The Moscow Murders and More

In the months leading up to the November 2022 murders of four University of Idaho students, Bryan Kohberger—then a doctoral criminology student and teaching assistant at Washington State University—was the subject of widespread concern among women students and faculty. Investigators unveiled over 550 pages of documents revealing a pattern of “sexist, creepy, and alarming” behavior: physically blocking office doors, making degrading, homophobic, ableist, misogynistic remarks, and even stalking-like conduct toward female peers. One faculty member warned colleagues that if Kohberger ever earned his Ph.D., “we will hear is harassing, stalking, and sexually abusing ... his students at wherever university."

These aren’t isolated complaints. Between August and November 2022, Kohberger faced 13 formal complaints from classmates and peers. The accusations ranged from condescension and intimidation to intrusive behavior—like repeatedly cornering a female student and ignoring her rejections. Women in his classes and across the department reported feeling unsafe and uncomfortable. The university even launched discrimination training in early November 2022 in response to the escalating concerns—just days before the murders happened.

to contact me:

[email protected]



source:

Bryan Kohberger's behavior alarmed university faculty and students before Idaho murders, documents show - CBS News

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

For over two decades, the New York couple Barbara and Richie Dickstein immersed themselves in an eerie and obsessive pursuit: becoming pen pals with some of America’s most notorious serial killers. Through carefully constructed letters, they reached out to more than 100 incarcerated murderers—including John Wayne Gacy, Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer, David Berkowitz, and Richard Ramirez. The couple pretended to share traits with the killers’ victims, hoping to build a deceptive bond that would unlock raw, disturbing details about the crimes and the criminals’ psychological depths

Their correspondence was extensive—over 30,000 letters exchanged—yielding vivid, sometimes confessional narratives about rape, torture, dismemberment, and other horrifying acts. While the Dicksteins claimed their goal was to penetrate the minds of these killers, their activities also sparked deep ethical questions. Were they driven by genuine psychological curiosity, reckless voyeurism, or something more sinister? Their unusual practice has since become a subject of true‑crime fascination and discomfort alike.


Source:


https://nypost.com/2021/06/05/couple-seduced-serial-killers-ramirez-dahmer-gacy-by-mail/Source:

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

Jes Staley, the former JPMorgan executive, filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought against him by survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse. However, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff denied this motion, allowing the case to proceed to pre-trial evidence gathering..


Staley is accused of protecting Epstein during his tenure at JPMorgan, where he worked from 1979 to 2013. The bank claims that Staley was instrumental in maintaining Epstein's business relationship with JPMorgan despite Epstein's criminal activities. JPMorgan seeks to make Staley financially responsible for any damages the bank might incur from other related lawsuits and to recover compensation paid to him from 2006 to 2013. Staley has denied these allegations, stating that JPMorgan is using him as a scapegoat for its own supervisory failures and claims he was unaware of Epstein’s criminal behavior​.


to contact me:

[email protected]


source:

Microsoft Word - MTD Mem. of Law - (11148357.16).docx (courtlistener.com)

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

Jes Staley, the former JPMorgan executive, filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought against him by survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse. However, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff denied this motion, allowing the case to proceed to pre-trial evidence gathering..


Staley is accused of protecting Epstein during his tenure at JPMorgan, where he worked from 1979 to 2013. The bank claims that Staley was instrumental in maintaining Epstein's business relationship with JPMorgan despite Epstein's criminal activities. JPMorgan seeks to make Staley financially responsible for any damages the bank might incur from other related lawsuits and to recover compensation paid to him from 2006 to 2013. Staley has denied these allegations, stating that JPMorgan is using him as a scapegoat for its own supervisory failures and claims he was unaware of Epstein’s criminal behavior​.


to contact me:

[email protected]


source:

Microsoft Word - MTD Mem. of Law - (11148357.16).docx (courtlistener.com)

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

The lawsuits stem from parallel cases in the Southern District of New York: one brought by Jane Doe on behalf of Epstein’s victims and another by the Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands, both targeting JPMorgan Chase for its alleged role in enabling Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking operation. JPMorgan, in turn, filed third-party claims against former executive James Edward Staley, arguing that he should bear responsibility for any liability tied to Epstein, given his close personal and professional ties to the financier. These cases became highly significant in exposing the financial networks that allegedly allowed Epstein’s crimes to flourish.


In response, Staley filed a motion to exclude JPMorgan Chase’s proffered expert opinions, challenging the credibility and admissibility of the bank’s expert witnesses. His brief sought to limit the evidence that could be used against him, aiming to weaken JPMorgan’s case for shifting liability onto him. This move reflects Staley’s broader defense strategy of resisting being scapegoated as the primary enabler within JPMorgan, while the bank itself faced mounting scrutiny for its role in maintaining Epstein as a client despite numerous red flags.

to contact me:

[email protected]


source:

gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.342.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)

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

On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.

Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.


to contact me:

[email protected]



source:

KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.ecl

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

On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.

Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.


to contact me:

[email protected]



source:

KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.ecl

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

On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.

Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.


to contact me:

[email protected]



source:

KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.ecl

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

On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.

Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.


to contact me:

[email protected]



source:

KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.ecl

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

Bill Barr’s handling of Jeffrey Epstein’s death was nothing short of a disgrace. From the moment Epstein was found dead in his cell, Barr rushed to reassure the public that there was “no evidence” of foul play, even though the facts on the ground screamed otherwise: guards asleep, cameras malfunctioning, and a high-profile prisoner left alone despite being an obvious suicide risk. Rather than treating the matter with the transparency and rigor demanded by such a monumental failure of federal custody, Barr instead leaned into the narrative of “bungling incompetence,” effectively steering the public away from the far more troubling possibility of corruption, complicity, or deliberate neglect. His role was less about seeking justice and more about protecting institutions from scrutiny.

The aftermath only deepened the scandal. Barr presided over an investigation that was tepid, narrow in scope, and ultimately designed to close doors rather than open them. Instead of demanding accountability from the Bureau of Prisons and investigating the broader network of Epstein’s enablers, Barr allowed the focus to remain on low-level staff scapegoats while the powerful ties Epstein cultivated were quietly brushed aside. His public statements carried the hollow tone of someone managing damage control, not uncovering the truth. In the end, Barr’s stewardship of the case did not restore trust—it obliterated it. The public saw clearly what he was doing: protecting the system at all costs, even if it meant letting the most suspicious death in modern American history remain shrouded in doubt.


to  contact me:

[email protected]

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