Episodios

  • The Governments Motions In Limine In The Case Against Diddy (Part 2)

    The Governments Motions In Limine In The Case Against Diddy (Part 2)
    Jan 13 2026
    ​The U.S. government's motions in limine in the case against Sean "Diddy" Combs seek to shape the evidentiary landscape for the upcoming trial. Prosecutors aim to introduce corroborative materials such as text messages, diary entries from a former employee, and a 911 call to support the testimonies of alleged victims. They argue that these pieces of evidence are crucial to demonstrate patterns of behavior and to counter anticipated challenges to the credibility of witnesses. Additionally, the government requests the exclusion of certain defense evidence, including prior consensual sexual encounters Combs had with individuals not involved in the case, asserting that such information is irrelevant and could mislead the jury.


    Furthermore, the prosecution seeks to admit expert testimony from psychologist Dr. Dawn Hughes, who would explain how victims of abuse might remain in relationships with their abusers due to emotional manipulation or fear. This testimony is intended to provide context for the victims' continued association with Combs, which the defense might use to question their credibility. The motions also address the admissibility of a 2016 surveillance video allegedly showing Combs assaulting his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura. The defense contests this video's inclusion, claiming it has been altered and lacks authenticity


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:

    gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.260.0_1.pdf
    Más Menos
    11 m
  • The Governments Motions In Limine In The Case Against Diddy (Part 1)

    The Governments Motions In Limine In The Case Against Diddy (Part 1)
    Jan 13 2026
    ​The U.S. government's motions in limine in the case against Sean "Diddy" Combs seek to shape the evidentiary landscape for the upcoming trial. Prosecutors aim to introduce corroborative materials such as text messages, diary entries from a former employee, and a 911 call to support the testimonies of alleged victims. They argue that these pieces of evidence are crucial to demonstrate patterns of behavior and to counter anticipated challenges to the credibility of witnesses. Additionally, the government requests the exclusion of certain defense evidence, including prior consensual sexual encounters Combs had with individuals not involved in the case, asserting that such information is irrelevant and could mislead the jury.


    Furthermore, the prosecution seeks to admit expert testimony from psychologist Dr. Dawn Hughes, who would explain how victims of abuse might remain in relationships with their abusers due to emotional manipulation or fear. This testimony is intended to provide context for the victims' continued association with Combs, which the defense might use to question their credibility. The motions also address the admissibility of a 2016 surveillance video allegedly showing Combs assaulting his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura. The defense contests this video's inclusion, claiming it has been altered and lacks authenticity


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:

    gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.260.0_1.pdf
    Más Menos
    11 m
  • Sara Rivers And Her Allegations Against Diddy (Part 18)

    Sara Rivers And Her Allegations Against Diddy (Part 18)
    Jan 13 2026
    Plaintiff Sara Rivers files this complaint in Case No. 1:25-cv-01726, bringing legal action against the defendant based on personal knowledge, information, and belief. Represented by legal counsel, Rivers outlines the specific allegations, detailing the defendant's alleged misconduct and the legal grounds supporting the claims. The complaint asserts that the defendant’s actions have caused harm and seeks accountability through the judicial system.

    This lawsuit requests appropriate legal remedies, including compensation and other relief deemed necessary by the court. The filing establishes jurisdiction, presents supporting facts, and sets forth claims that Rivers intends to prove. Through this action, the plaintiff seeks justice and redress for the alleged wrongdoing, holding the defendant legally responsible for the damages incurred.



    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com


    source:

    Sara cmplt
    Más Menos
    17 m
  • Sara Rivers And Her Allegations Against Diddy (Part 17)

    Sara Rivers And Her Allegations Against Diddy (Part 17)
    Jan 12 2026
    Plaintiff Sara Rivers files this complaint in Case No. 1:25-cv-01726, bringing legal action against the defendant based on personal knowledge, information, and belief. Represented by legal counsel, Rivers outlines the specific allegations, detailing the defendant's alleged misconduct and the legal grounds supporting the claims. The complaint asserts that the defendant’s actions have caused harm and seeks accountability through the judicial system.

    This lawsuit requests appropriate legal remedies, including compensation and other relief deemed necessary by the court. The filing establishes jurisdiction, presents supporting facts, and sets forth claims that Rivers intends to prove. Through this action, the plaintiff seeks justice and redress for the alleged wrongdoing, holding the defendant legally responsible for the damages incurred.



    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com


    source:

    Sara cmplt
    Más Menos
    10 m
  • Lord Peter Mandelson Refuses To Apologize To Epstein's Survivors In A New BBC Interview (1/12/26)

    Lord Peter Mandelson Refuses To Apologize To Epstein's Survivors In A New BBC Interview (1/12/26)
    Jan 12 2026
    In the wake of renewed scrutiny over his long-standing friendship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, veteran British politician Lord Peter Mandelson has offered a deeply qualified response that has inflamed survivors and critics alike. In a high-profile BBC interview, Mandelson acknowledged his association with Epstein was a “terrible mistake” and expressed regret for the systemic failures that allowed Epstein’s victims to be ignored and unprotected. He also accepted that his undisclosed communications and supportive emails to Epstein — written even after Epstein’s 2008 conviction — contributed to his dismissal as the UK’s ambassador to the United States and acknowledged the serious consequences of the controversy for his own career. However, while Mandelson expressed sympathy for the suffering of Epstein’s victims and apologized for the broader institutional shortcomings that failed them, he refused to offer a direct personal apology to survivors for his friendship or to accept that he was culpable in any way for Epstein’s crimes. Instead, he insisted he genuinely did not know about Epstein’s criminal conduct and maintained he was not “complicit or culpable” in the abuse, citing his own lack of knowledge and arguing that, as a gay man, he had been largely excluded from the aspects of Epstein’s life connected to the abuse.


    Mandelson’s remarks have provoked sharp criticism from political figures and Epstein survivors who see his refusal to apologize personally as tone-deaf and insufficient given the gravity of Epstein’s abuses and Mandelson’s own continued association with him after his conviction. Cabinet ministers and commentators argued that anyone linked to Epstein should accept responsibility for the “lapse of judgment” that allowed such a relationship to persist, not merely lament systemic failures. Critics also highlighted that Mandelson’s narrative — that he was unaware of Epstein’s crimes — sits uneasily with the extent of his documented friendship and supportive communications, raising questions about accountability, judgment, and the message his qualified response sends to survivors seeking acknowledgment and justice.



    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:

    Lord Mandelson refuses to apologise to Jeffrey Epstein's victims with Labour peer claiming he had no knowledge of 'evil monster's' depravity because he's gay | Daily Mail Online
    Más Menos
    12 m
  • The Deal That Meant Nothing: How Epstein Violated His NPA With Zero Consequences (1/12/26)

    The Deal That Meant Nothing: How Epstein Violated His NPA With Zero Consequences (1/12/26)
    Jan 12 2026
    Jeffrey Epstein violated the 2008 non-prosecution agreement repeatedly and blatantly, and yet faced no consequences from the same system that claimed the deal was conditional. The NPA required Epstein to comply with federal and state law, avoid further criminal conduct, and refrain from victim contact. Instead, after serving his sham county jail sentence, Epstein resumed trafficking behavior almost immediately. He continued to recruit young girls through the same network of associates, paid victims directly, traveled freely between jurisdictions, and maintained properties that were repeatedly identified by victims as sites of abuse. These were not technical or ambiguous violations. They were direct continuations of the very conduct the NPA was supposedly designed to stop. Under any normal interpretation, Epstein’s actions should have voided the agreement and reopened prosecution.

    What makes this more disturbing is that federal authorities were aware of many of these violations and still chose inaction. Complaints continued to surface, law enforcement agencies received new allegations, and civil cases produced sworn testimony describing post-NPA abuse. Yet prosecutors treated the agreement as untouchable, as if Epstein had been granted permanent immunity rather than conditional leniency. No hearings were held, no compliance reviews were triggered, and no penalties were imposed. The NPA became less a legal agreement and more a protective shield, enforced in Epstein’s favor regardless of his behavior. The message was unmistakable: the rules did not apply to him, and even open defiance of a federal agreement carried zero risk as long as the system decided not to look too closely.



    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:

    EFTA00014110.pdf
    Más Menos
    11 m
  • Mark Epstein Doubles Down And Once Again And Claims Jeffrey Epstein Was Murdered (1/12/26)

    Mark Epstein Doubles Down And Once Again And Claims Jeffrey Epstein Was Murdered (1/12/26)
    Jan 12 2026
    Mark Epstein has consistently said he does not believe his brother died by suicide and has publicly rejected the official ruling of Jeffrey Epstein’s death as implausible. He has pointed to the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the death, including the failure of jail cameras, guards allegedly falling asleep, and the sudden disappearance or malfunction of evidence that would normally be critical in a high-profile federal custody death. Mark Epstein has argued that these failures are not minor errors but systemic breakdowns that conveniently aligned at the exact moment his brother died, making the official explanation difficult to accept. He has also emphasized that Jeffrey was actively pursuing legal strategies, expected to contest charges, and had shown no clear signs to him of being suicidal, undermining the narrative that his brother took his own life while awaiting trial.

    Mark Epstein has further reinforced his doubts by highlighting conflicting forensic opinions, particularly the findings of Dr. Michael Baden, who observed injuries to Jeffrey Epstein’s neck that he said were more consistent with homicide than suicide. Mark has repeatedly called for an independent, transparent investigation, arguing that the government effectively investigated itself and closed the case too quickly despite glaring unanswered questions. He has framed his position not as a defense of his brother’s crimes, which he acknowledges, but as a demand for truth and accountability in a case that implicates federal custodial responsibility. In Mark Epstein’s view, the unanswered questions surrounding Jeffrey Epstein’s death are not fringe speculation but legitimate concerns that were never properly resolved and were instead buried under a rushed conclusion that left the public and the family without credible answers.




    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:


    Jeffrey Epstein's Brother Claims a New Autopsy Report Will 'Prove' the Sex Offender Was Murdered
    Más Menos
    16 m
  • Epstein Files Unsealed: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 7) (1/12/26)

    Epstein Files Unsealed: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 7) (1/12/26)
    Jan 12 2026
    In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein’s defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.


    At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta’s account, particularly regarding victims’ rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.



    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com


    source:

    EFTA00009229.pdf
    Más Menos
    14 m
adbl_web_global_use_to_activate_DT_webcro_1694_expandible_banner_T1