Epstein’s Crimes Reached Central and South America But Media Coverage Rarely Followed (12/18/25)

Ever since the arrest of Bryan Kohberger, we have not heard much from his family. Now however, we are hearing from his aunt who lives in Las Vegas and she has some very interesting things to say about Bryan Kohberger.In this episode, we hear from his aunt about his behavior as a younger man and what she thinks about the allegations being made against him.(commercial at 7:18)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Idaho murders suspect Bryan Kohberger's aunt breaks silence and reveals whether she thinks he'll be found guilty | The US Sun (the-sun.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

20 Dec 11min

A DNA profile is a unique genetic fingerprint derived from an individual's DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). DNA is the fundamental genetic material found in the cells of all living organisms, and it carries the instructions that determine our physical characteristics and biological traits.A DNA profile is created by analyzing specific regions of an individual's DNA known as short tandem repeats (STRs) or single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). These regions exhibit variations between individuals, making them useful for identification purposes. DNA profiling involves extracting DNA from a biological sample, such as blood, saliva, hair, or semen, and then amplifying and analyzing the specific DNA regions of interest.Law enforcement agencies use DNA profiling in several ways:Criminal Investigations: When biological evidence is found at a crime scene, such as bloodstains or hair, DNA profiling can be performed to create a DNA profile from the sample. This profile can then be compared to profiles in DNA databases or against known suspects to identify or exclude potential perpetrators.Missing Persons and Unidentified Remains: DNA profiling plays a crucial role in identifying missing persons and unidentified remains. By comparing DNA profiles from unidentified remains to profiles of missing individuals or their relatives, law enforcement can establish familial relationships or make direct identifications.Cold Case Investigations: In cold cases, where the investigation has gone unresolved for an extended period, DNA profiling can be used to reexamine evidence and potentially link it to a known individual or identify new suspects.Forensic Intelligence: DNA profiles obtained from crime scenes can be stored in DNA databases, such as CODIS (Combined DNA Index System), which allows law enforcement agencies to compare profiles from different cases. This can help link previously unrelated crimes and provide leads for investigations.In this episode, we take a look at the new claims by Bryan Kohberger's legal team that 3 other unknown male DNA profiles were found at the crime scene and what it might mean moving forward.(commercial at 8:30)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Bryan Kohberger claims DNA from three other men found at scene of Idaho murders | The IndependentBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

20 Dec 15min

From the archives: 6-21-23Bryan Kohberger and his legal team are gearing up for a fight according to the filings that have hit the court docket as of late and a lot of the back and forth between the prosecution and the defense has been surrounding the grand jury indictment.In this episode, we take a look at the behind the scenes jostling between the two sides and what it might mean for the trial as we move forward.(commercial at 7:36)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Bryan Kohberger will fight indictment as lawyers ramp up Idaho suspect's defense (msn.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

19 Dec 10min

Inside the Justice Department, the push to release the Epstein files has turned into a race against the clock, driven less by transparency than by damage control. Career prosecutors, records officers, and senior DOJ officials are scrambling to inventory decades’ worth of investigative material spanning multiple districts, agencies, and administrations. The problem is not simply volume, but exposure: the Epstein case intersects with sealed grand jury records, civil settlements, prior non-prosecution agreements, and internal deliberations that were never meant to see daylight. As deadlines loom, the department is attempting to thread an almost impossible needle—producing something that satisfies public demands for disclosure without detonating legal landmines that could reopen cases, trigger appeals, or expose institutional misconduct.Overlaying that scramble is the intense involvement of national security and intelligence components, which has slowed the process even further. Intelligence agencies and DOJ’s National Security Division are reportedly combing through materials for anything that touches classified sources, foreign intelligence relationships, or sensitive international cooperation—particularly Epstein’s global movements, foreign contacts, and financial pathways. That review process is methodical by design and deeply incompatible with political timelines, creating friction between officials pushing for release and those whose mandate is to prevent exposure at all costs. The result is a high-stakes internal tug-of-war: every day that passes increases public suspicion, while every document released risks revealing not just Epstein’s crimes, but how deeply federal institutions failed—or refused—to stop them.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

19 Dec 21min

The long-running focus on Alex Acosta has obscured a more uncomfortable reality: the Epstein non-prosecution agreement was architected and approved at the highest levels of the Department of Justice, not improvised by a single U.S. Attorney in Florida. Contemporary emails and internal DOJ documentation show that Epstein’s legal team did not treat Acosta as the final decision-maker. Instead, they escalated directly to Main Justice, where Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip exercised authority over the case. Those records make clear that the contours of the deal—federal immunity, secrecy from victims, and an extraordinary carve-out protecting potential co-conspirators—were discussed, vetted, and ultimately sanctioned in Washington. This was not a rogue local plea deal; it was a federal policy decision shaped by DOJ leadership.The paper trail matters because it contradicts years of public narrative and political convenience. Emails show Epstein’s lawyers communicating confidence that DOJ headquarters was receptive, even as the gravity of the allegations was well understood. Mark Filip’s sign-off, coming from the second-highest office in the department, formalized a decision that could not have proceeded without Mukasey’s institutional blessing. That documentation undercuts claims that the NPA was the product of prosecutorial leniency or negligence at the district level. It demonstrates instead a coordinated, top-down intervention that insulated Epstein from federal exposure while sidelining victims’ rights. The emails don’t just revise the story of who was responsible—they confirm that the most powerful figures in the Justice Department knowingly built and approved the framework that allowed Epstein to escape meaningful accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

19 Dec 11min

Bill Clinton did not merely cross paths with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell at the 2002 wedding of King Mohammed VI of Morocco. Multiple accounts make clear that Epstein and Maxwell were guests of Bill Clinton himself. That fact obliterates the usual escape hatches Clinton defenders rely on. This was not a случай encounter in a crowded diplomatic setting, nor Epstein freelancing his way into proximity. Clinton brought them. He vouched for them. He placed a known sexual predator and his chief fixer into the intimate, vetted circle of a royal wedding as his companions. A former president does not casually invite plus-ones to a monarch’s wedding; guest lists are scrutinized, coordinated through diplomatic channels, and politically sensitive. By extending that invitation, Clinton didn’t just socialize with Epstein and Maxwell — he actively conferred legitimacy on them at the highest possible level of international prestige.That choice is damning because it fits a broader pattern of behavior that Clinton has never meaningfully accounted for. Inviting Epstein and Maxwell as his guests to a foreign king’s wedding occurred after Epstein was already widely known in elite circles as a deeply troubling figure, even if the full criminal case had not yet exploded publicly. Clinton’s repeated insistence that he “barely knew” Epstein collapses under the weight of actions like this. You don’t barely know someone you bring as your guests to a royal wedding. You don’t barely know someone you help usher into diplomatic and aristocratic spaces where trust and discretion are paramount. At best, this reflects grotesque judgment and an indifference to who was being elevated under Clinton’s name. At worst, it demonstrates how Epstein’s access, protection, and normalization were facilitated directly by powerful figures who knew better and chose silence, convenience, and proximity over accountability.to contact me:bobbyacpucci@protonmail.comsource:Exclusive | Bill Clinton brought Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell to Moroccan king's wedding | New York PostBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

19 Dec 18min

Andrew Lownie has been blunt and deeply critical about his interactions with British authorities regarding Prince Andrew and the Epstein affair, stating that he provided detailed information and evidence to UK law enforcement and relevant officials—and then heard absolutely nothing back. According to Lownie, he turned over material he believed was directly relevant to potential criminal inquiries, including information tied to Epstein’s network and Prince Andrew’s conduct, only to be met with silence. No follow-up questions. No requests for clarification. No indication the material was even reviewed. For Lownie, this wasn’t a case of bureaucracy moving slowly; it was a complete institutional void that strongly suggested a lack of interest in pursuing the matter at all. He has described the experience as profoundly troubling, particularly given the seriousness of the allegations and the public assurances that “no one is above the law.”What makes Lownie’s account especially damning is what that silence implies. British authorities have repeatedly claimed that investigations into Epstein-linked figures were constrained by jurisdictional or evidentiary limits, yet Lownie’s experience undercuts that narrative. When credible information was voluntarily handed over, the system didn’t stall—it disengaged. Lownie has framed this as emblematic of a broader failure, or refusal, to confront the implications of Epstein’s ties to the British establishment. In his telling, the lack of response is not neutral; it is an answer in itself. It suggests a culture of institutional risk-aversion when power, prestige, and the monarchy are involved, reinforcing the perception that accountability in the Epstein case stops precisely where it becomes uncomfortable for those at the top.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Former Prince Andrew biographer offered new evidence to National Crime Agency - NewsweekBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

19 Dec 15min

Ghislaine Maxwell’s habeas corpus petition is, at its core, a reheated attempt to relitigate issues that were already raised, argued, and rejected at trial and on direct appeal—most notably her fixation on alleged juror misconduct. Maxwell centers her petition on the claim that a juror failed to fully disclose past experiences with sexual abuse during voir dire, arguing this tainted the verdict and violated her Sixth Amendment rights. But courts that have already examined this issue concluded that there was no evidence of intentional deception or bias sufficient to overturn the conviction. Habeas relief is not a “do-over” for defendants unhappy with a jury’s conclusion, and Maxwell’s petition conspicuously ignores the extremely high bar required to show that any alleged juror error had a decisive, unconstitutional impact on the outcome of the trial.Beyond the juror issue, the petition leans heavily on familiar defense talking points—claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and constitutional violations framed in sweeping, conclusory language rather than supported by new, compelling evidence. What’s striking is how little the petition grapples with the overwhelming testimonial and documentary record that led to Maxwell’s conviction for facilitating and participating in the sexual abuse of minors. Instead, it attempts to recast procedural disputes as fundamental injustices while sidestepping the reality that multiple courts have already found the trial to be fair, the evidence to be strong, and the verdict to be sound. In that sense, the habeas filing reads less like a serious constitutional challenge and more like a last-ditch effort to chip away at a lawful conviction by exhausting every remaining procedural avenue—no matter how thin the underlying arguments have become.to contact me:Ghislaine Maxwell files petition challenging sex trafficking convictionBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

19 Dec 11min