Was Bryan Kohberger Hanging Around The Student Union In Idaho?

From the archives: 2-3-23People magazine has had several sources provide them with information throughout the investigation and now according to their sources, they say that Bryan Kohberger was on the Idaho University campus multiple times and according to the students, his behavior was odd at best.Let's dive in!(commercial at 7:39)to contact me:[email protected]:Bryan Kohberger Visited Idaho Student Union Before Murders — and Was 'the Type to Stare': Witnesses (msn.com)

A superseding indictment is a formal legal document issued by a grand jury that replaces a previous indictment in a criminal case. It updates or adds charges, changes the factual basis, or modifies the defendants listed. Here are the key points:Key Features:Replacement: It replaces an earlier indictment with new or revised charges.Additional Charges: It can include additional charges not present in the original indictment.New Defendants: It can add new defendants or modify the charges against existing ones.Updated Information: It reflects new evidence or information obtained during the ongoing investigation.Purpose:Flexibility: Allows prosecutors to adapt to new developments in the case.Comprehensive Prosecution: Ensures that all relevant charges and defendants are included based on the latest available evidence.Clarity: Provides a clear and updated statement of the charges against the defendants, which is important for legal proceedings and the defense's preparation.Process:Grand Jury Review: Like the original indictment, a superseding indictment must be reviewed and approved by a grand jury.Filing and Notification: Once approved, it is filed with the court, and the defendants are notified of the changes.Impact:Defendant's Rights: Defendants have the right to be informed of any new charges and to respond accordingly.Legal Proceedings: The case proceeds based on the superseding indictment, which may alter the strategy of both the prosecution and the defense.Summary of Superseding Indictment No. 09 CR 383:Case Information:Case Number: No. 09 CR 383Judge: Ruben CastilloType: Superseding IndictmentViolations Cited:Title 21, United States Code:Section 841: Relates to the manufacturing, distributing, or dispensing of controlled substances, or possession with intent to do so.Section 846: Concerns attempts or conspiracies to commit any offense defined in this subchapter, including drug trafficking offenses.Section 952(a): Prohibits the importation of controlled substances into the United States.Section 960: Specifies penalties for the importation and exportation of controlled substances.Section 963: Addresses conspiracies to violate any provision of this subchapter, including import and export violations.Title 18, United States Code:Section 2: Covers the principle of aiding and abetting, meaning anyone who aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, or procures the commission of an offense against the United States is punishable as a principal.Key Points:Superseding Indictment: This document replaces a previous indictment with updated charges and information.Drug-Related Charges: The cited violations primarily relate to drug trafficking, manufacturing, distribution, and importation, as well as conspiracy to commit these offenses.Aiding and Abetting: The inclusion of Title 18, Section 2, indicates that individuals involved may have also been charged with assisting or facilitating these crimes.The defendants:JOAQUIN GUZMAN-LOERA,  a/k/a “El Chapo,”  a/k/a “Chapo Guzman,” ISMAEL ZAMBADA-GARCIA,  a/k/a “El Mayo,” a/k/a “Mayo Zambada,”JESUS VICENTE ZAMBADA-NIEBLA, a/k/a “Vicente Zambada-Niebla,” a/k/a “Vicente Zambada,” a/k/a “Mayito,” a/k/a “30 ”ALFREDO GUZMAN-SALAZAR,  a/k/a “Alfredillo,”ALFREDO VASQUEZ-HERNANDEZ, a/k/a “Alfredo Compadre,”FIRST NAME UNKNOWN, LAST NAME UNKNOWN,  a/k/a “Juancho,”GERMAN OLIVARES,FELIPE LAST NAME UNKNOWN,TOMAS AREVALO-RENTERIA,PEDRO FLORES, and MARGARITO FLORES(commercial at 8:05)to contact me:[email protected]:C:\Documents and Settings\rsamborn\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\4MRWRZ20\Chapo-Mayo Indictment DG ed (go.com)

A superseding indictment is a formal legal document issued by a grand jury that replaces a previous indictment in a criminal case. It updates or adds charges, changes the factual basis, or modifies the defendants listed. Here are the key points:Key Features:Replacement: It replaces an earlier indictment with new or revised charges.Additional Charges: It can include additional charges not present in the original indictment.New Defendants: It can add new defendants or modify the charges against existing ones.Updated Information: It reflects new evidence or information obtained during the ongoing investigation.Purpose:Flexibility: Allows prosecutors to adapt to new developments in the case.Comprehensive Prosecution: Ensures that all relevant charges and defendants are included based on the latest available evidence.Clarity: Provides a clear and updated statement of the charges against the defendants, which is important for legal proceedings and the defense's preparation.Process:Grand Jury Review: Like the original indictment, a superseding indictment must be reviewed and approved by a grand jury.Filing and Notification: Once approved, it is filed with the court, and the defendants are notified of the changes.Impact:Defendant's Rights: Defendants have the right to be informed of any new charges and to respond accordingly.Legal Proceedings: The case proceeds based on the superseding indictment, which may alter the strategy of both the prosecution and the defense.Summary of Superseding Indictment No. 09 CR 383:Case Information:Case Number: No. 09 CR 383Judge: Ruben CastilloType: Superseding IndictmentViolations Cited:Title 21, United States Code:Section 841: Relates to the manufacturing, distributing, or dispensing of controlled substances, or possession with intent to do so.Section 846: Concerns attempts or conspiracies to commit any offense defined in this subchapter, including drug trafficking offenses.Section 952(a): Prohibits the importation of controlled substances into the United States.Section 960: Specifies penalties for the importation and exportation of controlled substances.Section 963: Addresses conspiracies to violate any provision of this subchapter, including import and export violations.Title 18, United States Code:Section 2: Covers the principle of aiding and abetting, meaning anyone who aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, or procures the commission of an offense against the United States is punishable as a principal.Key Points:Superseding Indictment: This document replaces a previous indictment with updated charges and information.Drug-Related Charges: The cited violations primarily relate to drug trafficking, manufacturing, distribution, and importation, as well as conspiracy to commit these offenses.Aiding and Abetting: The inclusion of Title 18, Section 2, indicates that individuals involved may have also been charged with assisting or facilitating these crimes.The defendants:JOAQUIN GUZMAN-LOERA,  a/k/a “El Chapo,”  a/k/a “Chapo Guzman,” ISMAEL ZAMBADA-GARCIA,  a/k/a “El Mayo,” a/k/a “Mayo Zambada,”JESUS VICENTE ZAMBADA-NIEBLA, a/k/a “Vicente Zambada-Niebla,” a/k/a “Vicente Zambada,” a/k/a “Mayito,” a/k/a “30 ”ALFREDO GUZMAN-SALAZAR,  a/k/a “Alfredillo,”ALFREDO VASQUEZ-HERNANDEZ, a/k/a “Alfredo Compadre,”FIRST NAME UNKNOWN, LAST NAME UNKNOWN,  a/k/a “Juancho,”GERMAN OLIVARES,FELIPE LAST NAME UNKNOWN,TOMAS AREVALO-RENTERIA,PEDRO FLORES, and MARGARITO FLORES(commercial at 8:05)to contact me:[email protected]:C:\Documents and Settings\rsamborn\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\4MRWRZ20\Chapo-Mayo Indictment DG ed (go.com)

A superseding indictment is a formal legal document issued by a grand jury that replaces a previous indictment in a criminal case. It updates or adds charges, changes the factual basis, or modifies the defendants listed. Here are the key points:Key Features:Replacement: It replaces an earlier indictment with new or revised charges.Additional Charges: It can include additional charges not present in the original indictment.New Defendants: It can add new defendants or modify the charges against existing ones.Updated Information: It reflects new evidence or information obtained during the ongoing investigation.Purpose:Flexibility: Allows prosecutors to adapt to new developments in the case.Comprehensive Prosecution: Ensures that all relevant charges and defendants are included based on the latest available evidence.Clarity: Provides a clear and updated statement of the charges against the defendants, which is important for legal proceedings and the defense's preparation.Process:Grand Jury Review: Like the original indictment, a superseding indictment must be reviewed and approved by a grand jury.Filing and Notification: Once approved, it is filed with the court, and the defendants are notified of the changes.Impact:Defendant's Rights: Defendants have the right to be informed of any new charges and to respond accordingly.Legal Proceedings: The case proceeds based on the superseding indictment, which may alter the strategy of both the prosecution and the defense.Summary of Superseding Indictment No. 09 CR 383:Case Information:Case Number: No. 09 CR 383Judge: Ruben CastilloType: Superseding IndictmentViolations Cited:Title 21, United States Code:Section 841: Relates to the manufacturing, distributing, or dispensing of controlled substances, or possession with intent to do so.Section 846: Concerns attempts or conspiracies to commit any offense defined in this subchapter, including drug trafficking offenses.Section 952(a): Prohibits the importation of controlled substances into the United States.Section 960: Specifies penalties for the importation and exportation of controlled substances.Section 963: Addresses conspiracies to violate any provision of this subchapter, including import and export violations.Title 18, United States Code:Section 2: Covers the principle of aiding and abetting, meaning anyone who aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, or procures the commission of an offense against the United States is punishable as a principal.Key Points:Superseding Indictment: This document replaces a previous indictment with updated charges and information.Drug-Related Charges: The cited violations primarily relate to drug trafficking, manufacturing, distribution, and importation, as well as conspiracy to commit these offenses.Aiding and Abetting: The inclusion of Title 18, Section 2, indicates that individuals involved may have also been charged with assisting or facilitating these crimes.The defendants:JOAQUIN GUZMAN-LOERA,  a/k/a “El Chapo,”  a/k/a “Chapo Guzman,” ISMAEL ZAMBADA-GARCIA,  a/k/a “El Mayo,” a/k/a “Mayo Zambada,”JESUS VICENTE ZAMBADA-NIEBLA, a/k/a “Vicente Zambada-Niebla,” a/k/a “Vicente Zambada,” a/k/a “Mayito,” a/k/a “30 ”ALFREDO GUZMAN-SALAZAR,  a/k/a “Alfredillo,”ALFREDO VASQUEZ-HERNANDEZ, a/k/a “Alfredo Compadre,”FIRST NAME UNKNOWN, LAST NAME UNKNOWN,  a/k/a “Juancho,”GERMAN OLIVARES,FELIPE LAST NAME UNKNOWN,TOMAS AREVALO-RENTERIA,PEDRO FLORES, and MARGARITO FLORES(commercial at 8:05)to contact me:[email protected]:C:\Documents and Settings\rsamborn\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\4MRWRZ20\Chapo-Mayo Indictment DG ed (go.com)

Woody Allen, a filmmaker whose personal history is already mired in controversy over his marriage to Soon-Yi Previn and long-standing abuse allegations, managed to sink his credibility even further when discussing Jeffrey Epstein. Instead of acknowledging the grotesque reality of Epstein’s trafficking network, Allen bizarrely chose to describe Epstein as a “nice guy” and downplayed any evidence of underage girls in his presence. Coming from a man whose own personal life has been a lightning rod for accusations of exploitation, the comments land less like naïveté and more like willful denial—or worse, an attempt at reputation laundering for a known predator. The sheer tone-deafness of calling Epstein “nice” in any capacity betrays either a profound lack of moral clarity or an unsettling affinity for normalizing criminality among the elite.Allen’s remarks are not just tasteless; they are revealing. They expose the insular world of celebrity and power where predators are granted the benefit of the doubt simply because of shared social circles and mutual interests. For Allen to stand behind Epstein, even in the softest terms, is to spit in the face of survivors who have spent years fighting to be heard. His choice of words reeks of privilege and self-preservation, signaling to the public that, in his view, the comfort and reputations of men like him matter more than the trauma inflicted on countless young women. These comments confirm what many critics already believe: that Allen remains indifferent, insulated, and dangerously dismissive of crimes that should never be excused, let alone minimized.to contact me:[email protected]:Inside Epstein's 'House of Depravity' dinner party with Prince Andrew and Woody Allen: Duke of York was 'a dullard' at star-studded event held after paedophile financier's release from jail | Daily Mail Online

Prince Andrew is the ultimate cautionary tale of wasted privilege. He was born with every advantage imaginable—castles, titles, taxpayer-funded luxury, and a job description so easy it bordered on parody: wave, cut ribbons, attend parades, and stay out of scandal. That’s all it would have taken to coast quietly into old age as a harmless relic of the monarchy. But instead, Andrew chose arrogance, sleaze, and stupidity. From clinging to Jeffrey Epstein after his conviction, to babbling about sweat conditions and Pizza Express alibis on Newsnight, to humiliating himself with excuses that became memes, he torched his reputation with breathtaking incompetence. Where A Bronx Tale’s Sonny mourned wasted talent, Andrew embodies wasted privilege—proving that even the most cushioned life can collapse when handled by a fool.Now stripped of duties and titles, Andrew haunts royal estates like a ghost, exiled by the very institution built to protect him. He isn’t remembered as a naval officer, a duke, or even “the Queen’s favorite son”—he’s remembered as a global punchline. His disgrace isn’t Shakespearean tragedy but slapstick farce: a man who could have lived in effortless dignity but instead chose degeneracy and delusion. His legacy is forever tied to sweatless denials, pizza defenses, and the Epstein scandal—his crown of privilege melted down into a crown of mockery.to contact me:[email protected]

Peter Mandelson’s removal as Britain’s ambassador to the United States has become one of the most high-profile political casualties linked to Jeffrey Epstein in years. Newly surfaced emails showed Mandelson referring to Epstein as his “best pal” and encouraging him to fight his 2008 conviction, undercutting his earlier claims of minimal contact. The backlash was swift: Prime Minister Keir Starmer dismissed him within days, while his consultancy, Global Counsel, severed ties amid fears of reputational damage. Survivors and advocates say the emails highlight how elite figures defended and normalized Epstein even after his conviction, reinforcing concerns that political and business networks actively shielded him. The scandal left the UK scrambling to fill a key diplomatic post and reignited debate over how thoroughly Epstein’s ties to power have been scrutinized.At the same time, Washington is battling over transparency around Epstein’s records. The House Oversight Committee has released hundreds of estate documents, including Epstein’s “birthday book,” while the Treasury Department has agreed to provide suspicious activity reports flagging his financial transactions. Survivors say only full disclosure will deliver accountability, but Senate Republicans blocked efforts to force wider releases, fueling accusations of ongoing protectionism. The disclosures coincide with renewed scrutiny of JPMorgan Chase, which processed more than $1 billion for Epstein despite repeated compliance warnings. While the bank has paid massive settlements, critics argue financial institutions and regulators enabled Epstein’s operation by ignoring red flags. Together, Mandelson’s downfall, the transparency fight, and JPMorgan’s exposure illustrate how the Epstein saga continues to reverberate, forcing political, financial, and regulatory institutions to confront their roles in one of the most notorious scandals of modern times.to contact me:[email protected]

George Mitchell, the former Senate Majority Leader and respected peace negotiator, was named under oath by Virginia Giuffre as one of the men Jeffrey Epstein trafficked her to. Despite the gravity of the allegation, Mitchell’s name was quietly pushed aside, his denial accepted without serious challenge, and the story faded from public discourse. Unlike figures such as Prince Andrew or Donald Trump, who were relentlessly scrutinized, Mitchell received soft handling from the media and political class, his ties to Epstein treated as an uncomfortable detail best ignored. His presence at Epstein’s townhouse and social connection to the disgraced financier raised obvious questions, but few dared to pursue them. The result was a glaring double standard that exposed how power and prestige protect certain names from accountability.This selective amnesia reveals how the Epstein scandal has been weaponized rather than fully exposed. Survivors’ testimony is amplified when it serves partisan purposes, but buried when it implicates figures like Mitchell who belong to the establishment’s “safe” circles. The hypocrisy is stark: those screaming about “the other team’s” monsters go silent when their own are implicated. Mitchell’s erasure from the mainstream narrative shows how survivors were betrayed not just by their abusers, but by a system that cherry-picks justice. His story underscores the bipartisan rot at the core of the Epstein saga—proof that truth has been traded for theater, and survivors’ voices have been muffled in service of political convenience.to contact me:[email protected]

Bill Richardson’s ties to Jeffrey Epstein highlight the grotesque double standard that protects the powerful. Despite being named under oath by Virginia Giuffre as one of the men she was trafficked to, Richardson—former New Mexico governor, U.N. ambassador, and establishment insider—faced almost no scrutiny. His denials were delivered with the bland, calculated tone of a man confident that his reputation and connections would shield him. The media, which treats lesser figures with endless outrage, politely buried his name, turning what should have been a career-ending scandal into a forgotten footnote. That silence was not oversight—it was a deliberate choice by the same machine that has long protected Epstein’s orbit of elites.Richardson’s case is especially damning because Epstein’s Zorro Ranch, rumored to be a hub of trafficking and secrecy, sat in New Mexico under his watch as governor. The coincidence is staggering, yet no questions were asked, no investigations launched, and no accountability pursued. His inclusion in Virginia’s sworn testimony wasn’t random—it fit a consistent pattern of Epstein surrounding himself with powerful, insulated men unlikely to face consequences. Richardson’s polished career may remain intact in polite circles, but his name is forever entwined with the Epstein scandal, serving as a perfect example of how justice bends when it brushes up against the untouchables.to contact me:[email protected]

Queen Elizabeth II’s unwavering loyalty to Prince Andrew became one of the most glaring blind spots of her reign. Even as the Epstein scandal engulfed her son, forcing him out of royal duties and dragging the monarchy into global humiliation, she continued to shield him with public and private support. From quietly allowing him to keep privileges to reportedly helping fund legal settlements, her steadfastness toward Andrew stood in sharp contrast to the measured distance the palace often kept with other family controversies. For many observers, it was a sign of maternal instinct overriding political judgment — the Queen’s deep affection for her son blinding her to the damage his behavior inflicted on the Crown’s reputation.This loyalty, however, created friction within the family, especially with then-Prince Charles. Charles, ever mindful of the monarchy’s survival and public image, saw Andrew as a liability who needed to be sidelined swiftly and decisively. His push for a tougher line clashed with the Queen’s reluctance to cast her son adrift, causing a rift between mother and heir. The tension revealed an underlying difference in their approaches to the institution: the Queen led with loyalty to family, while Charles prioritized protecting the Crown at any cost. The fallout from Andrew’s disgrace exposed not only Andrew’s recklessness but also the strain it placed on the monarchy’s leadership during a critical moment of transition.to contact me:[email protected]