Mega Edition: Danielle Bensky And The Lawsuit Filed Against Indyke And Kahn (Part 7-8) (10/26/25)

Virginia Giuffre’s response to Ghislaine Maxwell’s motion for summary judgment was a direct challenge to Maxwell’s attempt to dismiss the case without a trial. In her filing, Giuffre argued that Maxwell’s statements denying any wrongdoing were not only defamatory, but made with actual malice—because Maxwell knew they were false when she made them. Giuffre’s legal team submitted sworn testimony, supporting documentation, and detailed timelines to establish that Maxwell had played a central role in Epstein’s trafficking operation and that her denials were part of a broader effort to discredit and silence victims.Virginia Giuffre’s response to Ghislaine Maxwell’s motion for summary judgment was a direct challenge to Maxwell’s attempt to dismiss the case without a trial. In her filing, Giuffre argued that Maxwell’s statements denying any wrongdoing were not only defamatory, but made with actual malice—because Maxwell knew they were false when she made them. Giuffre’s legal team submitted sworn testimony, supporting documentation, and detailed timelines to establish that Maxwell had played a central role in Epstein’s trafficking operation and that her denials were part of a broader effort to discredit and silence victims.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Giuffre-unseal.pdf (courthousenews.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

10 Elo 37min

Virginia Giuffre’s response to Ghislaine Maxwell’s motion for summary judgment was a direct challenge to Maxwell’s attempt to dismiss the case without a trial. In her filing, Giuffre argued that Maxwell’s statements denying any wrongdoing were not only defamatory, but made with actual malice—because Maxwell knew they were false when she made them. Giuffre’s legal team submitted sworn testimony, supporting documentation, and detailed timelines to establish that Maxwell had played a central role in Epstein’s trafficking operation and that her denials were part of a broader effort to discredit and silence victims.Virginia Giuffre’s response to Ghislaine Maxwell’s motion for summary judgment was a direct challenge to Maxwell’s attempt to dismiss the case without a trial. In her filing, Giuffre argued that Maxwell’s statements denying any wrongdoing were not only defamatory, but made with actual malice—because Maxwell knew they were false when she made them. Giuffre’s legal team submitted sworn testimony, supporting documentation, and detailed timelines to establish that Maxwell had played a central role in Epstein’s trafficking operation and that her denials were part of a broader effort to discredit and silence victims.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Giuffre-unseal.pdf (courthousenews.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

10 Elo 26min

In the defamation case Virginia Giuffre brought against Ghislaine Maxwell beginning in 2015, Maxwell responded with a motion for summary judgment—arguing that Giuffre’s allegations were not legally defamatory and that Maxwell was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. That motion aimed to avoid a trial by asserting that even if all of Giuffre’s allegations were true, they did not meet the legal threshold for defamation. The motion, along with supporting documents, was filed under seal during pre-trial proceedings. Ultimately, the district court did not grant the motion, and the case was later settled out of court under confidentiality terms in 2017.When third parties later moved to unseal portions of the sealed record, particularly filings related to the summary judgment motion, the courts determined that these materials were judicial documents subject to a strong presumption of public access. A federal appeals court ordered their partial release because Maxwell had not shown sufficient reasons to overcome the public’s right of access. In other words, although Maxwell sought to dispose of the case quietly and legally via summary judgment—and shield that process from public view—those efforts were rejected, and important portions of the case were ultimately made part of the public record.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein Docs - DocumentCloudBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

10 Elo 42min

In Ada County Case No. CR01-24-31665, Defendant Bryan Kohberger filed motions to suppress evidence obtained through search warrants directed at AT&T, Google, USB devices, Apple, and Amazon. The defense argued that these warrants were invalid, alleging they were based on information gathered through unconstitutional methods, including the use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), and that the affidavits supporting the warrants contained intentional or reckless omissions of material facts. They contended that the evidence obtained from these warrants violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights and should therefore be excluded from trial.However, the court denied these suppression motions, ruling that the search warrants were lawfully issued and executed. The judge found that the affidavits provided sufficient probable cause and that the methods employed, including the use of IGG, did not violate constitutional protections. Additionally, the court determined that there was no evidence of intentional or reckless falsehoods or omissions in the affidavits that would warrant a Franks hearing. As a result, the evidence obtained from AT&T, Google, USB devices, Apple, and Amazon remains admissible in the proceedings against Kohbergerto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:021925-Order-Defedants-Motions-Suppress-ATT-Google-USB-Apple-Amazon.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

10 Elo 13min

In the defamation case Virginia Giuffre brought against Ghislaine Maxwell beginning in 2015, Maxwell responded with a motion for summary judgment—arguing that Giuffre’s allegations were not legally defamatory and that Maxwell was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. That motion aimed to avoid a trial by asserting that even if all of Giuffre’s allegations were true, they did not meet the legal threshold for defamation. The motion, along with supporting documents, was filed under seal during pre-trial proceedings. Ultimately, the district court did not grant the motion, and the case was later settled out of court under confidentiality terms in 2017.When third parties later moved to unseal portions of the sealed record, particularly filings related to the summary judgment motion, the courts determined that these materials were judicial documents subject to a strong presumption of public access. A federal appeals court ordered their partial release because Maxwell had not shown sufficient reasons to overcome the public’s right of access. In other words, although Maxwell sought to dispose of the case quietly and legally via summary judgment—and shield that process from public view—those efforts were rejected, and important portions of the case were ultimately made part of the public record.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein Docs - DocumentCloudBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

10 Elo 24min

In Ada County Case No. CR01-24-31665, Defendant Bryan Kohberger filed motions to suppress evidence obtained through search warrants directed at AT&T, Google, USB devices, Apple, and Amazon. The defense argued that these warrants were invalid, alleging they were based on information gathered through unconstitutional methods, including the use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), and that the affidavits supporting the warrants contained intentional or reckless omissions of material facts. They contended that the evidence obtained from these warrants violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights and should therefore be excluded from trial.However, the court denied these suppression motions, ruling that the search warrants were lawfully issued and executed. The judge found that the affidavits provided sufficient probable cause and that the methods employed, including the use of IGG, did not violate constitutional protections. Additionally, the court determined that there was no evidence of intentional or reckless falsehoods or omissions in the affidavits that would warrant a Franks hearing. As a result, the evidence obtained from AT&T, Google, USB devices, Apple, and Amazon remains admissible in the proceedings against Kohbergerto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:021925-Order-Defedants-Motions-Suppress-ATT-Google-USB-Apple-Amazon.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

10 Elo 14min

The April 24, 2025 order issued by Judge John C. Judge in the Bryan Kohberger case addresses the prosecution's motion to limit or exclude certain pieces of evidence—specifically, the 911 call and related text messages made by surviving roommate Dylan Mortensen on the night of the murders. The state sought to prevent the defense from introducing or speculating about the content and timing of the 911 call or messages, arguing that such discussions would be prejudicial, misleading, and based on incomplete information. The court agreed in part, ruling that the defense may not reference the 911 call or text messages during opening statements, as their admissibility will depend on the context provided during trial.However, Judge Judge left the door open for the 911 call and texts to be introduced later, depending on how the evidence unfolds and whether a proper foundation is laid. He emphasized that such materials must meet standards of relevance and reliability before being admitted in front of the jury. The ruling reflects the court’s intent to avoid speculation and ensure that jurors are only exposed to properly vetted evidence. The decision was a partial win for the prosecution, but it does not preclude the defense from raising the issue later if it becomes legally and factually appropriate.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:042425+Order+on+States+Motions+in+Limine+RE+Text+Messages+and+911+Call.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

10 Elo 18min

The April 24, 2025 order issued by Judge John C. Judge in the Bryan Kohberger case addresses the prosecution's motion to limit or exclude certain pieces of evidence—specifically, the 911 call and related text messages made by surviving roommate Dylan Mortensen on the night of the murders. The state sought to prevent the defense from introducing or speculating about the content and timing of the 911 call or messages, arguing that such discussions would be prejudicial, misleading, and based on incomplete information. The court agreed in part, ruling that the defense may not reference the 911 call or text messages during opening statements, as their admissibility will depend on the context provided during trial.However, Judge Judge left the door open for the 911 call and texts to be introduced later, depending on how the evidence unfolds and whether a proper foundation is laid. He emphasized that such materials must meet standards of relevance and reliability before being admitted in front of the jury. The ruling reflects the court’s intent to avoid speculation and ensure that jurors are only exposed to properly vetted evidence. The decision was a partial win for the prosecution, but it does not preclude the defense from raising the issue later if it becomes legally and factually appropriate.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:042425+Order+on+States+Motions+in+Limine+RE+Text+Messages+and+911+Call.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

9 Elo 14min