Diddy's Request For A Delay In His Trial Has Been Torpedoed By The Judge (4/21/25)

​On April 18, 2025, the Idaho District Court issued a ruling on the State's motion in limine concerning the admissibility of neuropsychological and psychiatric evidence in the case of State v. Bryan C. Kohberger. The State sought to exclude testimony from defense experts Dr. Rachel Orr and Dr. Eileen Ryan regarding Kohberger's diagnoses, including Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD). The defense argued that this evidence was not intended to establish a mental condition defense under Idaho Code § 18-207 but rather to provide context for Kohberger's courtroom demeanor and to assist the jury in understanding the physical implications of his diagnoses. The court determined that if Kohberger does not testify, such evidence explaining his demeanor is irrelevant and inadmissible under Idaho Rule of Evidence 403. However, the court reserved ruling on certain behaviors that might become relevant in rebuttal, except for expert testimony asserting that Kohberger was physically incapable of committing the crimes, for which no opinion had been disclosedto 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 issued a ruling on the State's motion in limine concerning the admissibility of neuropsychological and psychiatric evidence in the case of State v. Bryan C. Kohberger. The State sought to exclude testimony from defense experts Dr. Rachel Orr and Dr. Eileen Ryan regarding Kohberger's diagnoses, including Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD). The defense argued that this evidence was not intended to establish a mental condition defense under Idaho Code § 18-207 but rather to provide context for Kohberger's courtroom demeanor and to assist the jury in understanding the physical implications of his diagnoses. The court determined that if Kohberger does not testify, such evidence explaining his demeanor is irrelevant and inadmissible under Idaho Rule of Evidence 403. However, the court reserved ruling on certain behaviors that might become relevant in rebuttal, except for expert testimony asserting that Kohberger was physically incapable of committing the crimes, for which no opinion had been disclosedto 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, U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian denied Sean "Diddy" Combs' request to delay his upcoming sex trafficking and racketeering trial, which is scheduled to begin on May 5 in Manhattan. Combs' legal team had sought a two-month postponement, citing the need for additional time to prepare due to new charges and evidence introduced in a recent superseding indictment. However, Judge Subramanian rejected the request, stating that the defense, which includes multiple attorneys, has sufficient time to prepare and that the court would not permit a "fishing expedition" for more evidence.During the same hearing, Judge Subramanian made several other rulings affecting the trial proceedings. He allowed three alleged victims to testify under pseudonyms to protect their identities, while noting that Cassie Ventura, Combs' former girlfriend and a key accuser, will testify under her real name. The judge also denied the defense's motion to dismiss certain charges and ruled that outtakes from the documentary "The Fall of Diddy" are admissible as evidence. Combs, who has been held without bail since his arrest in September 2024, has pleaded not guilty to the charges, which include sex trafficking, transportation to engage in prostitution, and racketeering conspiracy.to contact me:[email protected]:Sean "Diddy" Combs back in court as judge denies bid to delay trial by two months - CBS New YorkBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In the retrial of Karen Read for the 2022 death of her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O'Keefe, prosecutors face significant challenges. The initial trial ended in a mistrial due to a hung jury, indicating jurors' doubts about the prosecution's case. Central to the prosecution's difficulties is the credibility of the investigation, particularly concerning lead investigator Michael Proctor, who was dismissed after revelations of derogatory texts about Read, suggesting potential bias. The defense contends that Read is being framed to protect other law enforcement officers, alleging that O'Keefe was killed inside a fellow officer's home and his body placed outside to implicate Read. This narrative has gained traction, bolstered by media coverage and public skepticism about the investigation's integrity.Further complicating the prosecution's efforts are disputes over forensic evidence and expert testimonies. The defense has introduced experts to challenge the assertion that O'Keefe's injuries resulted from being struck by a vehicle, suggesting instead that they could be consistent with an assault inside the house. Additionally, the defense has accused the prosecution of misconduct, alleging improper coordination with expert witnesses and raising concerns about the admissibility of certain evidence. These factors, combined with the high-profile nature of the case and intense public scrutiny, create an uphill battle for the prosecution in securing a conviction in the retrial.to contact me:[email protected]:Karen Read prosecutors face ‘uphill battle’ in Massachusetts case’s retrial, expert says | Massachusetts | The GuardianBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In the motion filed on April 17, 2025, Sean Combs' legal team seeks to exclude video evidence related to a March 5, 2016 incident at the InterContinental Hotel in Los Angeles. The defense argues that the CNN footage presented by the government is inadmissible due to alterations, manipulations, and being out of sequence. They assert that CNN paid for, copied, and presented the footage in unknown ways, ultimately destroying the original, rendering it inaccurate. Additionally, the defense challenges two iPhone videos, claiming they are re-recordings of surveillance footage that differ materially from the CNN compilation. The defense contends that these videos cannot be authenticated under Federal Rule of Evidence 901, violate the "Best Evidence" Rule (Rule 1002) due to the absence of original footage, and should be excluded under Rule 403 as their prejudicial impact outweighs any probative value.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.243.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In the motion filed on April 17, 2025, Sean Combs' legal team seeks to exclude video evidence related to a March 5, 2016 incident at the InterContinental Hotel in Los Angeles. The defense argues that the CNN footage presented by the government is inadmissible due to alterations, manipulations, and being out of sequence. They assert that CNN paid for, copied, and presented the footage in unknown ways, ultimately destroying the original, rendering it inaccurate. Additionally, the defense challenges two iPhone videos, claiming they are re-recordings of surveillance footage that differ materially from the CNN compilation. The defense contends that these videos cannot be authenticated under Federal Rule of Evidence 901, violate the "Best Evidence" Rule (Rule 1002) due to the absence of original footage, and should be excluded under Rule 403 as their prejudicial impact outweighs any probative value.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.243.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this look back episode...Disgraced Prince Andrew thought it was a good idea to host a shooting party on the eve of his case being heard by a judge. In the ultimate thumb of the nose at the upcoming proceedings, Andrew, instead of huddling up with his crisis team, decided to host a shooting party instead.(Commercial at 13:07)To contact me:[email protected]:https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/16113252/prince-andrew-shooting-party-sexual-assault-court-hearing/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jeffrey Epstein had extensive ties to the academic community. His reach spanned across the country when it came to donating to professors.From the deserts of Arizona to the Pacific Coast and everywhere in between, proffesors and universities accepted his patronage.None of these institutions had the relationship with Epstein that Harvard had however. Today we take a look at that relationship.(commercial at 13:44)To contact me:[email protected]:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8279193/Jeffrey-Epstein-OFFICE-Harvard-damning-report-reveals.htmlBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Amy Robach was caught on a hot mic complaining about ABC and how they handled the information she was able to obtain from Virginia Roberts in a never aired interview. According to Robach, the interview was quashed by the big shots at ABC because "who knows who Jeffrey Epstein is" and "We don't want to lose our access to the royal family." Just another day in the legacy media. (commercial at 12:19)to contact me:[email protected]:https://www.vox.com/2019/11/5/20949839/jeffrey-epstein-abc-news-leaked-tape-project-veritasBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jeffrey Epstein chose New Mexico for a reason. Or several. Why did the state of New Mexico punt the ball to the feds instead of impaneling a grand jury to pursue charges themselves? Let's dive in and see what we can find out.(commercial at 9:03)To contact me:[email protected]:https://nmpoliticalreport.com/2019/07/18/no-epstein-indictment-here-for-now/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.