Ghislaine Maxwell Showed No Remorse For Her Victims While At The Same Time Taking Pity On Andy

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein’s defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta’s account, particularly regarding victims’ rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

18 Jan 15min

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein’s defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta’s account, particularly regarding victims’ rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

18 Jan 12min

After the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, Juror 50, Scotty David, gave a controversial interview in which he openly discussed jury deliberations and revealed that his own personal experience as a survivor of sexual abuse influenced how he evaluated testimony. He stated that during deliberations he encouraged other jurors to rely on their “common sense” and personal experiences to understand why victims might delay reporting or struggle with memory. While David framed his comments as an effort to help jurors empathize with survivors, the interview immediately raised alarms because jurors are explicitly instructed not to introduce outside experiences or undisclosed biases into deliberations. His remarks appeared to contradict assurances given during jury selection, where jurors are required to disclose experiences that could affect their impartiality. The interview transformed what should have been a closed chapter of the trial into a new flashpoint, shifting attention from Maxwell’s conviction to the integrity of the verdict itself.The fallout was swift and serious. Maxwell’s legal team seized on David’s comments, filing motions arguing that his failure to disclose his abuse history tainted the jury and violated her right to a fair trial. Courts were forced to hold post-trial hearings to determine whether juror misconduct had occurred and whether David intentionally withheld material information during voir dire. Although the conviction ultimately stood, the episode handed Maxwell’s defense a procedural lifeline and injected avoidable uncertainty into an otherwise decisive outcome. Critics argued that David’s decision to speak publicly was reckless, providing ammunition to a convicted trafficker while retraumatizing survivors who feared the verdict could be undone.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

18 Jan 57min

​On April 1, 2025, plaintiff Manzaro Joseph filed a federal lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida against Sean "Diddy" Combs and several associates, including Eric Mejias, Brendan Paul, Emilio Estefan, and Adria English. The complaint alleges that the defendants participated in a criminal enterprise involving human trafficking, sexual exploitation, kidnapping, and obstruction of justice. Joseph claims he was drugged, transported across state lines, and subjected to sexual violence orchestrated by Combs, with assistance from the other named individuals. The lawsuit invokes federal statutes such as the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and the Civil Rights Act, as well as Florida's human trafficking laws.The complaint details each defendant's alleged role: Mejias is accused of drugging and threatening Joseph; Paul of coordinating transportation; Estefan of facilitating and approving the transport; and English of aiding in Joseph's targeting and concealment. Joseph also references unidentified individuals ("DOE Johns") who may have contributed to the alleged crimes. He seeks damages and injunctive relief, asserting that the defendants' actions violated multiple federal and state laws. The case brings renewed scrutiny to Combs, who has faced previous legal challenges, and raises questions about the involvement of high-profile individuals in alleged criminal activities.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.686843.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

18 Jan 38min

​On April 1, 2025, plaintiff Manzaro Joseph filed a federal lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida against Sean "Diddy" Combs and several associates, including Eric Mejias, Brendan Paul, Emilio Estefan, and Adria English. The complaint alleges that the defendants participated in a criminal enterprise involving human trafficking, sexual exploitation, kidnapping, and obstruction of justice. Joseph claims he was drugged, transported across state lines, and subjected to sexual violence orchestrated by Combs, with assistance from the other named individuals. The lawsuit invokes federal statutes such as the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and the Civil Rights Act, as well as Florida's human trafficking laws.The complaint details each defendant's alleged role: Mejias is accused of drugging and threatening Joseph; Paul of coordinating transportation; Estefan of facilitating and approving the transport; and English of aiding in Joseph's targeting and concealment. Joseph also references unidentified individuals ("DOE Johns") who may have contributed to the alleged crimes. He seeks damages and injunctive relief, asserting that the defendants' actions violated multiple federal and state laws. The case brings renewed scrutiny to Combs, who has faced previous legal challenges, and raises questions about the involvement of high-profile individuals in alleged criminal activities.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.686843.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

18 Jan 21min

​On April 1, 2025, plaintiff Manzaro Joseph filed a federal lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida against Sean "Diddy" Combs and several associates, including Eric Mejias, Brendan Paul, Emilio Estefan, and Adria English. The complaint alleges that the defendants participated in a criminal enterprise involving human trafficking, sexual exploitation, kidnapping, and obstruction of justice. Joseph claims he was drugged, transported across state lines, and subjected to sexual violence orchestrated by Combs, with assistance from the other named individuals. The lawsuit invokes federal statutes such as the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and the Civil Rights Act, as well as Florida's human trafficking laws.The complaint details each defendant's alleged role: Mejias is accused of drugging and threatening Joseph; Paul of coordinating transportation; Estefan of facilitating and approving the transport; and English of aiding in Joseph's targeting and concealment. Joseph also references unidentified individuals ("DOE Johns") who may have contributed to the alleged crimes. He seeks damages and injunctive relief, asserting that the defendants' actions violated multiple federal and state laws. The case brings renewed scrutiny to Combs, who has faced previous legal challenges, and raises questions about the involvement of high-profile individuals in alleged criminal activities.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.686843.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

18 Jan 21min

In a world that is full of absurdities and even more absurd people, we shouldn't be shocked when we run across someone like Brittney J. Hislope who is professing her love for the accused murderer all over the internet.In this episode, we take a look at some of the things she's been saying and who she is.(commercial at 7:13)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Kentucky mom says Bryan Kohberger is her 'divine masculine' and claims she sent him letters and dolled up pics | Fox NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

18 Jan 11min

To trifurcate the proceedings in a legal context means to divide the case into three separate phases, each focusing on a distinct issue. This is often done to improve the efficiency and clarity of complex cases by addressing one issue at a time.When the proceedings are trifurcated and the rules of evidence are applied during the eligibility phase, it means that:Three Phases of the Case:Liability Phase: Determining whether the defendant is responsible or guilty of the matter at hand.Eligibility Phase: In cases like death penalty or complex civil cases, this phase determines whether the defendant is eligible for a specific penalty or remedy. For example, in a capital punishment case, the eligibility phase may decide whether the defendant qualifies for the death penalty based on aggravating factors.Penalty or Damages Phase: If the defendant is found eligible, the final phase determines the specific punishment or the amount of damages to be awarded.Applying the Rules of Evidence:During the eligibility phase, the court will strictly apply the rules of evidence, meaning that only admissible evidence, as defined by formal legal standards, can be presented. These rules are designed to ensure the fairness of the proceedings and prevent irrelevant, unreliable, or overly prejudicial evidence from influencing the decision.In summary, trifurcating the proceedings with evidence rules applied during the eligibility phase ensures that the determination of eligibility (such as for a specific sentence or legal remedy) is made based on legally sound, admissible evidence.(commercial at 8:44)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:090524-Motion-Memorandum-Support-Trifurcate-Apply-Rules-Evidence.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

18 Jan 13min