POPULARITY
121 episodes with unsealed
130 episodes with unsealed
28 episodes with unsealed
58 episodes with unsealed
34 episodes with unsealed
40 episodes with unsealed
27 episodes with unsealed
24 episodes with unsealed
16 episodes with unsealed
6 episodes with unsealed
9 episodes with unsealed
7 episodes with unsealed
4 episodes with unsealed
4 episodes with unsealed
3 episodes with unsealed
5 episodes with unsealed
5 episodes with unsealed
3 episodes with unsealed
6 episodes with unsealed
6 episodes with unsealed
3 episodes with unsealed
2 episodes with unsealed
2 episodes with unsealed
3 episodes with unsealed
17 episodes with unsealed
3 episodes with unsealed
4 episodes with unsealed
Episodes are available on Patreon 2 weeks ahead of the public :) Iffy, Dragana, and the others form a plan, while Adele and Kidlat search for a way out. Credits: Written & Created by K. A. Statz Co-Created, Produced, & Directed, with Foley and additional Editing by Travis Vengroff Co-Directed, with Dialogue Editing by Rikke Rømer Edited, with Sound Design, Mixing & Mastering by Finnur Nielsen Executive Producers Dennis Greenhill, AJ Punk'n, Carol Vengroff, & Maico Villegas Script Editing by W. K. Statz & Travis Vengroff Translations in Icelandic by Kristján Atli Heimisson Japanese by Hinako Matsumoto Tagalog by Luis Cruz Serbian by Tanja Milojevic Cast: Iffy Talno – Lauren Tucker Adele Fathers Tsįą – Marcy Edwards Dragana Vuković – Tanja Milojevic Kidlat Tolentino – Luis Cruz Dís Eldrúnsdóttir – Hildur Magnusdottir Kōsuke Iwai – Daisuke Tsuji Mika Fathers Tsįą – Denise Halfyard Music arranged and remixed by Travis Vengroff “Goshawk" (Main Theme) & "Reunion" – Written and Performed by Dayn Leonardson, based on "Unsealed" by Brandon Boone Cover Art by Adam Tubak Lettering by K.A. Statz This is a Fool and Scholar Production. We are a two person creative team and we can only create this show because of fan support! Please support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/FoolandScholar Free Transcripts are available: https://www.patreon.com/posts/91167855 Check out our Merch: https://www.foolandscholar.com/store Special Thanks to: Our Patreon supporters! | Carol Vengroff | David Cummings | Kristján Atli Heimisson Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell's deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz's defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors' allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein's secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack.The deposition also addresses Dershowitz's accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz's narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified.to contact me:EFTA00594390.pdf
In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell's deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz's defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors' allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein's secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack.The deposition also addresses Dershowitz's accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz's narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified.to contact me:EFTA00594390.pdf
In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell's deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz's defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors' allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein's secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack.The deposition also addresses Dershowitz's accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz's narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified.to contact me:EFTA00594390.pdf
Newly unsealed documents in the Monique Tepe and Spencer Tepe murder case reveal the prosecution's evidence and the alleged psychology of a killer who refused to let go.According to witnesses, Michael McKee told Monique three things during and after their marriage: he could "kill her at any time," he would "find her and buy the house right next to her," and "she will always be his wife." Surveillance allegedly captured McKee walking through the Tepes' yard on December 7th, 2025—twenty-three days before the murders—while Spencer and Monique attended the Big Ten Championship game in Indianapolis. Monique reportedly left early, upset about something involving her ex-husband.The affidavit lays out a prosecutor's roadmap: stolen license plates from two states, a cell phone that went completely dark during the murder window, a vehicle tracked arriving before and leaving after. Witnesses told investigators that during their marriage, McKee allegedly strangled Monique and forced unwanted sex on her. Strangulation remains the strongest predictor of future lethality in domestic violence cases.Defense attorney and former prosecutor Eric Faddis examines the case through the prosecution's lens. He identifies which evidence he'd anchor the entire case around, addresses the hearsay problem with statements Monique allegedly made to friends about death threats spanning years, and explains whether prior abuse allegations—never criminally charged—can even reach a jury. Firearm specifications allege an automatic weapon or silencer was used, signaling calculated premeditation.The case reveals a brutal truth: doing everything right—leaving, divorcing, starting over—doesn't always protect you from someone who never recognized your autonomy.Spencer and Monique Tepe were found shot to death in their Columbus home on December 30th, 2025. Their two young children were found unharmed. McKee has pleaded not guilty.#MichaelMcKee #MoniqueTepe #SpencerTepe #ColumbusOhio #UnsealedAffidavit #DomesticViolence #AggravatedMurder #TrueCrimeToday #CircumstantialEvidence #MurderCaseJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspodInstagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/tonybpodListen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.
Hidden Killers With Tony Brueski | True Crime News & Commentary
Newly unsealed court documents in the Monique Tepe and Spencer Tepe murder case reveal both the evidence prosecutors are building on and the psychology allegedly behind the killings.According to witnesses, Michael McKee made three statements to Monique during and after their marriage: that he could "kill her at any time," that he would "find her and buy the house right next to her," and that "she will always be his wife." Surveillance footage allegedly captured McKee walking through the Tepes' yard on December 7th, 2025—twenty-three days before the murders—while Spencer and Monique were at the Big Ten Championship game in Indianapolis. Monique reportedly left that game early, upset about something involving her ex-husband.The affidavit reads like a prosecutor's blueprint: stolen license plates from two states, a cell phone that went dark during the murder window, a vehicle tracked arriving before and leaving after. Witnesses told investigators that during the marriage, McKee allegedly strangled Monique and forced unwanted sex on her. Strangulation is the single greatest predictor of future lethality in domestic violence cases.Defense attorney and former prosecutor Eric Faddis analyzes the case through the prosecution's lens. He breaks down which evidence he'd build the entire case around, examines the hearsay problem with statements Monique allegedly made to friends about death threats, and explains whether prior abuse allegations never criminally charged can reach a jury. The firearm specifications—alleging either an automatic weapon or silencer—signal premeditation and transform how a jury perceives the crime.This case reveals the brutal reality that doing everything right—leaving, divorcing, rebuilding—doesn't always protect you from someone who never recognized your right to leave.Spencer and Monique Tepe were found shot to death in their Columbus home on December 30th, 2025. Their two young children were found unharmed. McKee has pleaded not guilty.#MichaelMcKee #MoniqueTepe #SpencerTepe #ColumbusOhio #UnsealedAffidavit #DomesticViolence #AggravatedMurder #WeinlandPark #TrueCrime #HiddenKillersJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspodInstagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/tonybpodListen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.
In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell's deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz's defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors' allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein's secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack.The deposition also addresses Dershowitz's accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz's narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified.to contact me:EFTA00594390.pdf
In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell's deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz's defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors' allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein's secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack.The deposition also addresses Dershowitz's accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz's narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified.to contact me:EFTA00594390.pdf
In this episode, we are taking a close look at a harrowing account attributed to an Epstein victim, drawn from a personal diary that surfaced as part of the DOJ's latest Epstein files release. According to public reporting, the document reads not like a legal affidavit, but like a private record of trauma—written in the first person, in plain language, and filled with fear, confusion, and resignation. The writer describes being abused while still a minor and living under constant control by powerful adults, with no meaningful ability to refuse, escape, or seek help. What makes this account especially disturbing is its intimacy: this is not testimony crafted for court, but a young person trying to process what was being done to her in real time, without the protection of hindsight or distance.The most chilling portion of the diary, as described in reporting, centers on a claimed pregnancy and birth in the early 2000s, followed by the immediate removal of the child. The writer describes being treated not as a person, but as something functional—valued only for what her body could produce. commentary has linked these passages to previously reported claims that Epstein spoke openly about genetics, reproduction, and creating offspring, raising deeply unsettling questions about whether this account reflects a broader, more calculated dimension of his abuse.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA02731361.pdf
The probable cause affidavit in the Michael McKee case has been unsealed, and the details are damning. According to court documents filed in Franklin County, McKee allegedly stalked his ex-wife Monique Tepe and her husband Spencer for weeks before their December 30th murders—and drove 900 miles round trip in just 17 hours to carry out the killings.Here's what we now know from the affidavit:McKee allegedly entered the Tepe property on December 6th while the couple was at the Big Ten Championship game in Indianapolis. Surveillance video captured him on the property for several hours. Monique left the game at halftime, reportedly upset about something involving her ex-husband.Witnesses told investigators McKee had threatened Monique for years, allegedly telling her he could "kill her at any time" and that she would "always be his wife." At least one witness reported allegations of strangulation and forced sex during their marriage.On December 29th, McKee allegedly left his cell phone at the hospital where he worked in Rockford, Illinois. That phone showed no activity for 17 hours—the exact window needed to drive 450 miles to Columbus, commit the murders at approximately 3:50 a.m., and return.Investigators tracked a silver SUV with a distinctive window sticker to McKee. After the murders, fresh scrape marks appeared where the sticker had been. A firearm found at his Chicago condo was matched through ballistics to the crime scene.McKee was arrested 11 days later at a Chick-fil-A near his workplace. He has pleaded not guilty to four counts of aggravated murder and one count of aggravated burglary.#TrueCrimeToday #MichaelMcKee #TepeCase #BreakingNews #ColumbusOhio #AffidavitUnsealed #AggravatedMurder #SpencerTepe #MoniqueTepe #DomesticViolenceJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspodInstagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/tonybpodListen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.
Unsealed forensic filings from the Bryan Kohberger case reveal devastating new details about what happened inside the King Road house on November 13, 2022 — including evidence that one victim's fight for survival may have been what brought down her killer.Xana Kernodle was stabbed 67 times. That number alone is staggering, but the context makes it more significant. Kaylee Goncalves sustained 38 wounds, Madison Mogen 28, and Ethan Chapin 17. Xana's wound count exceeds the other three combined. And unlike her roommates, Xana had blood on the bottoms of her bare feet — the only victim who moved after the attack began.Blood pattern analysis found traces of Kaylee and Maddie's blood on the stairwell and bannister leading from the third floor to the second. Since both women never stood up, investigators believe Xana went upstairs, encountered Kohberger mid-attack, and fled with him pursuing her. Police documented an intense struggle and defensive wounds between her fingers, with injuries extending into the bones of her hand. Kaylee's sister called Xana a hero — and the evidence supports that.Prosecutors now believe her fight caused Kohberger to leave behind the DNA-laden knife sheath that cracked the case.Also today: Idaho State Police released 2,800 crime scene photos last week, then removed them hours later after giving families less than 15 minutes' notice. A court order was supposed to prevent this. We break down what happened and why no one's been held accountable.#BryanKohberger #IdahoMurders #XanaKernodle #KayleeGoncalves #MadisonMogen #EthanChapin #Autopsy #ForensicEvidence #TrueCrimeToday #CrimeScenePhotosJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspodInstagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/tonybpodListen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.
Hidden Killers With Tony Brueski | True Crime News & Commentary
Newly unsealed court documents reveal the chilling psychology allegedly behind the murders of Spencer and Monique Tepe. According to witnesses who spoke with investigators, Michael McKee made three statements to Monique during and after their marriage: that he could "kill her at any time," that he would "find her and buy the house right next to her," and that "she will always be his wife." These aren't the words of heartbreak. They're the words of ownership. The affidavit also reveals that surveillance allegedly captured McKee at the Tepes' Columbus home on December 6th, 2025—three weeks before the murders—while Spencer and Monique were 200 miles away at the Big Ten Championship game. According to the Columbus Dispatch, video showed him going into the home and leaving "a few hours later." Monique found out. She left the game at halftime, upset about something involving her ex-husband. Twenty-four days later, she and Spencer were found shot to death in their second-floor bedroom. Their two young children were asleep in the house, unharmed. Witnesses told investigators that during the marriage, McKee allegedly strangled Monique and forced unwanted sex on her. Strangulation is the single greatest predictor of future lethality in domestic violence cases. Yet Columbus police confirmed there were no prior reports filed. No restraining orders. Nothing on paper. McKee has pleaded not guilty to four counts of aggravated murder and one count of aggravated burglary. This episode examines what the unsealed documents reveal about the alleged planning behind these killings, and the brutal reality that doing everything right—leaving, divorcing, rebuilding—doesn't always protect you from someone who never recognized your right to leave.#MichaelMcKee #MoniqueTepe #SpencerTepe #UnsealedAffidavit #DomesticViolence #TepeMurders #Strangulation #ColumbusOhio #TrueCrime #HiddenKillersJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspodInstagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/tonybpodListen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.
Hidden Killers With Tony Brueski | True Crime News & Commentary
The forensic details from the Idaho student murders are finally public — and what they reveal about Xana Kernodle's final moments is both heartbreaking and remarkable.New court filings show the wound counts for all four victims: Kaylee Goncalves sustained 38 sharp-force wounds, Madison Mogen 28, Ethan Chapin 17, and Xana Kernodle 67. Xana took more wounds than the other three combined. But the autopsy findings go further. Kaylee, Maddie, and Ethan had no blood on their feet — they never stood up. Xana did. Blood on the bottoms of her bare feet proves she moved during the attack.Investigators found blood from the third-floor victims on the stairwell and bannister leading to the second floor. Since Kaylee and Maddie never stood, someone else carried that blood down. The evidence points to Xana encountering Kohberger upstairs, then fleeing — with him chasing her. Police documented defensive wounds between her fingers and cuts to the bones of her hand. She grabbed the blade. She fought until she couldn't anymore.Prosecutors believe her resistance is why Kohberger left behind the knife sheath that contained his DNA — the break that solved the case.We also cover Idaho State Police releasing nearly 2,800 crime scene photos last week, then pulling them hours later. The families had less than 15 minutes' warning — despite a court order already in place. What went wrong, and why hasn't anyone been held accountable?#BryanKohberger #XanaKernodle #IdahoMurders #KayleeGoncalves #MadisonMogen #EthanChapin #TrueCrime #Autopsy #CrimeScenePhotos #HiddenKillersJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspodInstagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/tonybpodListen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.
Hidden Killers With Tony Brueski | True Crime News & Commentary
The unsealed affidavit in the Michael McKee case reveals something prosecutors hadn't disclosed until now: McKee was at the Tepe home on December 6th — three weeks before he allegedly murdered his ex-wife Monique and her husband Spencer.The Tepes were at the Big Ten Championship in Indianapolis that night. Two hundred miles away. House empty. According to the Columbus Dispatch, video showed McKee entering the home and leaving "a few hours later." WOSU reports he walked through the yard. What everyone agrees on: he was there, and Monique somehow knew. She left the game at halftime.This wasn't random. Witnesses told investigators McKee had allegedly threatened Monique for eight years — that he could "kill her at any time," that she would "always be his wife." A silver SUV with stolen plates had been spotted near their home multiple times. Fresh scrape marks on the window where a sticker used to be.No forced entry on December 6th. No forced entry on December 30th.December 6th was reconnaissance. A test run. Twenty-four days later, he allegedly came back with a silenced firearm and executed the plan. Spencer was shot multiple times. Monique took at least one round to the chest. Their children slept through it.McKee has pleaded not guilty. He faces life in prison if convicted. But the question this affidavit raises isn't whether he did it — it's how Monique knew from 200 miles away that something was wrong. And why eight years of warnings still weren't enough.#HiddenKillers #MichaelMcKee #TepeMurders #MoniqueTepe #SpencerTepe #DomesticViolence #Stalking #ColumbusOhio #TrueCrimePodcast #UnsealedDocumentsJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspodInstagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/tonybpodListen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.
Hidden Killers With Tony Brueski | True Crime News & Commentary
The unsealed affidavit in the Spencer and Monique Tepe murder case reveals what investigators believe was weeks of alleged planning before two people were shot to death in their Columbus home. According to court documents, surveillance captured Michael McKee walking through the Tepes' yard on December 7th—while the couple attended the Big Ten Championship game in Indianapolis. Twenty-three days later, they were dead.But the documents reveal more than alleged reconnaissance. Witnesses told investigators that McKee made repeated threats to Monique during and after their marriage, including that he could "kill her at any time" and that "she will always be his wife." At least one witness reported that McKee allegedly strangled Monique and forced unwanted sex on her during the marriage—behaviors that domestic violence researchers identify as the strongest predictors of future lethality.The affidavit details how McKee allegedly used stolen license plates from Ohio and Arizona on his vehicle, how his cell phone went dark from December 29th until after noon on December 30th, and how his SUV was tracked arriving in Columbus before and leaving after the murders. After his arrest, investigators found fresh scrape marks where a distinctive window sticker had been removed.This is the anatomy of alleged premeditation. This is what "prior calculation and design" looks like when prosecutors lay it out. And this is the story of a woman who did everything right—left, divorced, rebuilt her life—and allegedly still couldn't escape someone who never accepted she had the right to leave.#HiddenKillers #MichaelMcKee #SpencerTepe #MoniqueTepe #UnsealedAffidavit #DomesticViolenceAwareness #TrueCrimePodcast #ColumbusOhioMurder #Stalking #AggravatedMurderJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspodInstagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/tonybpodListen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.
Episodes are available on Patreon 2 weeks ahead of the public :) Check out the Limited Edition Guardian Statue! As Dragana's condition worsens, Iffy is forced to defend them both against the figures emerging from the darkness. Credits: Written & Created by K. A. Statz Co-Created, Produced, & Directed, with Foley and additional Editing by Travis Vengroff Co-Directed, with Dialogue Editing by Rikke Rømer Edited, with Sound Design, Mixing & Mastering by Finnur Nielsen Executive Producers Dennis Greenhill, AJ Punk'n, Carol Vengroff, & Maico Villegas Script Editing by W. K. Statz & Travis Vengroff Translations in Icelandic by Kristján Atli Heimisson Japanese by Hinako Matsumoto Tagalog by Luis Cruz Serbian by Tanja Milojevic Cast: Iffy Talno – Lauren Tucker Adele Fathers Tsįą – Marcy Edwards Dragana Vuković – Tanja Milojevic Dís Eldrúnsdóttir – Hildur Magnusdottir Kōsuke Iwai – Daisuke Tsuji Voice – Finnur Neilsen Linnea Wällsigna – Hem Brewster Music arranged and remixed by Travis Vengroff “Goshawk" (Main Theme) & "Reunion" – Written and Performed by Dayn Leonardson, based on "Unsealed" by Brandon Boone Cover Art by Adam Tubak Lettering by K.A. Statz This is a Fool and Scholar Production. We are a two person creative team and we can only create this show because of fan support! Please support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/FoolandScholar Free Transcripts are available: https://www.patreon.com/posts/91167855 Check out our Merch: https://www.foolandscholar.com/store Special Thanks to: Our Patreon supporters! | Carol Vengroff | David Cummings | Kristján Atli Heimisson Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
1980's Luxury items! Like a VCR! Unsealed deposition from Blake Lively's driver; Tabloids say, 'Taylor is furious about her texts with Blake" One Star Reviews and the five second rule game!See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
New information has come to light regarding the tragic final moments of the four University of Idaho students who were brutally murdered by Bryan KohbergerSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
A heap of newly unsealed correspondence helps clear up longstanding speculation about the level of involvement and insight outsiders had into the Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni, It Ends With Us drama. Trash talk between Blake and her bestie Taylor Swift is getting a lot of public attention, but comically verbose texts between Ryan Reynolds and Hollywood agents provides far more interesting information. This pod covers Blake's deposition, texts between Blake and Taylor, and Ryan venting to an agent at WME. All opinions are personal and not representative of any outside company, person, or agenda. Information shared is sourced via published articles, legal documents, press releases, government websites, public websites, books, public videos, news reports, and/or direct quotes and statements, and all may be paraphrased for brevity and presented in layman's terms.Wanna support this independent pod? Links below:Patreon - https://www.patreon.com/cw/BBDBBuyMeACoffee - https://www.buymeacoffee.com/BBDBVenmo @TYBBDB Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Survey says: Most people listen to a certain amount of music a week; Blake Lively's emails and texts revealed in huge drop of unsealed docs; One star reviews and the five second rule See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
The Nationals have officially split from the Coalition, with leader David Littleproud saying the partnership has become “untenable” under Liberal leader Sussan Ley; US President Donald Trump says he has agreed on a “framework of a future deal” regarding Greenland; Gen X has now become the generation with the most property wealth in Australia; Unsealed, private texts between Taylor Swift and Blake Lively were just made public. THE END BITS Support independent women's media Check out The Quicky Instagram here GET IN TOUCHShare your story, feedback, or dilemma! Send us a voice note or email us at thequicky@mamamia.com.au CREDITS Host/Audio: Tahli BlackmanBecome a Mamamia subscriber: https://www.mamamia.com.au/subscribeSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Rush Hour — Afternoon Episode Sponsored by Wayfair. wayfair.com Today's afternoon Rush Hour is absolutely loaded
In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf
The Rush Hour — Afternoon Edition Sponsored by Wayfair. wayfair.com Justin Baldoni vs. Blake Lively heats up as new depositions drop, revealing absolute insanity behind the scenes and what it was really like on set Former Bachelor Colton Underwood is back in the spotlight on Traitors, and the internet is revisiting the wild drama from his original Bachelor season Trump reignites chaos with comments about Greenland, and a Danish politician goes fully unfiltered, telling him to go F himself Power, fame, ego, and international clapbacks — we break it all down with context and comedy
In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf
In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf
In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf
In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf
In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf
In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf
In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf
In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf
In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
NORD: Get 4 months extra on a 2 year plan here: https://nordvpn.com/attwood It's risk free with Nord's 30 day money-back guarantee! In this livestream, attorney Robert Gouveia, Esq. joins us to break down the unsealed Ghislaine Maxwell indictment and the recently released Epstein-related files now circulating publicly.
In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf
In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf
In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf
In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf
Episodes are available on Patreon 2 weeks ahead of the public :) Check out the Limited Edition Guardian Statue! Adele explores the strange caves for a way free, while Iffy is forced to drag Dragana to safety within the darkness. Growing ever nearer, Dís and Kōsuke gear up and prepare for the full force of a ‘site visit'. Credits: Written & Created by K. A. Statz Co-Created, Produced, & Directed, with Foley and additional Editing by Travis Vengroff Co-Directed, with Dialogue Editing by Rikke Rømer Edited, with Sound Design, Mixing & Mastering by Finnur Nielsen Executive Producers Dennis Greenhill, AJ Punk'n, Carol Vengroff, & Maico Villegas Script Editing by W. K. Statz & Travis Vengroff Translations in Icelandic by Kristján Atli Heimisson Japanese by Hinako Matsumoto Tagalog by Luis Cruz Serbian by Tanja Milojevic Cast: Iffy Talno – Lauren Tucker Adele Fathers Tsįą – Marcy Edwards Dragana Vuković – Tanja Milojevic Kidlat Tolentino – Luis Cruz Dís Eldrúnsdóttir – Hildur Magnusdottir Kōsuke Iwai – Daisuke Tsuji Voice - Finnur Neilsen Ben Libby - Tim Sample Music arranged and remixed by Travis Vengroff “Goshawk" (Main Theme) & "The Bitter Moon" – Written and Performed by Dayn Leonardson, based on "Unsealed" by Brandon Boone Cover Art by Adam Tubak Lettering by K.A. Statz This is a Fool and Scholar Production. We are a two person creative team and we can only create this show because of fan support! Please support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/FoolandScholar Free Transcripts are available: https://www.patreon.com/posts/91167855 Check out our Merch: https://www.foolandscholar.com/store Special Thanks to: Our Patreon supporters! | Carol Vengroff | David Cummings | Kristján Atli Heimisson Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
© 2020-2026 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
