The Moscow Murders and More

​Bryan Kohberger's defense team has recently filed motions to suppress certain evidence ahead of his August 11, 2025, trial for the 2022 murders of four University of Idaho students. A former FBI special agent characterized these efforts as attempts to create an "illusion" of a weak prosecution case, aiming to influence potential jurors. The defense sought to exclude terms like "psychopath" and "sociopath" from the trial, a request partially granted by Judge Steven Hippler, who ruled such labels require expert validation. Additionally, the defense's motion to omit Kohberger's 2020 essay on crime scene handling was denied, and the judge indicated that the 911 call from the victims' roommate would likely be admitted, albeit possibly in a redacted form

The defense also argued that prosecutors were delaying discovery, a claim undermined when they acknowledged receiving all requested materials. Experts suggest these tactics aim to delay proceedings and cast doubt on the prosecution's case. Former FBI agent Jonathan Gilliam noted that the defense appears more focused on portraying the prosecution's case as insufficient rather than asserting Kohberger's innocence. Similarly, former D.C. homicide detective Ted Williams observed that the defense is employing a strategy of challenging various aspects of the case, hoping to find elements that might resonate with the jury.


to contact  me:

[email protected]



source:

Bryan Kohberger case: Fmr FBI agent says defense is trying to create 'illusion' | Fox News

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

​In 2020, while pursuing a master's degree in criminal justice at DeSales University, Bryan Kohberger authored a 12-page essay titled "Crime-Scene Scenario Final." This academic paper detailed procedures for processing a crime scene, emphasizing methods to prevent contamination, such as the use of fiber-free overalls, gloves, and booties. Kohberger also discussed the importance of collecting DNA evidence and analyzing surveillance footage to identify suspects. The essay centered around a case involving a 35-year-old woman who was stabbed to death in a trailer park, though it remains unclear if this scenario was hypothetical or based on real events.

Prosecutors in Kohberger's ongoing trial for the 2022 murders of four University of Idaho students have introduced this essay as evidence, arguing that it demonstrates his extensive knowledge of crime scene investigation techniques. They contend that the detailed understanding reflected in his writing suggests a capability to commit the alleged crimes with precision and an awareness of how to avoid leaving incriminating evidence. The trial is scheduled to begin in August 2025, with jury selection commencing on July 30.


to contact me:

[email protected]

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

​In 2020, while pursuing a master's degree in criminal justice at DeSales University, Bryan Kohberger authored a 12-page essay titled "Crime-Scene Scenario Final." This academic paper detailed procedures for processing a crime scene, emphasizing methods to prevent contamination, such as the use of fiber-free overalls, gloves, and booties. Kohberger also discussed the importance of collecting DNA evidence and analyzing surveillance footage to identify suspects. The essay centered around a case involving a 35-year-old woman who was stabbed to death in a trailer park, though it remains unclear if this scenario was hypothetical or based on real events.

Prosecutors in Kohberger's ongoing trial for the 2022 murders of four University of Idaho students have introduced this essay as evidence, arguing that it demonstrates his extensive knowledge of crime scene investigation techniques. They contend that the detailed understanding reflected in his writing suggests a capability to commit the alleged crimes with precision and an awareness of how to avoid leaving incriminating evidence. The trial is scheduled to begin in August 2025, with jury selection commencing on July 30.


to contact me:

[email protected]

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

​In the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger (Case No. CR01-24-31665), the defense has submitted a response opposing the State's motion in limine, which seeks to exclude neuropsychological and psychiatric evidence from the trial. The defense intends to present expert testimony indicating that Mr. Kohberger exhibits behaviors consistent with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD). They argue that these conditions explain certain behaviors, such as a flat affect, intense gaze, and repetitive speech patterns, which might otherwise be misinterpreted by the jury as indicative of guilt or lack of remorse. Additionally, the defense contends that these behaviors are neurological in nature, supported by neuroimaging evidence, and are crucial for the jury to understand Mr. Kohberger's demeanor and actions accurately.

The State, represented by Latah County Prosecutor Bill Thompson, has moved to prohibit the introduction of this evidence, arguing that it is inadmissible under Idaho rules. The prosecution asserts that the defense has not provided sufficient specific details about Mr. Kohberger's alleged conditions and that such evidence could unfairly prejudice the jury. They also contend that the defense failed to meet disclosure deadlines set by the court. The judge's decision on whether to allow the neuropsychological and psychiatric evidence will significantly impact the strategies employed by both parties in the upcoming trial, scheduled to begin on August 11, 2025.


to contact me:

[email protected]



source:

Ty A

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

​In the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger (Case No. CR01-24-31665), the defense has submitted a response opposing the State's motion in limine, which seeks to exclude neuropsychological and psychiatric evidence from the trial. The defense intends to present expert testimony indicating that Mr. Kohberger exhibits behaviors consistent with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD). They argue that these conditions explain certain behaviors, such as a flat affect, intense gaze, and repetitive speech patterns, which might otherwise be misinterpreted by the jury as indicative of guilt or lack of remorse. Additionally, the defense contends that these behaviors are neurological in nature, supported by neuroimaging evidence, and are crucial for the jury to understand Mr. Kohberger's demeanor and actions accurately.

The State, represented by Latah County Prosecutor Bill Thompson, has moved to prohibit the introduction of this evidence, arguing that it is inadmissible under Idaho rules. The prosecution asserts that the defense has not provided sufficient specific details about Mr. Kohberger's alleged conditions and that such evidence could unfairly prejudice the jury. They also contend that the defense failed to meet disclosure deadlines set by the court. The judge's decision on whether to allow the neuropsychological and psychiatric evidence will significantly impact the strategies employed by both parties in the upcoming trial, scheduled to begin on August 11, 2025.


to contact me:

[email protected]



source:

Ty A

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

On June 11, Assistant U.S. Attorney Maurene Comey addressed the court privately, stating that the prosecution had uncovered what it believed to be a serious issue with Juror No. 6, which they described as a “lack of candor.” The government asserted that the juror had failed to be fully honest during the jury selection process and had possibly withheld important information that should have been disclosed to the court. Comey stressed that the prosecution was very reluctant to raise this concern but felt obligated to bring it forward after verifying the issue through further review.

Defense attorney Alexandra Shapiro responded forcefully, arguing that the prosecution’s move was a thinly veiled attempt to strike a Black juror from the panel in an effort to influence the jury’s racial composition. Shapiro called the government’s request improper and requested additional time to prepare a detailed written response citing legal precedent. Judge Subramanian granted the request, allowing both sides to submit written arguments and indicating that he would reserve a ruling on the matter until later in the week after reviewing all submissions.


to contact me:

[email protected]



source:

Expert weighs in on what Diddy juror's alleged 'lack of candor' means for trial | Fox News

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

On June 11, the trial entered its fifth day of testimony from the witness known as “Jane,” Combs’s former girlfriend and key prosecution witness. She recounted disturbing details about the coercive dynamics of their relationship between 2021 and 2024, including multiday “hotel nights”—sex parties involving male escorts that witnessed her using Rhino erection pills, prepping matching outfits for participants, and being forced into prolonged foreplay that she described as “really not so fun”.   Under direct examination, she detailed how Combs allegedly coerced her into unprotected sex with porn stars and escorts, and physically assaulted her during these “freak-offs”


During cross-examination by defense attorney Teny Geragos, Jane was compelled to read aloud dozens of explicit text messages she had sent to Combs—expressions of love, gratitude, and desire—including passages like “I never had a man take care of me like you do”—a strategy aimed at undermining her credibility and suggesting consent.   This emotionally charged moment culminated in Jane breaking down and crying on the stand,   The defense also highlighted luxury gifts—such as a $20,000 business investment, monthly rent, designer bags, and a Van Cleef necklace—to argue she benefited materially from the relationship and wasn’t entirely coerced.


to contact me:


[email protected]



source:

June 11, 2025 - Day 21 of testimony in the Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs trial | CNN

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

On June 11, the trial entered its fifth day of testimony from the witness known as “Jane,” Combs’s former girlfriend and key prosecution witness. She recounted disturbing details about the coercive dynamics of their relationship between 2021 and 2024, including multiday “hotel nights”—sex parties involving male escorts that witnessed her using Rhino erection pills, prepping matching outfits for participants, and being forced into prolonged foreplay that she described as “really not so fun”.   Under direct examination, she detailed how Combs allegedly coerced her into unprotected sex with porn stars and escorts, and physically assaulted her during these “freak-offs”


During cross-examination by defense attorney Teny Geragos, Jane was compelled to read aloud dozens of explicit text messages she had sent to Combs—expressions of love, gratitude, and desire—including passages like “I never had a man take care of me like you do”—a strategy aimed at undermining her credibility and suggesting consent.   This emotionally charged moment culminated in Jane breaking down and crying on the stand,   The defense also highlighted luxury gifts—such as a $20,000 business investment, monthly rent, designer bags, and a Van Cleef necklace—to argue she benefited materially from the relationship and wasn’t entirely coerced.


to contact me:


[email protected]



source:

June 11, 2025 - Day 21 of testimony in the Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs trial | CNN

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

In this letter to Judge Subramanian in United States v. Combs, the defense opposes the government’s request to recall expert witness Dr. Dawn Hughes for a second appearance during its case-in-chief. The defense argues that it relied on the Court’s original framework—reinforced in both the opening jury instructions and pretrial rulings—that each witness would testify only once. They further contend that recalling Dr. Hughes after her cross-examination would be unfair and prejudicial, as the defense structured its questioning with the understanding that it would be their sole opportunity to challenge her testimony during the government’s presentation of its case.

The letter also raises concern about the signal it would send to the jury, suggesting that the Court is endorsing the government’s effort to rehabilitate a witness whose methodology and credibility were already subjected to extensive scrutiny. The defense emphasizes that it cannot repeat its prior cross-examination, nor should it be expected to. They argue that such a move is highly irregular and risks altering the fairness of the proceedings. The letter urges the Court to deny the government’s request and preserve the integrity of its prior rulings regarding the scope and structure of Dr. Hughes’s testimony.


to contact me:

[email protected]



source:

gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.393.0.pdf

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

In this letter to Judge Subramanian in United States v. Combs, the defense opposes the government’s request to recall expert witness Dr. Dawn Hughes for a second appearance during its case-in-chief. The defense argues that it relied on the Court’s original framework—reinforced in both the opening jury instructions and pretrial rulings—that each witness would testify only once. They further contend that recalling Dr. Hughes after her cross-examination would be unfair and prejudicial, as the defense structured its questioning with the understanding that it would be their sole opportunity to challenge her testimony during the government’s presentation of its case.

The letter also raises concern about the signal it would send to the jury, suggesting that the Court is endorsing the government’s effort to rehabilitate a witness whose methodology and credibility were already subjected to extensive scrutiny. The defense emphasizes that it cannot repeat its prior cross-examination, nor should it be expected to. They argue that such a move is highly irregular and risks altering the fairness of the proceedings. The letter urges the Court to deny the government’s request and preserve the integrity of its prior rulings regarding the scope and structure of Dr. Hughes’s testimony.


to contact me:

[email protected]



source:

gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.393.0.pdf

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