Gone But Not Forgotten: The Springfield 3 (4/22/25)

From the archives: 1-8-23There have been several reports that Bryan Kohberger was an active participant of several different groups that were following the investigation.In this episode, we take a look at those accusations and hear from a few experts who have been following along with the groups he is alleged to have been part of.(commercial at 9:28)to contact me:[email protected]:Was Bryan Kohberger Hiding in Plain Sight? Online Sleuth Theory Goes Viral (newsweek.com)

Bill Clinton has some explaining to do.The daily beast has a report out exposing Bill Clinton and his Relationship with Maxwell even after the Epstein arrest.(commercial at 16:58)To contact me:[email protected]:https://www.thedailybeast.com/revealed-bill-clintons-intimate-secret-dinner-with-ghislaine-maxwell

The case of the Springfield Three is one of the most haunting and enduring unsolved missing persons cases in American history. On the night of June 6, 1992, in Springfield, Missouri, three women—47-year-old Sherrill Levitt, her 19-year-old daughter Suzie Streeter, and Suzie’s friend 18-year-old Stacy McCall—vanished without a trace from Sherrill’s home at 1717 East Delmar Street. The night before, Suzie and Stacy had just graduated from Kickapoo High School. After attending several parties, they returned to Suzie’s house around 2 a.m. intending to sleep over. The plan was to go swimming the next day and meet up with friends.The next morning, the house was eerily silent. Friends who arrived to pick up the girls found all three women's personal belongings inside—purses, cars, and even Suzie and Sherrill’s cigarettes were left untouched. The front porch light was broken, the glass swept up by someone, and the front door was unlocked. There were no signs of forced entry, no signs of struggle, and no clear evidence of what had happened. Over the years, multiple theories emerged, including abduction by someone they knew, a botched burglary, or even police cover-up, but none have been proven. A key figure, convicted kidnapper Robert Craig Cox, claimed to know what happened but refused to say more. Despite intense media coverage and thousands of leads, the Springfield Three remain missing, and the case continues to baffle investigators and haunt the city more than three decades later.to contact me:[email protected]

​On April 18, 2025, the Idaho District Court issued a ruling on the State's motion in limine concerning the admissibility of neuropsychological and psychiatric evidence in the case of State v. Bryan C. Kohberger. The State sought to exclude testimony from defense experts Dr. Rachel Orr and Dr. Eileen Ryan regarding Kohberger's diagnoses, including Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD). The defense argued that this evidence was not intended to establish a mental condition defense under Idaho Code § 18-207 but rather to provide context for Kohberger's courtroom demeanor and to assist the jury in understanding the physical implications of his diagnoses. The court determined that if Kohberger does not testify, such evidence explaining his demeanor is irrelevant and inadmissible under Idaho Rule of Evidence 403. However, the court reserved ruling on certain behaviors that might become relevant in rebuttal, except for expert testimony asserting that Kohberger was physically incapable of committing the crimes, for which no opinion had been disclosedto contact me:[email protected]:041825+Order+on+Defendants+Motion+in+Limine+RE+Rylene+Nowlin+and+Touch+and+Contact+DNA.pdf

​On April 18, 2025, the Idaho District Court issued a ruling on the State's motion in limine concerning the admissibility of neuropsychological and psychiatric evidence in the case of State v. Bryan C. Kohberger. The State sought to exclude testimony from defense experts Dr. Rachel Orr and Dr. Eileen Ryan regarding Kohberger's diagnoses, including Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD). The defense argued that this evidence was not intended to establish a mental condition defense under Idaho Code § 18-207 but rather to provide context for Kohberger's courtroom demeanor and to assist the jury in understanding the physical implications of his diagnoses. The court determined that if Kohberger does not testify, such evidence explaining his demeanor is irrelevant and inadmissible under Idaho Rule of Evidence 403. However, the court reserved ruling on certain behaviors that might become relevant in rebuttal, except for expert testimony asserting that Kohberger was physically incapable of committing the crimes, for which no opinion had been disclosedto contact me:[email protected]:041825+Order+on+Defendants+Motion+in+Limine+RE+Rylene+Nowlin+and+Touch+and+Contact+DNA.pdf

​In a motion filed on April 16, 2025, Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team requested the exclusion of two prior incidents from his upcoming federal trial. The first pertains to a 1999 nightclub shooting at Club New York, where Combs was present and initially charged but later acquitted. His attorneys argue that introducing this event would be more prejudicial than probative, potentially biasing the jury by suggesting a propensity for violence. They contend that this incident lacks direct relevance to the current charges and would unfairly influence the jury's perception.The second incident involves a 2016 alleged assault at a recording studio, which the defense also seeks to exclude. Combs' lawyers assert that this event is unrelated to the current case and its inclusion would serve only to prejudice the jury. They argue that admitting such evidence would violate Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403, which restrict the use of prior bad acts to prove character and caution against evidence that could cause unfair prejudice. The defense maintains that these incidents do not provide legitimate insight into the allegations at hand and should not be presented during the trial.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.240.0.pdf

​In a motion filed on April 16, 2025, Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team requested the exclusion of two prior incidents from his upcoming federal trial. The first pertains to a 1999 nightclub shooting at Club New York, where Combs was present and initially charged but later acquitted. His attorneys argue that introducing this event would be more prejudicial than probative, potentially biasing the jury by suggesting a propensity for violence. They contend that this incident lacks direct relevance to the current charges and would unfairly influence the jury's perception.The second incident involves a 2016 alleged assault at a recording studio, which the defense also seeks to exclude. Combs' lawyers assert that this event is unrelated to the current case and its inclusion would serve only to prejudice the jury. They argue that admitting such evidence would violate Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403, which restrict the use of prior bad acts to prove character and caution against evidence that could cause unfair prejudice. The defense maintains that these incidents do not provide legitimate insight into the allegations at hand and should not be presented during the trial.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.240.0.pdf

The Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report examining the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) granted to Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of Florida. The report found serious missteps and poor judgment by federal prosecutors, particularly then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, who ultimately approved the deal. The OIG concluded that while there was no evidence of criminal misconduct or corruption, prosecutors displayed a stunning lack of urgency, failed to properly notify Epstein’s victims as required by the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, and sidelined a 53-page federal indictment in favor of a lenient plea deal that shielded Epstein and his unnamed co-conspirators from federal prosecution. The report criticized the secretive nature of the NPA and found that Acosta gave “too much deference” to Epstein’s high-powered legal team.The report also exposed the government’s unusual willingness to cooperate with Epstein’s lawyers, including allowing them to essentially dictate the terms of the deal, such as minimizing public exposure and avoiding victim input. Despite mounting evidence of Epstein’s exploitation of dozens of underage girls, the U.S. Attorney’s Office prioritized avoiding litigation risks and potential political fallout over pursuing justice. Although the OIG did not recommend criminal charges against any of the involved officials, the findings fueled renewed calls for accountability and transparency in cases involving wealthy, well-connected defendants. The report paints a picture of a justice system that buckled under pressure from power and influence, enabling Epstein’s abuse to continue for years.to contact me:[email protected]:dl (justice.gov)

The Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report examining the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) granted to Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of Florida. The report found serious missteps and poor judgment by federal prosecutors, particularly then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, who ultimately approved the deal. The OIG concluded that while there was no evidence of criminal misconduct or corruption, prosecutors displayed a stunning lack of urgency, failed to properly notify Epstein’s victims as required by the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, and sidelined a 53-page federal indictment in favor of a lenient plea deal that shielded Epstein and his unnamed co-conspirators from federal prosecution. The report criticized the secretive nature of the NPA and found that Acosta gave “too much deference” to Epstein’s high-powered legal team.The report also exposed the government’s unusual willingness to cooperate with Epstein’s lawyers, including allowing them to essentially dictate the terms of the deal, such as minimizing public exposure and avoiding victim input. Despite mounting evidence of Epstein’s exploitation of dozens of underage girls, the U.S. Attorney’s Office prioritized avoiding litigation risks and potential political fallout over pursuing justice. Although the OIG did not recommend criminal charges against any of the involved officials, the findings fueled renewed calls for accountability and transparency in cases involving wealthy, well-connected defendants. The report paints a picture of a justice system that buckled under pressure from power and influence, enabling Epstein’s abuse to continue for years.to contact me:[email protected]:dl (justice.gov)

The Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report examining the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) granted to Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of Florida. The report found serious missteps and poor judgment by federal prosecutors, particularly then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, who ultimately approved the deal. The OIG concluded that while there was no evidence of criminal misconduct or corruption, prosecutors displayed a stunning lack of urgency, failed to properly notify Epstein’s victims as required by the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, and sidelined a 53-page federal indictment in favor of a lenient plea deal that shielded Epstein and his unnamed co-conspirators from federal prosecution. The report criticized the secretive nature of the NPA and found that Acosta gave “too much deference” to Epstein’s high-powered legal team.The report also exposed the government’s unusual willingness to cooperate with Epstein’s lawyers, including allowing them to essentially dictate the terms of the deal, such as minimizing public exposure and avoiding victim input. Despite mounting evidence of Epstein’s exploitation of dozens of underage girls, the U.S. Attorney’s Office prioritized avoiding litigation risks and potential political fallout over pursuing justice. Although the OIG did not recommend criminal charges against any of the involved officials, the findings fueled renewed calls for accountability and transparency in cases involving wealthy, well-connected defendants. The report paints a picture of a justice system that buckled under pressure from power and influence, enabling Epstein’s abuse to continue for years.to contact me:[email protected]:dl (justice.gov)