Gone But Not Forgotten: Brandon Swanson

In private remarks, President Trump is reported—based on accounts from Rolling Stone citing two insiders—to have described some of Jeffrey Epstein’s survivors, particularly those who appeared in the media, as being “clearly of a ‘Democrat’ political affiliation.” He allegedly suggested that these individuals might be trying “to make him look bad” or implying wrongdoing during his past association with Epstein. The report further notes Trump speculated that they may be working with “prominent liberal attorneys or groups” to damage his reputation.The White House formally denied the report, labeling it false. A spokesperson dismissed the claims as a “desperate attempt by the failing Rolling Stone” to influence public perception..to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Trump has privately pondered if Epstein accusers are just ‘Democrats’ trying to make him look bad, report claims | The IndependentBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

16 Elo 13min

In its brief, the U.S. government argues that Maxwell received a fair trial in the Southern District of New York, that the evidence against her was overwhelming, and that any alleged errors raised by her defense do not warrant reversal. The prosecution maintains that witness testimony, corroborating records, and other evidence firmly established Maxwell’s role in facilitating and participating in Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual abuse of minors. They emphasize that the district court properly handled jury selection, evidentiary rulings, and sentencing, and that Maxwell’s claims of prejudice or legal error are unfounded.The government’s filing further contends that Maxwell’s constitutional rights were respected throughout the proceedings, and that the trial judge acted within the bounds of discretion in all key rulings. It dismisses arguments that the jury was improperly influenced or that Maxwell was denied a fair opportunity to defend herself, stating that these claims misrepresent the trial record. The brief concludes by urging the Second Circuit to affirm Maxwell’s conviction in its entirety, citing the strength of the government’s case and the fairness of the process that led to the verdict.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.ca2.57831.79.0_1.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

16 Elo 22min

In its brief, the U.S. government argues that Maxwell received a fair trial in the Southern District of New York, that the evidence against her was overwhelming, and that any alleged errors raised by her defense do not warrant reversal. The prosecution maintains that witness testimony, corroborating records, and other evidence firmly established Maxwell’s role in facilitating and participating in Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual abuse of minors. They emphasize that the district court properly handled jury selection, evidentiary rulings, and sentencing, and that Maxwell’s claims of prejudice or legal error are unfounded.The government’s filing further contends that Maxwell’s constitutional rights were respected throughout the proceedings, and that the trial judge acted within the bounds of discretion in all key rulings. It dismisses arguments that the jury was improperly influenced or that Maxwell was denied a fair opportunity to defend herself, stating that these claims misrepresent the trial record. The brief concludes by urging the Second Circuit to affirm Maxwell’s conviction in its entirety, citing the strength of the government’s case and the fairness of the process that led to the verdict.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.ca2.57831.79.0_1.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

16 Elo 28min

In its brief, the U.S. government argues that Maxwell received a fair trial in the Southern District of New York, that the evidence against her was overwhelming, and that any alleged errors raised by her defense do not warrant reversal. The prosecution maintains that witness testimony, corroborating records, and other evidence firmly established Maxwell’s role in facilitating and participating in Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual abuse of minors. They emphasize that the district court properly handled jury selection, evidentiary rulings, and sentencing, and that Maxwell’s claims of prejudice or legal error are unfounded.The government’s filing further contends that Maxwell’s constitutional rights were respected throughout the proceedings, and that the trial judge acted within the bounds of discretion in all key rulings. It dismisses arguments that the jury was improperly influenced or that Maxwell was denied a fair opportunity to defend herself, stating that these claims misrepresent the trial record. The brief concludes by urging the Second Circuit to affirm Maxwell’s conviction in its entirety, citing the strength of the government’s case and the fairness of the process that led to the verdict.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.ca2.57831.79.0_1.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

16 Elo 29min

In its brief, the U.S. government argues that Maxwell received a fair trial in the Southern District of New York, that the evidence against her was overwhelming, and that any alleged errors raised by her defense do not warrant reversal. The prosecution maintains that witness testimony, corroborating records, and other evidence firmly established Maxwell’s role in facilitating and participating in Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual abuse of minors. They emphasize that the district court properly handled jury selection, evidentiary rulings, and sentencing, and that Maxwell’s claims of prejudice or legal error are unfounded.The government’s filing further contends that Maxwell’s constitutional rights were respected throughout the proceedings, and that the trial judge acted within the bounds of discretion in all key rulings. It dismisses arguments that the jury was improperly influenced or that Maxwell was denied a fair opportunity to defend herself, stating that these claims misrepresent the trial record. The brief concludes by urging the Second Circuit to affirm Maxwell’s conviction in its entirety, citing the strength of the government’s case and the fairness of the process that led to the verdict.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.ca2.57831.79.0_1.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

16 Elo 27min

In its brief, the U.S. government argues that Maxwell received a fair trial in the Southern District of New York, that the evidence against her was overwhelming, and that any alleged errors raised by her defense do not warrant reversal. The prosecution maintains that witness testimony, corroborating records, and other evidence firmly established Maxwell’s role in facilitating and participating in Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual abuse of minors. They emphasize that the district court properly handled jury selection, evidentiary rulings, and sentencing, and that Maxwell’s claims of prejudice or legal error are unfounded.The government’s filing further contends that Maxwell’s constitutional rights were respected throughout the proceedings, and that the trial judge acted within the bounds of discretion in all key rulings. It dismisses arguments that the jury was improperly influenced or that Maxwell was denied a fair opportunity to defend herself, stating that these claims misrepresent the trial record. The brief concludes by urging the Second Circuit to affirm Maxwell’s conviction in its entirety, citing the strength of the government’s case and the fairness of the process that led to the verdict.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.ca2.57831.79.0_1.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

16 Elo 24min

Forensically speaking, a latent footprint refers to an imprint left by a person's foot on a surface that is not immediately visible to the naked eye. These footprints are typically created when an individual transfers natural oils, dirt, or other substances from their feet onto a surface as they walk. These impressions are often faint and can only be revealed through specialized techniques like dusting, chemical treatments, or photography. Forensic experts use these methods to make latent footprints visible and then compare them to known footwear patterns to help identify or exclude potential suspects in criminal investigations.In the affidavit, investigators stated that they found a latent footprint at the scene of the crime that was consistent with the type of print you would find on a pair of Vans shoes. The problem with that? Just about everyone has Vans.In this episode, we take a look at the latent footprint as evidence and how it might be used by the prosecutors during the trial for Bryan Kohberger.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com(commercial at 7:22)source:Clue in Idaho Murder Case Leaves Question About Bryan Kohberger Evidence (newsweek.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

16 Elo 10min

In Bryan Kohberger's trial (Case No. CR29-22-2805), the defense filed a motion to strike the "utter disregard" aggravator, a legal factor that could justify seeking the death penalty by arguing the crime was committed with complete indifference to human life. The defense contends that the prosecution's use of this aggravator is unwarranted based on the evidence. They argue that the threshold for proving "utter disregard" has not been met and that the evidence doesn't support the claim that Kohberger’s actions demonstrated such extreme disregard for human life.This motion is significant because it directly impacts the prosecution’s ability to pursue the death penalty. If the judge agrees with the defense and strikes the aggravator, it could weaken the state's case for capital punishment, potentially altering the trial's trajectory. The "utter disregard" aggravator is typically applied in cases of extreme violence or brutality, and the defense is aiming to prevent its application by emphasizing that the evidence presented does not reach this level of severity. The outcome of this motion could be pivotal for both sides as the trial progresses.(commercial at 9:40)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:OFFICE OF THE KOOTENAI COUNTYBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

16 Elo 12min