David Boies And His Comments On Prince Andrew And Talk Of Overturning The Settlement

After Bryan Kohberger pleaded guilty to the brutal murders of four University of Idaho students, the case reached legal closure—but left the public and the victims’ families with a hollow sense of justice. There was no trial, no testimony, and no explanation. The motive remains unknown. Kohberger said nothing about why he did it, who he targeted, or what compelled him to carry out such a calculated slaughter. His plea secured a life sentence and spared him the death penalty, but it also shielded him from having to explain the most haunting aspect of this crime: the why. With no cross-examination, no full public release of forensic evidence, and no opportunity for the families to confront him in a courtroom, the plea feels more like a surrender of truth than a victory for justice.While the prosecution’s decision to accept the plea deal is understandable from a legal and strategic perspective—it avoids the trauma of a capital trial, guarantees a conviction, and locks Kohberger away for life—it doesn’t satisfy the moral and emotional weight of the crime. The unanswered questions linger: Why that house? Why those students? Was this random, or the product of a disturbed obsession? And most importantly, will Kohberger ever explain? Maybe someday he will. But until then, he remains more than a killer—he’s a thief of resolution, a man who walked out of that house covered in blood and has chosen silence ever since. And that silence, more than anything else, is what continues to scream.to contact me:bobbycapucciBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

4 Heinä 17min

In a follow-up letter to Judge Subramanian, Sean Combs’ attorneys strongly urged the court to release him on bail immediately. They criticized the government for portraying Combs as the leader of a decades-long racketeering enterprise and devoting extensive resources to a case that, in their view, ultimately collapsed under scrutiny. The defense emphasized that after nearly a year of pretrial detention, a jury of Combs’ peers heard the full scope of the government’s evidence—including testimony from former partners—and decisively rejected the core allegations by acquitting him of both racketeering conspiracy and sex trafficking.The letter also underscored the relatively minor nature of the two counts on which Combs was convicted—interstate prostitution involving consenting adults. His lawyers noted that similar charges are no longer prosecuted by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, the Los Angeles DA, and many others. They argued that further detention is unnecessary and unjust, especially given Combs' eligibility to serve any remaining sentence at a lower-security facility under the sentencing guidelines. According to the defense, every additional day he remains at the MDC amounts to an undue and disproportionate punishment.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.438.0_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

4 Heinä 12min

In one of the most high-profile federal trials in recent memory, Sean “Diddy” Combs was acquitted on two counts of sex trafficking after the government failed to meet the heavy burden of proof required under federal law. Prosecutors had attempted to portray Combs as the mastermind of a sprawling criminal enterprise, relying heavily on emotionally charged testimony, salacious details, and a sweeping RICO framework. But the defense dismantled the case piece by piece—pointing out inconsistencies in witness accounts, highlighting the absence of hard evidence, and emphasizing that even if Diddy’s behavior was morally questionable, it didn’t meet the strict legal definition of sex trafficking. The jury agreed, delivering not-guilty verdicts that underscored the government’s overreach and the defense’s calculated legal strategy.But while the criminal case is over, Diddy’s legal troubles are far from resolved. A wave of civil lawsuits remains active—each alleging abuse, coercion, and assault. In these proceedings, the burden of proof is lower, and the risks are different: discovery, depositions, and the public release of damning information. These cases threaten not just financial damage but reputational annihilation, especially in an industry that thrives on perception. As the walls of legal scrutiny continue to close in, the courtroom saga of Sean Combs is still very much unfolding—and we’ll be tracking every motion, every development, and every verdict until the final gavel falls.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

4 Heinä 16min

In 2023, prosecutors assembled a highly detailed and damning body of evidence against Brian Walshe in support of the charge that he murdered his wife, Ana Walshe. The centerpiece of the case was a chilling series of internet searches conducted on his son’s iPad, including queries like “how to dispose of a body,” “how long before a body starts to smell,” “how to clean blood from a wooden floor,” and “dismemberment and best ways to dispose of a body.” These searches were conducted around the time Ana went missing and suggested not only forethought, but a deliberate attempt to plan and execute a cover-up. Brian Walshe initially told police that Ana had left early for a business trip, but his search history painted a vastly different picture—one of someone actively researching how to eliminate a human body just hours after his wife was last seen.Beyond the digital trail, the forensic and physical evidence added serious weight to the case. Trash bags recovered from a transfer station contained blood-stained items such as towels, rags, a Tyvek suit, rubber gloves, a hacksaw, a hatchet, and a necklace believed to belong to Ana. DNA testing confirmed the presence of both Ana’s and Brian’s DNA on multiple items. Surveillance footage captured a man resembling Walshe discarding trash bags into dumpsters, and cellphone data placed him near the locations where those items were dumped. Investigators also discovered blood in the basement of the family’s home, along with a damaged knife and cleaning supplies. A trip to Home Depot, where Brian purchased mops, buckets, tarps, and other cleaning materials shortly after Ana’s disappearance, further bolstered the prosecution’s theory of premeditated murder and attempted evidence destruction. Taken together, the evidence formed a coherent and devastating narrative that Ana Walshe was murdered in her home, dismembered, and disposed of in a calculated attempt to erase all traces of the crime.(commercial at 8:46)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Brian Walshe: Prosecutors detail extensive evidence in killing of Ana Walshe. Here's what we know | CNNsource:Brian Walshe and the surprising conviction rate of 'no-body' murder cases (nypost.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

4 Heinä 33min

The media failed the Jeffrey Epstein survivors not just through omission, but through active complicity, sensationalism, and cowardice. For over a decade, major outlets tiptoed around Epstein’s connections to powerful elites—billionaires, royals, politicians—not because they lacked evidence, but because they feared legal retaliation and loss of access. The 2008 sweetheart deal Epstein received in Florida wasn’t just a failure of the justice system—it was aided and abetted by a media class that chose silence over scrutiny. ABC News infamously shelved Amy Robach’s 2015 interview with Virginia Giuffre, which contained explosive allegations implicating Prince Andrew and others. The reasoning wasn’t editorial—it was political and reputational preservation for those at the top. In that silence, Epstein’s victims were robbed of their voices, left to scream into a void while their abuser waltzed through high society.Even after Epstein’s 2019 arrest and suspicious death, coverage often pivoted to the lurid rather than the systemic: the island, the plane logs, the high-profile names were discussed in tabloid tones, stripped of the gravity that survivors' stories demanded. Few journalists interrogated the intelligence connections, the role of institutions like the FBI in ignoring leads, or the complicity of the financial and philanthropic worlds that kept Epstein viable. Survivors weren’t centered—they were background noise to a freakshow narrative. The media's reluctance to fully pursue the truth didn’t just protect Epstein’s enablers—it prolonged the suffering of his victims by signaling that their pain was less important than the reputations of the rich and powerful.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.npr.org/2019/08/22/753390385/a-dead-cat-a-lawyers-call-and-a-5-figure-donation-how-media-fell-short-on-epsteiBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

4 Heinä 46min

In the memorandum supporting their consolidated motion to dismiss, the defendants in the case of Dawn Angelique Richard v. Sean Combs et al. argue that the plaintiff's claims are largely time-barred under New York's statutes of limitations. They contend that the state’s shorter limitation periods should apply, rendering many of the plaintiff's causes of action untimely. Specifically, they assert that claims related to assault, battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, trafficking, forced labor, and various employment-related allegations fall outside the permissible time frames. The defendants also challenge the applicability of revival statutes, arguing that the Gender-Motivated Violence Law (GMVL) revival provision conflicts with existing laws like the Child Victims Act (CVA) and Adult Survivors Act (ASA), and thus cannot retroactively apply to the defendants.Additionally, the defendants argue that the plaintiff's claims against various entities associated with Sean Combs, such as the "Bad Boy" and "Combs" entities, rely on improper group pleadings without specific allegations against each entity. They assert that the GMVL claim fails because the law did not apply to certain defendants at the relevant times and that the plaintiff does not sufficiently allege a gender-motivated crime of violence. Furthermore, the defendants contend that the plaintiff fails to state valid claims for forced labor, sex trafficking, discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law, right of publicity, and unjust enrichment. They argue that these claims are either inadequately pled or legally baseless, and in some cases, barred by applicable statutes of limitations.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628103.154.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

4 Heinä 10min

In the memorandum supporting their consolidated motion to dismiss, the defendants in the case of Dawn Angelique Richard v. Sean Combs et al. argue that the plaintiff's claims are largely time-barred under New York's statutes of limitations. They contend that the state’s shorter limitation periods should apply, rendering many of the plaintiff's causes of action untimely. Specifically, they assert that claims related to assault, battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, trafficking, forced labor, and various employment-related allegations fall outside the permissible time frames. The defendants also challenge the applicability of revival statutes, arguing that the Gender-Motivated Violence Law (GMVL) revival provision conflicts with existing laws like the Child Victims Act (CVA) and Adult Survivors Act (ASA), and thus cannot retroactively apply to the defendants.Additionally, the defendants argue that the plaintiff's claims against various entities associated with Sean Combs, such as the "Bad Boy" and "Combs" entities, rely on improper group pleadings without specific allegations against each entity. They assert that the GMVL claim fails because the law did not apply to certain defendants at the relevant times and that the plaintiff does not sufficiently allege a gender-motivated crime of violence. Furthermore, the defendants contend that the plaintiff fails to state valid claims for forced labor, sex trafficking, discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law, right of publicity, and unjust enrichment. They argue that these claims are either inadequately pled or legally baseless, and in some cases, barred by applicable statutes of limitations.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628103.154.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

4 Heinä 11min

In the memorandum supporting their consolidated motion to dismiss, the defendants in the case of Dawn Angelique Richard v. Sean Combs et al. argue that the plaintiff's claims are largely time-barred under New York's statutes of limitations. They contend that the state’s shorter limitation periods should apply, rendering many of the plaintiff's causes of action untimely. Specifically, they assert that claims related to assault, battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, trafficking, forced labor, and various employment-related allegations fall outside the permissible time frames. The defendants also challenge the applicability of revival statutes, arguing that the Gender-Motivated Violence Law (GMVL) revival provision conflicts with existing laws like the Child Victims Act (CVA) and Adult Survivors Act (ASA), and thus cannot retroactively apply to the defendants.Additionally, the defendants argue that the plaintiff's claims against various entities associated with Sean Combs, such as the "Bad Boy" and "Combs" entities, rely on improper group pleadings without specific allegations against each entity. They assert that the GMVL claim fails because the law did not apply to certain defendants at the relevant times and that the plaintiff does not sufficiently allege a gender-motivated crime of violence. Furthermore, the defendants contend that the plaintiff fails to state valid claims for forced labor, sex trafficking, discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law, right of publicity, and unjust enrichment. They argue that these claims are either inadequately pled or legally baseless, and in some cases, barred by applicable statutes of limitations.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628103.154.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

4 Heinä 12min