Mega Edition: How The Legacy Media Sells You Epstein Outrage But Gives You No Answers (11/16/25)

The Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA) was meant to guarantee Epstein’s survivors a voice in the legal process, but in practice their rights were ignored during the 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement between Epstein’s legal team and federal prosecutors in Florida. Survivors were never told about the deal in advance, even though the CVRA required that they be notified of and consulted on major decisions in the case. Instead, prosecutors secretly arranged a sweetheart plea bargain that allowed Epstein to avoid federal charges and serve minimal county jail time under highly privileged conditions. The survivors only learned of the agreement after it had already been finalized, stripping them of their chance to object or even weigh in.Federal courts later acknowledged that prosecutors had violated the CVRA by keeping survivors in the dark, but the rulings stopped short of overturning the deal. This left survivors furious, as the law meant to protect them had been functionally useless in one of the most high-profile sex trafficking cases in U.S. history. Instead of being treated with the dignity and participation promised by the CVRA, they were sidelined to protect Epstein and the powerful figures around him. The episode stands as one of the clearest examples of how prosecutorial discretion and political pressure can render victims’ rights laws toothless when influential defendants are involved.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

5 Loka 40min

Leon Black, billionaire cofounder of Apollo Global Management, was for years a heavyweight political donor, spreading money to both Democrats and Republicans. In 2016 alone, he poured in more than $590,000 across campaigns and committees, with large sums going to both parties’ super PACs—$250,000 to the Democratic-aligned Senate Majority PAC and $150,000 to the Republican-aligned Congressional Leadership Fund. His donations continued into later cycles, but the amounts dropped sharply once his connections to Jeffrey Epstein became public, with watchdogs noting a steep decline in his political spending after 2020.When it came to his personal scandals, Black has claimed he was the one being targeted rather than the perpetrator. After Guzel Ganieva filed her 2021 lawsuit alleging sexual assault and coercion, Black fired back that the allegations were “fiction” and part of an extortion scheme. He launched counterclaims of defamation, insisted he had proof in the form of texts and calls, and argued that he was the victim of a calculated conspiracy meant to “destroy” him through litigation and media pressure. Black’s stance has consistently been that he was set up—framed as both a financial and reputational hit job orchestrated by opportunists who saw him as a target.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

5 Loka 53min

This document is a motion in limine filed by Sean Combs’ legal team in his federal criminal case (Case No. 24-cr-542) in the Southern District of New York, seeking to exclude the testimony of Dr. Dawn Hughes, a psychological expert the prosecution intends to call. Dr. Hughes is expected to testify about general behavioral patterns of victims and perpetrators of sexual and domestic abuse, which the defense argues would unfairly bolster the credibility of the government’s witnesses — including alleged victims — without having evaluated any facts specific to this case. The defense asserts that Dr. Hughes’s testimony is not based on a reliable scientific application to the actual circumstances surrounding Combs and instead consists of broad generalizations that risk misleading the jury by presenting “typical” abuse behavior as evidence of guilt.Combs’ attorneys argue that Hughes’s proposed testimony violates the standards set by Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 403, which regulate expert witness admissibility. They claim her statements offer no specialized knowledge beyond what jurors already understand — such as abusers exploiting power or victims remaining in abusive relationships — and that she conflates clinical definitions of coercion with legal ones, potentially confusing the jury. The motion asserts that Hughes’s testimony is “advocacy masquerading as expertise” and warns it would improperly bolster the credibility of government witnesses under the guise of psychology. The defense urges the court to block her from testifying, citing that her opinions are methodologically unsound and prejudicial rather than probative.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.206.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

5 Loka 26min

This document is a motion in limine filed by Sean Combs’ legal team in his federal criminal case (Case No. 24-cr-542) in the Southern District of New York, seeking to exclude the testimony of Dr. Dawn Hughes, a psychological expert the prosecution intends to call. Dr. Hughes is expected to testify about general behavioral patterns of victims and perpetrators of sexual and domestic abuse, which the defense argues would unfairly bolster the credibility of the government’s witnesses — including alleged victims — without having evaluated any facts specific to this case. The defense asserts that Dr. Hughes’s testimony is not based on a reliable scientific application to the actual circumstances surrounding Combs and instead consists of broad generalizations that risk misleading the jury by presenting “typical” abuse behavior as evidence of guilt.Combs’ attorneys argue that Hughes’s proposed testimony violates the standards set by Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 403, which regulate expert witness admissibility. They claim her statements offer no specialized knowledge beyond what jurors already understand — such as abusers exploiting power or victims remaining in abusive relationships — and that she conflates clinical definitions of coercion with legal ones, potentially confusing the jury. The motion asserts that Hughes’s testimony is “advocacy masquerading as expertise” and warns it would improperly bolster the credibility of government witnesses under the guise of psychology. The defense urges the court to block her from testifying, citing that her opinions are methodologically unsound and prejudicial rather than probative.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.206.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

5 Loka 21min

Bryan Kohberger is expected to be formally sentenced today in Boise, Idaho, to four consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole, plus an additional decade for burglary, after pleading guilty to the November 13, 2022, murders of four University of Idaho students. The death penalty was removed through his plea deal, and he has waived his right to appeal. While the sentencing itself is largely procedural given the agreement, the hearing represents the first time the surviving victims' families and roommates may address him directly, read impact statements, and share the emotional aftermath of the tragedy.A pivotal moment to watch is whether Kohberger chooses to exercise his right of allocution — that is, whether he will speak to the court. Though legally allowed to do so, he is under no obligation, and experts believe there's a low likelihood he'll offer any explanation or expression of remorse. Many families, public figures (including former President Trump), and the broader community are pressing for answers about motive and intent — questions that remain largely unanswered. Following the hearing, the judge may unseal additional documents, and Kohberger will likely be transferred to a maximum-security facility to serve out his life sentence.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

5 Loka 13min

From the archives: 1-25-23The wheels of justice continue to grind in the Bryan Kohberger trial, even if the actual trial itself hasn't gotten under way yet. Even with the gag order and the large gap in time between court appearances, things are happening behind the scenes as the lawyers for both sides continue to formulate their plans.In this episode, we hear from several experts who lay out what might be happening behind the scenes and what we can expect when things get rolling in earnest inside of the courtroom.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EXPLAINER: What to expect in State of Idaho vs. Bryan Kohberger case – The Daily EvergreenBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

5 Loka 12min

In this filing dated December 6, 2024, the State of Idaho formally objects to Bryan Kohberger’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from his Apple iCloud account via a federal grand jury subpoena and a subsequent search warrant issued on August 1, 2023. Kohberger's defense claimed the searches violated his Fourth Amendment rights, but prosecutors countered that the data falls under the “third-party doctrine,” which permits law enforcement access to user data voluntarily shared with companies like Apple. The State emphasized that the Apple data acquired was limited to account subscriber information—such as email addresses and registration dates—and did not include detailed location tracking or sensitive content. This, they argue, negates any assertion that the warrant violated Kohberger's reasonable expectation of privacy.Further, the State rebuts the claim that the search warrant lacked probable cause or specificity, asserting that the accompanying affidavit clearly outlined the basis for the request and was legally incorporated into the warrant under well-established legal standards. They cite relevant federal cases supporting their position, such as United States v. SDI Future Health, which allows an affidavit to “cure” any alleged warrant deficiencies if it is referenced and available to the executing officers. The State maintains that there were no intentional or reckless misstatements in the affidavit and urges the court to deny the suppression motion, emphasizing that all procedural safeguards were met and the information obtained was narrow in scope and lawfully collected.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.211.0_2.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

4 Loka 15min

In this filing dated December 6, 2024, the State of Idaho formally objects to Bryan Kohberger’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from his Apple iCloud account via a federal grand jury subpoena and a subsequent search warrant issued on August 1, 2023. Kohberger's defense claimed the searches violated his Fourth Amendment rights, but prosecutors countered that the data falls under the “third-party doctrine,” which permits law enforcement access to user data voluntarily shared with companies like Apple. The State emphasized that the Apple data acquired was limited to account subscriber information—such as email addresses and registration dates—and did not include detailed location tracking or sensitive content. This, they argue, negates any assertion that the warrant violated Kohberger's reasonable expectation of privacy.Further, the State rebuts the claim that the search warrant lacked probable cause or specificity, asserting that the accompanying affidavit clearly outlined the basis for the request and was legally incorporated into the warrant under well-established legal standards. They cite relevant federal cases supporting their position, such as United States v. SDI Future Health, which allows an affidavit to “cure” any alleged warrant deficiencies if it is referenced and available to the executing officers. The State maintains that there were no intentional or reckless misstatements in the affidavit and urges the court to deny the suppression motion, emphasizing that all procedural safeguards were met and the information obtained was narrow in scope and lawfully collected.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.211.0_2.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

4 Loka 10min