The Epstein Rewind: The Nadia Marcinkova Question

We take a deep dive into Epstein's shady ties with Academics and Academic institutions.For years, even after his arrest and conviction they took his money and moonlighted in his company as if all was well.Then the bombshell drops.Epstein gets arrested for the second time and the panic and distancing begins.Over and over you will see the same line of defense."We had no idea!!!"On today's episode....we name names.To contact me:[email protected]:https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.buzzfeednews.com/amphtml/peteraldhous/jeffrey-epstein-science-donations-apologies-statementsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this look back episode, we fire up the time machine and slip back into the past...In earlier segments we have discussed Jeffrey Epstein's Austrian passport and where he likely acquired it.In today's episode we hear from the prosecution about that very subject.We also get a glimpse behind the scenes of the battle between Epstein's defense team and the prosecution about him being held in jail or released on bail.Join me for a journey back to July of 2019.To contact me:[email protected]:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7254715/Jeffrey-Epstein-safe-contained-Austrian-passport-70-000-cash-48-loose-diamonds.htmlBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Records show that Epstein purchased a two-bedroom bungalow in Queens that two of his employees lived in.Lyn and Jojo lived in the home for five years from 2006 until 2011. They were also residents at the 66th street building owned by Epstein's brother Mark.The question is...why were these two given such accommodations and what exactly do they know about Epstein's crimes??(Commercial at 10:32)To contact me:[email protected]:https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11192277/jeffrey-epstein-secretly-bought-500000-bungalow-in-queens-just-before-his-2006-arrest-for-underage-sex-abuse/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this look back episode...Jeffrey Epstein had a couple of methods that helped keep those around him quiet and loyal. One of those methods were huge cash injections.In a report that came out in July it was revealed that Epstein had doled out 350k to two people who the authorities referred to as co-conspirators. These were one-time payments according to court records and the prosecution says they were hush payments.The real question however is WHO were the people on the other end of those cash transfers?(Commercial at 12:26)To contact me:[email protected]:https://nypost.com/2019/07/12/jeffrey-epstein-spent-350k-to-influence-potential-witnesses-feds/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In Case No. S1 24 Cr. 542 (AS), the court issued an Addendum to the Protective Order to further delineate the handling of sensitive materials during the legal proceedings. This addendum emphasizes that the provisions outlined in the original protective order remain in effect beyond the conclusion of the criminal prosecution, with the court retaining jurisdiction to enforce compliance. It specifies that while disclosure of protected materials is permissible during hearings or trials within this case, such materials are restricted from use in other civil litigations or alternative dispute resolutions unless explicitly authorized by the court. Additionally, the addendum mandates that defense counsel provide copies of the protective order to prospective witnesses and any individuals retained for the defense who may access the protected materials, ensuring all parties are aware of and adhere to the confidentiality requirements. Upon the case's resolution, defense counsel is obligated to return or securely destroy all disclosed materials within a specified timeframe, maintaining records of any information shared, consistent with the order's stipulations.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.629911.49.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In a recent ruling, Ada County District Judge Steven Hippler denied Bryan Kohberger's motions to suppress evidence obtained through various search warrants, including those related to his arrest, searches conducted in Pennsylvania, his apartment, and a personal search in Idaho. Kohberger's defense argued that the evidence was gathered in violation of his constitutional rights, particularly challenging the methods used to collect DNA evidence and the procedures followed during the searches. However, Judge Hippler found that law enforcement acted within legal bounds, stating that the investigative techniques employed did not infringe upon Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. The judge emphasized that the DNA collection and subsequent searches were conducted lawfully, and the evidence obtained was admissible in court.Additionally, Judge Hippler denied the defense's request for a Franks hearing, which would have allowed them to challenge the veracity of the information presented in the search warrant affidavits. The defense contended that material omissions and false statements were made by investigators to secure the warrants. However, the judge concluded that Kohberger failed to demonstrate any intentional or reckless falsehoods by law enforcement officials in their affidavits. As a result, all evidence obtained from the challenged search warrants remains admissible, and the case is set to proceed with this evidence intact.to contact me:[email protected]:021925-Order-Defendants-Motions-Suppress-Arrest-Warrants-Pensylvania-Apartment.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In a recent ruling, Ada County District Judge Steven Hippler denied Bryan Kohberger's motions to suppress evidence obtained through various search warrants, including those related to his arrest, searches conducted in Pennsylvania, his apartment, and a personal search in Idaho. Kohberger's defense argued that the evidence was gathered in violation of his constitutional rights, particularly challenging the methods used to collect DNA evidence and the procedures followed during the searches. However, Judge Hippler found that law enforcement acted within legal bounds, stating that the investigative techniques employed did not infringe upon Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. The judge emphasized that the DNA collection and subsequent searches were conducted lawfully, and the evidence obtained was admissible in court.Additionally, Judge Hippler denied the defense's request for a Franks hearing, which would have allowed them to challenge the veracity of the information presented in the search warrant affidavits. The defense contended that material omissions and false statements were made by investigators to secure the warrants. However, the judge concluded that Kohberger failed to demonstrate any intentional or reckless falsehoods by law enforcement officials in their affidavits. As a result, all evidence obtained from the challenged search warrants remains admissible, and the case is set to proceed with this evidence intact.to contact me:[email protected]:021925-Order-Defendants-Motions-Suppress-Arrest-Warrants-Pensylvania-Apartment.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In recent pretrial rulings, Ada County District Judge Steven Hippler denied multiple defense motions to suppress key evidence in the case against Bryan Kohberger, who is accused of murdering four University of Idaho students in November 2022. The defense challenged the constitutionality of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG) used to identify Kohberger, arguing it violated his Fourth Amendment rights. However, Judge Hippler ruled that the IGG process was lawful, stating that Kohberger had no reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene. Additionally, the judge upheld the admissibility of digital evidence obtained through search warrants, rejecting claims that subpoenas to tech companies infringed upon Kohberger's rights. A motion to suppress evidence from Kohberger's arrest and related searches was also denied, with the court finding that law enforcement acted within legal bounds. Furthermore, Judge Hippler refused the defense's request for a Franks hearing, determining there was no evidence of intentional or reckless falsehoods by investigators in obtaining search warrants.to contact me:[email protected]:Idaho college killings: Judge denies Bryan Kohberger request to exclude DNA evidence - ABC NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In Case No. 1:24-cv-07778-JLR, the Combs defendants have filed a Memorandum of Law supporting their Motion to Dismiss the complaint brought against them. The defense argues that the plaintiff's allegations are legally insufficient, lacking the necessary factual specificity to substantiate claims of misconduct. They contend that the complaint relies heavily on conclusory statements and unsubstantiated assertions, failing to meet the required pleading standards. Furthermore, the defendants assert that certain claims are time-barred due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, rendering them ineligible for legal action.Additionally, the memorandum challenges the applicability of specific statutes cited in the complaint, arguing that the plaintiff has misinterpreted or misapplied these laws in an attempt to support their claims. The defense emphasizes that the plaintiff has not demonstrated a direct causal link between the defendants' actions and any alleged harm suffered. They also highlight procedural deficiencies, such as the failure to properly serve all parties involved, which they claim undermines the court's jurisdiction over the matter. In light of these arguments, the Combs defendants request that the court dismiss the complaint in its entirety, asserting that it fails to establish a viable legal basis for proceeding.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.629911.49.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In Case No. 1:24-cv-07778-JLR, the Combs defendants have filed a Memorandum of Law supporting their Motion to Dismiss the complaint brought against them. The defense argues that the plaintiff's allegations are legally insufficient, lacking the necessary factual specificity to substantiate claims of misconduct. They contend that the complaint relies heavily on conclusory statements and unsubstantiated assertions, failing to meet the required pleading standards. Furthermore, the defendants assert that certain claims are time-barred due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, rendering them ineligible for legal action.Additionally, the memorandum challenges the applicability of specific statutes cited in the complaint, arguing that the plaintiff has misinterpreted or misapplied these laws in an attempt to support their claims. The defense emphasizes that the plaintiff has not demonstrated a direct causal link between the defendants' actions and any alleged harm suffered. They also highlight procedural deficiencies, such as the failure to properly serve all parties involved, which they claim undermines the court's jurisdiction over the matter. In light of these arguments, the Combs defendants request that the court dismiss the complaint in its entirety, asserting that it fails to establish a viable legal basis for proceeding.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.629911.49.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.