The Moscow Murders and More

From the archives: 5-19-23



Steve Goncalves, the father of Kaylee Goncalves, gave an interview to news nation recently where he discussed the upcoming arraignment of Bryan Kohberger and what the plan for the the Goncalves family will be come trial day. He also touched on some of the other families and how he has been in contact with them as the court date approaches and he expressed his thanks to the surviving housemates for the information they have provided to the police.




to contact me:

[email protected]



source:

Kaylee Goncalves’ father thanks roommates who survived Idaho murders for helping in Bryan Kohberger case | The Independent

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

Liza Gardner’s lawsuit, filed in November 2023 under New York’s Adult Survivors Act, alleges that in 1990 she was sexually assaulted by Sean “Diddy” Combs and singer Aaron Hall when she was 16 years old. According to her complaint, Gardner attended an event hosted by MCA Records, where she and a friend were given drinks and then invited to an after-party at Hall’s apartment. She claims Combs coerced her into having sex with him, then as she was dressing, Hall entered the room, pinned her down, and forced her to have sex with him too. She also asserts that in the days following the assault, Combs came to her home, beat and choked her until she lost consciousness.

In her amended complaint, Gardner emphasizes that she was a minor at the time—under New York’s age of consent in 1990—and contends that she could not legally consent to drinking alcohol with the accused. She further alleges that the sexual assault left her with lasting psychological harm, including depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and difficulty forming relationships.


to  contact me:

[email protected]

source:

gov.uscourts.njd.551633.42.0.pdf

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

Liza Gardner’s lawsuit, filed in November 2023 under New York’s Adult Survivors Act, alleges that in 1990 she was sexually assaulted by Sean “Diddy” Combs and singer Aaron Hall when she was 16 years old. According to her complaint, Gardner attended an event hosted by MCA Records, where she and a friend were given drinks and then invited to an after-party at Hall’s apartment. She claims Combs coerced her into having sex with him, then as she was dressing, Hall entered the room, pinned her down, and forced her to have sex with him too. She also asserts that in the days following the assault, Combs came to her home, beat and choked her until she lost consciousness.

In her amended complaint, Gardner emphasizes that she was a minor at the time—under New York’s age of consent in 1990—and contends that she could not legally consent to drinking alcohol with the accused. She further alleges that the sexual assault left her with lasting psychological harm, including depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and difficulty forming relationships.


to  contact me:

[email protected]

source:

gov.uscourts.njd.551633.42.0.pdf

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

From the very beginning, confusion wasn’t a byproduct of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal—it was the blueprint. The overlapping jurisdictions, sealed filings, contradictory statements, and conveniently “lost” evidence weren’t mistakes; they were smoke screens. Every agency, from the DOJ to the FBI, played its part in creating a legal labyrinth so dense that the public would lose track of who was responsible for what. The result? A tangled web of “ongoing investigations” and “confidential agreements” that made it nearly impossible to follow the truth to its source. Epstein’s sweetheart plea deal, the destruction of surveillance footage, and the endless redactions were all gears in the same machine: controlled chaos that guaranteed plausible deniability at every level.


And it worked. The public got dizzy trying to track timelines, jurisdictions, and shifting narratives, while those who pulled the strings quietly slipped out of view. Every layer of confusion—who prosecuted, who didn’t, who was “technically” covered by a deal—bought more time for the system to protect itself. Epstein’s death only deepened the fog, allowing the media, courts, and power players to endlessly recycle distraction while the core question—who else was involved—got buried under noise. The cover-up was never about clarity or closure; it was about exhaustion. Make it confusing enough, make people doubt their own understanding, and eventually, most stop asking. That’s not incompetence—that’s strategy.



to contact me:

[email protected]

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

The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear Ghislaine Maxwell’s appeal effectively weakened the legal shield once thought to protect Jeffrey Epstein’s network of alleged co-conspirators under his 2007 Florida non-prosecution agreement (NPA). That refusal signaled that the deal’s immunity applied only within the Southern District of Florida, not nationwide—opening the door for other jurisdictions to pursue charges tied to Epstein’s broader trafficking operation. Prosecutors in places like New York or the U.S. Virgin Islands may now be emboldened to indict figures such as Sarah Kellen (Vickers), Lesley Groff, Adriana Ross, and Nadia Marcinkova, all of whom were named as “unindicted co-conspirators” in the Florida deal. Each played a different role—from scheduling and recruiting victims to managing finances and flights—but their activities often crossed state and international lines, placing much of their conduct outside the reach of the original agreement.

The Supreme Court’s silence carries major implications: if even Maxwell, Epstein’s closest associate, failed to convince the courts that the NPA protected her, it’s unlikely lesser aides will succeed in claiming immunity elsewhere. This outcome reshapes the prosecutorial landscape—transforming a once-untouchable circle into viable targets for renewed investigation and potential indictment. For victims, it represents a long-delayed opening for broader accountability; for prosecutors, it removes the procedural fear that cases could collapse on technical immunity grounds. In short, the Maxwell decision didn’t just end her appeal—it cracked open the door for justice to finally reach those who operated behind Epstein’s curtain of secrecy.



to contact me:

[email protected]

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

Virginia Roberts Giuffre’s unpublished memoir The Billionaire’s Playboy Club recounts her recruitment into Jeffrey Epstein’s world as a 16-year-old working at Mar-a-Lago, where she says Ghislaine Maxwell lured her in with promises of opportunity and travel. The manuscript describes how she became trapped in Epstein’s orbit, allegedly forced into sexual encounters with powerful men, including Prince Andrew, and ferried across his properties in New York, Florida, and the Virgin Islands. Giuffre paints a detailed picture of coercion, psychological manipulation, and the disturbing normalization of exploitation within Epstein’s high-society circle.


In this episode, we begin our journey through that memoir.   



to contact me:

[email protected]


source:

Virgina Giuffre Billionaire's Playboy Club | DocumentCloud

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

In late 2022, a plaintiff identified as “Jane Doe 1” filed a civil suit in Manhattan federal court accusing JPMorgan Chase of enabling Jeffrey Epstein’s sex-trafficking operations by facilitating his financial transactions, ignoring red flags, and providing essential services to his network. The complaint asked the court to certify the case as a class action, representing all women who were abused or trafficked by Epstein during the period when he held accounts or related financial relationships with JPMorgan (from about January 1, 1998, to August 19, 2013).

On June 12, 2023, Judge Jed Rakoff granted Jane Doe’s motion for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, officially recognizing the case as a class action.   JPMorgan later agreed to a tentative $290 million settlement with the now-certified class of Epstein survivors, a deal which was subsequently approved by the court.


to contact me:

[email protected]

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

In her civil racketeering (CICO) investigation into Jeffrey Epstein’s operations in the U.S. Virgin Islands, former Attorney General Denise George aggressively sought detailed financial records and transactional documents to trace how Epstein’s wealth was structured, moved, and possibly laundered through shell companies, banks, and trusts. Her office subpoenaed institutions such as JPMorgan Chase, Deutsche Bank, and Citibank, demanding account statements, wire transfers, communications, and internal documents tied to more than 30 corporate entities and trusts connected to Epstein.


George’s subpoenas and lawsuits did more than simply map Epstein’s money flows—they asserted that major financial players may have knowingly facilitated or concealed elements of his sex trafficking enterprise. In December 2022, she filed a federal suit accusing JPMorgan of “turning a blind eye” to Epstein’s operations and of financially benefiting from them


In her effort to dig into Jeffrey Epstein’s financial networks under the Virgin Islands’ CICO (racketeering) statute, Attorney General Denise George asked U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska to unseal and grant her access to court documents, including deposition transcripts and filings in related Epstein-linked proceedings. In September of 2020, Preska granted part—but not all—of George’s request, allowing her to review certain sealed materials while still protecting sensitive portions.

This decision by Preska gave George a stronger footing in her investigation, enabling her team to follow paper trails, understand prior testimony, and press subpoenas against financial institutions with more clarity on the evidentiary landscape. At the same time, Preska maintained limitations on disclosure, balancing public interest and transparency against privacy, privilege, and security concerns


to contact me:


[email protected]

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

Bradley Edwards, a longtime attorney for dozens of Jeffrey Epstein survivors, has been outspoken about Prince Andrew’s role in the Epstein saga, though he remains cautious given legal constraints. Edwards has said he believes Andrew does have relevant information about Epstein’s network and associations. He has suggested that the Prince’s connections—though not necessarily indicative of direct wrongdoing—warrant deeper scrutiny. Edwards has also reiterated that he is bound by client privilege, and so cannot disclose details if his clients have not permitted it


Edwards, who has represented many of Jeffrey Epstein’s survivors, has aggressively pursued accountability not just for Epstein but for those who may have abetted or benefited from his operations. In public interviews and filings, Edwards has argued that Epstein’s transactions, travel, and relationships point to a far larger ecosystem of enabling actors—financial institutions, intermediaries, and elite figures—who must also be scrutinized. He has asserted that his clients deserve full disclosure, demanding that sealed and redacted documents be unsealed to reveal whether names of prominent figures were concealed under the veil of “privacy” or other procedural claims.


to contact me:

[email protected]

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

When a prosecutor seeks to limit the alibi of a suspect, it means they are attempting to challenge or restrict the evidence or testimony that supports the suspect's claim of innocence. An alibi is a defense strategy in which the accused asserts that they were somewhere else at the time the crime was committed, thus making it impossible for them to have committed the offense.Here's a breakdown of what it typically entails:

1. Investigation of the Alibi: The prosecutor may investigate the alibi thoroughly to determine its validity. This may involve interviewing witnesses, examining physical evidence, reviewing surveillance footage, or obtaining records that could corroborate or refute the alibi.
2. Challenging the Alibi: If the prosecutor believes the alibi is weak or fabricated, they may seek to challenge it during the trial. This could involve presenting contradictory evidence, questioning the credibility of alibi witnesses, or arguing that the suspect had the opportunity to commit the crime despite the alibi.
3. Motion to Limit or Exclude Alibi Evidence: In some cases, the prosecutor may file a motion to limit or exclude certain aspects of the alibi evidence from being presented in court. This could be based on legal grounds such as relevance, reliability, or procedural rules. For example, if the alibi witness has a history of dishonesty or bias, the prosecutor may argue that their testimony should be excluded.
4. Pretrial Hearing: The judge may hold a pretrial hearing to consider the prosecutor's motion to limit the alibi evidence. Both the defense and the prosecution would have the opportunity to present arguments and evidence supporting their positions.
5. Ruling by the Judge: The judge will make a decision based on the arguments presented and applicable legal standards. If the judge grants the prosecutor's motion, certain aspects of the alibi evidence may be restricted or excluded from the trial. If the motion is denied, the defense will be allowed to present the alibi evidence to the jury.

In this episode, we head back up to Idaho to check in on the Bryan Kohberger trial and the battle over his alibi that continues to rage inside of the courtroom.    

(commercial at 8:41)

to contact me:


[email protected]



source:

Attorneys in Idaho student homicides argue for pretrial wins | Idaho Statesman


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