The Suzanne Morphew Murder: Barry Morphew And The Preservation Motion (7/5/25)

In this edition of our Mega series, we are taking a look at three articles dealing with Usher and his relationship with Diddy.   The relationship between Usher and Sean "Diddy" Combs has come under scrutiny following Combs' recent arrest on charges of conspiracy and sex trafficking. Usher, who has had a professional relationship with Diddy since his teenage years, quickly made headlines when he deleted all of his posts on X (formerly Twitter) shortly after Combs' arrest. This sparked rumors that the move might be related to the scandal, given their close ties. However, Usher later claimed that his account was hacked and denied any connection between the deletions and Combs' legal troubles..Usher has not been implicated in any crimes, but his past experiences living with Diddy as a young artist have resurfaced in discussions about the mogul's controversial history. He has previously spoken about witnessing wild parties and "curious things" during his time with Diddy in the 1990s, though he has maintained a distance from the current allegations.(commercial at 8:41)to contact me:[email protected]:Usher Says He Saw 'Very Curious Things' When He Lived with Diddy at 13 for a Year (people.com)Segment two:The controversy surrounding the alleged deleted Usher tweets stems from claims that the R&B singer posted a series of controversial messages on social media, which were quickly deleted. While specific details about the content of these alleged tweets vary, the general narrative suggests that they may have been offensive or insensitive in nature, sparking backlash and prompting Usher or his team to remove them.Afterward, rumors and discussions circulated about what was actually posted, leading to debates on social media. Some argued that screenshots of the tweets were fabricated or taken out of context, while others expressed disappointment or criticism of Usher based on the claims.  So the question is, was content hidden or was Usher hacked like he says?   Let's dive in!(commercial at 7:31)to contact me:[email protected]:Usher says he was hacked after his Twitter account got wiped out following Diddy arrest: 'Y'all ran with it' | Daily Mail OnlineClosing out the episode in segment three:L.A. Reid's role in Sean "Diddy" Combs' story has become more significant as details about his decisions involving young artists resurface. In the 1990s, Reid sent a teenage Usher to live with Diddy as part of a mentorship program dubbed "Puffy Flavor Camp." Usher has since reflected on his experience, describing it as "wild" and revealing that he witnessed inappropriate activities during his time with Diddy. While Reid admitted in his memoir that sending Usher into Diddy's world was meant to help him develop a more mature, edgy sound, he also expressed uncertainty about whether the decision was wise, considering the environment that Diddy fostered. Usher has since hinted at the discomfort he felt witnessing adult behavior at such a young age and stated he would never subject his children to a similar experience.In addition to Usher, Reid was also connected to another young star who had a relationship with Diddy—Justin Bieber. A resurfaced 2009 video shows a then 15-year-old Bieber spending time with Diddy, who made unsettling remarks about getting girls for the underage singer. Reid, who had worked with Bieber early in his career, played a role in connecting the young artist with influential figures like Diddy. This interaction is now being scrutinized in light of the serious allegations against Diddy, raising concerns about the environments young stars like Usher and Bieber were exposed to under his mentorship​.These revelations have cast Reid’s decisions in a more critical light, as both Usher and Bieber's experiences with Diddy are now being reexamined in the context of the accusations against the music mogul.(commercial at 10:22)to contact me:[email protected]:Revealed: How Usher brought 'beautiful' 14-year-old boy Justin Bieber to music mogul L.A Reid as a 'gift' (and how it paved the way for singer's friendship with Diddy) | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this 39-page motion filed on April 7, 2025, Sean Combs’ legal team asks the court to exclude any reference to alleged prior sexual assaults under Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 404(b). They argue that Rule 413 only applies when a defendant is formally charged with a sexual assault offense, which Combs is not—his current charges involve racketeering, sex trafficking, and related crimes, but not specific counts of sexual assault. Therefore, they assert the government’s attempt to admit uncharged sexual assault allegations under Rule 413 is legally improper and violates the plain text and legislative intent of the rule.Additionally, the motion challenges the admissibility of this evidence under Rule 404(b), which governs the use of prior bad acts to show motive, opportunity, or intent. Combs’ attorneys argue that the government’s notice is procedurally deficient and that the proposed evidence relies heavily on impermissible character inferences—essentially suggesting that because Combs allegedly committed bad acts before, he is more likely to have committed the crimes he’s charged with now. They also invoke Rule 403, saying the evidence has low probative value, is highly inflammatory, and would result in mini-trials over unrelated allegations, confusing the jury and unfairly prejudicing Combs. At minimum, the defense requests a preliminary hearing to assess the reliability of the evidence before it’s presented at trial.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.213.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this 39-page motion filed on April 7, 2025, Sean Combs’ legal team asks the court to exclude any reference to alleged prior sexual assaults under Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 404(b). They argue that Rule 413 only applies when a defendant is formally charged with a sexual assault offense, which Combs is not—his current charges involve racketeering, sex trafficking, and related crimes, but not specific counts of sexual assault. Therefore, they assert the government’s attempt to admit uncharged sexual assault allegations under Rule 413 is legally improper and violates the plain text and legislative intent of the rule.Additionally, the motion challenges the admissibility of this evidence under Rule 404(b), which governs the use of prior bad acts to show motive, opportunity, or intent. Combs’ attorneys argue that the government’s notice is procedurally deficient and that the proposed evidence relies heavily on impermissible character inferences—essentially suggesting that because Combs allegedly committed bad acts before, he is more likely to have committed the crimes he’s charged with now. They also invoke Rule 403, saying the evidence has low probative value, is highly inflammatory, and would result in mini-trials over unrelated allegations, confusing the jury and unfairly prejudicing Combs. At minimum, the defense requests a preliminary hearing to assess the reliability of the evidence before it’s presented at trial.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.213.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this 39-page motion filed on April 7, 2025, Sean Combs’ legal team asks the court to exclude any reference to alleged prior sexual assaults under Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 404(b). They argue that Rule 413 only applies when a defendant is formally charged with a sexual assault offense, which Combs is not—his current charges involve racketeering, sex trafficking, and related crimes, but not specific counts of sexual assault. Therefore, they assert the government’s attempt to admit uncharged sexual assault allegations under Rule 413 is legally improper and violates the plain text and legislative intent of the rule.Additionally, the motion challenges the admissibility of this evidence under Rule 404(b), which governs the use of prior bad acts to show motive, opportunity, or intent. Combs’ attorneys argue that the government’s notice is procedurally deficient and that the proposed evidence relies heavily on impermissible character inferences—essentially suggesting that because Combs allegedly committed bad acts before, he is more likely to have committed the crimes he’s charged with now. They also invoke Rule 403, saying the evidence has low probative value, is highly inflammatory, and would result in mini-trials over unrelated allegations, confusing the jury and unfairly prejudicing Combs. At minimum, the defense requests a preliminary hearing to assess the reliability of the evidence before it’s presented at trial.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.213.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this 39-page motion filed on April 7, 2025, Sean Combs’ legal team asks the court to exclude any reference to alleged prior sexual assaults under Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 404(b). They argue that Rule 413 only applies when a defendant is formally charged with a sexual assault offense, which Combs is not—his current charges involve racketeering, sex trafficking, and related crimes, but not specific counts of sexual assault. Therefore, they assert the government’s attempt to admit uncharged sexual assault allegations under Rule 413 is legally improper and violates the plain text and legislative intent of the rule.Additionally, the motion challenges the admissibility of this evidence under Rule 404(b), which governs the use of prior bad acts to show motive, opportunity, or intent. Combs’ attorneys argue that the government’s notice is procedurally deficient and that the proposed evidence relies heavily on impermissible character inferences—essentially suggesting that because Combs allegedly committed bad acts before, he is more likely to have committed the crimes he’s charged with now. They also invoke Rule 403, saying the evidence has low probative value, is highly inflammatory, and would result in mini-trials over unrelated allegations, confusing the jury and unfairly prejudicing Combs. At minimum, the defense requests a preliminary hearing to assess the reliability of the evidence before it’s presented at trial.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.213.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Barry Morphew, through his legal counsel, has filed a motion demanding that the District Attorney’s Office and all associated law enforcement and reporting agencies preserve specific materials relevant to his case. This motion serves as an official notification requiring these entities to retain any evidence or documentation that may pertain to the matter at hand.Additionally, Morphew requests that the court issue an order mandating the preservation and production of this material. The motion seeks to compel the prosecution to ensure that all involved agencies, including the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and others, comply with these preservation and production instructions, safeguarding crucial evidence for the defense’s use.to contact me:[email protected]:Defense Motion For Preservation and Production of Material D-005.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of the Motion to Dismiss the Complaint against the Combs Defendants argues that the plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to state a viable claim under applicable legal standards. The defendants contend that the complaint is legally insufficient because it relies on conclusory allegations without concrete factual support, particularly regarding claims of sex trafficking and racketeering. They emphasize that the plaintiff has not demonstrated the necessary elements to establish a criminal enterprise or direct involvement by Sean “Diddy” Combs or his affiliated entities, and thus the case should be dismissed at this early stage.Furthermore, the defendants assert that the complaint improperly conflates business operations with alleged illegal conduct, failing to show that the defendants knowingly participated in or benefited from any criminal activity. They argue that the plaintiff’s attempt to hold the defendants liable for the actions of third parties lacks the required causation and direct connection. The memorandum stresses that courts must reject attempts to extend liability beyond what the law permits, especially in complex cases involving serious accusations, and urges the court to grant dismissal in favor of the Combs Defendants to prevent unwarranted litigation.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.632026.47.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the case of United States v. Combs, the Government submitted a letter to Judge Subramanian addressing GX 1411, a summary chart of records extracted from Kristina Khorram’s electronic devices. The letter reveals that the defense only recently, after more than five months of possessing these communications, notified the Government of their intention to claim privilege over six specific images and videos within GX 1411. These materials depict communications between the defendant, Sean Combs, and an individual named Jane, and were stored on Khorram’s devices.The Government argues that this late assertion of privilege lacks merit and requests that the court deny the defense’s claim. They contend that the defense’s delay in raising privilege undermines its validity, implying that the claimed privilege over the six items should not prevent their use in the case. This position suggests the Government intends to proceed with including these communications as part of the evidence against the defendant.to contact me:[email protected];gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.430.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The prosecution’s decision not to call Victim 3 to testify in the Sean “Diddy” Combs RICO trial significantly weakened their case by leaving a critical firsthand account absent from the courtroom. Victim 3 was repeatedly referenced throughout the trial as a key figure whose experiences could have directly corroborated the government’s allegations of a pattern of criminal conduct within the alleged enterprise. Without her testimony, the prosecution lost an opportunity to vividly illustrate the systemic nature of the trafficking scheme, undermining the emotional and evidentiary impact on the jury. Her firsthand narrative could have filled gaps in the timeline and reinforced the credibility of other witnesses, thereby strengthening the connective tissue needed to prove the racketeering conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.Moreover, the absence of Victim 3 deprived the prosecution of a chance to counter defense attacks on witness credibility and to directly confront contradictions or defenses raised by Combs’s legal team. Her testimony would have likely addressed key elements such as coercion, control, and the involvement of multiple participants in the alleged criminal enterprise—crucial to establishing the RICO predicate acts. The failure to bring her to the stand allowed the defense to exploit this void, sowing doubt about the prosecution’s narrative and weakening the cohesive story required for a complex RICO conviction. Ultimately, not having Victim 3 testify created a noticeable evidentiary gap that hindered the government’s ability to fully connect the dots and secure a unanimous verdict on the RICO count.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

On Day 12 of Sean "Diddy" Combs's federal sex trafficking and racketeering trial, former stylist Deonte Nash resumed his testimony, detailing instances of physical abuse he witnessed Combs inflict upon his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura. Nash recounted a 2013 incident where Combs allegedly dragged Ventura by her hair and slammed her head into a bed frame, resulting in a bleeding gash. He also described Ventura's reluctance to participate in so-called "freak-offs," which were group sex events allegedly orchestrated by Combs. Nash testified that Ventura confided in him about her fear of these events and the coercion she experienced, including threats of violence and blackmail involving compromising videos.Following Nash's testimony, a former assistant to Combs, testifying under the pseudonym "Mia," took the stand. Mia alleged that Combs sexually assaulted her multiple times during her employment from 2009 to 2017. She described a toxic work environment characterized by extreme demands, including working five consecutive days without sleep, and being subjected to physical abuse, such as being thrown against walls and into a pool. Mia also testified about witnessing Combs's violent behavior toward Ventura, including an incident where he allegedly slammed Ventura's head into a bed corner, causing a severe injury. Additionally, Mia recounted an event at a party hosted by Prince, where Combs allegedly attacked Ventura, prompting intervention from Prince's security.On the afternoon of Day 12 in Sean "Diddy" Combs's federal trial, former assistant "Mia" continued her testimony, detailing the abuse she allegedly endured during her employment from 2009 to 2017. She recounted an incident where Combs threw a bowl of spaghetti at her after she attempted to retreat to her room, leading her to flee barefoot and hide in a bush before escaping to a hotel. Mia described the work environment as toxic, stating that Combs's volatile behavior included throwing objects at her and subjecting her to extreme demands, such as working for days without sleep. She also testified about being coerced into sexual acts, including an alleged rape at his Los Angeles home, and expressed fear of retaliation if she refused his advances. Mia's testimony painted a picture of a controlling and abusive relationship, where she felt unable to say no to Combs due to fear of losing her job and future prospects.Mia further testified about witnessing Combs's violent behavior towards his then-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura. She described an incident where Ventura ran into her room screaming, "You gotta help me, he's going to kill me," and recounted seeing Ventura with visible injuries, including black eyes and bruises. Mia also alleged that a fellow assistant who reported Combs's abuse of Ventura to the chief of staff was subsequently fired, highlighting a culture of silence and fear within Combs's inner circle. Despite the abuse, Mia stated that she believed Combs operated above the law, which contributed to her reluctance to report the incidents. Her testimony is expected to continue, providing further insight into the alleged pattern of abuse and control exerted by Combs over his employees and partners.to contact me:[email protected]:May 29, 2025 - Day 12 of testimony in the Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs trial | CNNBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.