The Moscow Murders and More

From the archives: 3-5-23




Bryan Kohberger's legal team ripped into the attempt by the media to get the gag order removed in new court filings and they made it clear how they felt about any attempt to alter it.


In this episode, we take a look at the filing and what, if any, strategy might be in play for the long run by Bryan Kohberger's legal team.


(commercial at 7:05)

to contact me:


[email protected]



source:

Bryan Kohberger lawyer blasts 'grotesquely twisted' media coverage of stabbing that killed 4 Idaho students | Fox News

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

From the archives: 1-13-23



Anytime there is a story that draws international interest it is inevitable that it was also draw out the crazies and there certainly has been no shortage of those in this case. From spirit guides, to tarot cards to psychics, they have all shown up ready to sow seeds of misinformation.


In this episode, we take a look at the impact some of those rumors and that misinformation had on the real people who are living through this tragedy and how some people take their online sleuthing way too far.

(commercial at 9:41)

to contact me:

[email protected]



source:

Idaho murders case: The eerie online world | The Independent

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.

From the archives: 6-28-23





Judge John Judge warned the media during yesterdays hearing about zooming in on Bryan Kohberger during the proceedings. He pointed to the Lori Vallow trial for reference and noted that if the Media wants to keep the cameras in the courtroom, they are going to have to follow the rules as they are stated. Considering the interest surrounding this case, the Judge feels that it would be prejudicial to keep the camera locked on Kohberger.


We also dive a littler deeper into the hearing from yesterday and discuss what went down in the courtroom in Latah County.


(commercial at 14:24)

to contact me:

[email protected]



source:

Bryan Kohberger judge refers to Lori Vallow case as suit-clad Idaho murders suspect appears in court | The Independent

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

The defendants in the case of Sara Rivers v. Sean Combs and others have submitted a memorandum of law supporting their motion to dismiss the complaint. This legal filing argues that the plaintiff's claims lack sufficient legal basis or fail to meet the necessary standards for the case to proceed. The defendants seek dismissal on grounds likely related to procedural or substantive deficiencies in the plaintiff’s allegations.

In this memorandum, the defendants outline the legal reasoning and precedents that justify the court dismissing the complaint against them. The document aims to persuade the judge that the plaintiff's claims should be rejected without going to trial, emphasizing the defendants’ position that the case does not warrant further litigation.


to contact me:

[email protected]


source:

https://dwt-my.sharepoint.com/personal/garcd_dwt_com/Documents/DKG/Cases/2025/June/6.23.2025/File/Rivers/Rivers - Memo ISO Motion to Dismiss

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

The defendants in the case of Sara Rivers v. Sean Combs and others have submitted a memorandum of law supporting their motion to dismiss the complaint. This legal filing argues that the plaintiff's claims lack sufficient legal basis or fail to meet the necessary standards for the case to proceed. The defendants seek dismissal on grounds likely related to procedural or substantive deficiencies in the plaintiff’s allegations.

In this memorandum, the defendants outline the legal reasoning and precedents that justify the court dismissing the complaint against them. The document aims to persuade the judge that the plaintiff's claims should be rejected without going to trial, emphasizing the defendants’ position that the case does not warrant further litigation.


to contact me:

[email protected]


source:

https://dwt-my.sharepoint.com/personal/garcd_dwt_com/Documents/DKG/Cases/2025/June/6.23.2025/File/Rivers/Rivers - Memo ISO Motion to Dismiss

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

Elon Musk has been loudly criticizing the DOJ and FBI over their handling of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation, calling out what he sees as a disgraceful failure to hold powerful figures accountable. He presents himself as an outsider raging against the elite, demanding justice and transparency from the very institutions he claims are protecting predators. But there's a glaring contradiction that undercuts this entire performance: Musk himself once sat down at the same table as Jeffrey Epstein. At a private billionaire’s dinner, years after Epstein’s 2008 conviction was public knowledge, Musk broke bread with a man already known to be a convicted sex offender—making his current outrage feel more like calculated damage control than genuine moral concern.

The hypocrisy is almost unbearable. You don’t get to dine with a monster, stay silent for over a decade, and then pretend to be the loudest voice in the room demanding accountability. Musk’s selective outrage reeks of self-preservation, not justice. He wasn’t just in the same room—he was a participant in the same closed-door culture of wealth, access, and impunity that allowed Epstein to thrive. And now, as public pressure mounts, he wants to rewrite the past, cast himself as a truth-teller, and hope no one remembers where he was when it mattered. But history has receipts—and the dinner napkin still has his name on it.

Elon Musk isn’t the only one feigning moral outrage about Jeffrey Epstein while conveniently forgetting the dinner table they once shared. In 2011, at a private billionaires’ dinner during a TED conference, Musk, Jeff Bezos, Sergey Brin, and other tech titans sat shoulder to shoulder with Epstein—a man already convicted of soliciting sex from a minor. These weren’t ignorant bystanders. Epstein’s name was radioactive by then, his crimes well documented. Yet these men, who now pretend to be disgusted by the cover-up, saw no issue sharing wine and strategy with him over filet mignon and handshakes. It was a who’s who of unchecked power pretending Epstein was just another quirky financier with connections.

Fast-forward to now, and the same billionaires want to position themselves as the public’s moral compass—demanding justice, accountability, and answers from the government while playing dumb about their own proximity to the rot. Musk rails against the DOJ, Bezos hides behind silence, and the rest of them act like their invitations got lost in the mail. But this wasn’t some accident. They sat there. They talked. They mingled. And they helped normalize a predator. These men didn’t just witness the corruption—they were part of the network that allowed it to keep operating in plain sight. Now they want to shout from the rooftops as if they weren’t once whispering in the same room. That’s not courage. That’s cleanup.



to contact me:

[email protected]



source:


In 2011, Jeffrey Epstein Was A Known Sex Offender. Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, And Sergey Brin Shared A Meal With Him Anyway

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

Elon Musk has been loudly criticizing the DOJ and FBI over their handling of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation, calling out what he sees as a disgraceful failure to hold powerful figures accountable. He presents himself as an outsider raging against the elite, demanding justice and transparency from the very institutions he claims are protecting predators. But there's a glaring contradiction that undercuts this entire performance: Musk himself once sat down at the same table as Jeffrey Epstein. At a private billionaire’s dinner, years after Epstein’s 2008 conviction was public knowledge, Musk broke bread with a man already known to be a convicted sex offender—making his current outrage feel more like calculated damage control than genuine moral concern.

The hypocrisy is almost unbearable. You don’t get to dine with a monster, stay silent for over a decade, and then pretend to be the loudest voice in the room demanding accountability. Musk’s selective outrage reeks of self-preservation, not justice. He wasn’t just in the same room—he was a participant in the same closed-door culture of wealth, access, and impunity that allowed Epstein to thrive. And now, as public pressure mounts, he wants to rewrite the past, cast himself as a truth-teller, and hope no one remembers where he was when it mattered. But history has receipts—and the dinner napkin still has his name on it.

Elon Musk isn’t the only one feigning moral outrage about Jeffrey Epstein while conveniently forgetting the dinner table they once shared. In 2011, at a private billionaires’ dinner during a TED conference, Musk, Jeff Bezos, Sergey Brin, and other tech titans sat shoulder to shoulder with Epstein—a man already convicted of soliciting sex from a minor. These weren’t ignorant bystanders. Epstein’s name was radioactive by then, his crimes well documented. Yet these men, who now pretend to be disgusted by the cover-up, saw no issue sharing wine and strategy with him over filet mignon and handshakes. It was a who’s who of unchecked power pretending Epstein was just another quirky financier with connections.

Fast-forward to now, and the same billionaires want to position themselves as the public’s moral compass—demanding justice, accountability, and answers from the government while playing dumb about their own proximity to the rot. Musk rails against the DOJ, Bezos hides behind silence, and the rest of them act like their invitations got lost in the mail. But this wasn’t some accident. They sat there. They talked. They mingled. And they helped normalize a predator. These men didn’t just witness the corruption—they were part of the network that allowed it to keep operating in plain sight. Now they want to shout from the rooftops as if they weren’t once whispering in the same room. That’s not courage. That’s cleanup.



to contact me:

[email protected]



source:


In 2011, Jeffrey Epstein Was A Known Sex Offender. Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, And Sergey Brin Shared A Meal With Him Anyway

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

The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report on Jeffrey Epstein's death in federal custody revealed severe lapses in protocol, negligence, and misconduct by Bureau of Prisons (BOP) staff at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York. Epstein, who was awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges, died of apparent suicide on August 10, 2019. The report found that staff failed to conduct regular 30-minute checks on Epstein’s cell, as required, and that surveillance cameras in his unit were either inoperative or not monitored adequately. The night of Epstein's death, officers on duty had fallen asleep or were otherwise occupied, leaving him unsupervised for hours, which the OIG noted as a direct violation of BOP policies. These failures contributed to the conditions that allowed Epstein the opportunity to take his own life.

The report also highlighted a pattern of understaffing, low morale, and inadequate training at the facility, which OIG officials noted could have affected the staff’s attentiveness and contributed to policy non-compliance. Despite the extensive scrutiny surrounding Epstein, including prior suicide attempts, the OIG noted that prison staff were inadequately briefed on his heightened risk level. This lack of communication, combined with the failure of supervisory staff to enforce accountability, created an environment where critical protocols were ignored. The report concluded that systemic issues within the BOP were likely contributors to the failures in Epstein’s case and recommended measures to improve oversight, ensure policy adherence, and address structural weaknesses in the federal prison system.


(commercial at 7:50)

to contact me:

[email protected]



source:

2 3 - 0 8 5 (justice.gov)

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

The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report on Jeffrey Epstein's death in federal custody revealed severe lapses in protocol, negligence, and misconduct by Bureau of Prisons (BOP) staff at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York. Epstein, who was awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges, died of apparent suicide on August 10, 2019. The report found that staff failed to conduct regular 30-minute checks on Epstein’s cell, as required, and that surveillance cameras in his unit were either inoperative or not monitored adequately. The night of Epstein's death, officers on duty had fallen asleep or were otherwise occupied, leaving him unsupervised for hours, which the OIG noted as a direct violation of BOP policies. These failures contributed to the conditions that allowed Epstein the opportunity to take his own life.

The report also highlighted a pattern of understaffing, low morale, and inadequate training at the facility, which OIG officials noted could have affected the staff’s attentiveness and contributed to policy non-compliance. Despite the extensive scrutiny surrounding Epstein, including prior suicide attempts, the OIG noted that prison staff were inadequately briefed on his heightened risk level. This lack of communication, combined with the failure of supervisory staff to enforce accountability, created an environment where critical protocols were ignored. The report concluded that systemic issues within the BOP were likely contributors to the failures in Epstein’s case and recommended measures to improve oversight, ensure policy adherence, and address structural weaknesses in the federal prison system.


(commercial at 7:58)

to contact me:

[email protected]



source:

2 3 - 0 8 5 (justice.gov)

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