Mega Edition: Joseph Manzaro And The Lawsuit Filed Against Diddy (Part 5-7) (1/18/26)

Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, the former leader of the Sinaloa Cartel, has had his appeal to overturn his 2019 life sentence rejected by a U.S. court. Guzman was convicted on charges including drug trafficking, operating a criminal enterprise, and firearms violations. His legal team argued that his trial was unfair due to jury misconduct and the harsh conditions of his solitary confinement, which they claimed impacted his ability to mount a defense.Despite these arguments, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the original verdict, praising the trial judge's management of the high-profile case and rejecting the claims of juror misconduct. The court also dismissed the argument regarding Guzman's solitary confinement, stating it did not infringe on his right to a fair trial.In this episode, we take a look at the DOJ's El Chapo Brief.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Chapo-ca2-us-brief.pdf (courthousenews.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

20 Jan 11min

In a move that was not totally unexpected, prosecutors in Moscow have opted to go the Grand Jury route when dealing with Bryan Kohberger and his indictment by the state. With this superseded indictment, it helps the state bypass any sort of surprises at the preliminary hearing and it also keeps Bethany Funke from having to potentially take the stand.Kohberger will still make his appearance in Latah County court on the 22nd in regard to the Gag order and the challenge made to it by the media and Goncalves family.(commercial at 10:41)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Bryan Kohberger indicted by secret grand jury and will be arraigned for gruesome quadruple killing | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

19 Jan 13min

In its letter to Judge Paul Engelmayer, the Department of Justice argued aggressively against the appointment of a special master, framing the request as unnecessary, disruptive, and legally unjustified. DOJ claimed it was already fulfilling its obligations to review, process, and release Epstein-related materials in accordance with court orders, established procedures, and internal safeguards. The department leaned heavily on institutional deference, insisting that prosecutorial discretion and executive-branch authority over evidence review should not be second-guessed by an outside overseer. DOJ further warned that inserting a special master would slow the process, create confusion, and risk improper disclosure of sensitive materials, including grand jury information, law-enforcement techniques, and third-party privacy interests. In essence, the letter positioned DOJ as both referee and scorekeeper, arguing that the court should simply trust that the same institution that mishandled Epstein for years was now acting in good faith.What makes the letter striking is how completely it sidesteps the core reason a special master was proposed in the first place: DOJ’s own credibility problem. Rather than directly addressing documented delays, redactions, contradictions, and shifting explanations surrounding the Epstein files, the department defaulted to procedural defensiveness and abstract warnings about efficiency and separation of powers. The letter reads less like a transparent explanation and more like a preemptive shield against scrutiny, treating oversight itself as the threat rather than the history of secrecy and failure that prompted it. DOJ did not meaningfully grapple with the public interest at stake or the extraordinary circumstances of a case involving systemic non-prosecution, political sensitivity, and proven institutional breakdowns. Instead, it asked the court to accept assurances at face value, effectively arguing that accountability would be more dangerous than opacity—an argument that, given the Epstein record, lands with all the credibility of a pinky swear.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:opposition-letter-ghislaine-maxwell-khanna-massie.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

19 Jan 11min

Prince Andrew has reportedly been cut off by his daughter Princess Eugenie as the fallout from his Epstein scandal continues to metastasize inside the royal family. According to multiple UK press reports citing royal insiders, Eugenie has ended regular contact with her father and deliberately distanced herself from him both privately and publicly. This represents a sharp reversal from earlier years, when she was widely seen as Andrew’s most loyal defender and emotional support, even as the rest of the family froze him out. The shift reportedly became unavoidable as Andrew’s refusal to fully accept responsibility and the renewed attention on Epstein-related disclosures made continued proximity untenable.For Prince Andrew, the estrangement is particularly devastating because it underscores how completely he has been isolated. Financially cut off, barred from public royal duties, and sidelined by senior family members, Eugenie had been his last meaningful personal connection within the monarchy. Her decision to sever ties is widely understood as an act of self-preservation, protecting her own family and future from being permanently tethered to a scandal that refuses to die. In practical terms, the message is unmistakable: Andrew’s disgrace is now so toxic that even paternal bonds have collapsed under its weight, leaving him not just institutionally disgraced, but personally abandoned.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Devastated Princess Eugenie has 'cut off all contact' with disgraced father Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor over Epstein scandal | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

19 Jan 12min

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.

19 Jan 16min

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.

19 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.

19 Jan 20min

James Michael Austrich—identified in deposition documents as a former boyfriend of Virginia Roberts (now Virginia Giuffre)—testified about their relationship in the late 1990s. He offered insights into Roberts' employment at Mar-a-Lago and detailed her interactions with Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein during that time period. Austrich corroborated key aspects of Giuffre’s testimony, including how she came into contact with Maxwell and was subsequently introduced to Epstein. His hearing provides supporting context for Giuffre’s allegations about recruitment, travel, and grooming, reinforcing the broader narrative of Epstein’s network beyond Giuffre’s own accountAustrich’s deposition also addressed logistical details—dates, movements, and living situations—that helped frame the timeline of Giuffre’s experiences. While he did not testify about sexual abuse directly, his recollections bolster Giuffre’s broader claims that Maxwell facilitated Roberts' entry into Epstein’s orbit. By corroborating aspects of Giuffre’s presence at Epstein-linked locations and confirming Maxwell’s involvement in arranging those introductions, Austrich’s testimony added credibility to the factual foundation of the case—and further undermined Maxwell’s defamatory denials.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

19 Jan 25min