Was Bryan Kohberger Hanging Around The Student Union In Idaho?

Republicans in Congress are intensifying pressure to fully expose the government’s files on Jeffrey Epstein, with some now privately conceding that it is only a matter of time before legislation compels Attorney General Pam Bondi to release everything the DOJ holds. Lawmakers have already pushed through partial disclosures — including Epstein’s “birthday book,” financial records, and his controversial non-prosecution agreement — but many argue these piecemeal releases fall short of true transparency. Behind closed doors, Republicans increasingly acknowledge that a complete unsealing is inevitable, even if it risks implicating powerful names and institutions.At the same time, Donald Trump has been trying to contain the fallout, publicly resisting demands from MAGA activists and members of his own party to make all Epstein materials public. For weeks he has dismissed the issue as a distraction, but GOP lawmakers admit privately that Trump is losing that argument. The pressure from inside his own ranks reflects not only the enduring political toxicity of Epstein’s network, but also the calculation that continued stonewalling may damage the party more than full disclosure would.to contact me:[email protected]:GOP momentum grows to fore release of Jeffrey Epstein files

Theresa Helm has alleged that Epstein’s estate has been uncooperative with survivors in terms of transparency, accountability, and compensation. She and other claimants have brought civil lawsuits against the estate, accusing it of rape, sexual battery, false imprisonment, and of perpetuating a system that allowed Epstein and his enablers to continue abusing and trafficker women and minors. Helm has called for the release of federal documents related to Epstein’s cases, arguing that they are essential for understanding the full scope of what happened, who was involved, and how much oversight (or negligence) there was.She has also alleged that many survivors were recruited under false pretenses (e.g. “job interviews,” modeling, legitimate opportunities), and that the estate has not done enough to address the harms done or to compensate victims fairly. Some of the lawsuits in which she is involved (including Teresa Helm et al v. Epstein’s estate) seek not only monetary damages but acknowledgment of wrongdoing, accountability for enablers, and public disclosure of records. Helm emphasizes that this is about more than money—it’s about exposing structural wrongdoing and ensuring survivors’ voices are heard.to contact me:[email protected]:DisplayFile.aspx (vicourts.org)

Sarah Ransome alleged that Jeffrey Epstein kept or claimed to keep sex tapes involving powerful men such as Prince Andrew, Bill Clinton, Richard Branson, and Donald Trump. In emails and exhibits later unsealed in court, she claimed that recordings existed of sexual acts on Epstein’s properties, and that these tapes were used for leverage or blackmail. She suggested she either had access to some of this material or believed it existed, and pointed out that people in Epstein’s orbit lived in fear that such videos could surface.to contact me:[email protected]

Survivors and victims allege that 301 East 66th Street, a New York City condominium building tied to Jeffrey Epstein, was used as a hub in his trafficking network. Various witnesses say that people involved in coordinating, recruiting, or facilitating abuse—like Sarah Kellen, Nadia Marcinkova, Adriana Ross, and others—had access to or worked out of units in that building. They’ve also claimed that underage girls were housed in multiple apartments there, sometimes several girls to a unit, and that the building served not merely as living quarters but as a location for parts of the abuse to take place.Victims also say the building was part of a broader system of control and deception. It’s alleged the ownership structure was opaque, providing a way to obscure who precisely was responsible for what went on inside. Some have claimed they were brought there under false pretenses (job offers or modeling opportunities), groomed, and then coerced into sexual activity. The claims include that Epstein—or people in his orbit—used the building to conceal the scale of the abuse and maintain oversight (staff, security, transport) so that the trafficking could continue with fewer questions.Teresa Helm gave an exclusive interview the Mirror recently and in the interview she talks about the time she stayed at Jeffrey Epstein's building at 301 E. 66th street. This building has long been rumored to be a place where Jeffrey Epstein and Jean Luc Brunel house trafficked girls, but very little has been disclosed about the inner workings.to contact me:In our second article...Thersa Helm is one of the women who was abused by Jeffrey Epstein. She is also one of the most vocal when it comes to his associates getting away with their alleged crimes. Now, in the wake of the document dump she is once again speaking out.In this episode, we hear from Theresa Helm about the document dump and how this new found interest in Epstein and his horrible crimes could catapult us closer to [email protected]

From the archives: 2-3-23People magazine has had several sources provide them with information throughout the investigation and now according to their sources, they say that Bryan Kohberger was on the Idaho University campus multiple times and according to the students, his behavior was odd at best.Let's dive in!(commercial at 7:39)to contact me:[email protected]:Bryan Kohberger Visited Idaho Student Union Before Murders — and Was 'the Type to Stare': Witnesses (msn.com)

A superseding indictment is a formal legal document issued by a grand jury that replaces a previous indictment in a criminal case. It updates or adds charges, changes the factual basis, or modifies the defendants listed. Here are the key points:Key Features:Replacement: It replaces an earlier indictment with new or revised charges.Additional Charges: It can include additional charges not present in the original indictment.New Defendants: It can add new defendants or modify the charges against existing ones.Updated Information: It reflects new evidence or information obtained during the ongoing investigation.Purpose:Flexibility: Allows prosecutors to adapt to new developments in the case.Comprehensive Prosecution: Ensures that all relevant charges and defendants are included based on the latest available evidence.Clarity: Provides a clear and updated statement of the charges against the defendants, which is important for legal proceedings and the defense's preparation.Process:Grand Jury Review: Like the original indictment, a superseding indictment must be reviewed and approved by a grand jury.Filing and Notification: Once approved, it is filed with the court, and the defendants are notified of the changes.Impact:Defendant's Rights: Defendants have the right to be informed of any new charges and to respond accordingly.Legal Proceedings: The case proceeds based on the superseding indictment, which may alter the strategy of both the prosecution and the defense.Summary of Superseding Indictment No. 09 CR 383:Case Information:Case Number: No. 09 CR 383Judge: Ruben CastilloType: Superseding IndictmentViolations Cited:Title 21, United States Code:Section 841: Relates to the manufacturing, distributing, or dispensing of controlled substances, or possession with intent to do so.Section 846: Concerns attempts or conspiracies to commit any offense defined in this subchapter, including drug trafficking offenses.Section 952(a): Prohibits the importation of controlled substances into the United States.Section 960: Specifies penalties for the importation and exportation of controlled substances.Section 963: Addresses conspiracies to violate any provision of this subchapter, including import and export violations.Title 18, United States Code:Section 2: Covers the principle of aiding and abetting, meaning anyone who aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, or procures the commission of an offense against the United States is punishable as a principal.Key Points:Superseding Indictment: This document replaces a previous indictment with updated charges and information.Drug-Related Charges: The cited violations primarily relate to drug trafficking, manufacturing, distribution, and importation, as well as conspiracy to commit these offenses.Aiding and Abetting: The inclusion of Title 18, Section 2, indicates that individuals involved may have also been charged with assisting or facilitating these crimes.The defendants:JOAQUIN GUZMAN-LOERA,  a/k/a “El Chapo,”  a/k/a “Chapo Guzman,” ISMAEL ZAMBADA-GARCIA,  a/k/a “El Mayo,” a/k/a “Mayo Zambada,”JESUS VICENTE ZAMBADA-NIEBLA, a/k/a “Vicente Zambada-Niebla,” a/k/a “Vicente Zambada,” a/k/a “Mayito,” a/k/a “30 ”ALFREDO GUZMAN-SALAZAR,  a/k/a “Alfredillo,”ALFREDO VASQUEZ-HERNANDEZ, a/k/a “Alfredo Compadre,”FIRST NAME UNKNOWN, LAST NAME UNKNOWN,  a/k/a “Juancho,”GERMAN OLIVARES,FELIPE LAST NAME UNKNOWN,TOMAS AREVALO-RENTERIA,PEDRO FLORES, and MARGARITO FLORES(commercial at 8:05)to contact me:[email protected]:C:\Documents and Settings\rsamborn\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\4MRWRZ20\Chapo-Mayo Indictment DG ed (go.com)

A superseding indictment is a formal legal document issued by a grand jury that replaces a previous indictment in a criminal case. It updates or adds charges, changes the factual basis, or modifies the defendants listed. Here are the key points:Key Features:Replacement: It replaces an earlier indictment with new or revised charges.Additional Charges: It can include additional charges not present in the original indictment.New Defendants: It can add new defendants or modify the charges against existing ones.Updated Information: It reflects new evidence or information obtained during the ongoing investigation.Purpose:Flexibility: Allows prosecutors to adapt to new developments in the case.Comprehensive Prosecution: Ensures that all relevant charges and defendants are included based on the latest available evidence.Clarity: Provides a clear and updated statement of the charges against the defendants, which is important for legal proceedings and the defense's preparation.Process:Grand Jury Review: Like the original indictment, a superseding indictment must be reviewed and approved by a grand jury.Filing and Notification: Once approved, it is filed with the court, and the defendants are notified of the changes.Impact:Defendant's Rights: Defendants have the right to be informed of any new charges and to respond accordingly.Legal Proceedings: The case proceeds based on the superseding indictment, which may alter the strategy of both the prosecution and the defense.Summary of Superseding Indictment No. 09 CR 383:Case Information:Case Number: No. 09 CR 383Judge: Ruben CastilloType: Superseding IndictmentViolations Cited:Title 21, United States Code:Section 841: Relates to the manufacturing, distributing, or dispensing of controlled substances, or possession with intent to do so.Section 846: Concerns attempts or conspiracies to commit any offense defined in this subchapter, including drug trafficking offenses.Section 952(a): Prohibits the importation of controlled substances into the United States.Section 960: Specifies penalties for the importation and exportation of controlled substances.Section 963: Addresses conspiracies to violate any provision of this subchapter, including import and export violations.Title 18, United States Code:Section 2: Covers the principle of aiding and abetting, meaning anyone who aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, or procures the commission of an offense against the United States is punishable as a principal.Key Points:Superseding Indictment: This document replaces a previous indictment with updated charges and information.Drug-Related Charges: The cited violations primarily relate to drug trafficking, manufacturing, distribution, and importation, as well as conspiracy to commit these offenses.Aiding and Abetting: The inclusion of Title 18, Section 2, indicates that individuals involved may have also been charged with assisting or facilitating these crimes.The defendants:JOAQUIN GUZMAN-LOERA,  a/k/a “El Chapo,”  a/k/a “Chapo Guzman,” ISMAEL ZAMBADA-GARCIA,  a/k/a “El Mayo,” a/k/a “Mayo Zambada,”JESUS VICENTE ZAMBADA-NIEBLA, a/k/a “Vicente Zambada-Niebla,” a/k/a “Vicente Zambada,” a/k/a “Mayito,” a/k/a “30 ”ALFREDO GUZMAN-SALAZAR,  a/k/a “Alfredillo,”ALFREDO VASQUEZ-HERNANDEZ, a/k/a “Alfredo Compadre,”FIRST NAME UNKNOWN, LAST NAME UNKNOWN,  a/k/a “Juancho,”GERMAN OLIVARES,FELIPE LAST NAME UNKNOWN,TOMAS AREVALO-RENTERIA,PEDRO FLORES, and MARGARITO FLORES(commercial at 8:05)to contact me:[email protected]:C:\Documents and Settings\rsamborn\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\4MRWRZ20\Chapo-Mayo Indictment DG ed (go.com)

A superseding indictment is a formal legal document issued by a grand jury that replaces a previous indictment in a criminal case. It updates or adds charges, changes the factual basis, or modifies the defendants listed. Here are the key points:Key Features:Replacement: It replaces an earlier indictment with new or revised charges.Additional Charges: It can include additional charges not present in the original indictment.New Defendants: It can add new defendants or modify the charges against existing ones.Updated Information: It reflects new evidence or information obtained during the ongoing investigation.Purpose:Flexibility: Allows prosecutors to adapt to new developments in the case.Comprehensive Prosecution: Ensures that all relevant charges and defendants are included based on the latest available evidence.Clarity: Provides a clear and updated statement of the charges against the defendants, which is important for legal proceedings and the defense's preparation.Process:Grand Jury Review: Like the original indictment, a superseding indictment must be reviewed and approved by a grand jury.Filing and Notification: Once approved, it is filed with the court, and the defendants are notified of the changes.Impact:Defendant's Rights: Defendants have the right to be informed of any new charges and to respond accordingly.Legal Proceedings: The case proceeds based on the superseding indictment, which may alter the strategy of both the prosecution and the defense.Summary of Superseding Indictment No. 09 CR 383:Case Information:Case Number: No. 09 CR 383Judge: Ruben CastilloType: Superseding IndictmentViolations Cited:Title 21, United States Code:Section 841: Relates to the manufacturing, distributing, or dispensing of controlled substances, or possession with intent to do so.Section 846: Concerns attempts or conspiracies to commit any offense defined in this subchapter, including drug trafficking offenses.Section 952(a): Prohibits the importation of controlled substances into the United States.Section 960: Specifies penalties for the importation and exportation of controlled substances.Section 963: Addresses conspiracies to violate any provision of this subchapter, including import and export violations.Title 18, United States Code:Section 2: Covers the principle of aiding and abetting, meaning anyone who aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, or procures the commission of an offense against the United States is punishable as a principal.Key Points:Superseding Indictment: This document replaces a previous indictment with updated charges and information.Drug-Related Charges: The cited violations primarily relate to drug trafficking, manufacturing, distribution, and importation, as well as conspiracy to commit these offenses.Aiding and Abetting: The inclusion of Title 18, Section 2, indicates that individuals involved may have also been charged with assisting or facilitating these crimes.The defendants:JOAQUIN GUZMAN-LOERA,  a/k/a “El Chapo,”  a/k/a “Chapo Guzman,” ISMAEL ZAMBADA-GARCIA,  a/k/a “El Mayo,” a/k/a “Mayo Zambada,”JESUS VICENTE ZAMBADA-NIEBLA, a/k/a “Vicente Zambada-Niebla,” a/k/a “Vicente Zambada,” a/k/a “Mayito,” a/k/a “30 ”ALFREDO GUZMAN-SALAZAR,  a/k/a “Alfredillo,”ALFREDO VASQUEZ-HERNANDEZ, a/k/a “Alfredo Compadre,”FIRST NAME UNKNOWN, LAST NAME UNKNOWN,  a/k/a “Juancho,”GERMAN OLIVARES,FELIPE LAST NAME UNKNOWN,TOMAS AREVALO-RENTERIA,PEDRO FLORES, and MARGARITO FLORES(commercial at 8:05)to contact me:[email protected]:C:\Documents and Settings\rsamborn\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\4MRWRZ20\Chapo-Mayo Indictment DG ed (go.com)

Woody Allen, a filmmaker whose personal history is already mired in controversy over his marriage to Soon-Yi Previn and long-standing abuse allegations, managed to sink his credibility even further when discussing Jeffrey Epstein. Instead of acknowledging the grotesque reality of Epstein’s trafficking network, Allen bizarrely chose to describe Epstein as a “nice guy” and downplayed any evidence of underage girls in his presence. Coming from a man whose own personal life has been a lightning rod for accusations of exploitation, the comments land less like naïveté and more like willful denial—or worse, an attempt at reputation laundering for a known predator. The sheer tone-deafness of calling Epstein “nice” in any capacity betrays either a profound lack of moral clarity or an unsettling affinity for normalizing criminality among the elite.Allen’s remarks are not just tasteless; they are revealing. They expose the insular world of celebrity and power where predators are granted the benefit of the doubt simply because of shared social circles and mutual interests. For Allen to stand behind Epstein, even in the softest terms, is to spit in the face of survivors who have spent years fighting to be heard. His choice of words reeks of privilege and self-preservation, signaling to the public that, in his view, the comfort and reputations of men like him matter more than the trauma inflicted on countless young women. These comments confirm what many critics already believe: that Allen remains indifferent, insulated, and dangerously dismissive of crimes that should never be excused, let alone minimized.to contact me:[email protected]:Inside Epstein's 'House of Depravity' dinner party with Prince Andrew and Woody Allen: Duke of York was 'a dullard' at star-studded event held after paedophile financier's release from jail | Daily Mail Online

Prince Andrew is the ultimate cautionary tale of wasted privilege. He was born with every advantage imaginable—castles, titles, taxpayer-funded luxury, and a job description so easy it bordered on parody: wave, cut ribbons, attend parades, and stay out of scandal. That’s all it would have taken to coast quietly into old age as a harmless relic of the monarchy. But instead, Andrew chose arrogance, sleaze, and stupidity. From clinging to Jeffrey Epstein after his conviction, to babbling about sweat conditions and Pizza Express alibis on Newsnight, to humiliating himself with excuses that became memes, he torched his reputation with breathtaking incompetence. Where A Bronx Tale’s Sonny mourned wasted talent, Andrew embodies wasted privilege—proving that even the most cushioned life can collapse when handled by a fool.Now stripped of duties and titles, Andrew haunts royal estates like a ghost, exiled by the very institution built to protect him. He isn’t remembered as a naval officer, a duke, or even “the Queen’s favorite son”—he’s remembered as a global punchline. His disgrace isn’t Shakespearean tragedy but slapstick farce: a man who could have lived in effortless dignity but instead chose degeneracy and delusion. His legacy is forever tied to sweatless denials, pizza defenses, and the Epstein scandal—his crown of privilege melted down into a crown of mockery.to contact me:[email protected]