The Declaration Of Bryan Edelman In Support Of Bryan Kohberger (Part 1)

Dr. Bryan Edelman is a trial consultant and expert on pre-trial publicity who was involved in the Bryan Kohberger trial. Edelman was hired by Kohberger's defense team to conduct a phone survey of potential jurors in Latah County, Idaho. The purpose of the survey was to assess the impact of media coverage on public opinion about the case, which involves Kohberger being charged with the murder of four University of Idaho students.The survey, which contacted 400 residents, faced significant criticism from the prosecution. They argued that the questions were too specific and potentially spread false information, thereby contaminating the jury pool. Some questions included details not found in official affidavits, leading to concerns that the survey was prejudicing potential jurors against Kohberger.Edelman defended his work, stating that his aim was to measure the influence of media coverage on public opinion, regardless of whether the information was true or false. He emphasized that such surveys are standard practice in high-profile cases to determine whether a fair trial can be conducted in the current venue or if a change of venue is necessary.The controversy surrounding the survey led the judge to pause its continuation and to schedule further hearings to decide on the matter.In this episode we take a look at his declaration filed with the court.(commercial at 8:05)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:072224-Memorandum-Support-MCoV.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

27 Joulu 11min

Dr. Bryan Edelman is a trial consultant and expert on pre-trial publicity who was involved in the Bryan Kohberger trial. Edelman was hired by Kohberger's defense team to conduct a phone survey of potential jurors in Latah County, Idaho. The purpose of the survey was to assess the impact of media coverage on public opinion about the case, which involves Kohberger being charged with the murder of four University of Idaho students.The survey, which contacted 400 residents, faced significant criticism from the prosecution. They argued that the questions were too specific and potentially spread false information, thereby contaminating the jury pool. Some questions included details not found in official affidavits, leading to concerns that the survey was prejudicing potential jurors against Kohberger.Edelman defended his work, stating that his aim was to measure the influence of media coverage on public opinion, regardless of whether the information was true or false. He emphasized that such surveys are standard practice in high-profile cases to determine whether a fair trial can be conducted in the current venue or if a change of venue is necessary.The controversy surrounding the survey led the judge to pause its continuation and to schedule further hearings to decide on the matter.In this episode we take a look at his declaration filed with the court.(commercial at 8:05)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:072224-Memorandum-Support-MCoV.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

27 Joulu 13min

Dr. Bryan Edelman is a trial consultant and expert on pre-trial publicity who was involved in the Bryan Kohberger trial. Edelman was hired by Kohberger's defense team to conduct a phone survey of potential jurors in Latah County, Idaho. The purpose of the survey was to assess the impact of media coverage on public opinion about the case, which involves Kohberger being charged with the murder of four University of Idaho students.The survey, which contacted 400 residents, faced significant criticism from the prosecution. They argued that the questions were too specific and potentially spread false information, thereby contaminating the jury pool. Some questions included details not found in official affidavits, leading to concerns that the survey was prejudicing potential jurors against Kohberger.Edelman defended his work, stating that his aim was to measure the influence of media coverage on public opinion, regardless of whether the information was true or false. He emphasized that such surveys are standard practice in high-profile cases to determine whether a fair trial can be conducted in the current venue or if a change of venue is necessary.The controversy surrounding the survey led the judge to pause its continuation and to schedule further hearings to decide on the matter.In this episode we take a look at his declaration filed with the court.(commercial at 8:05)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:072224-Memorandum-Support-MCoV.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

27 Joulu 11min

The 2019 New York federal grand jury transcripts capture the final prosecutorial push that led to the arrest of Jeffrey Epstein on sex-trafficking charges in the Southern District of New York. The transcripts reflect prosecutors laying out a sweeping pattern of alleged conduct, including the recruitment and exploitation of underage girls, the use of intermediaries, and the systematic nature of the abuse network. Witness testimony, documentary evidence, and financial records were presented to establish probable cause, directly contradicting the long-standing narrative that Epstein was a lone offender whose crimes were limited to Florida. These proceedings culminated in the July 2019 indictment, marking the first time federal prosecutors in New York formally moved against Epstein despite years of prior allegations and investigative leads.The transcripts have now been newly unsealed under the Epstein Transparency Act, a move that has reignited scrutiny over what federal authorities knew—and when. Their release sheds light on investigative decisions, evidentiary thresholds, and the scope of information presented to the grand jury, while also highlighting gaps that critics argue point to earlier prosecutorial failures. Survivors and transparency advocates have emphasized that the unsealing is significant not only for what it reveals about Epstein’s conduct, but for what it exposes about institutional hesitation, delayed accountability, and the broader protection mechanisms that allowed Epstein to evade federal charges for years. While redactions remain, the disclosure represents a rare window into the mechanics of a case that many believe should have been brought long before 2019.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00008529.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

26 Joulu 11min

The 2019 New York federal grand jury transcripts capture the final prosecutorial push that led to the arrest of Jeffrey Epstein on sex-trafficking charges in the Southern District of New York. The transcripts reflect prosecutors laying out a sweeping pattern of alleged conduct, including the recruitment and exploitation of underage girls, the use of intermediaries, and the systematic nature of the abuse network. Witness testimony, documentary evidence, and financial records were presented to establish probable cause, directly contradicting the long-standing narrative that Epstein was a lone offender whose crimes were limited to Florida. These proceedings culminated in the July 2019 indictment, marking the first time federal prosecutors in New York formally moved against Epstein despite years of prior allegations and investigative leads.The transcripts have now been newly unsealed under the Epstein Transparency Act, a move that has reignited scrutiny over what federal authorities knew—and when. Their release sheds light on investigative decisions, evidentiary thresholds, and the scope of information presented to the grand jury, while also highlighting gaps that critics argue point to earlier prosecutorial failures. Survivors and transparency advocates have emphasized that the unsealing is significant not only for what it reveals about Epstein’s conduct, but for what it exposes about institutional hesitation, delayed accountability, and the broader protection mechanisms that allowed Epstein to evade federal charges for years. While redactions remain, the disclosure represents a rare window into the mechanics of a case that many believe should have been brought long before 2019.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00008529.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

26 Joulu 11min

One of the biggest mistakes people keep making when they talk about Jeffrey Epstein is flattening everyone in his orbit into the same category. A photo becomes guilt, proximity becomes participation, and suddenly the conversation collapses into noise. That kind of thinking doesn’t expose Epstein’s operation—it protects it. Not everyone who crossed paths with Epstein was part of his crimes, and pretending otherwise only muddies the water and gives cover to the people who actually mattered. Epstein’s power thrived on confusion, and when we refuse to distinguish between social adjacency and real involvement, we’re doing his work for him.What the record actually shows is a layered system: people who encountered Epstein socially, people who enabled him by looking away or greasing the wheels, people who helped his operation function day to day, and people directly accused of taking part in the abuse. Those categories are not interchangeable, and pretending they are is how accountability dies. Enablers in finance, law, institutions, and government gave Epstein legitimacy and protection, while operational co-conspirators made the abuse repeatable and enforceable. Now, as scrutiny sharpens, the narrative has shifted to “reputations” and demands to “move on.” That’s not accidental. It’s a last-ditch effort to blur the lines again. The only way to stop that is precision—knowing who did what, when, and how, and refusing to let facts be laundered into confusion.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource: bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

26 Joulu 20min

One of the biggest mistakes people keep making when they talk about Jeffrey Epstein is flattening everyone in his orbit into the same category. A photo becomes guilt, proximity becomes participation, and suddenly the conversation collapses into noise. That kind of thinking doesn’t expose Epstein’s operation—it protects it. Not everyone who crossed paths with Epstein was part of his crimes, and pretending otherwise only muddies the water and gives cover to the people who actually mattered. Epstein’s power thrived on confusion, and when we refuse to distinguish between social adjacency and real involvement, we’re doing his work for him.What the record actually shows is a layered system: people who encountered Epstein socially, people who enabled him by looking away or greasing the wheels, people who helped his operation function day to day, and people directly accused of taking part in the abuse. Those categories are not interchangeable, and pretending they are is how accountability dies. Enablers in finance, law, institutions, and government gave Epstein legitimacy and protection, while operational co-conspirators made the abuse repeatable and enforceable. Now, as scrutiny sharpens, the narrative has shifted to “reputations” and demands to “move on.” That’s not accidental. It’s a last-ditch effort to blur the lines again. The only way to stop that is precision—knowing who did what, when, and how, and refusing to let facts be laundered into confusion.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource: bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

26 Joulu 12min