The Declaration Of Alexander Bardy In Support Of Diddy (4/23/25)

Prince Andrew and his legal team are looking for any and all ways to put some distance between the disgraced Prince and Ghislaine Maxwell and Epstein. So much so, that they are now asserting that when Maxwell was pictured on the throne in the palace that she was not a guest of Prince Andrew's. But a guest of Kevin Spacey instead. Now, team Prince of Nothing is attempting to get Kevin Spacey to sing that same tune. Join me as I dive in!(Commercial at 11:26)To contact me:[email protected]:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10454069/Prince-Andrew-wants-disgraced-actor-Kevin-Spacey-help-clear-name.htmlBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Ghislaine Maxwell, a woman who has never wanted for a buck, is now at the mercy of her ex husband Scott Borgerson to pay her lawyers so that her attempt at an appeal can move forward. According to reports, Borgerson is hesitant to pony up the money and the lawyers for Maxwell are saying that he is dragging his feet.(commercial at 6:58)to contact me:[email protected]:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11473189/Ghislaine-Maxwells-appeal-jeopardy-estranged-husband-refuses-pay-legal-bills.htmlBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In a declaration dated March 7, 2025, Dr. Dawn M. Hughes, a clinical and forensic psychologist, outlined her anticipated expert testimony for the prosecution in the federal case against Sean "Diddy" Combs. Dr. Hughes, recognized for her expertise in sexual abuse, interpersonal violence, and trauma, has over 25 years of experience in clinical and forensic psychology. In her declaration, she stated that she has not evaluated any specific victim in this case; instead, her testimony will provide general insights into patterns of victimization, including sexual abuse, coercive control, coping mechanisms, delayed disclosure, and memory related to trauma.Dr. Hughes is expected to explain how perpetrators often exploit existing power differentials to exert control over victims, employing tactics such as coercion and emotional abuse. She will discuss the concept of coercive control as a strategic pattern of behavior aimed at maintaining dominance in a relationship, which can manifest through various means, including psychological manipulation and threats. Additionally, her testimony will address common victim responses to abuse, such as delayed reporting and the use of coping strategies that may seem counterintuitive to those unfamiliar with trauma psychology. This expert testimony aims to provide the jury with a framework to understand the psychological dynamics that may be present in the behaviors and experiences of alleged victims in the case.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.260.2_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In a declaration dated April 17, 2025, Dr. Alexander Sasha Bardey, a forensic psychiatrist, provided expert testimony in the federal case against Sean "Diddy" Combs. Dr. Bardey's extensive credentials include board certifications in psychiatry and forensic psychiatry, and he has been recognized as an expert in various courts across New York and other states. His professional experience encompasses roles such as Director of Forensic Psychiatry for Nassau County and clinical leadership positions in multiple mental health courts and alternative to incarceration programs. In his declaration, Dr. Bardey outlined his qualifications and the scope of his forensic practice, which includes conducting psychiatric evaluations, risk assessments, and providing expert reports for legal proceedings. His involvement in the Combs case suggests that his expertise may be utilized to assess psychological factors pertinent to the defense.Dr. Bardey's declaration serves to establish his authority and the relevance of his forensic psychiatric expertise in the context of the trial. While the specific details of his anticipated testimony are not delineated in the declaration, his background indicates a focus on evaluating mental health aspects that could influence the case's outcome. Such evaluations may pertain to the psychological profiles of individuals involved, assessments of behavior, or considerations of mental state relevant to the charges faced by Combs. The inclusion of Dr. Bardey's declaration underscores the defense's intent to incorporate forensic psychiatric perspectives into their legal strategy.to contact me:[email protected]:Sbizhub 45825032114550Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Shannon Sharpe, NFL Hall of Famer and prominent sports media personality, is facing a $50 million civil lawsuit filed in Nevada by a woman identified as Jane Doe. The lawsuit alleges that during their nearly two-year relationship, Sharpe engaged in sexual assault, battery, and emotional abuse. Specific claims include incidents in October 2024 and January 2025 where Sharpe allegedly raped her, including an instance of anal rape, and refused to wear protection despite her objections. The complaint also accuses Sharpe of secretly recording their sexual encounters without consent and sharing the footage. The relationship reportedly deteriorated after Sharpe accidentally livestreamed himself having sex with another woman, leading to increased harassment when Doe attempted to distance herself.Sharpe has categorically denied all allegations, labeling the lawsuit a "shakedown" and asserting that the relationship was entirely consensual. His attorney, Lanny J. Davis, released purported text messages suggesting mutual participation in sexual role-play and fantasy scenarios. In response, Doe's legal team, led by attorney Tony Buzbee, released an audio recording in which a man, allegedly Sharpe, is heard making threatening remarks, including "I'm gonna f---ing choke the s--- out of you." Buzbee described the audio as disturbing and indicative of a pattern of manipulation and abuse.  Sharpe has announced plans to countersue for defamation, accusing Buzbee of targeting Black men and attempting to exploit his public profile. The case is ongoing, with both parties presenting conflicting narratives and evidence.​to contact me:[email protected]:NFL legend Shannon Sharpe sued for $50M for allegedly raping ex-girlfriend repeatedly | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​On the first day of Karen Read's retrial, prosecutors and defense attorneys presented starkly contrasting narratives regarding the 2022 death of Boston police officer John O’Keefe. Special prosecutor Hank Brennan opened by asserting that Read confessed at the scene, citing testimony from paramedic Timothy Nuttall, who claimed Read repeatedly said, "I hit him, I hit him, I hit him" upon discovering O’Keefe's body outside a Canton home during a snowstorm. Brennan argued that Read's own words, combined with digital evidence like a drop in O’Keefe’s phone battery temperature, would confirm she struck him with her SUV and left him to die. In contrast, defense attorney Alan Jackson contended that O’Keefe was beaten inside the house and that Read is the victim of a police cover-up. He emphasized inconsistencies in the investigation, including the role of a now-fired state trooper, and argued that Read’s taillight damage was unrelated to O’Keefe's injuries.The prosecution's first witnesses included paramedic Timothy Nuttall and Kerry Roberts, a close friend of O’Keefe. Nuttall testified that Read appeared frantic at the scene and admitted to hitting O’Keefe. Roberts recounted receiving a 5 a.m. call from Read, who screamed, "Kerry, Kerry, Kerry, John’s dead," before hanging up. Roberts described Read's panic and confusion during their search for O’Keefe, noting that Read speculated he might have been hit by a snowplow and expressed uncertainty about the previous night's events due to heavy drinking. The day concluded with Roberts still on the stand, expected to continue her testimony the following dayto  contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​On April 18, 2025, Judge Steven Hippler ruled on a motion in limine concerning witness identification in the case of Bryan Kohberger, who is charged with the 2022 murders of four University of Idaho students. The defense sought to exclude testimony from D.M., a surviving roommate, who described the intruder as having "bushy eyebrows." They argued that her observation was unreliable due to factors like intoxication, fatigue, and limited visibility, and that such testimony could unfairly prejudice the jury. However, Judge Hippler denied the motion, stating that D.M.'s description is based on her personal knowledge and is relevant to the case. He emphasized that the credibility of her testimony should be assessed through cross-examination, not pretrial exclusion.The judge acknowledged that while D.M.'s recollection might be limited, her consistent mention of "bushy eyebrows" across multiple interviews adds weight to her account. He noted that the description does not inherently implicate the defendant and does not pose a risk of unfair prejudice that would warrant exclusion under Idaho Rule of Evidence 403. Judge Hippler concluded that it is the jury's responsibility to evaluate the significance of D.M.'s testimony in determining whether Kohberger is the individual she encountered.to contact me:[email protected]+Order+on+Defendants+Motion+in+Limine+RE+Witness+Identification+by+Bushy+Eyebrows.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​On April 18, 2025, Judge Steven Hippler ruled on a motion in limine concerning witness identification in the case of Bryan Kohberger, who is charged with the 2022 murders of four University of Idaho students. The defense sought to exclude testimony from D.M., a surviving roommate, who described the intruder as having "bushy eyebrows." They argued that her observation was unreliable due to factors like intoxication, fatigue, and limited visibility, and that such testimony could unfairly prejudice the jury. However, Judge Hippler denied the motion, stating that D.M.'s description is based on her personal knowledge and is relevant to the case. He emphasized that the credibility of her testimony should be assessed through cross-examination, not pretrial exclusion.The judge acknowledged that while D.M.'s recollection might be limited, her consistent mention of "bushy eyebrows" across multiple interviews adds weight to her account. He noted that the description does not inherently implicate the defendant and does not pose a risk of unfair prejudice that would warrant exclusion under Idaho Rule of Evidence 403. Judge Hippler concluded that it is the jury's responsibility to evaluate the significance of D.M.'s testimony in determining whether Kohberger is the individual she encountered.to contact me:[email protected]+Order+on+Defendants+Motion+in+Limine+RE+Witness+Identification+by+Bushy+Eyebrows.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Sandra Birchmore was a young woman from Stoughton, Massachusetts, who was reportedly groomed and sexually abused by three former police officers from her teenage years until her death in 2021. The alleged abuse began when she was 15 and continued for nearly a decade. Birchmore's family has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against these officers, the Stoughton Police Department, and the town, accusing them of a scheme of grooming and repeated sexual assaults. The lawsuit claims that one of the officers, Matthew Farwell, was the last person to see her alive and is believed to be the father of her unborn child.   In this episode, we begin our deep dive into her tragic story.(commercial at 9:13)to contact me:[email protected]:Massachusetts Superior Courts Judge Brian A. Davis' Amended Decision and Order Regarding Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Norfolk County, 2282CV01197) - DocumentCloudBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The cases of Karen Read and Sandra Birchmore have garnered significant public interest due to several overlapping elements, particularly involving allegations of misconduct and cover-ups related to law enforcement.Key Overlaps in the Karen Read and Sandra Birchmore Cases:Involvement of Law Enforcement Personnel:Karen Read Case: Karen Read is accused of hitting her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O’Keefe, with her car, leading to his death. There are allegations suggesting a possible cover-up by law enforcement officials, as some believe the investigation might have been compromised due to the involvement of Boston police officers.Sandra Birchmore Case: Sandra Birchmore, a young woman with a developmental disability, was allegedly exploited and sexually assaulted by multiple police officers from the Stoughton Police Department. There are accusations of a cover-up or mishandling of the case, potentially to protect the officers involved.Allegations of Cover-Up:In both cases, there are allegations that law enforcement officials may have either directly or indirectly covered up evidence to protect fellow officers. In the Karen Read case, questions have been raised about the thoroughness and integrity of the investigation into John O’Keefe’s death. Similarly, in the Sandra Birchmore case, there are concerns that the investigation was not handled properly, possibly to shield the officers involved in the alleged crimes against her.Public and Media Scrutiny:Both cases have received considerable media attention, with public scrutiny focusing on the potential misuse of power by law enforcement and the legal system’s handling of cases involving police officers. The cases have sparked debates about accountability, transparency, and justice in situations where police officers are implicated in crimes.Impact on Community Trust in Law Enforcement:The controversies surrounding both cases have led to increased distrust in the law enforcement agencies involved. The perception of a lack of accountability and transparency in both investigations has fueled public concern over the fairness and impartiality of the legal system when dealing with cases involving police officers.Forensic pathologist Dr. Michael Baden, hired by Birchmore's family, concluded that her death was a homicide, not a suicide. Baden cited evidence such as a fractured hyoid bone, which is indicative of strangulation rather than hanging. Furthermore, Birchmore was three months pregnant at the time of her death, and the state's medical examiner did not perform DNA tests on the fetal tissue to determine the father, which could have been crucial evidence.Three former Stoughton police officers, Matthew Farwell, his twin brother William, and Robert Devine, are implicated in the allegations. Matthew Farwell was reportedly the last person seen with Birchmore before her death. The family has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the officers, the town of Stoughton, and the Stoughton Police Department, alleging that their actions led to Birchmore's death.The case has drawn significant attention and criticism, particularly towards the police department's handling of the situation and the initial ruling of suicide. Stoughton Police Chief Donna McNamara has acknowledged the disturbing findings and called for further investigation at the highest level​.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.