Gone But Not Forgotten: Johnny Gosch

The 2009 federal lawsuit Jane Doe No. 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein, filed in the Southern District of Florida, accuses Epstein of sexually abusing and trafficking the plaintiff when she was a minor in Palm Beach County. Filed under a pseudonym to protect her identity, the complaint outlines a pattern of predatory conduct consistent with other allegations against Epstein during the same period. It asserts federal jurisdiction, establishes venue in Florida, and demands a jury trial. Early filings also sought a no-contact order and measures to preserve evidence, signaling the seriousness of the claims and the plaintiff’s intent to prevent witness intimidation or evidence tampering.The case emerged alongside a wave of similar “Jane Doe” suits that were being coordinated in federal court, reflecting the widening legal fallout for Epstein at the time. The complaint fits within the broader narrative of civil actions that sought to hold Epstein accountable after his controversial 2008 plea deal allowed him to avoid federal prosecution. By placing this new plaintiff’s claims into the public record, the suit added further pressure on Epstein’s legal defenses and contributed to the mounting body of litigation alleging he operated a long-running sex trafficking network targeting underage girls.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.334533.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

10 Aug 14min

Epstein survivors and their legal advocates have voiced serious concern over the DOJ's push to unseal grand jury documents from Ghislaine Maxwell's criminal case, cautioning that such a move risks retraumatizing victims and potentially exposing sensitive identifying information. While the survivors have long called for transparency and accountability, many are now expressing frustration that the DOJ appears more interested in symbolic gestures—like the selective unsealing of documents—than in pursuing real justice against the powerful figures who enabled and benefited from Epstein’s trafficking ring. Survivors' attorneys have pointed out that the DOJ has a long history of inaction, and they view this sudden interest in grand jury material as performative rather than substantive.In particular, the survivors have emphasized that unsealing redacted transcripts is no substitute for meaningful prosecutions or full disclosure of the DOJ’s own failings—specifically regarding the original 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement and the lack of charges brought against Epstein’s inner circle of enablers. Some have accused the Justice Department of using the unsealing process as a distraction from the larger systemic failure to hold those in Epstein’s orbit truly accountable. Others have warned that without strict safeguards, the release of grand jury testimony could expose private details that were never meant for public consumption, ultimately serving institutional optics rather than survivor justice.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein victims speak out: This ‘smacks of a cover up’ - POLITICOBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

10 Aug 17min

Ghislaine Maxwell’s transfer from FCI Tallahassee, a medium-security federal prison, to Bryan Federal Prison Camp in Texas has drawn sharp criticism and widespread skepticism due to its highly irregular nature. Federal prison policy dictates that inmates convicted of serious crimes—especially those involving violence, international ties, or sex trafficking—are rarely, if ever, reassigned to minimum-security camps. Maxwell’s background as a convicted sex trafficker with dual citizenship, ties to global intelligence, and deep associations with high-profile individuals makes her a textbook case for maximum supervision. Yet she was quietly moved to a facility with no armed guards, no fences, and minimal restrictions—conditions far more suited to nonviolent white-collar criminals.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Ghislaine Maxwell's move to Texas minimum security prison called 'highly unusual' | Fox NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

10 Aug 10min

Virginia Giuffre’s response to Ghislaine Maxwell’s motion for summary judgment was a direct challenge to Maxwell’s attempt to dismiss the case without a trial. In her filing, Giuffre argued that Maxwell’s statements denying any wrongdoing were not only defamatory, but made with actual malice—because Maxwell knew they were false when she made them. Giuffre’s legal team submitted sworn testimony, supporting documentation, and detailed timelines to establish that Maxwell had played a central role in Epstein’s trafficking operation and that her denials were part of a broader effort to discredit and silence victims.Virginia Giuffre’s response to Ghislaine Maxwell’s motion for summary judgment was a direct challenge to Maxwell’s attempt to dismiss the case without a trial. In her filing, Giuffre argued that Maxwell’s statements denying any wrongdoing were not only defamatory, but made with actual malice—because Maxwell knew they were false when she made them. Giuffre’s legal team submitted sworn testimony, supporting documentation, and detailed timelines to establish that Maxwell had played a central role in Epstein’s trafficking operation and that her denials were part of a broader effort to discredit and silence victims.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Giuffre-unseal.pdf (courthousenews.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

10 Aug 37min

Virginia Giuffre’s response to Ghislaine Maxwell’s motion for summary judgment was a direct challenge to Maxwell’s attempt to dismiss the case without a trial. In her filing, Giuffre argued that Maxwell’s statements denying any wrongdoing were not only defamatory, but made with actual malice—because Maxwell knew they were false when she made them. Giuffre’s legal team submitted sworn testimony, supporting documentation, and detailed timelines to establish that Maxwell had played a central role in Epstein’s trafficking operation and that her denials were part of a broader effort to discredit and silence victims.Virginia Giuffre’s response to Ghislaine Maxwell’s motion for summary judgment was a direct challenge to Maxwell’s attempt to dismiss the case without a trial. In her filing, Giuffre argued that Maxwell’s statements denying any wrongdoing were not only defamatory, but made with actual malice—because Maxwell knew they were false when she made them. Giuffre’s legal team submitted sworn testimony, supporting documentation, and detailed timelines to establish that Maxwell had played a central role in Epstein’s trafficking operation and that her denials were part of a broader effort to discredit and silence victims.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Giuffre-unseal.pdf (courthousenews.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

10 Aug 26min

In the defamation case Virginia Giuffre brought against Ghislaine Maxwell beginning in 2015, Maxwell responded with a motion for summary judgment—arguing that Giuffre’s allegations were not legally defamatory and that Maxwell was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. That motion aimed to avoid a trial by asserting that even if all of Giuffre’s allegations were true, they did not meet the legal threshold for defamation. The motion, along with supporting documents, was filed under seal during pre-trial proceedings. Ultimately, the district court did not grant the motion, and the case was later settled out of court under confidentiality terms in 2017.When third parties later moved to unseal portions of the sealed record, particularly filings related to the summary judgment motion, the courts determined that these materials were judicial documents subject to a strong presumption of public access. A federal appeals court ordered their partial release because Maxwell had not shown sufficient reasons to overcome the public’s right of access. In other words, although Maxwell sought to dispose of the case quietly and legally via summary judgment—and shield that process from public view—those efforts were rejected, and important portions of the case were ultimately made part of the public record.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein Docs - DocumentCloudBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

10 Aug 42min

In Ada County Case No. CR01-24-31665, Defendant Bryan Kohberger filed motions to suppress evidence obtained through search warrants directed at AT&T, Google, USB devices, Apple, and Amazon. The defense argued that these warrants were invalid, alleging they were based on information gathered through unconstitutional methods, including the use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), and that the affidavits supporting the warrants contained intentional or reckless omissions of material facts. They contended that the evidence obtained from these warrants violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights and should therefore be excluded from trial.However, the court denied these suppression motions, ruling that the search warrants were lawfully issued and executed. The judge found that the affidavits provided sufficient probable cause and that the methods employed, including the use of IGG, did not violate constitutional protections. Additionally, the court determined that there was no evidence of intentional or reckless falsehoods or omissions in the affidavits that would warrant a Franks hearing. As a result, the evidence obtained from AT&T, Google, USB devices, Apple, and Amazon remains admissible in the proceedings against Kohbergerto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:021925-Order-Defedants-Motions-Suppress-ATT-Google-USB-Apple-Amazon.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

10 Aug 13min

In the defamation case Virginia Giuffre brought against Ghislaine Maxwell beginning in 2015, Maxwell responded with a motion for summary judgment—arguing that Giuffre’s allegations were not legally defamatory and that Maxwell was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. That motion aimed to avoid a trial by asserting that even if all of Giuffre’s allegations were true, they did not meet the legal threshold for defamation. The motion, along with supporting documents, was filed under seal during pre-trial proceedings. Ultimately, the district court did not grant the motion, and the case was later settled out of court under confidentiality terms in 2017.When third parties later moved to unseal portions of the sealed record, particularly filings related to the summary judgment motion, the courts determined that these materials were judicial documents subject to a strong presumption of public access. A federal appeals court ordered their partial release because Maxwell had not shown sufficient reasons to overcome the public’s right of access. In other words, although Maxwell sought to dispose of the case quietly and legally via summary judgment—and shield that process from public view—those efforts were rejected, and important portions of the case were ultimately made part of the public record.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein Docs - DocumentCloudBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

10 Aug 24min