In this episode, we delve into the chilling case of Gary Ridgway, infamously known as the Green River Killer. Join us as we unravel the meticulous investigation and compelling evidence that led to Ridgway's capture and eventual confession. From the early days of the Green River Task Force to the groundbreaking DNA advancements, we explore how dedicated detectives and forensic experts pieced together the puzzle of one of America's most notorious serial killers.Key Evidence Highlights:

1. Eyewitness Accounts and Suspect Sketches:
   • Witnesses provided descriptions and sketches of a man seen with several victims, which helped narrow down the suspect pool and led investigators to Ridgway as a potential person of interest.
2. Polygraph Test:
   • Ridgway initially passed a polygraph test, which complicated the investigation and allowed him to evade suspicion temporarily.
3. Forensic Breakthrough - DNA Evidence:
   • In the late 1990s, advancements in DNA technology provided a breakthrough. Semen samples collected from victims in the early 1980s were reanalyzed using new DNA profiling techniques, conclusively linking Ridgway to multiple murders.
4. Paint Evidence:
   • Tiny paint particles found on some victims matched paint used at Ridgway's workplace, reinforcing the connection between him and the crime scenes.
5. Confession and Plea Bargain:
   • In a dramatic turn of events, Ridgway confessed to the murders as part of a plea bargain to avoid the death penalty. His detailed confessions and the corroborating evidence provided a comprehensive account of his heinous crimes.
6. Recovered Personal Items:
   • Items belonging to the victims were found in Ridgway's possession or locations associated with him, further implicating him in the murders.
7. Geographical Profiling:
   • Analysis of the locations where bodies were discovered showed patterns that pointed towards Ridgway's home and workplace, corroborating other evidence against him.

(commercial at 7:41)


to contact me:

bobbycapucciprotonmail.com



source:

Gary Ridgway 2001 summary of evidence (01-1-10270-9).pdf (westsideseattle.com)


Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Dr. Bryan Edelman is a trial consultant and expert on pre-trial publicity who was involved in the Bryan Kohberger trial. Edelman was hired by Kohberger's defense team to conduct a phone survey of potential jurors in Latah County, Idaho. The purpose of the survey was to assess the impact of media coverage on public opinion about the case, which involves Kohberger being charged with the murder of four University of Idaho students.

The survey, which contacted 400 residents, faced significant criticism from the prosecution. They argued that the questions were too specific and potentially spread false information, thereby contaminating the jury pool. Some questions included details not found in official affidavits, leading to concerns that the survey was prejudicing potential jurors against Kohberger.

Edelman defended his work, stating that his aim was to measure the influence of media coverage on public opinion, regardless of whether the information was true or false. He emphasized that such surveys are standard practice in high-profile cases to determine whether a fair trial can be conducted in the current venue or if a change of venue is necessary.

The controversy surrounding the survey led the judge to pause its continuation and to schedule further hearings to decide on the matter.


In this episode we take a look at his declaration filed with the court.


(commercial at 8:05)

to contact me:

[email protected]



source:

072224-Memorandum-Support-MCoV.pdf

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Dr. Bryan Edelman is a trial consultant and expert on pre-trial publicity who was involved in the Bryan Kohberger trial. Edelman was hired by Kohberger's defense team to conduct a phone survey of potential jurors in Latah County, Idaho. The purpose of the survey was to assess the impact of media coverage on public opinion about the case, which involves Kohberger being charged with the murder of four University of Idaho students.

The survey, which contacted 400 residents, faced significant criticism from the prosecution. They argued that the questions were too specific and potentially spread false information, thereby contaminating the jury pool. Some questions included details not found in official affidavits, leading to concerns that the survey was prejudicing potential jurors against Kohberger.

Edelman defended his work, stating that his aim was to measure the influence of media coverage on public opinion, regardless of whether the information was true or false. He emphasized that such surveys are standard practice in high-profile cases to determine whether a fair trial can be conducted in the current venue or if a change of venue is necessary.

The controversy surrounding the survey led the judge to pause its continuation and to schedule further hearings to decide on the matter.


In this episode we take a look at his declaration filed with the court.


(commercial at 8:05)

to contact me:

[email protected]



source:

072224-Memorandum-Support-MCoV.pdf

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Dr. Bryan Edelman is a trial consultant and expert on pre-trial publicity who was involved in the Bryan Kohberger trial. Edelman was hired by Kohberger's defense team to conduct a phone survey of potential jurors in Latah County, Idaho. The purpose of the survey was to assess the impact of media coverage on public opinion about the case, which involves Kohberger being charged with the murder of four University of Idaho students.

The survey, which contacted 400 residents, faced significant criticism from the prosecution. They argued that the questions were too specific and potentially spread false information, thereby contaminating the jury pool. Some questions included details not found in official affidavits, leading to concerns that the survey was prejudicing potential jurors against Kohberger.

Edelman defended his work, stating that his aim was to measure the influence of media coverage on public opinion, regardless of whether the information was true or false. He emphasized that such surveys are standard practice in high-profile cases to determine whether a fair trial can be conducted in the current venue or if a change of venue is necessary.

The controversy surrounding the survey led the judge to pause its continuation and to schedule further hearings to decide on the matter.


In this episode we take a look at his declaration filed with the court.


(commercial at 8:05)

to contact me:

[email protected]



source:

072224-Memorandum-Support-MCoV.pdf

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Dr. Bryan Edelman is a trial consultant and expert on pre-trial publicity who was involved in the Bryan Kohberger trial. Edelman was hired by Kohberger's defense team to conduct a phone survey of potential jurors in Latah County, Idaho. The purpose of the survey was to assess the impact of media coverage on public opinion about the case, which involves Kohberger being charged with the murder of four University of Idaho students.

The survey, which contacted 400 residents, faced significant criticism from the prosecution. They argued that the questions were too specific and potentially spread false information, thereby contaminating the jury pool. Some questions included details not found in official affidavits, leading to concerns that the survey was prejudicing potential jurors against Kohberger.

Edelman defended his work, stating that his aim was to measure the influence of media coverage on public opinion, regardless of whether the information was true or false. He emphasized that such surveys are standard practice in high-profile cases to determine whether a fair trial can be conducted in the current venue or if a change of venue is necessary.

The controversy surrounding the survey led the judge to pause its continuation and to schedule further hearings to decide on the matter.


In this episode we take a look at his declaration filed with the court.


(commercial at 8:05)

to contact me:

[email protected]



source:

072224-Memorandum-Support-MCoV.pdf

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In this motion to suppress, Bryan Kohberger’s defense team argues that law enforcement violated his constitutional rights during his December 2022 arrest by relying on a legally insufficient arrest warrant. The defense claims the Idaho arrest warrant had no legal authority in Pennsylvania, where Kohberger was apprehended, and that Pennsylvania authorities were required to obtain their own warrant to lawfully enter the home. Citing both Idaho and Pennsylvania law, the defense argues that the forced entry into the home without a Pennsylvania-issued warrant rendered the arrest unconstitutional. The motion also criticizes the heavily armed SWAT raid, despite federal surveillance showing Kohberger to be unarmed and nonviolent, and seeks suppression of any statements or evidence gathered during and after the arrest on Fourth Amendment grounds.

Furthermore, the defense alleges that the affidavit used to support the Idaho arrest warrant was flawed, asserting that it included information gathered through unconstitutional means — including the use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG) and invalid cellphone data — and that it omitted material facts necessary for a fair probable cause determination. They have requested a Franks hearing, which challenges the integrity of the affidavit by asserting that law enforcement either recklessly or intentionally excluded key information. They argue that once tainted or improperly gathered information is removed, the warrant lacks sufficient probable cause, and therefore all resulting evidence and statements must be excluded from trial. The motion frames the arrest as a product of procedural shortcuts and overreach, violating both state and federal constitutional protections.



to contact me:

[email protected]



source:

111424-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-ATT-First-Warrant.pdf

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

​In the case of Jane Doe v. Sean Combs, the plaintiff, Jane Doe, filed a lawsuit against Sean Combs and associated entities, alleging that Combs sexually assaulted her at a charity event he co-sponsored in 1991. The plaintiff sought to proceed anonymously, citing the sensitive nature of the allegations and potential harm if her identity were disclosed. Initially, the court granted a temporary order allowing her to proceed under a pseudonym, pending further review.

Upon subsequent evaluation, the court applied the ten-factor balancing test from Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant to determine whether the plaintiff could continue anonymously. The court found that while the case involved sensitive personal matters, other factors—such as the significant public interest in the proceedings, potential prejudice to the defendants, and the plaintiff's ability to present her case without anonymity—outweighed the arguments for anonymity. Consequently, the court denied the plaintiff's motion to proceed under a pseudonym, emphasizing the importance of transparency and public access in judicial proceedings.


to contact me:

[email protected]


source:

gov.uscourts.nysd.633975.44.0.pdf

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

​In the case of Jane Doe v. Sean Combs, the plaintiff, Jane Doe, filed a lawsuit against Sean Combs and associated entities, alleging that Combs sexually assaulted her at a charity event he co-sponsored in 1991. The plaintiff sought to proceed anonymously, citing the sensitive nature of the allegations and potential harm if her identity were disclosed. Initially, the court granted a temporary order allowing her to proceed under a pseudonym, pending further review.

Upon subsequent evaluation, the court applied the ten-factor balancing test from Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant to determine whether the plaintiff could continue anonymously. The court found that while the case involved sensitive personal matters, other factors—such as the significant public interest in the proceedings, potential prejudice to the defendants, and the plaintiff's ability to present her case without anonymity—outweighed the arguments for anonymity. Consequently, the court denied the plaintiff's motion to proceed under a pseudonym, emphasizing the importance of transparency and public access in judicial proceedings.


to contact me:

[email protected]


source:

gov.uscourts.nysd.633975.44.0.pdf

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

​Eugene Henley Jr., widely known as "Big U," is a prominent figure in the Los Angeles music scene and a reputed leader of the Rollin' 60s Neighborhood Crips. In March 2025, Henley was indicted on 43 federal charges, including racketeering, murder, extortion, fraud, and tax crimes. The indictment alleges that from 2010 to 2025, Henley led a criminal enterprise, referred to as the "Big U Enterprise," which engaged in various illegal activities across Los Angeles.

One of the most serious allegations involves the 2021 murder of an aspiring rapper identified as "R.W." According to prosecutors, R.W. was signed to Henley's music label, Uneek Music, and recorded a defamatory song about Henley. In response, Henley allegedly traveled to Las Vegas, confronted R.W., and fatally shot him before leaving his body in a desert ditch off Interstate 15.

Henley is also accused of exploiting his anti-gang charity, Developing Options, as a front for fraudulent activities. While presenting the organization as dedicated to providing alternatives to gang involvement for South Los Angeles youth, Henley allegedly embezzled large donations from celebrities and companies, diverting funds into his personal bank account. Notably, Developing Options received significant funding from the City of Los Angeles's Mayor’s Office through the Gang Reduction Youth Development (GRYD) Foundation, which includes federal funds.

Beyond these charges, Henley faces accusations of submitting fraudulent applications for COVID-19 relief loans, engaging in extortion and robbery, and participating in human trafficking activities. Prosecutors allege that he used his influence within the Rollin' 60s and other street gangs to intimidate businesses and individuals, expanding his enterprise's power through violence and fear. Additionally, Henley purportedly leveraged social media platforms, documentaries, and interviews to bolster his reputation and instill fear, furthering the reach of his criminal organization.

Henley was taken into federal custody on March 19, 2025, and is scheduled for arraignment on April 8. If convicted on all charges, he faces a maximum sentence of life in federal prison.


to contact me:

[email protected]



source:

gov-uscourts-cacd-962315-1-0.pdf

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

​Eugene Henley Jr., widely known as "Big U," is a prominent figure in the Los Angeles music scene and a reputed leader of the Rollin' 60s Neighborhood Crips. In March 2025, Henley was indicted on 43 federal charges, including racketeering, murder, extortion, fraud, and tax crimes. The indictment alleges that from 2010 to 2025, Henley led a criminal enterprise, referred to as the "Big U Enterprise," which engaged in various illegal activities across Los Angeles.

One of the most serious allegations involves the 2021 murder of an aspiring rapper identified as "R.W." According to prosecutors, R.W. was signed to Henley's music label, Uneek Music, and recorded a defamatory song about Henley. In response, Henley allegedly traveled to Las Vegas, confronted R.W., and fatally shot him before leaving his body in a desert ditch off Interstate 15.

Henley is also accused of exploiting his anti-gang charity, Developing Options, as a front for fraudulent activities. While presenting the organization as dedicated to providing alternatives to gang involvement for South Los Angeles youth, Henley allegedly embezzled large donations from celebrities and companies, diverting funds into his personal bank account. Notably, Developing Options received significant funding from the City of Los Angeles's Mayor’s Office through the Gang Reduction Youth Development (GRYD) Foundation, which includes federal funds.

Beyond these charges, Henley faces accusations of submitting fraudulent applications for COVID-19 relief loans, engaging in extortion and robbery, and participating in human trafficking activities. Prosecutors allege that he used his influence within the Rollin' 60s and other street gangs to intimidate businesses and individuals, expanding his enterprise's power through violence and fear. Additionally, Henley purportedly leveraged social media platforms, documentaries, and interviews to bolster his reputation and instill fear, furthering the reach of his criminal organization.

Henley was taken into federal custody on March 19, 2025, and is scheduled for arraignment on April 8. If convicted on all charges, he faces a maximum sentence of life in federal prison.


to contact me:

[email protected]



source:

gov-uscourts-cacd-962315-1-0.pdf

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.