Gone But Not Forgotten: Matthew Green

Bryan Kohberger is a 29-year-old criminology graduate student from Washington State University who has been accused of the November 2022 murders of four University of Idaho students: Kaylee Goncalves, Madison Mogen, Xana Kernodle, and Ethan Chapin. The students were found stabbed to death in their off-campus home in Moscow, Idaho.Kohberger was arrested in December 2022 at his family's home in Pennsylvania. Investigators have linked him to the crime scene through DNA evidence and cellphone data, which reportedly shows him near the victims' residence multiple times before the murders and during the night of the incident. His defense, however, claims that Kohberger was out driving and stargazing during the time of the murders, and they plan to use cellphone data to support this alibi.Kohberger faces four counts of first-degree murder and a potential death penalty if convicted. His legal team is pushing for a change of venue for the trial, citing concerns over finding an impartial jury due to the extensive media coverage of the case. The trial date has not yet been set, and pre-trial hearings continue to address various motions and evidence disputes​.In this episode, we hear from author Howard Blum about Bryan Kohberger and the murders that rocked the nation.(commercial 8:02)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:How Idaho murder suspect Bryan Kohberger almost eluded capture (nypost.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

14 Elo 13min

A grand jury is a legal body composed of citizens who are convened to determine whether there is enough evidence to bring criminal charges against an individual or group of individuals. Here's a summary of what a grand jury is and what it does:Purpose:The primary purpose of a grand jury is to serve as a check on government power by ensuring that individuals are not unfairly or arbitrarily charged with crimes. It acts as a safeguard to protect citizens from baseless accusations.Composition:Grand juries typically consist of 16 to 23 members who are randomly selected from the community.Grand jurors are chosen to serve for a specific term, often several months, during which they hear multiple cases.Secret Proceedings:Grand jury proceedings are conducted in secret, and the identities of the jurors are kept confidential to encourage impartiality and protect them from potential intimidation.Investigation:Grand juries have the authority to investigate a wide range of criminal matters, including felonies and serious crimes.They can issue subpoenas to compel witnesses to testify and produce documents or other evidence relevant to their investigations.Evidence Review:Prosecutors present evidence, including witness testimonies and documents, to the grand jury.Grand jurors evaluate this evidence to determine if there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that a specific individual or individuals should be charged.Indictment or No-Bill:If a grand jury finds sufficient evidence, they issue an indictment, which is a formal accusation that initiates criminal proceedings against the accused.If the grand jury does not find sufficient evidence, they issue a "no-bill," and no charges are filed.No Trial:It's important to note that a grand jury does not determine guilt or innocence. Its role is limited to deciding whether there is enough evidence to warrant a trial.Prosecutorial Discretion:Prosecutors have significant influence over the grand jury process, as they decide which cases to present, what evidence to introduce, and what charges to seek.Legal System Variation:The use of grand juries varies by jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions rely heavily on grand juries for felony cases, while others use preliminary hearings or direct filing by prosecutors.In summary, a grand jury is a panel of citizens that convenes in secret to review evidence presented by prosecutors and determine whether there is enough evidence to proceed with criminal charges. Its role is to act as a safeguard against unfounded accusations and to ensure that the decision to prosecute is based on a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed.According to a new filing, Bryan Kohberger's team alleges that 24 violations took place during the grand jury process and due to those violations, the whole thing should be tossed. The state of Idaho has not yet responded.(commercial at 7:37)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Bryan Kohberger secretly alleges 24 flaws in Idaho murders indictment in latest motion to dismiss | Fox NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

14 Elo 11min

Courtney Wild, one of Jeffrey Epstein’s underage victims, has waged a prolonged legal battle asserting that federal prosecutors violated her statutory rights under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act by secretly crafting a 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) shielding Epstein and his co-conspirators without notifying or consulting her—her “right to confer” and be treated fairly were emphatically ignored. After the district court acknowledged the CVRA violation but declined to provide relief on jurisdictional grounds following Epstein’s death, Wild pressed her case through the Eleventh Circuit. In a contentious en banc ruling, the court recognized the profound injustice yet held that the CVRA does not allow victims to enforce their rights via standalone legal action absent a formal criminal proceeding. Feeling thwarted by this interpretation, Wild and her attorneys petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve this critical question of whether the CVRA’s protections extend to pre‑charge, behind‑the‑scenes deals that effectively nullify accountability.Wild’s Supreme Court petition presents what she and her legal team call a “now-or-never opportunity” for the Court to buttress victim protections and clarify that the government cannot clandestinely dispense with criminal accountability while ignoring victims entirely—especially when the accused wield immense wealth and influence. Without such reckoning, the Justice Department may continue negotiating secret deals that nullify the statutory rights Congress fought to grant crime victims. Despite the urgency and gravity of the case, the Supreme Court ultimately declined to hear the appeal—effectively allowing the Eleventh Circuit’s restrictive interpretation to stand and signaling that victims in similar predicaments may remain legally powerless when prosecutors circumvent the formal charging process.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein victim seeks US Supreme Court review of prosecutors' secret deal - ABC NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

14 Elo 11min

The federal government’s prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein was deliberately narrow, avoiding the use of RICO laws that could have exposed the full scope of his decades-long trafficking network and implicated powerful political, financial, and intelligence figures. Instead of treating the case like an organized crime operation, they focused on a small set of charges tied to a limited timeframe, ensuring the investigation stayed contained. RICO would have allowed prosecutors to seize assets, subpoena extensive records, and charge a broader circle of co-conspirators, but its omission kept damaging evidence sealed, high-profile names off the record, and the investigation safely within boundaries designed to prevent collateral fallout.This wasn’t a mistake—it was a controlled demolition. Epstein’s death, Maxwell’s limited charges, and the selective handling of evidence ensured the network behind them remained intact. The courtroom became the real crime scene, where the scope was cut, witnesses were muted, and the public was fed a sanitized version of events. The outcome wasn’t a reckoning but a strategic pause, a way to tidy up before returning to business as usual. In the end, justice wasn’t served; the system protected itself, showing once again that the law is enforced where it’s convenient, and shielded where it’s dangerous.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

14 Elo 15min

First Lady Melania Trump, via her lawyer Alejandro Brito, has demanded that Hunter Biden retract and publicly apologize for comments he made in an August interview with Andrew Callaghan—claims that convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein introduced her to Donald Trump. Brito’s letter, sent August 6, called the remarks “false, defamatory and extremely salacious,” asserting they caused “overwhelming financial and reputational harm,” and warned that failure to comply by August 7 would prompt a lawsuit seeking more than $1 billion in damages.Next up...Attorney General Pam Bondi has come under scrutiny amid mounting accusations from House Democrats that the Justice Department orchestrated a suspiciously favorable transfer of Ghislaine Maxwell—from a high-security facility in Florida to a low-security prison camp in Texas—shortly after she met privately with Deputy AG Todd Blanche. Lawmakers allege this highly unusual move, combined with Blanche’s post-meeting interaction and the firing of a key prosecutor on the Epstein-Maxwell case, raises serious concerns of potential witness tampering and political influence. The DOJ has been pressed for documents, including meeting transcripts and details of the transfer decision, while critics argue the move may have violated standard protocols and breached DOJ and federal prison policies...to close things out...House Republicans are moving to reopen the Jeffrey Epstein case in Congress, with Oversight Committee Chair James Comer issuing a subpoena to the Justice Department for all records tied to Epstein’s 2007 non-prosecution agreement and the circumstances of his 2019 jailhouse death, demanding delivery by August 19. The push comes as an unusual bipartisan alliance—Republican Rep. Thomas Massie and Democrat Rep. Ro Khanna—plans to bring Epstein’s accusers to Capitol Hill for public hearings in early September to press for passage of an “Epstein Files Transparency Act” that would require unsealing related documents. The effort has sharpened divisions within the GOP, as some members join Democrats in urging disclosure while former president Donald Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson downplay the matterto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Melania Trump demands Hunter Biden retract 'extremely salacious' Epstein comments - ABC NewsPam Bondi accused of possible witness tampering with Ghislaine Maxwell's prison transfer - Raw StoryEpstein case to ignite Capitol Hill post-recessBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

14 Elo 21min

Jeffrey Epstein’s interest in transhumanism went far beyond idle curiosity—he saw it as a personal blueprint for shaping humanity’s future in his own image. Using his foundation and wealth, he funded research in genetics, neuroscience, AI, and evolutionary dynamics, forging ties with elite scientists and institutions. Publicly, this philanthropy framed him as a visionary; privately, it aligned with deeply narcissistic goals such as creating a genetically engineered bloodline via his “baby ranch” plan, preserving his brain and body through cryonics, and potentially merging his consciousness with advanced technology. These ambitions stripped transhumanism of its egalitarian ideals, twisting it into a vehicle for personal immortality, hereditary control, and dominance over human evolution.The scientific community’s willingness to accept his money—despite his criminal history—allowed Epstein to launder both his reputation and his dystopian ideas. Exclusive conferences, research grants, and one-on-one engagements gave him influence in shaping discourse on the future of humanity. His involvement underscores how speculative, high-stakes technologies can be exploited by the wealthy to entrench inequality and impose self-serving visions. Though Epstein’s death halted his plans, the infrastructure, relationships, and normalization of ethically perilous ideas he helped foster remain. His story stands as a cautionary tale: without strong ethical guardrails, the power to reshape life itself can slip into the hands of those driven not by the betterment of all, but by vanity, exploitation, and the desire to control the human future.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

14 Elo 12min

Jeffrey Epstein’s interest in transhumanism went far beyond idle curiosity—he saw it as a personal blueprint for shaping humanity’s future in his own image. Using his foundation and wealth, he funded research in genetics, neuroscience, AI, and evolutionary dynamics, forging ties with elite scientists and institutions. Publicly, this philanthropy framed him as a visionary; privately, it aligned with deeply narcissistic goals such as creating a genetically engineered bloodline via his “baby ranch” plan, preserving his brain and body through cryonics, and potentially merging his consciousness with advanced technology. These ambitions stripped transhumanism of its egalitarian ideals, twisting it into a vehicle for personal immortality, hereditary control, and dominance over human evolution.The scientific community’s willingness to accept his money—despite his criminal history—allowed Epstein to launder both his reputation and his dystopian ideas. Exclusive conferences, research grants, and one-on-one engagements gave him influence in shaping discourse on the future of humanity. His involvement underscores how speculative, high-stakes technologies can be exploited by the wealthy to entrench inequality and impose self-serving visions. Though Epstein’s death halted his plans, the infrastructure, relationships, and normalization of ethically perilous ideas he helped foster remain. His story stands as a cautionary tale: without strong ethical guardrails, the power to reshape life itself can slip into the hands of those driven not by the betterment of all, but by vanity, exploitation, and the desire to control the human future.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

14 Elo 14min

In early 2016, Virginia Giuffre, through her counsel, filed a motion seeking to compel Ghislaine Maxwell to produce documents that had been withheld based on objections and privilege claims deemed improper by the plaintiff. Giuffre’s motion challenged Maxwell’s broad assertions of attorney‑client privilege, work‑product doctrine, vagueness, overbreadth, and undue burden. The motion was accompanied by detailed declarations—most notably by attorney Sigrid S. McCawley—which laid out why many of Maxwell’s objections appeared unjustified and why the requested materials were relevant and necessary for Giuffre’s case.The court reviewed both the motion and Maxwell’s opposition, which included memoranda of law and declarations defending her objections and maintaining that providing certain documents would violate privacy rights or exceed the scope of discovery. Ultimately, in a partially favorable ruling for Giuffre, the court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, indicating that while some objections were valid, Maxwell was required to produce additional documents where privilege claims were not properly supported.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Giuffre v. Maxwell | MOTION to Compel Ghislaine Maxwell to Produce Documents Subject To Improper Objections . Document | CasetextBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

14 Elo 27min