Gone But Not Forgotten: Johnny Gosch

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 14min

The April 24, 2025 order issued by Judge John C. Judge in the Bryan Kohberger case addresses the prosecution's motion to limit or exclude certain pieces of evidence—specifically, the 911 call and related text messages made by surviving roommate Dylan Mortensen on the night of the murders. The state sought to prevent the defense from introducing or speculating about the content and timing of the 911 call or messages, arguing that such discussions would be prejudicial, misleading, and based on incomplete information. The court agreed in part, ruling that the defense may not reference the 911 call or text messages during opening statements, as their admissibility will depend on the context provided during trial.However, Judge Judge left the door open for the 911 call and texts to be introduced later, depending on how the evidence unfolds and whether a proper foundation is laid. He emphasized that such materials must meet standards of relevance and reliability before being admitted in front of the jury. The ruling reflects the court’s intent to avoid speculation and ensure that jurors are only exposed to properly vetted evidence. The decision was a partial win for the prosecution, but it does not preclude the defense from raising the issue later if it becomes legally and factually appropriate.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:042425+Order+on+States+Motions+in+Limine+RE+Text+Messages+and+911+Call.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

10 Aug 18min

The April 24, 2025 order issued by Judge John C. Judge in the Bryan Kohberger case addresses the prosecution's motion to limit or exclude certain pieces of evidence—specifically, the 911 call and related text messages made by surviving roommate Dylan Mortensen on the night of the murders. The state sought to prevent the defense from introducing or speculating about the content and timing of the 911 call or messages, arguing that such discussions would be prejudicial, misleading, and based on incomplete information. The court agreed in part, ruling that the defense may not reference the 911 call or text messages during opening statements, as their admissibility will depend on the context provided during trial.However, Judge Judge left the door open for the 911 call and texts to be introduced later, depending on how the evidence unfolds and whether a proper foundation is laid. He emphasized that such materials must meet standards of relevance and reliability before being admitted in front of the jury. The ruling reflects the court’s intent to avoid speculation and ensure that jurors are only exposed to properly vetted evidence. The decision was a partial win for the prosecution, but it does not preclude the defense from raising the issue later if it becomes legally and factually appropriate.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:042425+Order+on+States+Motions+in+Limine+RE+Text+Messages+and+911+Call.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

9 Aug 14min

From the archives: 12-26-22Cole Altender, a former tenant at the Moscow house when he was attending college at the university of Idaho has spoken out about his time living in the house and how when he lived there nobody could move around without everyone else hearing their movements, even if that was just rolling a computer chair away from his desk.Let's dive in and see what's up!(commercial at 7:51)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Ex-tenant of Idaho murder house says 'you can hear footsteps on every floor at night' | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

9 Aug 12min

Prince Andrew’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was not a mistake—it was a calculated choice sustained over years, even after Epstein's conviction for sex crimes. The Duke of York didn’t distance himself from Epstein—he doubled down, staying at his Manhattan mansion and walking through Central Park with him while the world watched. When accused by Virginia Giuffre of raping her while she was a trafficked teenager, Andrew responded not with cooperation or humility, but with denials, absurd alibis, and a multi-million dollar settlement to avoid testifying under oath. The infamous Newsnight interview only cemented his arrogance, exposing a man more concerned with salvaging his reputation than acknowledging the suffering of Epstein’s victims.What followed was a carefully managed retreat from public life. The monarchy, under increasing pressure, stripped Prince Andrew of his titles and public duties—not out of moral reckoning, but as a necessary step to contain the fallout. The legal system never pursued criminal charges, and media coverage often focused more on the royal family's image than the underlying allegations. Virginia Giuffre, through her persistence, brought global attention to a case that might otherwise have remained buried. In the end, Prince Andrew’s reputation remains permanently damaged, but the broader questions about accountability, privilege, and institutional protection remain unresolved.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

9 Aug 10min

Prince Andrew’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was not a mistake—it was a calculated choice sustained over years, even after Epstein's conviction for sex crimes. The Duke of York didn’t distance himself from Epstein—he doubled down, staying at his Manhattan mansion and walking through Central Park with him while the world watched. When accused by Virginia Giuffre of raping her while she was a trafficked teenager, Andrew responded not with cooperation or humility, but with denials, absurd alibis, and a multi-million dollar settlement to avoid testifying under oath. The infamous Newsnight interview only cemented his arrogance, exposing a man more concerned with salvaging his reputation than acknowledging the suffering of Epstein’s victims.What followed was a carefully managed retreat from public life. The monarchy, under increasing pressure, stripped Prince Andrew of his titles and public duties—not out of moral reckoning, but as a necessary step to contain the fallout. The legal system never pursued criminal charges, and media coverage often focused more on the royal family's image than the underlying allegations. Virginia Giuffre, through her persistence, brought global attention to a case that might otherwise have remained buried. In the end, Prince Andrew’s reputation remains permanently damaged, but the broader questions about accountability, privilege, and institutional protection remain unresolved.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

9 Aug 12min

The civil complaint filed by Virginia Roberts Giuffre against Prince Andrew in 2021 alleged that he sexually abused her on multiple occasions when she was 17 years old, a victim of Jeffrey Epstein’s trafficking network. The lawsuit, filed in New York under the Child Victims Act, claimed that Prince Andrew knowingly engaged in sexual acts with Giuffre despite being aware that she was being trafficked by Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Giuffre alleged that the abuse occurred in Epstein’s New York townhouse, in London at Ghislaine Maxwell’s residence, and in the Virgin Islands. The complaint painted a damning picture of a royal using his status and connections to exploit a vulnerable girl, shielded by a global web of power and silence.Prince Andrew publicly denied the allegations, claiming he had no recollection of meeting Giuffre—even though a widely circulated photo shows them together with Maxwell in the background. Rather than face a public trial and legal discovery, Andrew reached an out-of-court settlement with Giuffre in early 2022, reportedly for several million dollars, without admitting guilt. The settlement effectively ended the case but left critical questions unanswered, including whether others in Epstein’s orbit facilitated or knew of the abuse. The lawsuit against Prince Andrew marked a rare instance where someone of global stature and diplomatic immunity faced direct legal consequences tied to Epstein’s trafficking ring, though many critics saw the quiet settlement as another example of privilege avoiding accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Final Giuffre v. Prince Andrew Complaint v.13.pdf (courthousenews.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

9 Aug 24min

In response to the civil lawsuit filed against him under New York’s Adult Survivors Act, Leon Black sought to unmask the identity of his accuser, known in court filings as Jane Doe. Black’s legal team argued that anonymity undermined his ability to defend himself and conduct a fair investigation into the allegations. They filed motions urging the court to compel the woman to publicly reveal her name, claiming that her accusations were damaging his reputation and that shielding her identity placed him at an unfair legal disadvantage. This move was widely criticized by victim advocates, who saw it as a tactic meant to intimidate and discourage other survivors from coming forward, especially in cases involving powerful, well-connected defendants.Jane Doe’s legal team pushed back forcefully, emphasizing that her anonymity was legally protected under the Adult Survivors Act and critical to her safety and well-being. They argued that forcing her to go public would expose her to harassment, retraumatization, and potential danger. The court initially ruled in her favor, allowing her to proceed under a pseudonym. The broader implications of Black’s attempt to identify his accuser reflect a familiar dynamic in high-profile sexual assault cases—where wealthy defendants use aggressive legal maneuvers to shift the focus away from the allegations and onto the accuser. In the context of Epstein’s network, this tactic is seen as part of a pattern of silencing, discrediting, and outlasting survivors through sheer financial and institutional power.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.602764.144.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

9 Aug 22min