Murder In Moscow: Prosecutors Respond To Kohberger's Latest IGG Motion (Part 2) (3/12/25)

The saga of the sealed document is at and end. Epstein's estate is now in agreement with the other parties involved about dislcosing the sealed document to Prince Andrew that he says will expose the claim as baseless.(commercial at 10:59)To contact me:[email protected]:https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/jeffrey-epsteins-estate-agrees-to-disclose-confidential-deal-requested-by-prince-andrew-court-docs-say/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jeffrey Epstein always seemed to find a way to come out on top in just about every financial deal he was involved in. In this episode, we take a look at how Jeffrey Epstein brought in a cool two hundred million right after the great recession of 2008 even after being a known sex offender and losing his biggest clients.(commercial at 7:35)to contact me: [email protected]:https://www.businessinsider.com/jeffrey-epstein-200-million-career-switch-financial-services-dna-research-2019-10Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In Case No. CR01-24-31665, the State responded to the Defendant's Motion in Limine #11, which sought to exclude evidence related to Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG). The Defendant indicated an intention to exclude IGG evidence and not to call expert witnesses on the matter. In light of this, the State agreed not to introduce IGG evidence or related expert testimony. Instead, the State proposed to present that law enforcement received a "tip," without specifying its source or content, which led to the identification of the Defendant. ​This approach aims to streamline the trial by focusing on direct evidence linking the Defendant to the crime, while avoiding potential complexities and disputes surrounding the IGG process. By mutually agreeing to exclude IGG evidence, both parties seek to prevent unnecessary confusion or prejudice that could arise from discussing the investigative techniques used during the investigation.to contact me:[email protected]:031025+States+Response+Defendants+Motion+in+Limine+Re+Exclude+IGG+Evidence.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In Case No. CR01-24-31665, the State responded to the Defendant's Motion in Limine #11, which sought to exclude evidence related to Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG). The Defendant indicated an intention to exclude IGG evidence and not to call expert witnesses on the matter. In light of this, the State agreed not to introduce IGG evidence or related expert testimony. Instead, the State proposed to present that law enforcement received a "tip," without specifying its source or content, which led to the identification of the Defendant. ​This approach aims to streamline the trial by focusing on direct evidence linking the Defendant to the crime, while avoiding potential complexities and disputes surrounding the IGG process. By mutually agreeing to exclude IGG evidence, both parties seek to prevent unnecessary confusion or prejudice that could arise from discussing the investigative techniques used during the investigation.to contact me:[email protected]:031025+States+Response+Defendants+Motion+in+Limine+Re+Exclude+IGG+Evidence.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​Investigative genetic genealogist CeCe Moore has commented on the FBI's use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG) in the Bryan Kohberger case, emphasizing the importance of ethical practices to maintain public support for this investigative tool. Moore noted that while the FBI's actions did not violate the law, they did breach the terms of service of certain genealogy databases, raising privacy concerns. She stressed that the continued success of IGG relies on public trust, which can be undermined if investigators do not adhere to ethical standards.Moore highlighted that the effectiveness of IGG depends on public participation and the willingness of individuals to share their genetic information. She cautioned that misuse or perceived overreach in employing IGG could lead to public backlash, potentially limiting its future utility in solving crimes. Therefore, maintaining ethical guidelines is crucial to preserve the public's trust and the viability of IGG as a law enforcement tool.to contact me:[email protected]:Bryan Kohberger case: FBI’s DNA tactics legal, but they raise another concern | Fox NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​Maui Police Chief John Pelletier has been implicated in a lawsuit alleging his involvement in covering up a 2018 gang rape purportedly orchestrated by Sean "Diddy" Combs, NFL star Odell Beckham Jr., and comedian Druski. The plaintiff, Ashley Parham, claims that Pelletier, then a Las Vegas police captain, impersonated a sheriff's deputy to respond to her 911 call in Orinda, California, attempting to conceal the reported assault. Both Pelletier and the accused celebrities have vehemently denied these allegationsThis lawsuit adds to a series of legal challenges facing Combs, who is currently detained without bail on federal charges, including sex trafficking and racketeering. His trial is scheduled for May 5, 2025. The amended lawsuit, seeking a jury trial, also implicates Beckham Jr. and Druski, who have publicly refuted the claims. Maui's mayor has called for Pelletier to be placed on administrative leave pending further investigation.to contact me:[email protected]:Maui Police Chief John Pelletier named in Diddy lawsuit as he's accused of covering up woman's rape in 2018 | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​Former JPMorgan executive Jes Staley testified that Jeffrey Epstein often possessed more knowledge about the bank's upper echelons than he did. Staley acknowledged that their relationship, which began as a business association, evolved into a personal friendship. He conceded that he "misspoke" when previously downplaying the closeness of their connection.During his tenure at JPMorgan, Staley reportedly advocated for retaining Epstein as a client despite internal concerns about Epstein's involvement in human trafficking and suspicious cash withdrawals. Staley allegedly facilitated discussions between Epstein and the bank's top lawyer, urging consideration of Epstein's perspective.to contact me:[email protected]:Ex-JPMorgan banker Jes Staley claims Jeffrey Epstein knew more about 'upper levels' of bank than he didBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The U.S. government has opposed Sean “Diddy” Combs' motion to suppress evidence obtained through search warrants in his criminal case, arguing that Combs has failed to meet the legal standard required for suppression. The prosecution asserts that the warrants were lawfully obtained based on substantial probable cause and that Combs' claims of material omissions and falsehoods in the warrant affidavits do not meet the high burden necessary for a Franks hearing (a legal proceeding to challenge the validity of a search warrant). The government contends that the search warrants were specific, targeting evidence directly related to Combs’ alleged crimes, including sex trafficking, racketeering, and other offenses. They also argue that any alleged omissions or misstatements in the affidavits were not material to the finding of probable cause and did not demonstrate intentional deception by law enforcement.Furthermore, the opposition brief emphasizes that the search warrants were not overly broad and complied with legal standards, making them valid under the Fourth Amendment. The government argues that even if there were any technical flaws in the warrant applications, the good faith exception applies, meaning law enforcement acted within their authority and in reasonable reliance on judicial approval. Additionally, the prosecution maintains that the evidence collected is crucial for proving Combs’ alleged criminal enterprise, including coercion, violence, and obstruction efforts. As a result, they urge the court to reject Combs’ motion to suppress and allow the evidence to be used in the upcoming trial.to  contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.171.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The U.S. government has opposed Sean “Diddy” Combs' motion to suppress evidence obtained through search warrants in his criminal case, arguing that Combs has failed to meet the legal standard required for suppression. The prosecution asserts that the warrants were lawfully obtained based on substantial probable cause and that Combs' claims of material omissions and falsehoods in the warrant affidavits do not meet the high burden necessary for a Franks hearing (a legal proceeding to challenge the validity of a search warrant). The government contends that the search warrants were specific, targeting evidence directly related to Combs’ alleged crimes, including sex trafficking, racketeering, and other offenses. They also argue that any alleged omissions or misstatements in the affidavits were not material to the finding of probable cause and did not demonstrate intentional deception by law enforcement.Furthermore, the opposition brief emphasizes that the search warrants were not overly broad and complied with legal standards, making them valid under the Fourth Amendment. The government argues that even if there were any technical flaws in the warrant applications, the good faith exception applies, meaning law enforcement acted within their authority and in reasonable reliance on judicial approval. Additionally, the prosecution maintains that the evidence collected is crucial for proving Combs’ alleged criminal enterprise, including coercion, violence, and obstruction efforts. As a result, they urge the court to reject Combs’ motion to suppress and allow the evidence to be used in the upcoming trial.to  contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.171.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán is one of the most notorious drug lords in history, known for his leadership of the Sinaloa Cartel, one of the most powerful drug trafficking organizations in the world. Here's a comprehensive summary of his arrest, extradition, and trial in the United States:Arrests:February 1993: El Chapo was first arrested in Guatemala and extradited to Mexico, where he faced charges related to drug trafficking. He was later transferred to a maximum-security prison in Mexico.January 2001: He managed to escape from the prison with the help of bribed prison guards, hiding in a laundry cart. Following his escape, he continued to lead the Sinaloa Cartel and expand its operations.February 2014: Mexican authorities captured El Chapo in Mazatlán, Mexico, after years of pursuit. This capture was a result of a joint operation by Mexican and U.S. law enforcement agencies.Extradition:January 2016: Guzmán was extradited to the United States to face charges related to drug trafficking, money laundering, and other criminal activities. His extradition came after a lengthy legal battle and diplomatic negotiations between the U.S. and Mexico.January 2017: El Chapo was arraigned in a federal court in Brooklyn, New York, where he pleaded not guilty to a 17-count indictment.Trial:November 2018: The trial against El Chapo began in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The trial garnered significant media attention due to the high-profile nature of the case and the sensational details of Guzmán's alleged crimes.February 2019: After a three-month trial featuring testimonies from over 50 witnesses, including former associates and law enforcement officials, El Chapo was found guilty on all counts, including engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, drug trafficking, and firearms offenses.July 2019: Guzmán was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, plus an additional 30 years, and ordered to forfeit $12.6 billion. The sentence was handed down by Judge Brian Cogan in a federal court in Brooklyn, New York.Life in Prison: El Chapo is currently serving his sentence at the United States Penitentiary Administrative Maximum Facility (ADX) in Florence, Colorado, often referred to as the "Supermax" prison, known for its strict conditions and high-security measures.El Chapo's arrest, extradition, and trial marked a significant victory for law enforcement agencies in their efforts to combat international drug trafficking and organized crime.(commercial at 8:13)to contact me:[email protected]:chapo-us-resp.pdf (courthousenews.com)Become a supporter of this podcast:https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.