Virginia Roberts 2nd Amended Response To Ghislaine Maxwell's 1st Discovery Request (Part 3-4) (8/15/25)
In her Second Amended Response to Maxwell’s discovery demands, Virginia Giuffre pushed back aggressively, refusing to yield to Maxwell’s attempts to broaden discovery into intrusive and irrelevant personal and psychological domains. She objected to Maxwell’s sprawling requests as overly burdensome, unduly invasive, and aimed at discrediting her through unnecessary exposure rather than legitimate legal pursuit. Giuffre instead reinforced her focus on evidence directly tied to the defamation claims and trafficking allegations, contesting any effort by Maxwell to turn the process into a fishing expedition or reputation‑smearing exercise under the guise of legal procedure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:epstein-documents-943-pages - DocumentCloudBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
15 Aug 22min
Virginia Roberts 2nd Amended Response To Ghislaine Maxwell's 1st Discovery Request (Part 1-2) (8/14/25)
In her Second Amended Response to Maxwell’s discovery demands, Virginia Giuffre pushed back aggressively, refusing to yield to Maxwell’s attempts to broaden discovery into intrusive and irrelevant personal and psychological domains. She objected to Maxwell’s sprawling requests as overly burdensome, unduly invasive, and aimed at discrediting her through unnecessary exposure rather than legitimate legal pursuit. Giuffre instead reinforced her focus on evidence directly tied to the defamation claims and trafficking allegations, contesting any effort by Maxwell to turn the process into a fishing expedition or reputation‑smearing exercise under the guise of legal procedure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:epstein-documents-943-pages - DocumentCloudBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
15 Aug 26min
Let's Meet Judge Steven Hippler
Judge Steven J. Hippler serves as the Administrative District Judge for Idaho's Fourth Judicial District, overseeing Ada, Boise, Elmore, and Valley Counties. Appointed in 2014, he is known for handling both high-profile criminal cases and complex civil matters. His notable cases include sentencing the parents of 9-year-old Emrik Osuna to life in prison for torturing and killing their child, and presiding over the upcoming trial of Bryan Kohberger, accused of murdering four University of Idaho students in 2022. Hippler is respected for his meticulous, fair approach to justice and his strong stance on severe criminal cases.In this episode, we take a look at the profile of the new Judge overseeing the Bryan Kohberger trial.(commercial at 9:29)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:New Idaho student murders Judge Steven Hippler takes Bryan Kohberger case | Fox NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
15 Aug 16min
Dr. Dahir And The Response To The Prosecutors In Idaho
To summarize the expert opinion of Dahir in the Reply to State’s Objection to Defendant’s Motion for Change of Venue for Case Number CR29-22-2805, here's a breakdown of the key points presented:Expert Qualifications: Dahir is presented as an expert with specialized knowledge, likely in fields such as jury psychology, media influence, or public perception, which is relevant to assessing the potential bias in the case's current venue.Basis for Change of Venue:Media Coverage: Dahir's expert opinion emphasizes that extensive media coverage of the case has potentially biased the local population. This coverage might have shaped public opinion, making it difficult for the defendant to receive a fair and impartial trial.Survey or Study Results: The opinion may include data from surveys or studies conducted to gauge the community’s awareness and opinions about the case. These results might show a significant percentage of the population already forming opinions about the case, thus supporting the argument for a change of venue.Community Sentiment: Dahir likely discusses how the local community’s sentiment toward the case or parties involved has been influenced by factors outside of the courtroom, such as local media narratives or community leaders’ statements.Legal Standards and Precedents: Dahir might reference legal standards or precedents where similar circumstances (such as high-profile cases with significant media coverage) warranted a change of venue to ensure fairness.Implications for Fair Trial: The expert opinion argues that without a change of venue, the defendant's right to a fair trial, as guaranteed by the Constitution, would be compromised. Dahir likely concludes that moving the trial to a less influenced or prejudiced location would be in the interest of justice.Recommendation: Dahir ultimately recommends that the court grant the defendant's motion for a change of venue to avoid the risks of prejudice and ensure the integrity of the judicial process.(commercial at 13:28)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
15 Aug 22min
Howard Blum And His Book About The Murders In Moscow
Bryan Kohberger is a 29-year-old criminology graduate student from Washington State University who has been accused of the November 2022 murders of four University of Idaho students: Kaylee Goncalves, Madison Mogen, Xana Kernodle, and Ethan Chapin. The students were found stabbed to death in their off-campus home in Moscow, Idaho.Kohberger was arrested in December 2022 at his family's home in Pennsylvania. Investigators have linked him to the crime scene through DNA evidence and cellphone data, which reportedly shows him near the victims' residence multiple times before the murders and during the night of the incident. His defense, however, claims that Kohberger was out driving and stargazing during the time of the murders, and they plan to use cellphone data to support this alibi.Kohberger faces four counts of first-degree murder and a potential death penalty if convicted. His legal team is pushing for a change of venue for the trial, citing concerns over finding an impartial jury due to the extensive media coverage of the case. The trial date has not yet been set, and pre-trial hearings continue to address various motions and evidence disputes.In this episode, we hear from author Howard Blum about Bryan Kohberger and the murders that rocked the nation.(commercial 8:02)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:How Idaho murder suspect Bryan Kohberger almost eluded capture (nypost.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
14 Aug 13min
Bryan Kohberger Alleges 24 Mistakes Were Made During The GJ Process
A grand jury is a legal body composed of citizens who are convened to determine whether there is enough evidence to bring criminal charges against an individual or group of individuals. Here's a summary of what a grand jury is and what it does:Purpose:The primary purpose of a grand jury is to serve as a check on government power by ensuring that individuals are not unfairly or arbitrarily charged with crimes. It acts as a safeguard to protect citizens from baseless accusations.Composition:Grand juries typically consist of 16 to 23 members who are randomly selected from the community.Grand jurors are chosen to serve for a specific term, often several months, during which they hear multiple cases.Secret Proceedings:Grand jury proceedings are conducted in secret, and the identities of the jurors are kept confidential to encourage impartiality and protect them from potential intimidation.Investigation:Grand juries have the authority to investigate a wide range of criminal matters, including felonies and serious crimes.They can issue subpoenas to compel witnesses to testify and produce documents or other evidence relevant to their investigations.Evidence Review:Prosecutors present evidence, including witness testimonies and documents, to the grand jury.Grand jurors evaluate this evidence to determine if there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that a specific individual or individuals should be charged.Indictment or No-Bill:If a grand jury finds sufficient evidence, they issue an indictment, which is a formal accusation that initiates criminal proceedings against the accused.If the grand jury does not find sufficient evidence, they issue a "no-bill," and no charges are filed.No Trial:It's important to note that a grand jury does not determine guilt or innocence. Its role is limited to deciding whether there is enough evidence to warrant a trial.Prosecutorial Discretion:Prosecutors have significant influence over the grand jury process, as they decide which cases to present, what evidence to introduce, and what charges to seek.Legal System Variation:The use of grand juries varies by jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions rely heavily on grand juries for felony cases, while others use preliminary hearings or direct filing by prosecutors.In summary, a grand jury is a panel of citizens that convenes in secret to review evidence presented by prosecutors and determine whether there is enough evidence to proceed with criminal charges. Its role is to act as a safeguard against unfounded accusations and to ensure that the decision to prosecute is based on a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed.According to a new filing, Bryan Kohberger's team alleges that 24 violations took place during the grand jury process and due to those violations, the whole thing should be tossed. The state of Idaho has not yet responded.(commercial at 7:37)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Bryan Kohberger secretly alleges 24 flaws in Idaho murders indictment in latest motion to dismiss | Fox NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
14 Aug 11min
How the DOJ Used Technicalities And Loopholes to Shut Epstein Victims Out (8/14/25)
Courtney Wild, one of Jeffrey Epstein’s underage victims, has waged a prolonged legal battle asserting that federal prosecutors violated her statutory rights under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act by secretly crafting a 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) shielding Epstein and his co-conspirators without notifying or consulting her—her “right to confer” and be treated fairly were emphatically ignored. After the district court acknowledged the CVRA violation but declined to provide relief on jurisdictional grounds following Epstein’s death, Wild pressed her case through the Eleventh Circuit. In a contentious en banc ruling, the court recognized the profound injustice yet held that the CVRA does not allow victims to enforce their rights via standalone legal action absent a formal criminal proceeding. Feeling thwarted by this interpretation, Wild and her attorneys petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve this critical question of whether the CVRA’s protections extend to pre‑charge, behind‑the‑scenes deals that effectively nullify accountability.Wild’s Supreme Court petition presents what she and her legal team call a “now-or-never opportunity” for the Court to buttress victim protections and clarify that the government cannot clandestinely dispense with criminal accountability while ignoring victims entirely—especially when the accused wield immense wealth and influence. Without such reckoning, the Justice Department may continue negotiating secret deals that nullify the statutory rights Congress fought to grant crime victims. Despite the urgency and gravity of the case, the Supreme Court ultimately declined to hear the appeal—effectively allowing the Eleventh Circuit’s restrictive interpretation to stand and signaling that victims in similar predicaments may remain legally powerless when prosecutors circumvent the formal charging process.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein victim seeks US Supreme Court review of prosecutors' secret deal - ABC NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
14 Aug 11min
The RICO They Wouldn’t Touch: How the Feds Protected Epstein’s Network (8/14/25)
The federal government’s prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein was deliberately narrow, avoiding the use of RICO laws that could have exposed the full scope of his decades-long trafficking network and implicated powerful political, financial, and intelligence figures. Instead of treating the case like an organized crime operation, they focused on a small set of charges tied to a limited timeframe, ensuring the investigation stayed contained. RICO would have allowed prosecutors to seize assets, subpoena extensive records, and charge a broader circle of co-conspirators, but its omission kept damaging evidence sealed, high-profile names off the record, and the investigation safely within boundaries designed to prevent collateral fallout.This wasn’t a mistake—it was a controlled demolition. Epstein’s death, Maxwell’s limited charges, and the selective handling of evidence ensured the network behind them remained intact. The courtroom became the real crime scene, where the scope was cut, witnesses were muted, and the public was fed a sanitized version of events. The outcome wasn’t a reckoning but a strategic pause, a way to tidy up before returning to business as usual. In the end, justice wasn’t served; the system protected itself, showing once again that the law is enforced where it’s convenient, and shielded where it’s dangerous.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
14 Aug 15min
