Was Other DNA, Besides That On The Knife Sheath Collected At The House In Moscow?

​The document titled "Maxwell Petition" is a legal filing submitted by Ghislaine Maxwell's legal team, seeking a writ of certiorari from the United States Supreme Court. In this petition, Maxwell challenges the decisions of the lower courts regarding her conviction and sentencing related to charges of sex trafficking and conspiracy. Her attorneys argue that the trial court made significant errors, including issues related to jury selection, evidentiary rulings, and the interpretation of federal statutes under which she was convicted. They contend that these alleged errors infringed upon Maxwell's constitutional rights, warranting a review by the Supreme Court.Furthermore, the petition emphasizes the broader implications of the case, suggesting that the lower courts' decisions set concerning precedents that could affect future defendants' rights and the interpretation of federal criminal statutes. Maxwell's legal team asserts that the Supreme Court's intervention is necessary to address these pivotal legal questions and to ensure uniformity in the application of federal law. They request that the Court grant the writ to rectify what they perceive as miscarriages of justice in Maxwell's trial and to provide clarity on the legal standards applied.to contact me:[email protected]:maxwell-petition.pdf

​The document titled "Maxwell Petition" is a legal filing submitted by Ghislaine Maxwell's legal team, seeking a writ of certiorari from the United States Supreme Court. In this petition, Maxwell challenges the decisions of the lower courts regarding her conviction and sentencing related to charges of sex trafficking and conspiracy. Her attorneys argue that the trial court made significant errors, including issues related to jury selection, evidentiary rulings, and the interpretation of federal statutes under which she was convicted. They contend that these alleged errors infringed upon Maxwell's constitutional rights, warranting a review by the Supreme Court.Furthermore, the petition emphasizes the broader implications of the case, suggesting that the lower courts' decisions set concerning precedents that could affect future defendants' rights and the interpretation of federal criminal statutes. Maxwell's legal team asserts that the Supreme Court's intervention is necessary to address these pivotal legal questions and to ensure uniformity in the application of federal law. They request that the Court grant the writ to rectify what they perceive as miscarriages of justice in Maxwell's trial and to provide clarity on the legal standards applied.to contact me:[email protected]:maxwell-petition.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)

As investigators continue to search for evidence and clues that they can use against Bryan Kohberger in trying to secure a conviction, one of the most sought after pieces of evidence has been the weapon that the police say was used in the murders. According to the affidavit the authorities are searching for a KA-Bar style knife and during that search they have filed multiple search warrants but have been unable to locate the alleged murder weapon. So, can the proseuction secure a conviction without the knife? Let's dive in!(commercial at 9:39)to contact me:[email protected]:The Missing Bryan Kohberger Evidence That Could Make or Break The Trial (newsweek.com)

From the archives: 4-2-23One of the main questions that still needs to be answered when talking about Bryan Kohberger and the murders in moscow, is what motivated him to allegedly kill four people? We have learned a little bit more as the story has evolved, such as him following his victims on social media according to sources, but when looking at the warrants that have been executed and the timeframe in which they cover, could Bryan Kohberger have been following his victims much longer than previously thought?Let's dive in and talk about it!(commercial at 10:22)To contact me:[email protected]:Cops are probing if Bryan Kohberger had contact with university students the YEAR before slayings | Daily Mail Online

Vicky Ward and Vanity Fair had a chance to expose Maxwell and Epstein in 2003 and instead of doing that, decided to write a puff piece instead. On today's episode, we dive into that decision and take a look at who was involved and what they have to say in their defense.(Commercial at 30:08)To contact me:[email protected]:https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-communications/why-didnt-vanity-fair-break-the-jeffrey-epstein-story

As news continues to trickle out about the relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and the executives at JP Morgan, I can't help myself in wondering what took so long for this to finally be exposed. We've talked about the ties between the financial sector and Jeffrey Epstein for over five years now, and it was very obvious that all of this, plus more was going down. The question now is, what happens now that it is finally being exposed in open court? (commercial at 9:38)to contact me:[email protected]:JPMorgan execs 'met Jeffrey Epstein until 2017' - despite saying it shut his accounts in 2013 | Daily Mail Online

According to Ghislaine Maxwell's brother, she doesn't believe the official narrative surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's death and doesn't believe that Epstein would ever commit suicide. She also questions the narrative around her fathers alleged suicide as well according to her brother.(commercial at 8:18)to contact me:[email protected]:https://nypost.com/2021/12/11/ghislaine-maxwells-believes-jeffrey-epstein-was-murdered-her-brother/

​The CIA is currently evaluating its legal authority to conduct drone strikes against Mexican drug cartels, following the Trump administration's designation of several cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs). This designation potentially expands the CIA's counterterrorism tools, allowing for covert operations similar to those used against groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS. While no drone strikes have been ordered yet, the CIA has been conducting surveillance flights over Mexico with the country's approval, gathering intelligence on cartel operations. The administration is exploring the use of Title 50 to authorize covert CIA missions, which would bypass the need for military engagement under Title 10.However, this potential shift in U.S. strategy has raised concerns in Mexico. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has firmly stated that Mexico would reject any unilateral military action by the United States on its soil, emphasizing that such measures would not solve the issue of drug trafficking and would violate Mexico's sovereignty. Additionally, a top Pentagon official clarified that the U.S. military lacks the authority to carry out drone strikes against drug cartels in Mexico, despite the FTO designation. The official noted that while the designation supports a broader governmental strategy against drug trafficking, it does not legally grant the military strike capabilities.to contact me:[email protected]:CIA is reviewing its authorities to use lethal force against drug cartels | CNN Politics