Murder In Moscow: The IGG Closed Hearing Transcripts (Part 11)

JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.'s memorandum of law in opposition to James Edward Staley’s motion to dismiss addresses several key points:Responsibility and Knowledge: JPMorgan argues that James Staley, as a senior executive, played a significant role in managing the relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. They assert that Staley was aware, or should have been aware, of Epstein's illegal activities and failed to take appropriate action to address or report these issues.Claims of Misconduct: The memorandum highlights specific allegations that Staley facilitated Epstein's criminal enterprise by maintaining and managing Epstein's accounts, even after red flags were raised. This includes allegations of willful blindness and failure to comply with legal and regulatory obligations.Legal Arguments: JPMorgan contends that Staley's motion to dismiss lacks merit because the claims against him are well-supported by evidence and legal precedent. They argue that the allegations, if proven true, establish a clear basis for Staley's liability in connection with Epstein's activities.Fiduciary Duties: The bank emphasizes that Staley breached his fiduciary duties by prioritizing the bank's financial interests over legal compliance and ethical standards. This breach of duty, JPMorgan argues, justifies the continuation of legal proceedings against him.Impact on the Bank: JPMorgan also addresses the reputational and financial damage caused by Staley's alleged misconduct. They claim that his actions have led to significant legal and regulatory scrutiny, which has harmed the bank’s standing and operations.The opposition memorandum seeks to ensure that Staley remains a party to the lawsuit, holding him accountable for his alleged role in facilitating Epstein's criminal conductto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.140.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

27 Aug 30min

JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.'s memorandum of law in opposition to James Edward Staley’s motion to dismiss addresses several key points:Responsibility and Knowledge: JPMorgan argues that James Staley, as a senior executive, played a significant role in managing the relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. They assert that Staley was aware, or should have been aware, of Epstein's illegal activities and failed to take appropriate action to address or report these issues.Claims of Misconduct: The memorandum highlights specific allegations that Staley facilitated Epstein's criminal enterprise by maintaining and managing Epstein's accounts, even after red flags were raised. This includes allegations of willful blindness and failure to comply with legal and regulatory obligations.Legal Arguments: JPMorgan contends that Staley's motion to dismiss lacks merit because the claims against him are well-supported by evidence and legal precedent. They argue that the allegations, if proven true, establish a clear basis for Staley's liability in connection with Epstein's activities.Fiduciary Duties: The bank emphasizes that Staley breached his fiduciary duties by prioritizing the bank's financial interests over legal compliance and ethical standards. This breach of duty, JPMorgan argues, justifies the continuation of legal proceedings against him.Impact on the Bank: JPMorgan also addresses the reputational and financial damage caused by Staley's alleged misconduct. They claim that his actions have led to significant legal and regulatory scrutiny, which has harmed the bank’s standing and operations.The opposition memorandum seeks to ensure that Staley remains a party to the lawsuit, holding him accountable for his alleged role in facilitating Epstein's criminal conductto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.140.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

27 Aug 25min

From the archives: 4-17-23Recently Idaho passed a law that legalized death by firing squad in the event that chemicals used in the cocktail given to the condemned is not available. With several high profile cases working their way through the system in Idaho, including the murder trial of Bryan Kohberger, legal experts are providing more context on the state of Idaho and their history with the death penalty.In this episode, we take a look at some of that history and hear what the experts have to say about the firing squad being utilized at some point in the future in the case of Bryan Kohberger.(commercial at 8:56)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/crime/article274244650.htmlBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

27 Aug 15min

Gag orders, also known as prior restraint orders, are restrictions on speech or the press that are imposed by the government or the courts. The constitutionality of gag orders depends on the specific circumstances of each case and the specific restrictions imposed.In general, the First Amendment of the US Constitution protects freedom of speech and of the press, and restrictions on speech are subject to strict scrutiny by the courts.However, under certain circumstances, the government may impose restrictions on speech in order to protect important interests, such as national security, the integrity of the judicial process, or the privacy rights of individuals.In such cases, the courts will balance the government's interests against the First Amendment rights of the speaker or the press. If the restrictions are deemed to be narrowly tailored and the least restrictive means of achieving the government's interest, they may be upheld as constitutional. However, if the restrictions are overly broad or unnecessarily restrictive, they may be struck down as unconstitutional.In this episode we get the decision from the supreme court who has ruled that the gag order will stay in place.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Idaho murders: Court denies request to lift gag order in case of Bryan Kohberger, man accused of killing 4 college students - CBS NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

27 Aug 10min

​In 2020, while pursuing a master's degree in criminal justice at DeSales University, Bryan Kohberger authored a 12-page essay titled "Crime-Scene Scenario Final." This academic paper detailed procedures for processing a crime scene, emphasizing methods to prevent contamination, such as the use of fiber-free overalls, gloves, and booties. Kohberger also discussed the importance of collecting DNA evidence and analyzing surveillance footage to identify suspects. The essay centered around a case involving a 35-year-old woman who was stabbed to death in a trailer park, though it remains unclear if this scenario was hypothetical or based on real events.Prosecutors in Kohberger's ongoing trial for the 2022 murders of four University of Idaho students have introduced this essay as evidence, arguing that it demonstrates his extensive knowledge of crime scene investigation techniques. They contend that the detailed understanding reflected in his writing suggests a capability to commit the alleged crimes with precision and an awareness of how to avoid leaving incriminating evidence. The trial is scheduled to begin in August 2025, with jury selection commencing on July 30.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

26 Aug 18min

​In 2020, while pursuing a master's degree in criminal justice at DeSales University, Bryan Kohberger authored a 12-page essay titled "Crime-Scene Scenario Final." This academic paper detailed procedures for processing a crime scene, emphasizing methods to prevent contamination, such as the use of fiber-free overalls, gloves, and booties. Kohberger also discussed the importance of collecting DNA evidence and analyzing surveillance footage to identify suspects. The essay centered around a case involving a 35-year-old woman who was stabbed to death in a trailer park, though it remains unclear if this scenario was hypothetical or based on real events.Prosecutors in Kohberger's ongoing trial for the 2022 murders of four University of Idaho students have introduced this essay as evidence, arguing that it demonstrates his extensive knowledge of crime scene investigation techniques. They contend that the detailed understanding reflected in his writing suggests a capability to commit the alleged crimes with precision and an awareness of how to avoid leaving incriminating evidence. The trial is scheduled to begin in August 2025, with jury selection commencing on July 30.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

26 Aug 12min

On August 22, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice released redacted transcripts and audio recordings of a two-day interview it conducted in July with Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year federal prison sentence for her role in Jeffrey Epstein’s sex-trafficking ring. During the interview, Maxwell denied ever seeing any inappropriate behavior by former President Donald Trump, describing him as a “gentleman in all respects,” and insisted she “never witnessed the president in any inappropriate setting in any way.” She also rejected the existence of a so-called “client list,” countering years of speculation, and claimed to have no knowledge of blackmail or illicit recordings tied to Epstein.In addition to defending high-profile figures, Maxwell expressed doubt that Epstein’s death was a suicide, while also rejecting the notion of an elaborate conspiracy or murder plot. The release of the transcripts—handled under the Trump-era Justice Department—has stirred sharp political debate. Trump allies have framed her remarks as vindication, while critics and Epstein’s survivors question her credibility, pointing to her conviction and suggesting her words may be aimed at influencing potential clemency or political favor.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Interview Transcript - Maxwell 2025.07.24 (Redacted).pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

26 Aug 12min

The allegations that the Clintons vacationed at Jeffrey Epstein’s Zorro Ranch are more than just idle rumor—they strike at the heart of the Clintons’ long pattern of lying, minimizing, and hiding behind carefully scripted denials. Reports claimed Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea all spent time at the New Mexico compound, a place now forever tied to child trafficking and sexual exploitation. Bill Clinton’s spokesman responded with a smug “simply not true. Period.” But that kind of arrogant brush-off is exactly the problem. It’s the same playbook the Clintons have used for decades: deny, deflect, and bank on their political clout to keep the media from asking hard questions. When it comes to Epstein, this tactic is especially grotesque. Even the appearance of vacationing at a pedophile’s desert fortress should be scandal enough—but the Clintons expect people to take their word at face value and move on, as if their history with Epstein never existed.Meanwhile, survivors testified that Zorro Ranch wasn’t a retreat; it was a nightmare. Court records describe underage girls being groomed, abused, and trafficked there, some as young as 15. Against that backdrop, the allegations that the Clintons used the ranch as a getaway make their denials sound hollow and self-serving. Epstein’s black book listed the “Office of Bill Clinton,” proving at least documented contact. Yet instead of accountability, the Clintons have relied on the protective bubble of political privilege, shrugging off serious allegations as if they were beneath response. Critics argue this is moral rot at its finest: powerful elites vacationing where children were allegedly trafficked, and then waving away any connection as if their word is gospel. If this is the best the Clintons can do, it isn’t a defense—it’s an indictment of how untouchable they think they are.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Bill and Hillary Clinton were frequent guests at 'Jeffrey Epstein's New Mexico ranch | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

26 Aug 14min