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.

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.

This document is a motion to suppress evidence filed by Bryan Kohberger’s defense team regarding a search warrant executed on his AT&T mobile account. The defense argues that the warrant, obtained by law enforcement in December 2023, was unconstitutional and overbroad, violating Kohberger's rights under both the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 17 of the Idaho Constitution. The warrant authorized law enforcement to obtain extensive data from Kohberger’s AT&T account, including subscriber information, call and text records, cell site location data, GPS estimates, cloud storage content, and other highly invasive digital records — far beyond what was stated in the attached exhibit, which only referenced “historical” and “prospective” phone records for a two-day window.

The defense claims the supporting affidavit submitted by Cpl. Brett Payne either recklessly or intentionally omitted material facts, failed to establish probable cause, and lacked proper particularization, which made the warrant facially deficient. They further argue that all information used to justify the warrant was derived from the allegedly unconstitutional use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), contaminating the warrant and rendering all derived data inadmissible under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. Because of these issues, the motion asks the court to suppress all evidence obtained through this AT&T warrant, asserting that the warrant process failed both in legal standard and in execution, compromising Kohberger’s constitutional protections.



to contact me:

[email protected]



source:

111424-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-ATT-First-Warrant.pdf

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

This document is a motion to suppress evidence filed by Bryan Kohberger’s defense team regarding a search warrant executed on his AT&T mobile account. The defense argues that the warrant, obtained by law enforcement in December 2023, was unconstitutional and overbroad, violating Kohberger's rights under both the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 17 of the Idaho Constitution. The warrant authorized law enforcement to obtain extensive data from Kohberger’s AT&T account, including subscriber information, call and text records, cell site location data, GPS estimates, cloud storage content, and other highly invasive digital records — far beyond what was stated in the attached exhibit, which only referenced “historical” and “prospective” phone records for a two-day window.

The defense claims the supporting affidavit submitted by Cpl. Brett Payne either recklessly or intentionally omitted material facts, failed to establish probable cause, and lacked proper particularization, which made the warrant facially deficient. They further argue that all information used to justify the warrant was derived from the allegedly unconstitutional use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), contaminating the warrant and rendering all derived data inadmissible under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. Because of these issues, the motion asks the court to suppress all evidence obtained through this AT&T warrant, asserting that the warrant process failed both in legal standard and in execution, compromising Kohberger’s constitutional protections.



to contact me:

[email protected]



source:

111424-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-ATT-First-Warrant.pdf

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

This document is a motion to suppress evidence filed by Bryan Kohberger’s defense team regarding a search warrant executed on his AT&T mobile account. The defense argues that the warrant, obtained by law enforcement in December 2023, was unconstitutional and overbroad, violating Kohberger's rights under both the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 17 of the Idaho Constitution. The warrant authorized law enforcement to obtain extensive data from Kohberger’s AT&T account, including subscriber information, call and text records, cell site location data, GPS estimates, cloud storage content, and other highly invasive digital records — far beyond what was stated in the attached exhibit, which only referenced “historical” and “prospective” phone records for a two-day window.

The defense claims the supporting affidavit submitted by Cpl. Brett Payne either recklessly or intentionally omitted material facts, failed to establish probable cause, and lacked proper particularization, which made the warrant facially deficient. They further argue that all information used to justify the warrant was derived from the allegedly unconstitutional use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), contaminating the warrant and rendering all derived data inadmissible under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. Because of these issues, the motion asks the court to suppress all evidence obtained through this AT&T warrant, asserting that the warrant process failed both in legal standard and in execution, compromising Kohberger’s constitutional protections.



to contact me:

[email protected]



source:

111424-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-ATT-First-Warrant.pdf

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

This document is a motion in limine filed by Sean Combs’ legal team in his federal criminal case (Case No. 24-cr-542) in the Southern District of New York, seeking to exclude the testimony of Dr. Dawn Hughes, a psychological expert the prosecution intends to call. Dr. Hughes is expected to testify about general behavioral patterns of victims and perpetrators of sexual and domestic abuse, which the defense argues would unfairly bolster the credibility of the government’s witnesses — including alleged victims — without having evaluated any facts specific to this case. The defense asserts that Dr. Hughes’s testimony is not based on a reliable scientific application to the actual circumstances surrounding Combs and instead consists of broad generalizations that risk misleading the jury by presenting “typical” abuse behavior as evidence of guilt.

Combs’ attorneys argue that Hughes’s proposed testimony violates the standards set by Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 403, which regulate expert witness admissibility. They claim her statements offer no specialized knowledge beyond what jurors already understand — such as abusers exploiting power or victims remaining in abusive relationships — and that she conflates clinical definitions of coercion with legal ones, potentially confusing the jury. The motion asserts that Hughes’s testimony is “advocacy masquerading as expertise” and warns it would improperly bolster the credibility of government witnesses under the guise of psychology. The defense urges the court to block her from testifying, citing that her opinions are methodologically unsound and prejudicial rather than probative.



to contact  me:


[email protected]



source:

gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.206.0.pdf

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

This document is a motion in limine filed by Sean Combs’ legal team in his federal criminal case (Case No. 24-cr-542) in the Southern District of New York, seeking to exclude the testimony of Dr. Dawn Hughes, a psychological expert the prosecution intends to call. Dr. Hughes is expected to testify about general behavioral patterns of victims and perpetrators of sexual and domestic abuse, which the defense argues would unfairly bolster the credibility of the government’s witnesses — including alleged victims — without having evaluated any facts specific to this case. The defense asserts that Dr. Hughes’s testimony is not based on a reliable scientific application to the actual circumstances surrounding Combs and instead consists of broad generalizations that risk misleading the jury by presenting “typical” abuse behavior as evidence of guilt.

Combs’ attorneys argue that Hughes’s proposed testimony violates the standards set by Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 403, which regulate expert witness admissibility. They claim her statements offer no specialized knowledge beyond what jurors already understand — such as abusers exploiting power or victims remaining in abusive relationships — and that she conflates clinical definitions of coercion with legal ones, potentially confusing the jury. The motion asserts that Hughes’s testimony is “advocacy masquerading as expertise” and warns it would improperly bolster the credibility of government witnesses under the guise of psychology. The defense urges the court to block her from testifying, citing that her opinions are methodologically unsound and prejudicial rather than probative.



to contact  me:


[email protected]



source:

gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.206.0.pdf

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

In this episode, we delve into the chilling case of Gary Ridgway, infamously known as the Green River Killer. Join us as we unravel the meticulous investigation and compelling evidence that led to Ridgway's capture and eventual confession. From the early days of the Green River Task Force to the groundbreaking DNA advancements, we explore how dedicated detectives and forensic experts pieced together the puzzle of one of America's most notorious serial killers.Key Evidence Highlights:

1. Eyewitness Accounts and Suspect Sketches:
   • Witnesses provided descriptions and sketches of a man seen with several victims, which helped narrow down the suspect pool and led investigators to Ridgway as a potential person of interest.
2. Polygraph Test:
   • Ridgway initially passed a polygraph test, which complicated the investigation and allowed him to evade suspicion temporarily.
3. Forensic Breakthrough - DNA Evidence:
   • In the late 1990s, advancements in DNA technology provided a breakthrough. Semen samples collected from victims in the early 1980s were reanalyzed using new DNA profiling techniques, conclusively linking Ridgway to multiple murders.
4. Paint Evidence:
   • Tiny paint particles found on some victims matched paint used at Ridgway's workplace, reinforcing the connection between him and the crime scenes.
5. Confession and Plea Bargain:
   • In a dramatic turn of events, Ridgway confessed to the murders as part of a plea bargain to avoid the death penalty. His detailed confessions and the corroborating evidence provided a comprehensive account of his heinous crimes.
6. Recovered Personal Items:
   • Items belonging to the victims were found in Ridgway's possession or locations associated with him, further implicating him in the murders.
7. Geographical Profiling:
   • Analysis of the locations where bodies were discovered showed patterns that pointed towards Ridgway's home and workplace, corroborating other evidence against him.

(commercial at 7:41)


to contact me:

bobbycapucciprotonmail.com



source:

Gary Ridgway 2001 summary of evidence (01-1-10270-9).pdf (westsideseattle.com)


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

In this episode, we delve into the chilling case of Gary Ridgway, infamously known as the Green River Killer. Join us as we unravel the meticulous investigation and compelling evidence that led to Ridgway's capture and eventual confession. From the early days of the Green River Task Force to the groundbreaking DNA advancements, we explore how dedicated detectives and forensic experts pieced together the puzzle of one of America's most notorious serial killers.Key Evidence Highlights:

1. Eyewitness Accounts and Suspect Sketches:
   • Witnesses provided descriptions and sketches of a man seen with several victims, which helped narrow down the suspect pool and led investigators to Ridgway as a potential person of interest.
2. Polygraph Test:
   • Ridgway initially passed a polygraph test, which complicated the investigation and allowed him to evade suspicion temporarily.
3. Forensic Breakthrough - DNA Evidence:
   • In the late 1990s, advancements in DNA technology provided a breakthrough. Semen samples collected from victims in the early 1980s were reanalyzed using new DNA profiling techniques, conclusively linking Ridgway to multiple murders.
4. Paint Evidence:
   • Tiny paint particles found on some victims matched paint used at Ridgway's workplace, reinforcing the connection between him and the crime scenes.
5. Confession and Plea Bargain:
   • In a dramatic turn of events, Ridgway confessed to the murders as part of a plea bargain to avoid the death penalty. His detailed confessions and the corroborating evidence provided a comprehensive account of his heinous crimes.
6. Recovered Personal Items:
   • Items belonging to the victims were found in Ridgway's possession or locations associated with him, further implicating him in the murders.
7. Geographical Profiling:
   • Analysis of the locations where bodies were discovered showed patterns that pointed towards Ridgway's home and workplace, corroborating other evidence against him.

(commercial at 7:41)


to contact me:

bobbycapucciprotonmail.com



source:

Gary Ridgway 2001 summary of evidence (01-1-10270-9).pdf (westsideseattle.com)


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