The Moscow Murders and More

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.




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.

Chief Michael Reiter, the former Palm Beach Police Chief, openly condemned the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein as deeply corrupted by influence, wealth, and political pressure. After his department conducted a meticulous, months-long investigation that identified dozens of underage victims and built a compelling case for serious felony charges, Reiter was stunned to find that the State Attorney’s Office appeared unwilling to prosecute Epstein accordingly. Instead of pursuing justice, prosecutors seemed to downplay the severity of the crimes. Reiter described how meetings with State Attorney Barry Krischer became tense and evasive, with Epstein’s legal team allowed unusual access and influence. The result was a disturbing reluctance by local prosecutors to move forward with charges that fit the evidence—charges that would have led to significant prison time.


Reiter was so alarmed by what he saw behind the scenes that he took the extraordinary step of bypassing local prosecutors and turning the case over to the FBI. He then wrote a letter of apology to the victims and their families, expressing regret that the system had failed them. In his words and actions, Reiter made it clear that justice was being obstructed not because the evidence was lacking, but because Epstein had the money and legal firepower to warp the system in his favor. He would later describe the entire handling of the case—particularly the secretive non-prosecution agreement brokered by U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta—as “a complete breakdown of the justice process,” and the most disturbing failure he had witnessed in his entire career.


to contact me:

[email protected]



source:

Ex-Florida police chief: Epstein case 'the worst failure of the criminal justice system' in modern times

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

Chief Michael Reiter, the former Palm Beach Police Chief, openly condemned the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein as deeply corrupted by influence, wealth, and political pressure. After his department conducted a meticulous, months-long investigation that identified dozens of underage victims and built a compelling case for serious felony charges, Reiter was stunned to find that the State Attorney’s Office appeared unwilling to prosecute Epstein accordingly. Instead of pursuing justice, prosecutors seemed to downplay the severity of the crimes. Reiter described how meetings with State Attorney Barry Krischer became tense and evasive, with Epstein’s legal team allowed unusual access and influence. The result was a disturbing reluctance by local prosecutors to move forward with charges that fit the evidence—charges that would have led to significant prison time.


Reiter was so alarmed by what he saw behind the scenes that he took the extraordinary step of bypassing local prosecutors and turning the case over to the FBI. He then wrote a letter of apology to the victims and their families, expressing regret that the system had failed them. In his words and actions, Reiter made it clear that justice was being obstructed not because the evidence was lacking, but because Epstein had the money and legal firepower to warp the system in his favor. He would later describe the entire handling of the case—particularly the secretive non-prosecution agreement brokered by U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta—as “a complete breakdown of the justice process,” and the most disturbing failure he had witnessed in his entire career.


to contact me:

[email protected]



source:

Ex-Florida police chief: Epstein case 'the worst failure of the criminal justice system' in modern times





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

Questions continue to swirl around Jeffrey Epstein’s death in federal custody, years after it was officially ruled a suicide. The conditions surrounding his death were so compromised—broken cameras, falsified logbooks, missing cellmate, and sleeping guards—that many find it hard to accept the official story at face value. The OIG report sharply criticized the Bureau of Prisons for a cascade of systemic failures that made Epstein’s death not just possible but almost predictable. It painted a picture of negligence so extreme that it defies belief, and only deepened public suspicion. In a facility designed to house high-risk inmates under strict supervision, Epstein managed to die in the one moment when every safeguard mysteriously failed at once. That coincidence remains too perfect for comfort.

Complicating matters further is the DOJ memo released years later that confidently declared the case closed—stating there was no evidence of foul play, no “client list,” and no outstanding leads. But that memo glossed over many of the issues raised in the OIG report, failing to explain how such a high-profile inmate could be left so vulnerable, and offering no reconciliation between the security failures and the final conclusions. It gave the appearance of a government eager to move on rather than get answers. The disconnect between the two reports leaves a credibility gap, with the public forced to choose between bureaucratic closure and lingering, unanswered questions. For many, the Epstein case didn’t end with his death—it was buried with it.



to contact me:

[email protected]


source:

Inside the Jeffrey Epstein death report and the TEN troubling questions the DOJ refuses to explain | Daily Mail Online

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

In the memorandum of law filed in Case No. 25-cv-00996, the Combs Defendants—consisting of Sean Combs and several affiliated Bad Boy entities—move to dismiss the complaint brought by a plaintiff identified as John Doe. The defense argues that the complaint fails to meet the basic legal standards required for litigation, lacking specific factual allegations that would establish a plausible claim for relief. They contend that the complaint is overly broad, relies on conclusory assertions, and does not clearly link the named defendants to any actionable conduct. The motion emphasizes that Doe’s claims are insufficient under Rule 12(b)(6) and should not survive judicial scrutiny.

Additionally, the Combs Defendants argue that the complaint improperly lumps together numerous corporate entities and unidentified “Doe” defendants without distinguishing their individual roles or responsibilities, making it impossible to determine who allegedly did what. They maintain that this generalized approach violates federal pleading standards and fails to provide the clarity needed for a meaningful legal defense. The memorandum ultimately requests that the court dismiss the complaint in its entirety and with prejudice, asserting that further amendments would be futile given the lack of concrete factual support.


to contact me:

[email protected]



source:

gov.uscourts.nysd.636272.44.0.pdf

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

In the memorandum of law filed in Case No. 25-cv-00996, the Combs Defendants—consisting of Sean Combs and several affiliated Bad Boy entities—move to dismiss the complaint brought by a plaintiff identified as John Doe. The defense argues that the complaint fails to meet the basic legal standards required for litigation, lacking specific factual allegations that would establish a plausible claim for relief. They contend that the complaint is overly broad, relies on conclusory assertions, and does not clearly link the named defendants to any actionable conduct. The motion emphasizes that Doe’s claims are insufficient under Rule 12(b)(6) and should not survive judicial scrutiny.

Additionally, the Combs Defendants argue that the complaint improperly lumps together numerous corporate entities and unidentified “Doe” defendants without distinguishing their individual roles or responsibilities, making it impossible to determine who allegedly did what. They maintain that this generalized approach violates federal pleading standards and fails to provide the clarity needed for a meaningful legal defense. The memorandum ultimately requests that the court dismiss the complaint in its entirety and with prejudice, asserting that further amendments would be futile given the lack of concrete factual support.


to contact me:

[email protected]



source:

gov.uscourts.nysd.636272.44.0.pdf

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

In March 2005, local police launched a covert investigation after a parent reported that her 14‑year‑old daughter had been paid to give Epstein a massage at his Palm Beach mansion—an encounter that evolved into sexual abuse. Undercover detectives set up 24‑hour surveillance of his residence, conducted trash pulls, and secured testimony from five victims and 17 witnesses. Evidence included hidden cameras, erotic literature, and notes with victims’ phone numbers. One victim, who recruited classmates for Epstein, recounted bringing six girls—including a 14‑year‑old—to his house in exchange for money, which police characterized as a deliberate scheme to exploit minors for sex.


Despite the severity of the findings, the Palm Beach State Attorney at first declined to press full charges, opting instead for a plea agreement. Epstein ultimately faced only state-level charges—felony solicitation of prostitution—which resulted in a lenient sentence: 13 months in county jail with work-release privileges. Although the FBI drafted a larger federal indictment, the plea deal effectively ended the broader investigation, drawing criticism from law enforcement for allowing Epstein to avoid accountability for grievous crimes against dozens of minors.


to contact  me:

[email protected]



source:

Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)

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

In January 2025, Rolling Stone published an article by Cheyenne Roundtree and Nancy Dillon titled "As Sean Combs’ ‘Love’ Era Began, New Accusers Say He Was Still a ‘Demon’." The piece examines Sean "Diddy" Combs' public rebranding as a changed man, contrasting it with recent allegations suggesting continued abusive behavior. Despite Combs' claims of personal growth following a 2016 incident where he was recorded assaulting his then-girlfriend Cassie Ventura, multiple sources allege that his abusive actions persisted well beyond this purported turning point.





The article details accounts from new accusers who describe experiences of manipulation, coercion, and violence at the hands of Combs. These allegations challenge the narrative of redemption that Combs has promoted, painting a picture of ongoing misconduct that contradicts his public persona during his "Love" era. The piece underscores the disparity between Combs' professed transformation and the troubling claims of those who have come forward, suggesting that his abusive behavior did not cease as he has asserted.


to contact me:

[email protected]


source:

Sean 'Diddy' Combs Was a ‘Demon’ in 'Love' Era, New Accusers Say

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