Paul Page And Prince Andrew

The Lady Ghislaine, the ship named after Ghislaine Maxwell was spotted pulling into a port in New Zealand. At the time that this was happening people were speculating hot and heavy about where Ghislaine Maxwell was hiding. One of the places that was speculated? You guessed it. The Lady Ghislaine. Let's dive in and take a look!(commercial at 7:14)To contact me:[email protected]:https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/infamous-luxury-yacht-connected-to-ghislaine-maxwell-arrives-in-new-zealand/JHLOY3JQPAFT6M5LIFBMC6T5MQ/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

On tonight's episode we continue discussing Prince Andrew and the new situation he finds himself embroiled in involving a fraudster, a Turkish millionairess and alleged payments made to him. The question is, when will this man get tired of being in embarrassing situations?(commercial at 11:22)to contact me:[email protected]:https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/prince-andrew-beatrice-wedding-gift-b2049478.htmlBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Everything Prince Andrew does is going to be met with scrutiny for the rest of his life. He has no one to blame but himself for those circumstances though. He had the whole world served up to him on a platter and he needed more. In this episode, we once again hear about how Andrew was always a rude, belligerent person and how he has been despised by many, many of the people who worked for him.(commercial at 10:04)to contact me:[email protected]:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11283941/Andrew-horrible-bully-revolving-door-women-ex-officer-tells-new-documentary.htmlBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

According to ex Palace guard Paul Page, Prince Andrew not only was an entitled nonce, but he was also a loudmouth who liked to verbally abuse the guards who were responsible for his safety. In this episode, we get a look at that behavior as detailed by Mr. Page.(commercial at 10:30)to contact me:[email protected]:https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/19047669/prince-andrew-screamed-royal-cop/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The case of the Springfield Three is one of the most haunting and enduring unsolved missing persons cases in American history. On the night of June 6, 1992, in Springfield, Missouri, three women—47-year-old Sherrill Levitt, her 19-year-old daughter Suzie Streeter, and Suzie’s friend 18-year-old Stacy McCall—vanished without a trace from Sherrill’s home at 1717 East Delmar Street. The night before, Suzie and Stacy had just graduated from Kickapoo High School. After attending several parties, they returned to Suzie’s house around 2 a.m. intending to sleep over. The plan was to go swimming the next day and meet up with friends.The next morning, the house was eerily silent. Friends who arrived to pick up the girls found all three women's personal belongings inside—purses, cars, and even Suzie and Sherrill’s cigarettes were left untouched. The front porch light was broken, the glass swept up by someone, and the front door was unlocked. There were no signs of forced entry, no signs of struggle, and no clear evidence of what had happened. Over the years, multiple theories emerged, including abduction by someone they knew, a botched burglary, or even police cover-up, but none have been proven. A key figure, convicted kidnapper Robert Craig Cox, claimed to know what happened but refused to say more. Despite intense media coverage and thousands of leads, the Springfield Three remain missing, and the case continues to baffle investigators and haunt the city more than three decades later.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In a memorandum dated April 17, 2025, Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team opposed a motion to quash a subpoena directed at Cassie Ventura, a key accuser in his upcoming federal trial. The defense argued that the subpoena, which sought drafts of Ventura's memoir, personal diaries, journals, and bank statements, was justified under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c). They contended that these materials could contain information pertinent to Combs' defense, asserting that the requests were specific, relevant, and not oppressive. The defense emphasized that the subpoena aimed to uncover evidence that might challenge Ventura's credibility or provide context to her allegations.​Furthermore, Combs' attorneys addressed concerns about the breadth of the subpoena, arguing that it did not constitute a "fishing expedition" but was a targeted effort to obtain materials directly related to the case. They maintained that the requested documents could reveal inconsistencies or motivations behind Ventura's claims, thereby playing a crucial role in ensuring a fair trial. The memorandum cited legal precedents supporting the admissibility of such evidence when it bears directly on the issues at hand. Ultimately, the defense sought to demonstrate that the subpoena was a legitimate tool for gathering evidence essential to Combs' defense strategy.​to  contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.256.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In a memorandum dated April 17, 2025, Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team opposed a motion to quash a subpoena directed at Cassie Ventura, a key accuser in his upcoming federal trial. The defense argued that the subpoena, which sought drafts of Ventura's memoir, personal diaries, journals, and bank statements, was justified under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c). They contended that these materials could contain information pertinent to Combs' defense, asserting that the requests were specific, relevant, and not oppressive. The defense emphasized that the subpoena aimed to uncover evidence that might challenge Ventura's credibility or provide context to her allegations.​Furthermore, Combs' attorneys addressed concerns about the breadth of the subpoena, arguing that it did not constitute a "fishing expedition" but was a targeted effort to obtain materials directly related to the case. They maintained that the requested documents could reveal inconsistencies or motivations behind Ventura's claims, thereby playing a crucial role in ensuring a fair trial. The memorandum cited legal precedents supporting the admissibility of such evidence when it bears directly on the issues at hand. Ultimately, the defense sought to demonstrate that the subpoena was a legitimate tool for gathering evidence essential to Combs' defense strategy.​to  contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.256.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​On April 18, 2025, the Idaho District Court ruled on Bryan Kohberger's motion to exclude testimony from forensic analyst Rylene Nowlin regarding "touch" or "contact" DNA in his upcoming trial. Kohberger's defense argued that Nowlin's opinions on how and when DNA was transferred to a knife sheath found at the crime scene were speculative and lacked scientific consensus. They contended that such testimony could mislead the jury and should be inadmissible under Idaho Rules of Evidence 403 and 703. However, the court denied the motion to exclude Nowlin's testimony, allowing her to discuss DNA transfer concepts, including distinctions between direct and indirect transfer, as well as factors influencing DNA persistence. The court acknowledged that Nowlin's opinions were based on her training and experience, noting her assessment that the DNA profile obtained from the sheath was more likely the result of direct transfer.While permitting Nowlin's testimony, the court expressed concern over the potential for certain terminology to confuse the jury. Specifically, the court requested that both parties instruct their witnesses to avoid using the terms "touch DNA," "contact DNA," and "trace DNA" during the trial. The court reasoned that these terms could be misleading, as they might imply a level of certainty about the DNA's origin and transfer mechanism that current forensic science cannot definitively provide. By restricting the use of such terminology, the court aimed to ensure that the jury would not be unduly influenced by potentially ambiguous or scientifically unsupported language.to contact me:[email protected]:041825+Order+on+Defendants+Motion+in+Limine+RE+Rylene+Nowlin+and+Touch+and+Contact+DNA.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​On April 18, 2025, the Idaho District Court ruled on Bryan Kohberger's motion to exclude testimony from forensic analyst Rylene Nowlin regarding "touch" or "contact" DNA in his upcoming trial. Kohberger's defense argued that Nowlin's opinions on how and when DNA was transferred to a knife sheath found at the crime scene were speculative and lacked scientific consensus. They contended that such testimony could mislead the jury and should be inadmissible under Idaho Rules of Evidence 403 and 703. However, the court denied the motion to exclude Nowlin's testimony, allowing her to discuss DNA transfer concepts, including distinctions between direct and indirect transfer, as well as factors influencing DNA persistence. The court acknowledged that Nowlin's opinions were based on her training and experience, noting her assessment that the DNA profile obtained from the sheath was more likely the result of direct transfer.While permitting Nowlin's testimony, the court expressed concern over the potential for certain terminology to confuse the jury. Specifically, the court requested that both parties instruct their witnesses to avoid using the terms "touch DNA," "contact DNA," and "trace DNA" during the trial. The court reasoned that these terms could be misleading, as they might imply a level of certainty about the DNA's origin and transfer mechanism that current forensic science cannot definitively provide. By restricting the use of such terminology, the court aimed to ensure that the jury would not be unduly influenced by potentially ambiguous or scientifically unsupported language.to contact me:[email protected]:041825+Order+on+Defendants+Motion+in+Limine+RE+Rylene+Nowlin+and+Touch+and+Contact+DNA.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The legal conflict between attorneys Alex Spiro and Tony Buzbee has intensified amid the high-profile lawsuits involving Sean "Diddy" Combs and Shawn "Jay-Z" Carter. Buzbee, representing numerous plaintiffs alleging sexual misconduct by Combs, filed a lawsuit implicating Jay-Z in a 2000 incident where a 13-year-old girl was allegedly raped at an afterparty. Jay-Z, denying the allegations, accused Buzbee of extortion, asserting that Buzbee attempted to coerce a settlement by threatening to publicize the claims. Spiro, Jay-Z's attorney, emphasized that the accuser admitted inconsistencies in her story and suggested that Buzbee influenced her to include Jay-Z in the lawsuit. Consequently, Jay-Z filed a defamation and civil extortion lawsuit against Buzbee and his client, seeking to clear his name and address the purported misuse of the legal systemIn response, Buzbee contended that his actions were standard legal procedures, denying any extortion attempts. He further alleged that Jay-Z and his legal team, including Spiro, engaged in efforts to discredit him by filing grievances that led to his withdrawal from over a dozen federal cases due to admission issues in the Southern District of New York. Buzbee claimed that these actions were part of a broader strategy to undermine his credibility and deter him from pursuing cases against high-profile individuals. He also filed a lawsuit against Roc Nation and the law firm Quinn Emanuel, accusing them of conspiring to have his clients file frivolous lawsuits against him. This escalating legal battle underscores the complex interplay between legal ethics, high-stakes litigation, and the influence of powerful figures in the entertainment industry.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.