The Epstein Rewind: Testimony From Jeffrey Epstein's Pilot During Ghislaine Maxwell's Trial

​In the case of Parham v. Combs et al (Case No. 3:24-cv-07191-RFL), plaintiff Ashley Parham filed an amended complaint against defendants Sean Combs, Kristina Khorram,Druski, Odell Beckham and Shane Pearce, alleging personal injury claims related to assault, libel, and slander under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. The original complaint was filed on October 15, 2024, in the Northern District of California, with Parham seeking a jury trial to address these allegations.to contact me:[email protected]:Parham complaint FINAL-3Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger (Case No. CR01-24-31665), the defense filed Motion in Limine #6 on February 24, 2025, seeking to exclude the testimony of Idaho State Police forensic scientist Rylene Nowlin regarding "touch" or "contact" DNA. The defense argues that such terms are misleading, as they imply a definitive method of DNA deposition, which cannot be scientifically determined. They contend that allowing testimony on how DNA was transferred to the knife sheath found at the crime scene would confuse the jury and unfairly prejudice the defendant.The motion emphasizes that current DNA technology cannot conclusively determine when or how DNA was deposited on an item, whether through direct contact or secondary transfer. The defense references studies and expert opinions highlighting the complexity of DNA transfer mechanisms and the potential for indirect transfer. They assert that permitting Nowlin to testify about the manner of DNA deposition exceeds her expertise and could mislead the jury, violating Idaho Rules of Evidence 402 and 403.to contact me:[email protected]:022425-Defense-Motion-inLimine-6-RE-Rylene-Nowlin-Reference-Touch-Contact-DNA.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger (Case No. CR01-24-31665), the defense filed Motion in Limine #6 on February 24, 2025, seeking to exclude the testimony of Idaho State Police forensic scientist Rylene Nowlin regarding "touch" or "contact" DNA. The defense argues that such terms are misleading, as they imply a definitive method of DNA deposition, which cannot be scientifically determined. They contend that allowing testimony on how DNA was transferred to the knife sheath found at the crime scene would confuse the jury and unfairly prejudice the defendant.The motion emphasizes that current DNA technology cannot conclusively determine when or how DNA was deposited on an item, whether through direct contact or secondary transfer. The defense references studies and expert opinions highlighting the complexity of DNA transfer mechanisms and the potential for indirect transfer. They assert that permitting Nowlin to testify about the manner of DNA deposition exceeds her expertise and could mislead the jury, violating Idaho Rules of Evidence 402 and 403.to contact me:[email protected]:022425-Defense-Motion-inLimine-6-RE-Rylene-Nowlin-Reference-Touch-Contact-DNA.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In the case of Burrowes v. Smalls et al., filed in the Southern District of New York under Index No. 25-1618, plaintiff Kirk Burrowes brings a civil action against defendants including Janice Smalls (also known as Janice Combs), James Doe 1, Lawyer Doe 1, ABC Company 1, John and Jane Does 1-10, and ABC Corporations 1-10. The complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in actions that caused harm to the plaintiff, leading to the pursuit of legal remedies.​Kirk Burrowes, co-founder and former president of Bad Boy Entertainment, has filed a lawsuit against Janice Combs (also known as Janice Smalls), alleging her involvement in a scheme to unlawfully seize his 25% stake in the company. The complaint asserts that in 1996, Sean "Diddy" Combs, accompanied by the company's attorney, Kenneth Meiselas, confronted Burrowes with a baseball bat, coercing him into signing over his ownership stake to Janice Combs. Burrowes claims that this act was part of a broader plan orchestrated by Janice Combs to gain full control of Bad Boy Entertainment, employing tactics of intimidation, violence, and financial deception. He further alleges that following this incident, he was blacklisted from the music industry, resulting in financial ruin and homelessness. Burrowes is seeking damages for financial losses, reinstatement of his ownership interest, and a forensic audit of the company's financial records since its inception.to contact me:[email protected]:burrowes-v-janice-combs-1-25-cv-01618-feb-2025.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In the case of Burrowes v. Smalls et al., filed in the Southern District of New York under Index No. 25-1618, plaintiff Kirk Burrowes brings a civil action against defendants including Janice Smalls (also known as Janice Combs), James Doe 1, Lawyer Doe 1, ABC Company 1, John and Jane Does 1-10, and ABC Corporations 1-10. The complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in actions that caused harm to the plaintiff, leading to the pursuit of legal remedies.​Kirk Burrowes, co-founder and former president of Bad Boy Entertainment, has filed a lawsuit against Janice Combs (also known as Janice Smalls), alleging her involvement in a scheme to unlawfully seize his 25% stake in the company. The complaint asserts that in 1996, Sean "Diddy" Combs, accompanied by the company's attorney, Kenneth Meiselas, confronted Burrowes with a baseball bat, coercing him into signing over his ownership stake to Janice Combs. Burrowes claims that this act was part of a broader plan orchestrated by Janice Combs to gain full control of Bad Boy Entertainment, employing tactics of intimidation, violence, and financial deception. He further alleges that following this incident, he was blacklisted from the music industry, resulting in financial ruin and homelessness. Burrowes is seeking damages for financial losses, reinstatement of his ownership interest, and a forensic audit of the company's financial records since its inception.to contact me:[email protected]:burrowes-v-janice-combs-1-25-cv-01618-feb-2025.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Prince Andrew has been touted as the Queen's favorite child time and time again and the way she has handled the situation concerning Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein, it's apparent. Time and time again the Queen has been willing to forgive her son for his transgressions, even if they have put the monarchy in jeopardy. The reason for this is that the Queen has a blind spot for her favorite son, according to Sam McAlister.(commercial at 8:35)to contact me:[email protected]:https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1664547/the-queen-prince-andrew-emily-maitlis-newsnight-interview-scoops-book-sptBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​The jury selection process for Ghislaine Maxwell's sex-trafficking trial commenced on November 16, 2021, in New York City. Prospective jurors underwent thorough questioning by U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan, who inquired about their personal backgrounds, media consumption habits, and any prior knowledge of the case to ensure impartiality. This meticulous process culminated on November 29, 2021, with the selection of twelve jurors and six alternates from a pool of 40 to 60 candidates.Subsequently, concerns arose regarding the accuracy of responses provided by a seated juror on the jury questionnaire form, leading to discussions about the potential implications for the trial's outcome.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

As the Ghislaine Maxwell trial enters day number two, we dive right back into the headlines from overnight and set the stage for what might be coming today.(commercial at 10:52)To contact me:[email protected]:https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/11/ghislaine-maxwell-trial-jeffrey-epstein-bobbie-sternheim-lara-pomerantz.htmlhttps://www.reuters.com/world/us/maxwell-sex-abuse-trial-resume-with-epstein-pilots-testimony-2021-11-30/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Journalist and author John Sweeney has a new book out discussing Ghislaine Maxwell and her relationship with her father and while it's ground that has been well covered in the past, Sweeney offers some new perspective.Let's dive in!(commercial at 10:37)to contact me:[email protected]:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11342083/Did-Ghislaine-pimp-father-met-Epstein-JOHN-SWEENEY-unravels-complex-relationship.htmlBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In a move that is disappointing but that shouldn't be shocking, the UK government has announced that it is putting it's files on Prince Andrew behind lock and key for 65 years. That's an extra 40 years more than the usual. Considering the way the investigation has went in the UK in regard to Jeffrey Epstein, it should not come as a shock. The files will not be released until Prince Andrew is 105 years old. (commercial at 8:01)to contact me:[email protected]:Prince Andrew files locked away until 2065 as royal biographer slams 'culture of secrecy' | Royal | News | Express.co.ukBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.