The Epstein Rewind: Ghislaine Maxwell And Her Battle To Avoid Transparency

​On day 12 of Lori Vallow Daybell's trial, the court heard significant testimony from multiple witnesses, providing further insight into the events surrounding the deaths of Tylee Ryan, J.J. Vallow, and Tammy Daybell. FBI Forensic Anthropologist Dr. Angi Christensen resumed her testimony, detailing the sharp trauma observed on Tylee's skeletal remains. She identified multiple sharp-force injuries on Tylee's hip and pelvic bones, suggesting attempts at dismemberment. Additionally, forensic experts testified that Tylee's DNA was found on a pickaxe and shovel recovered from Chad Daybell's property, indicating these tools were likely used in the disposal of her body.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In response to the letter filed with the court by the Bureau of Prisons, Maxwell's legal team doubled down on their assertions of her mistreatment while in custody adding that she is also losing her hair.Join me as I break it down.(Commercial at 14:48)To contact me:[email protected]:https://nypost.com/2020/12/07/ghislaine-maxwell-losing-her-hair-from-imprisonment-lawyers/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The New York Times sued the BOP for documents relating to Epstein's death and after a protracted battle, they came out on top. In this episode we dive into some of those documents as they pertain to Epstein's alleged suicide. (Commercial at 20:05)To contact me:[email protected]:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10234303/Jeffrey-Epstein-used-days-alive-complaining-jumpsuit-treated-like-bad-guy.htmlBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jeffrey Epstein and his relationship with JP Morgan and other high flying financial institutions is well known and documented and for years those relationships were used to help facilitate his criminal enterprise and even from the grave, those ties are now coming back to haunt the financial sector as settlements and lawsuits continue to pile up. Even with all of these financial penalties though, the question still remains:Will anyone ever be held truly responsible and given a long prison sentence? Let's dive in!(commercial at 13:19)to contact me:[email protected]:Hiltzik: Making Epstein's banks pay for his crimes - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

On this edition of the morning update, we check in on the Maxwell saga and her push for a mistrial and then we hop over the pond to hear from Lord Conrad Black who has come out on the offensive in defense of Prince Andrew.(commercial at 12:59)To contact me:[email protected]:https://www.newsweek.com/prince-andrew-should-not-stripped-titles-media-mogul-conrad-black-pardoned-trump-1675694Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger (Case No. CR01-24-31665), the State responded to the Defendant's Motion in Limine #6, which sought to preclude the use of terms like "touch DNA" and "contact DNA" during trial. The defense argued that these terms could mislead the jury into believing that DNA presence conclusively indicates direct contact, without considering other means of transfer. The State countered that such terminology is commonly accepted in forensic science and that its experts should be permitted to use these terms to accurately describe the nature of the DNA evidence. They emphasized that the defense would have the opportunity to cross-examine the State's experts on the limitations and interpretations of "touch" or "contact" DNA evidence, ensuring that the jury receives a comprehensive understanding of the evidence presented.to contact me:[email protected]:031725-States-Response-Defendants-MiL-6-RE-Reference-Touch-Contact-DNA.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger (Case No. CR01-24-31665), the State responded to the Defendant's Motion in Limine #6, which sought to preclude the use of terms like "touch DNA" and "contact DNA" during trial. The defense argued that these terms could mislead the jury into believing that DNA presence conclusively indicates direct contact, without considering other means of transfer. The State countered that such terminology is commonly accepted in forensic science and that its experts should be permitted to use these terms to accurately describe the nature of the DNA evidence. They emphasized that the defense would have the opportunity to cross-examine the State's experts on the limitations and interpretations of "touch" or "contact" DNA evidence, ensuring that the jury receives a comprehensive understanding of the evidence presented.to contact me:[email protected]:031725-States-Response-Defendants-MiL-6-RE-Reference-Touch-Contact-DNA.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In State v. Bryan Kohberger, the defense filed Motion in Limine #12, seeking to exclude any testimony identifying the make and model of the vehicle seen near the crime scene on November 13, 2022. The defense argued that the vehicle identification was speculative and lacked continuous surveillance footage linking the car observed at 1112 King Road to other footage from 1125 Ridge Road. They contended that without unbroken visual evidence, asserting that the vehicles in different videos are the same is conjectural and could mislead the jury.In response, the prosecution opposed the motion, asserting that their expert, FBI Forensic Examiner Anthony Imel, had analyzed multiple surveillance videos and concluded that the vehicle captured shared characteristics with a 2014-2015 Hyundai Elantra. They emphasized that the suspect vehicle was observed multiple times near the crime scene before and after the homicides, and that Kohberger owned a white 2015 Hyundai Elantra at that time. The prosecution argued that the jury should be allowed to hear this expert testimony and determine the weight of the evidence.to contact me:[email protected]:031725-States-Response-Defendants-MiL-12-RE-Make-Model-Suspect-Vehicle.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Plaintiff Sara Rivers files this complaint in Case No. 1:25-cv-01726, bringing legal action against the defendant based on personal knowledge, information, and belief. Represented by legal counsel, Rivers outlines the specific allegations, detailing the defendant's alleged misconduct and the legal grounds supporting the claims. The complaint asserts that the defendant’s actions have caused harm and seeks accountability through the judicial system.This lawsuit requests appropriate legal remedies, including compensation and other relief deemed necessary by the court. The filing establishes jurisdiction, presents supporting facts, and sets forth claims that Rivers intends to prove. Through this action, the plaintiff seeks justice and redress for the alleged wrongdoing, holding the defendant legally responsible for the damages incurred.to contact me:[email protected]:Sara cmpltBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Plaintiff Sara Rivers files this complaint in Case No. 1:25-cv-01726, bringing legal action against the defendant based on personal knowledge, information, and belief. Represented by legal counsel, Rivers outlines the specific allegations, detailing the defendant's alleged misconduct and the legal grounds supporting the claims. The complaint asserts that the defendant’s actions have caused harm and seeks accountability through the judicial system.This lawsuit requests appropriate legal remedies, including compensation and other relief deemed necessary by the court. The filing establishes jurisdiction, presents supporting facts, and sets forth claims that Rivers intends to prove. Through this action, the plaintiff seeks justice and redress for the alleged wrongdoing, holding the defendant legally responsible for the damages incurred.to contact me:[email protected]:Sara cmpltBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.