin had made it impossible for him to receive a fair trial in Latah County. His attorneys pointed to the intensity of local news coverage, the small size of the community, the emotional impact of the killings on Moscow and the University of Idaho, and survey data showing that many prospective jurors had already formed strong opinions about Kohberger's guilt. The defense argued that simply questioning jurors during voir dire would not be enough to overcome the level of prejudice they believed existed locally, and they specifically identified Ada County, home to Boise and a much larger jury pool, as a more suitable location for the case.Prosecutors resisted the effort, arguing that extensive publicity did not automatically mean an impartial jury could not be selected in Latah County and that moving the trial would create significant logistical and financial complications. Kohberger's lawyers countered that the issue was not convenience but whether the constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury could realistically be protected in a community so closely connected to the crime. The fight ultimately became one of the most consequential pretrial battles in the case, with the defense relying heavily on expert analysis, public-opinion surveys and the sheer saturation of coverage surrounding the murders. The court eventually agreed that the trial should be moved, and Ada County became the new venue, shifting one of the most closely watched murder prosecutions in the country away from the community where the killings had occurred.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Jeffrey Epstein's relationship with the New York Academy of Art stretched back years before his crimes became publicly notorious. Epstein served on the academy's board from 1987 to 1994 and remained connected to the school as a donor and patron afterward, giving him access to an environment filled with young artists trying to establish their careers. Maria Farmer was a graduate student at the academy when she met Epstein in 1995, and she later said the school helped bring her into his orbit. According to Farmer, academy dean and board chair Eileen Guggenheim introduced her to Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell at her graduate exhibition and encouraged her to cultivate Epstein because he was an important benefactor. Farmer said Epstein wanted to buy one of her paintings at a reduced price and that she felt pressure from Guggenheim to accommodate him. Farmer was later among a small group of students who traveled to New Mexico, where she said Epstein, Maxwell and Guggenheim interacted with the artists at Epstein's Zorro Ranch. Epstein eventually hired Farmer as an art adviser, placing her even deeper inside his world.Farmer later accused the academy of helping create the circumstances that allowed Epstein to gain her trust and access, arguing that his status as a wealthy donor gave him credibility and influence that young artists were encouraged to respect. She said the relationship that began through the art world eventually led to her working for Epstein and, in 1996, to the circumstances in which she alleged that Epstein and Maxwell sexually assaulted her in Ohio. When Farmer publicly raised questions about the academy's role decades later, the school commissioned an outside investigation that disputed portions of her account, including some details of the New Mexico trip and her interactions with Guggenheim. The report itself caused another controversy, with students, alumni and several trustees criticizing the academy for appearing to attack Farmer's credibility rather than confronting how Epstein had been welcomed into the institution. Four female trustees, including Naomi Watts, resigned amid the fallout, and in August 2020 the academy issued what it called a “profound apology” to Farmer. The larger significance of Farmer's account was that Epstein did not encounter her randomly: she said he was introduced to her through a respected cultural institution where his money, patronage and connections gave him legitimacy and access to ambitious young people.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

“Kate,” a British woman who testified under a pseudonym during Ghislaine Maxwell's 2021 federal trial, told jurors that she met Maxwell when she was 17 and initially admired her as a sophisticated, confident older woman. According to Kate, Maxwell cultivated a friendship with her and eventually introduced her to Jeffrey Epstein. Kate testified that Maxwell told her Epstein needed frequent massages and that it was difficult to find enough people to provide them, before asking Kate whether she would massage him. Kate said the encounter became sexual and marked the beginning of years of abuse by Epstein. She described Maxwell as helping normalize the situation rather than warning or protecting her, and testified that afterward Maxwell praised her, told her she had done well and said she had become one of Epstein's favorites.Kate also testified that Maxwell later encouraged her to recruit other young women to give Epstein massages, offering money for referrals and effectively drawing her deeper into Epstein's system. Her testimony was important because it illustrated the grooming process prosecutors alleged Maxwell repeatedly used: establishing trust, presenting Epstein and his lifestyle as safe and desirable, gradually introducing sexualized behavior and then helping expand the pool of young women available to him. Kate said Maxwell's approval had mattered to her because she had looked up to Maxwell, making the manipulation particularly powerful. Although the judge instructed jurors that Kate was not herself an alleged victim of the specific charged offenses because she was above the applicable age of consent under the relevant counts, prosecutors used her testimony as evidence of Maxwell's broader methods and relationship with Epstein, portraying her not as a passive girlfriend standing on the sidelines, but as someone who helped facilitate and normalize the machinery surrounding his sexual abuse.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The conflict-of-interest controversy surrounding Anne Taylor began almost immediately after she was appointed to represent Bryan Kohberger. Taylor, then the chief public defender in Kootenai County, had previously represented Cara Northington, the mother of murder victim Xana Kernodle, in an unrelated criminal matter. Other attorneys within Taylor's public defender office had also represented members of Madison Mogen's family in unrelated cases. Taylor withdrew from Northington's case on January 5, 2023, the same day Kohberger made his first appearance in an Idaho courtroom, but the overlap immediately raised questions about whether information obtained through the prior attorney-client relationship could create divided loyalties. Northington herself said she felt blindsided after learning that the attorney who had been representing her was now defending the man accused of murdering her daughter. Legal observers debated whether Taylor might eventually be placed in the extraordinary position of questioning a former client or dealing with information connected to a victim's family while simultaneously owing Kohberger her undivided loyalty.The issue, however, was never as simple as saying that Taylor had automatically been disqualified because she once represented a victim's mother. The legal question was whether the previous representation created an actual conflict that materially interfered with Taylor's ability to provide Kohberger with effective, independent representation, rather than merely presenting an uncomfortable appearance of one. Public defenders routinely represent large numbers of defendants, and prior representation of someone connected to a later case does not necessarily require removal unless the matters are substantially related, confidential information could be used against the former client, or the lawyer's competing duties impair the current defense. The controversy therefore became a collision between two legitimate concerns: protecting the confidentiality and interests of Taylor's former clients while also protecting Kohberger's constitutional right to conflict-free counsel in a death-penalty prosecution. Despite the enormous public scrutiny surrounding Taylor's prior representation of Northington, she remained Kohberger's lead attorney and continued representing him through the case, meaning the early controversy never resulted in her removal from the defense team.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Bryan Kohberger's defense had been positioned to mount a constitutional challenge to the investigative genetic genealogy, or IGG, techniques authorities used after DNA was recovered from the knife sheath found beneath Madison Mogen's body. Investigators had developed a male DNA profile from the sheath and used genetic genealogy to search for relatives of the unknown contributor, eventually building a family tree that helped point investigators toward Kohberger. The process raised questions among legal scholars about whether law enforcement's use of genetic information submitted by people to genealogy databases could implicate Fourth Amendment privacy protections, particularly when relatives of a suspect had never consented to having their genetic information used in a criminal investigation. Kohberger's attorneys had sought access to the underlying IGG materials, arguing that they needed to examine exactly how investigators conducted the search and whether constitutional or procedural violations occurred along the way.The potential challenge represented largely unsettled legal territory because courts had not yet established broad constitutional protections against investigative genetic genealogy, and prosecutors maintained that the genealogy work had simply provided an investigative lead rather than evidence they intended to present directly against Kohberger at trial. Legal experts explained that this distinction could make suppression difficult because investigators later obtained Kohberger's DNA through traditional means and directly compared it with the sheath profile. Still, the defense had reason to scrutinize whether the genealogy search violated privacy expectations, exceeded database restrictions or improperly influenced subsequent investigative steps. The dispute therefore had implications extending well beyond Kohberger's case, as a successful constitutional challenge could have affected how police departments across the country used rapidly expanding consumer DNA databases to identify suspects in otherwise difficult cases.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The nearly six-hour congressional interview focused on why Bill Gates continued meeting with Jeffrey Epstein after Epstein's 2008 conviction, what Gates knew about Epstein's conduct, and whether Epstein attempted to gain leverage over him. Gates testified that he met Epstein roughly 12 to 14 times between 2011 and 2014, saying he believed Epstein could help attract major philanthropic donations to global health initiatives through the Gates Foundation. He repeatedly described those meetings as "a mistake," insisted he never visited Epstein's private island, New Mexico ranch, or Florida residence, and said he never witnessed criminal conduct or participated in any of Epstein's illegal activities. Gates told lawmakers he ultimately concluded that Epstein had exaggerated both his financial connections and his ability to raise money for philanthropy.One of the most closely watched portions of the transcript concerned allegations that Epstein sought to pressure Gates using knowledge of Gates' personal life. Gates acknowledged several extramarital affairs and testified that Epstein appeared to have learned about them, later making what Gates described as "veiled" attempts at blackmail by referencing those relationships and seeking money connected to one of the women. Gates said he believed Epstein "contemplated" blackmail but maintained he was never actually blackmailed, never paid Epstein to keep information secret, and never committed crimes with him. Throughout the interview, Gates emphasized that his association with Epstein damaged his judgment and reputation, expressed support for releasing the Epstein files and for continued investigations, and said survivors deserve justice while denying any involvement in Epstein's trafficking operation or abuse of minors.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Bill-Gates-Transcript.pdf

The scientific work submitted on Bryan Kohberger's behalf in support of moving his trial out of Latah County had focused on whether years of publicity, community involvement and emotional exposure to the murders had created a jury pool that could realistically be considered impartial. Defense experts examined media saturation, public attitudes and psychological research concerning how people formed and retained opinions after repeated exposure to highly emotional information. Social psychologist Dr. Amani El-Alayli explained that greater exposure to publicity about Kohberger was associated with stronger negative attitudes toward him and a greater tendency to view him as guilty. She also emphasized that fear and anger could make initial beliefs unusually resistant to later contradictory information, because people tended to favor information that reinforced opinions they had already formed. In her assessment, the problem in Latah County went beyond whether prospective jurors consciously believed they could be fair; residents had lived much closer to the murders, the University of Idaho and the investigation itself, creating emotional and psychological connections that could influence them even without their recognizing it. She concluded that the safest way to provide Kohberger with an impartial jury was to select people who were both physically and psychologically removed from Latah County.The defense also relied heavily on survey research conducted by trial consultant and social psychologist Dr. Bryan Edelman, who compared prospective jury populations in Latah, Ada, Canyon and Bannock counties. His research found widespread familiarity with the case throughout Idaho, including 98 percent recognition among Latah County respondents, while 67 percent of those familiar with the case there said they believed Kohberger was guilty. Although similar levels of presumed guilt appeared elsewhere, Edelman explained that Latah County's much smaller population dramatically reduced the number of potentially unbiased jurors available, while a county such as Ada offered a vastly larger pool from which an impartial jury could be selected. More importantly, his research found significantly greater levels of fear, stress, anxiety and personal connections to the University of Idaho and local law enforcement among Latah County residents. Dr. Veronica Dahir separately evaluated Edelman's methodology and testified that the surveys had been conducted according to accepted standards and produced sound results. Taken together, the scientific evidence supported the defense's argument that the combination of intense publicity, a small population and the community's personal and emotional connection to the killings created a reasonable likelihood of prejudice in Latah County, an argument Judge John Judge ultimately found persuasive when he granted the change of venue.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Richard Epstein unpacks the antitrust battle over the proposed Paramount Skydance–Warner Bros. Discovery merger—and what it reveals about the changing economics of Hollywood. From AI and labor unrest to regulatory overreach and interstate competition, Epstein argues that the industry's real threat isn't consolidation but rapid technological and economic disruption, making the case that blocking the deal could do more harm than good.

Download SAILY in your app store and use our code lrcp at checkout to get an exclusive 15% off your first purchase! For further details go to https://saily.com/lrcpIn this episode Patrick and Benji recap the the first transfers of the 2027 season. *Exclusive deals from our trusted partners*

Richard Epstein unpacks the antitrust battle over the proposed Paramount Skydance–Warner Bros. Discovery merger—and what it reveals about the changing economics of Hollywood. From AI and labor unrest to regulatory overreach and interstate competition, Epstein argues that the industry's real threat isn't consolidation but rapid technological and economic disruption, making the case that blocking the […]

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.