The True Crime Tapes

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

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

On August 22, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice released redacted transcripts and audio recordings of a two-day interview it conducted in July with Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year federal prison sentence for her role in Jeffrey Epstein’s sex-trafficking ring. During the interview, Maxwell denied ever seeing any inappropriate behavior by former President Donald Trump, describing him as a “gentleman in all respects,” and insisted she “never witnessed the president in any inappropriate setting in any way.” She also rejected the existence of a so-called “client list,” countering years of speculation, and claimed to have no knowledge of blackmail or illicit recordings tied to Epstein.

In addition to defending high-profile figures, Maxwell expressed doubt that Epstein’s death was a suicide, while also rejecting the notion of an elaborate conspiracy or murder plot. The release of the transcripts—handled under the Trump-era Justice Department—has stirred sharp political debate. Trump allies have framed her remarks as vindication, while critics and Epstein’s survivors question her credibility, pointing to her conviction and suggesting her words may be aimed at influencing potential clemency or political favor.


to contact me:


[email protected]



source:


Interview Transcript - Maxwell 2025.07.24 (Redacted).pdf

On August 22, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice released redacted transcripts and audio recordings of a two-day interview it conducted in July with Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year federal prison sentence for her role in Jeffrey Epstein’s sex-trafficking ring. During the interview, Maxwell denied ever seeing any inappropriate behavior by former President Donald Trump, describing him as a “gentleman in all respects,” and insisted she “never witnessed the president in any inappropriate setting in any way.” She also rejected the existence of a so-called “client list,” countering years of speculation, and claimed to have no knowledge of blackmail or illicit recordings tied to Epstein.

In addition to defending high-profile figures, Maxwell expressed doubt that Epstein’s death was a suicide, while also rejecting the notion of an elaborate conspiracy or murder plot. The release of the transcripts—handled under the Trump-era Justice Department—has stirred sharp political debate. Trump allies have framed her remarks as vindication, while critics and Epstein’s survivors question her credibility, pointing to her conviction and suggesting her words may be aimed at influencing potential clemency or political favor.


to contact me:


[email protected]



source:


Interview Transcript - Maxwell 2025.07.24 (Redacted).pdf

On August 22, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice released redacted transcripts and audio recordings of a two-day interview it conducted in July with Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year federal prison sentence for her role in Jeffrey Epstein’s sex-trafficking ring. During the interview, Maxwell denied ever seeing any inappropriate behavior by former President Donald Trump, describing him as a “gentleman in all respects,” and insisted she “never witnessed the president in any inappropriate setting in any way.” She also rejected the existence of a so-called “client list,” countering years of speculation, and claimed to have no knowledge of blackmail or illicit recordings tied to Epstein.

In addition to defending high-profile figures, Maxwell expressed doubt that Epstein’s death was a suicide, while also rejecting the notion of an elaborate conspiracy or murder plot. The release of the transcripts—handled under the Trump-era Justice Department—has stirred sharp political debate. Trump allies have framed her remarks as vindication, while critics and Epstein’s survivors question her credibility, pointing to her conviction and suggesting her words may be aimed at influencing potential clemency or political favor.


to contact me:


[email protected]



source:


Interview Transcript - Maxwell 2025.07.24 (Redacted).pdf

The Department of Justice’s handling of Jeffrey Epstein’s non-prosecution agreement is not a story of legal inevitability but one of institutional protection and betrayal. In 2008, prosecutors secretly struck a deal that gave Epstein and his co-conspirators immunity, hiding it from victims in direct violation of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act. When a federal judge confirmed that violation in 2019, the DOJ had the chance to admit the deal was unlawful and void it. Instead, it doubled down, filing a 35-page defense insisting there was “no legal basis” to undo the sweetheart deal. At the same time, it staged a hollow push to release grand jury records it knew the courts would never unseal—then blamed the judiciary for the failure. This was theater, designed to shift blame while burying what the DOJ actually controls: the rotten deal it authored.

The truth is that the DOJ could dismantle the non-prosecution agreement tomorrow. Legal tools exist: declare it void for violating victims’ rights, for being unconscionable, or for undermining public policy. But the department refuses because dismantling it would expose its own complicity, the reputations it protected, and the powerful network Epstein served. By clinging to the deal, the DOJ isn’t upholding the law—it’s shielding itself and the elite beneficiaries of Epstein’s world. The result is a department that masquerades as a guardian of justice while acting as caretaker of corruption. The ultimate betrayal is clear: the very institution meant to protect victims instead became a predator’s last line of defense.



to contact me:

[email protected]

The Department of Justice’s handling of Jeffrey Epstein’s non-prosecution agreement is not a story of legal inevitability but one of institutional protection and betrayal. In 2008, prosecutors secretly struck a deal that gave Epstein and his co-conspirators immunity, hiding it from victims in direct violation of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act. When a federal judge confirmed that violation in 2019, the DOJ had the chance to admit the deal was unlawful and void it. Instead, it doubled down, filing a 35-page defense insisting there was “no legal basis” to undo the sweetheart deal. At the same time, it staged a hollow push to release grand jury records it knew the courts would never unseal—then blamed the judiciary for the failure. This was theater, designed to shift blame while burying what the DOJ actually controls: the rotten deal it authored.

The truth is that the DOJ could dismantle the non-prosecution agreement tomorrow. Legal tools exist: declare it void for violating victims’ rights, for being unconscionable, or for undermining public policy. But the department refuses because dismantling it would expose its own complicity, the reputations it protected, and the powerful network Epstein served. By clinging to the deal, the DOJ isn’t upholding the law—it’s shielding itself and the elite beneficiaries of Epstein’s world. The result is a department that masquerades as a guardian of justice while acting as caretaker of corruption. The ultimate betrayal is clear: the very institution meant to protect victims instead became a predator’s last line of defense.



to contact me:

[email protected]

Gene Deal is a former bodyguard who worked closely with Sean "Diddy" Combs during the 1990s, providing personal security and gaining intimate knowledge of the music mogul's professional and personal life. Over the years, Deal has become a vocal critic of Diddy, sharing his experiences and observations through various interviews and media appearances. He has discussed his departure from Diddy's employ, citing discomfort with certain situations and a desire to distance himself from activities he found troubling.


In recent times, Deal has made several serious allegations against Diddy. He has claimed that Diddy was transformed into a "monster" by the music industry, suggesting that the pressures and influences within the industry led to negative behavioral changes.Deal has also expressed his willingness to testify against Diddy in ongoing investigations, indicating his readiness to share his firsthand experiences to support allegations of misconduct.

Additionally, he has provided alternative accounts of historical events, such as asserting that The Notorious B.I.G.'s death was not the result of a drive-by shooting, challenging the widely accepted narrative.

In this episode, we take a dive into some of Gene Deal's most shocking statements.



(commercial at 8:32)

to contact me:

[email protected]



source

Diddy's Former Bodyguard Gene Deal's Most Shocking Claims

Gene Deal is a former bodyguard who worked closely with Sean "Diddy" Combs during the 1990s, providing personal security and gaining intimate knowledge of the music mogul's professional and personal life. Over the years, Deal has become a vocal critic of Diddy, sharing his experiences and observations through various interviews and media appearances. He has discussed his departure from Diddy's employ, citing discomfort with certain situations and a desire to distance himself from activities he found troubling.


In recent times, Deal has made several serious allegations against Diddy. He has claimed that Diddy was transformed into a "monster" by the music industry, suggesting that the pressures and influences within the industry led to negative behavioral changes.Deal has also expressed his willingness to testify against Diddy in ongoing investigations, indicating his readiness to share his firsthand experiences to support allegations of misconduct.

Additionally, he has provided alternative accounts of historical events, such as asserting that The Notorious B.I.G.'s death was not the result of a drive-by shooting, challenging the widely accepted narrative.

In this episode, we take a dive into some of Gene Deal's most shocking statements.



(commercial at 8:32)

to contact me:

[email protected]



source

Diddy's Former Bodyguard Gene Deal's Most Shocking Claims

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