Epstein Rewind: Why Was Jeffrey Epstein Let Off The Hook in New Mexico?

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.

Jeffrey Epstein was enabled by some of the most powerful people in the financial sector. One of the most glaring examples of this, is when JP Morgan dropped Epstein as a client after Jes Staley left the company, Deustche Bank was right there to soften his landing and provide the financial backing for him to continue on with his criminal behavior.(Commercial at 9:20)To contact me;[email protected]:https://fortune.com/2020/07/09/deutsche-bank-clients-jp-morgan-chase-fines/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In a recent ruling, Judge Steven Hippler denied Bryan Kohberger's motion to exclude expert testimony identifying a white sedan seen near the crime scene as a 2014–2016 Hyundai Elantra. The defense argued that linking various surveillance videos to the same vehicle was speculative and could prejudice the jury. However, the judge determined that law enforcement's conclusions were based on logical inferences drawn from multiple surveillance sources, including footage from 1112 King Road and 1125 Ridge Road. These videos captured a white sedan making several passes near the crime scene shortly before the murders, supporting the identification of the vehicle's make and model.Judge Hippler emphasized that expert opinions derived from such evidence are permissible and do not infringe upon the jury's role in determining guilt. He noted that the investigators' analysis, based on their training and experience, provided a reasonable basis for their conclusions. As a result, the prosecution is allowed to present expert testimony regarding the vehicle's identification during the trial, while the jury will ultimately assess the credibility and significance of this evidence.​to contact me:[email protected]:041825+Order+on+Defendants+Motion+in+Limine+RE+Make+and+Model+of+Suspect+Vehicle.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In an affidavit filed in April 2025, forensic video analyst Connor McCourt provided expert testimony supporting Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team's efforts to exclude a surveillance video from evidence in Combs' federal sex crimes trial. McCourt's analysis focused on a video depicting a 2016 incident at the InterContinental Hotel in Los Angeles, where Combs is seen physically assaulting singer Cassie Ventura. According to McCourt, the video had been significantly altered, including being "sped up," which distorted the natural movement of individuals and misrepresented the timing of events. He also noted inconsistencies in the timestamps and indicated that the video file was created using ClipChamp.com, a video editing software, raising concerns about its authenticity and reliabilityFurthermore, McCourt's affidavit addressed additional iPhone-recorded footage, asserting that these clips distorted Combs' appearance, making him seem "more domineering" by altering his stature. He argued that the selective framing of these videos, focusing on specific details like footwear, potentially omitted crucial context. McCourt's findings were presented to bolster the defense's claim that the video evidence was misleading and should not be admissible in court. ​to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.246.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In the latest pretrial rulings for Bryan Kohberger's upcoming murder trial, Judge Steven Hippler has made several key decisions. He ruled that testimony from a surviving roommate, who described seeing an intruder with "bushy eyebrows," is admissible. Despite the defense's objections regarding the reliability of this observation, the judge emphasized that the witness's account is consistent and relevant, allowing the jury to assess its credibility. Additionally, Judge Hippler permitted prosecutors to present evidence linking Kohberger to an Amazon purchase of a knife similar to the one believed to have been used in the crime, as well as surveillance footage of a vehicle matching his Hyundai Elantra. Conversely, the judge granted the defense's request to exclude emotionally charged terms like "psychopath" and "sociopath" from the trial proceedings.Regarding Kohberger's mental health, Judge Hippler decided that evidence of his autism spectrum disorder or obsessive-compulsive disorder cannot be introduced to explain his courtroom demeanor unless he chooses to testify. The judge noted that Kohberger's behavior in court has been appropriate and that introducing such evidence without his testimony could confuse the jury. However, if Kohberger testifies, or if his mental health conditions become directly relevant to specific aspects of the case, the court may revisit this decision.to contact me:[email protected]:Idaho murders trial judge rules on Bryan Kohberger's autism defense and if roommate can say 'bushy eyebrows' | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In a motion filed on April 16, 2025, Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team requested the exclusion of two prior incidents from his upcoming federal trial. The first pertains to a 1999 nightclub shooting at Club New York, where Combs was present and initially charged but later acquitted. His attorneys argue that introducing this event would be more prejudicial than probative, potentially biasing the jury by suggesting a propensity for violence. They contend that this incident lacks direct relevance to the current charges and would unfairly influence the jury's perception.The second incident involves a 2016 alleged assault at a recording studio, which the defense also seeks to exclude. Combs' lawyers assert that this event is unrelated to the current case and its inclusion would serve only to prejudice the jury. They argue that admitting such evidence would violate Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403, which restrict the use of prior bad acts to prove character and caution against evidence that could cause unfair prejudice. The defense maintains that these incidents do not provide legitimate insight into the allegations at hand and should not be presented during the trial.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.240.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In a motion filed on April 16, 2025, Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team requested the exclusion of two prior incidents from his upcoming federal trial. The first pertains to a 1999 nightclub shooting at Club New York, where Combs was present and initially charged but later acquitted. His attorneys argue that introducing this event would be more prejudicial than probative, potentially biasing the jury by suggesting a propensity for violence. They contend that this incident lacks direct relevance to the current charges and would unfairly influence the jury's perception.The second incident involves a 2016 alleged assault at a recording studio, which the defense also seeks to exclude. Combs' lawyers assert that this event is unrelated to the current case and its inclusion would serve only to prejudice the jury. They argue that admitting such evidence would violate Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403, which restrict the use of prior bad acts to prove character and caution against evidence that could cause unfair prejudice. The defense maintains that these incidents do not provide legitimate insight into the allegations at hand and should not be presented during the trial.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.240.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Judge Jed Rakoff approved a $290 million settlement between JPMorgan Chase and Jeffrey Epstein's victims, emphasizing that the case sent a strong message to the financial industry about the responsibilities of banking institutions. The settlement, which did not require JPMorgan to admit liability, resolved claims that the bank ignored red flags to maintain Epstein as a client, benefiting from his illegal activities from 1998 to 2013.The approval came after a last-minute challenge from 16 state attorneys general who objected to a clause in the settlement that prevented future claims by any "sovereign or government" on behalf of the victims. They argued that this could hinder future cases against sex trafficking perpetrators. However, Rakoff found the settlement terms clear and justified, dismissing the objections.The settlement also included a provision for the lawyers to receive 30% of the settlement amount in fees, which the judge deemed fair given the significant recovery for the plaintiffs. This settlement follows a similar case where Deutsche Bank agreed to pay $75 million to settle claims related to Epstein without admitting wrongdoing.(commercial at 7:44)to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.130.0_1.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Judge Jed Rakoff approved a $290 million settlement between JPMorgan Chase and Jeffrey Epstein's victims, emphasizing that the case sent a strong message to the financial industry about the responsibilities of banking institutions. The settlement, which did not require JPMorgan to admit liability, resolved claims that the bank ignored red flags to maintain Epstein as a client, benefiting from his illegal activities from 1998 to 2013.The approval came after a last-minute challenge from 16 state attorneys general who objected to a clause in the settlement that prevented future claims by any "sovereign or government" on behalf of the victims. They argued that this could hinder future cases against sex trafficking perpetrators. However, Rakoff found the settlement terms clear and justified, dismissing the objections.The settlement also included a provision for the lawyers to receive 30% of the settlement amount in fees, which the judge deemed fair given the significant recovery for the plaintiffs. This settlement follows a similar case where Deutsche Bank agreed to pay $75 million to settle claims related to Epstein without admitting wrongdoing.(commercial at 7:44)to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.130.0_1.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.