Mega Edition: Jennifer Araoz And Her Lawsuit Filed Against The Jeffrey Epstein Estate (Part 3-4) (11/30/25)

From the archives: 1-11-23The Police use DNA on a daily basis to help them put the pieces of crimes together and the science has been proven to not only be accurate, but accurate to a level where it is hard to dispute. However, there have been times where the DNA evidence was wrong, or mishandled and that has led to the defendant beating the conviction.In this episode, we take another look at the DNA evidence and the critical role it has played so far and will continue to play as the trial of Bryan Kohberger gets underway.(commercial at 12:34)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Idaho murders DNA evidence helps police. But is it foolproof? (nbcnews.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

16 Jan 20min

Bryan Kohberger has been in custody for three weeks and in that three weeks, we have started to peel the layers back of who he is. In todays episode, we continue on that course as we hear from his neighbor who details how Bryan initiated a conversation with him about the murders and even offered up his opinion on the motive.(commercial at 6:47)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Bryan Kohberger told neighbor Idaho murders were 'a crime of passion' and 'cops had no leads' | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

16 Jan 10min

Bryan Kohberger keeps to himself and doesn't talk to anyone in the lock up that he is currently in. According to sources, he is constantly watching the news about the murders in moscow and when he's not doing that, he's sitting down with a pastor exploring his new found faith in god.We also get a look at how much money it cost Pennsylvania to fly Bryan Kohberger from Pennsylvania to Idaho after Kohberger was extradited.(commercial at 9:07)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Bryan Kohberger's Secluded Life Inside Jail: Reports (newsweek.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

16 Jan 10min

From the archives: 1-7-23Bryan Kohberger, the man suspected of murdering four college students in Moscow, Idaho might be facing not only life behind bars, but a possible date with executioner of Idaho.Sources are reporting that the Idaho Prosecutors responsible for trying Kohberger have signaled that they will, in fact, seek the death penalty at trial instead of seeking life in prison.(commercial at 7:56)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Idaho Prosecutors Will Seek Death Penalty In Kohberger Trial, Says Judge (msn.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

15 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.

15 Jan 13min

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.

15 Jan 14min

Hillary Clinton drew sharp criticism after declining to comply with an Epstein-related congressional subpoena that sought testimony and records tied to the broader investigation into Epstein’s network and institutional failures. Rather than appearing or producing materials in the manner demanded, her response was routed through lawyers and procedural objections, effectively stonewalling lawmakers who were attempting to trace accountability beyond Epstein and Maxwell. The refusal fed the perception that powerful political figures operate under a different set of rules, especially when scrutiny turns uncomfortable. At a moment when survivors and the public were demanding transparency, Clinton’s posture reinforced the idea that influence can be used to slow-walk or blunt congressional oversight. The optics were unmistakable: a former Secretary of State choosing legal insulation over public accountability in a case defined by elite protection.Critics argued that Clinton’s noncompliance wasn’t a neutral legal maneuver but a strategic dodge that undermined the very transparency Congress was seeking. The Epstein scandal has long been marked by selective exposure, where lesser players are named while powerful figures remain unreachable behind counsel and procedure. By refusing to engage directly, Clinton added to that pattern, signaling that even a congressional subpoena can be treated as negotiable if you have enough clout. The decision also undercut claims that the political class takes institutional abuse seriously, especially when cooperation might clarify who knew what and when. In an investigation already plagued by delays and redactions, Clinton’s defiance hardened public skepticism that truth would ever outrun privilege. It wasn’t just a missed testimony; it was another reminder of how accountability stalls at the top.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Hillary Clinton expected to skip House Oversight deposition Wednesday, risking contempt | Fox NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

15 Jan 11min

Queen Elizabeth II did not merely “stand by” Prince Andrew; she enabled him, protected him, and absorbed institutional damage on his behalf for years while pretending the situation could be managed away. Even after Andrew publicly humiliated the monarchy with the Newsnight interview and confirmed to the world that he was incapable of basic judgment or remorse, the Queen kept him cocooned inside royal privilege. He was shielded from immediate consequences, allowed to retain status, security, and proximity to power, and quietly insulated from the same accountability any other public figure would have faced. This was not ignorance or inertia. It was a deliberate choice to place dynastic loyalty over moral clarity, survivors, and public trust. The Palace’s silence functioned as protection, and the Queen’s refusal to decisively cut Andrew loose signaled that royal blood still mattered more than credible allegations of sexual exploitation. Every month Andrew remained sheltered sent a message that consequences were negotiable if your surname was Windsor.Andrew, for his part, behaved exactly like someone who knew he was protected. He refused interviews unless forced, avoided U.S. authorities, staged photo ops with his mother, and clung to the fiction that this was all a misunderstanding he could outwait. When the Queen finally intervened directly, it was not an act of moral awakening but of institutional triage. The one-on-one meeting where Andrew was told to step down was a command issued far too late, after settlements were paid, reputations were torched, and the monarchy had been dragged through years of self-inflicted damage. Even then, Andrew was not expelled or disgraced in any meaningful way; he was quietly sidelined, stripped of duties but kept comfortable, protected, and silent. The Queen did not hold him accountable so much as she managed him out of sight. Andrew escaped public reckoning, and the monarchy preserved itself at the cost of credibility. What remains is not a story of tragic family loyalty, but of power protecting itself until the last possible second, then pretending restraint was responsibility.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Late Queen tried to 'soften the blow' of Andrew losing his titles 'one-on-one' - but the 'painful' meeting left ex-Duke 'blindsided', royal expert reveals | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

15 Jan 18min