The LISK FIles: The Less Than Cordial Relationship Between Lawyers Involved In The GIlgo Case

Attorney John Ray has made some pretty big accusations against Rex Heuermann's wife and kids since the arrest, even going so far as to say that his wife, Asa Ellerup, was in on the whole thing. He has not provided any proof to back these statements up however. Now, the lawyer for Heuermann's daughter Victoria and son Christopher has responded.Let's dive in and see what he had to say!to contact me:[email protected]:Attorney for Gilgo Beach murder suspect’s children hits back at claims family knew about alleged crimes | The Independent

An organized serial killer is a type of serial killer who exhibits a high degree of planning, control, and premeditation when committing their crimes. Unlike disorganized serial killers, who tend to act impulsively and leave chaotic crime scenes, organized serial killers are methodical and strategic in their approach, making it challenging for law enforcement to apprehend them.Key characteristics of an organized serial killer include:Methodical planning: Organized serial killers carefully select their victims, often based on specific criteria such as appearance, occupation, or vulnerability. They may stalk potential victims to learn their routines and habits before carrying out the murders.Controlled crime scenes: These killers go to great lengths to minimize evidence left behind at the crime scenes. They may bring tools, restraints, or other items to help facilitate the killings and dispose of evidence thoroughly.High intelligence and social skills: Organized serial killers often have above-average intelligence and can be charming and manipulative. This enables them to gain the trust of their victims, making it easier for them to lure them into dangerous situations.Lack of remorse: Organized serial killers typically show little to no remorse for their actions and may even take pleasure in the suffering of their victims.Cooling-off periods: After each murder, organized serial killers usually experience a "cooling-off" period where they maintain a relatively normal appearance and behavior. This period allows them to avoid suspicion and plan their next attack without drawing attention to themselves.Often follow media coverage: Organized serial killers may closely follow news reports and police investigations related to their crimes, sometimes even involving themselves in the investigation to elude capture.Long-lasting crime sprees: Due to their calculated and organized nature, these killers may continue their crime sprees for extended periods before being caught or stopped.In this epsiode, we hear from several experts who explain what makes a serial killer and some of the basci psyche that goes into how a profile is built when investigating serial murders. to contact me:[email protected]:What causes someone to become a serial killer? Criminology experts explain | CNN

In this 2008 case, Jane Doe No. 1 v. Jeffrey Epstein, Haley Robson, and Sarah Kellen, the plaintiff sought to have her lawsuit returned to state court after the defendants removed it to federal court. Epstein and his co-defendants argued for keeping the case at the federal level, while the plaintiff maintained that state jurisdiction was proper. The motion to remand, filed on August 18, 2008, was fully briefed with responses and replies from both sides, giving the court a complete record for review.After considering the arguments and reviewing the filings, the court issued its opinion and order remanding the matter back to state court. The judge determined that federal jurisdiction was not appropriate in this instance, meaning the claims against Epstein, Robson, and Kellen would proceed through the state court system rather than in federal court. This ruling ensured that the case would be handled under state-level legal procedures rather than federal oversight.to conctact me:[email protected]:USCOURTS-flsd-9_08-cv-80804-0.pdf (govinfo.gov)

Todd Blanche’s CNN interview about his sit-down with Ghislaine Maxwell has been met with skepticism for good reason. Blanche framed his conversation with her as an exercise in transparency, but his insistence that it was “impossible” to determine if she was credible rang hollow, especially given the mountain of contradictions and lies Maxwell has already told under oath. Instead of pressing her on the details of Epstein’s network, Blanche largely leaned into a narrative that it was up to the “public” to decide, effectively punting the DOJ’s responsibility to establish facts. For someone in his position, such hedging looks less like neutrality and more like avoidance.What makes it worse is Blanche’s background and the circumstances. As a former Trump lawyer, his presence raises red flags about conflicts of interest, and the softball nature of his questions only fuels suspicion that this interview was more about optics than accountability. Maxwell’s transfer to a cushier, low-security facility right after this sit-down only adds to the perception that she is still receiving special treatment in exchange for selective cooperation. The entire spectacle looks less like a hard-nosed inquiry into one of the biggest sex-trafficking conspiracies of the modern era, and more like a carefully stage-managed charade designed to protect the powerful.to contact me:[email protected]:Blanche breaks silence on meeting with Ghislaine Maxwell: 'Impossible' to say if she was credible - ABC News

Ghislaine Maxwell’s proffer session with the DOJ was less about truth and accountability and more about performance and deceit. The entire premise of a proffer is simple: you trade truth for a chance at leniency. But Maxwell didn’t come to the table with intelligence, evidence, or leads that could help dismantle Epstein’s far-reaching web. She came armed with a rehearsed script of lies and character assassinations. She weaponized her time in that room not to aid justice, but to smear survivors who had already borne the crushing weight of humiliation in courtrooms and the press. The newly released emails now strip away any doubt about what happened—they show that Maxwell didn’t stumble or misremember. She perjured herself over and over, carefully contradicting her own sworn statements. This was deliberate, malicious dishonesty. And yet, instead of being dragged back to court with perjury charges and buried under the consequences, she was inexplicably rewarded with cushier accommodations. Sitting across from her during this travesty was none other than Deputy Director Todd “Baby Billy” Blanche, a man who should have cut the session short the moment the lies started, but who instead sat back, nodded, and let justice be mocked.The fallout from this disaster stretches far beyond Maxwell herself. For survivors, it was another betrayal layered on top of years of indifference and ridicule. They were once again slandered, this time under the very nose of the government agency tasked with protecting them. Their truth, earned through blood and tears, was tossed aside so Maxwell could preserve her own skin. For the public, the message couldn’t be clearer: the Department of Justice is not an impartial arbiter of the law, but a stage where the rich and connected get to rewrite the script in their favor. Accountability was promised, but what America got instead was a rigged performance where lies were treated as cooperation, and perjury was treated as a perk. A real justice department would have treated her dishonesty as a direct assault on the rule of law, stacking charges on her until her arrogance collapsed. But instead, Blanche and his colleagues chose complicity over courage, shielding Maxwell from consequences and exposing to everyone watching that in America, justice isn’t blind—it looks the other way when power is in the room.to contact me:[email protected]

In Britain, a state visit by Donald Trump was jolted when activists projected massive images of Trump and Jeffrey Epstein onto the walls of Windsor Castle. The stunt, which British police quickly shut down, resulted in four arrests on charges of “malicious communications.” Photos of the projection spread globally within minutes, hijacking the carefully staged optics of a royal ceremony and forcing Epstein’s name back into headlines through spectacle and shock.Across the Atlantic, a federal judge in Manhattan ruled against unsealing the identities of two women once described as potential co-conspirators in Epstein’s network. Prosecutors never charged the women, and the court argued disclosure would expose them to unnecessary harm. The decision reignited frustration among survivors and transparency advocates, who see secrecy as another barrier to accountability, ensuring that questions about who enabled Epstein remain unanswered.to contact me:[email protected]

In his opening statement, Patel described what he called the “original sin” of the Epstein investigation as being how Alex Acosta handled the case back in 2006. He criticized the limited search warrants used then and said they did not seize as much investigative material as they should have. Patel argued that significant portions of the case were restrained by the original non-prosecution agreement, which included provisions protecting some documents via court orders and limiting later prosecutorial or investigative access.Patel also addressed whether there is credible evidence that Epstein trafficked underage girls to other individuals (i.e. beyond himself). He said there is no credible information that such trafficking to third parties has been proven. He asserted that if he had seen such evidence, he would have pursued those charges. He emphasized that under his administration, the FBI is working to release all “credible information … legally able to do so,” while acknowledging legal limits.to contact me:[email protected]:Kash Patel claims no evidence Jeffrey Epstein trafficked girls to anyone but himself | Daily Mail Online

Courtney Wild and Haley Robson, two women who say they were abused by Jeffrey Epstein, filed a defamation lawsuit against journalist Julie K. Brown in 2022. They argue Brown’s book Perversion of Justice contained false claims that harmed their reputations. Wild says the book wrongly described her as having had intercourse with Epstein and being raped, allegations she denies. Robson, meanwhile, claims Brown portrayed her as complicit in Epstein’s operations after she refused to be interviewed for the book.According to the lawsuit, Brown’s reporting left both women branded in ways that distorted their roles in the Epstein saga, causing reputational damage and emotional distress. The plaintiffs allege that Brown pressured them and misrepresented facts for dramatic effect, leaving them to suffer fallout in their personal and professional lives. The case underscores the tensions between journalistic storytelling and survivor testimony in high-profile abuse investigations.Courtney Wild and Haley Robson, both survivors of Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse, wrote powerful letters to top executives at JPMorgan—among them CEO Jamie Dimon—accusing the bank of enabling Epstein’s conduct by keeping him as a client for many years, despite knowing or having reason to know that there were serious abuse allegations. They ask JPMorgan to acknowledge that it benefited from the relationship (through transactions, accounts, etc.), to admit wrongdoing or mistakes, and to take steps to make amends—both to them and to other survivors. Wild and Robson frame their demand not just in moral terms but in legal and institutional accountability: that the bank should own up, not hide behind fine print or internal policies.They also stress that JPMorgan’s public statements and depositions (including Jamie Dimon’s) have downplayed or denied knowledge of Epstein’s abuse or minimized the bank’s role. In their letters, they challenge that narrative: they maintain that JPMorgan had ample warning of red flags and thus cannot claim complete ignorance. They call for transparency—release of internal documents, full cooperation, and concrete reforms—to ensure what happened with Epstein doesn’t happen again under the bank’s watch.to contact me:[email protected]

Prince Andrew came under scrutiny after documents revealed he told bankers to call Buckingham Palace when they questioned a £750,000 payment tied to him. The transaction raised compliance concerns, prompting officials to seek clarity on whether it was legitimate. Instead of offering a straightforward explanation, Andrew reportedly directed them to his Palace office, effectively leaning on his royal status to quell the inquiry.The payment’s origins and purpose stirred suspicions, especially given Andrew’s already controversial financial dealings and public scandals. The move highlighted how he allegedly relied on the prestige of the monarchy to shield himself from financial accountability, deepening concerns about his judgment and raising questions over whether he abused his royal position for personal protection.to contact me:[email protected]

Mark Epstein, brother of Jeffrey Epstein, has consistently expressed skepticism regarding the official account of his brother's death. He has questioned the swift conclusion by authorities that Jeffrey's death was a suicide, pointing to initial death certificates listing the cause as "pending" and highlighting irregularities in the investigation. Mark has referenced observations from forensic pathologist Dr. Michael Baden, who noted unusual fractures in Jeffrey's neck more consistent with homicidal strangulation than suicide. These concerns have led Mark to believe that the investigation into his brother's death was insufficient and that the possibility of foul play was prematurely dismissed. Additionally, Mark Epstein has criticized statements from officials, such as then-Attorney General William Barr, who labeled the death a suicide shortly after it occurred. He argues that despite acknowledged lapses in prison protocols and the presence of irregularities, attributing the death solely to bureaucratic failures is inadequate. Mark's persistent doubts have been fueled by the lack of comprehensive answers from the Department of Justice and other authorities, leaving him and the public with unresolved questions about the true circumstances surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's death.to contact me:[email protected]