The Moscow Murders and More

On the afternoon of June 6, 2025, during Sean "Diddy" Combs' federal sex trafficking trial, a woman testifying under the pseudonym "Jane" provided detailed and emotional testimony about her experiences with Combs. She described being coerced into prolonged, drug-fueled sexual encounters, referred to as "hotel nights," which often involved male escorts and could last up to three and a half days. Jane testified that Combs supplied her with Ecstasy to endure these sessions and pressured her to continue despite her exhaustion, using phrases like "Let's finish strong." She recounted that Combs directed the activities, instructing her on how to interact with the escorts and herself, and that he would watch and masturbate during these encounters. Jane also detailed the physical toll these events took on her, including chronic back pain and frequent urinary tract infections. She stated that despite expressing her discomfort, Combs dismissed her concerns, and she felt compelled to comply due to her financial dependence on him, as he was paying her rent and providing other support. In addition to the physical and emotional abuse, Jane testified about the psychological manipulation she endured. She shared text messages and personal notes with the jury, revealing her feelings of being used and dismissed by Combs. One note read, "You lie straight to my face...all you want is another hotel night like you've been doing for two years." Jane recounted an instance where she was promised a vacation without any "hotel nights," but upon arrival, she was subjected to another coerced sexual encounter. She described feeling betrayed and manipulated, stating that she would not have gone on the trip had she known what was planned. Jane's testimony also highlighted the ongoing financial control Combs had over her, as she revealed that he continued to pay her rent even after their relationship ended to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source: June 6, 2025 - Day 18 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.

As week four of United States v. Sean "Diddy" Combs draws to a close, the prosecution’s case is rounding into formidable shape. What began as a complex, sprawling narrative of alleged abuse, racketeering, and trafficking is now taking a clearer, more structured form in the eyes of the jury. Prosecutors have strategically built their foundation through a methodical presentation of witnesses and corroborating evidence that collectively paint a damning portrait of Combs as the orchestrator of a sustained criminal enterprise. The testimony of key witnesses—particularly the pseudonymous "Jane" and former employees like Capricorn Clark—has provided the scaffolding for this narrative. Their accounts of abuse, coercion, and acts of retaliation are not being presented in isolation; they are layered with documented communications, financial records, security logs, and even travel manifests that tie directly into the RICO framework. The government has shown that these were not random acts of misconduct but systemic patterns aimed at maintaining control and silencing victims. Moreover, the prosecution has steadily countered one of the defense’s main strategies—painting the accusers as opportunists—by introducing testimony that underscores a climate of fear and witness intimidation allegedly cultivated by Combs and his associates. The addition of expert witness Dr. Dawn Hughes to contextualize victim behavior further buttresses the government’s case against credibility attacks. The prosecution’s meticulous pacing has allowed them to weave together disparate elements—abuse allegations, business fronts allegedly used to facilitate trafficking, and a culture of violence and intimidation—into a coherent and compelling narrative of an enterprise led by Combs. As the trial moves forward, this strong foundational structure gives the government significant momentum, with the groundwork now firmly in place to argue not just for individual acts of wrongdoing, but for the existence of a coordinated and ongoing criminal conspiracy centered around Diddy himself. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In a letter dated June 5, 2025, counsel for "Jane"—a pseudonymous witness in United States v. Sean Combs—formally opposed a request from a group of news organizations seeking to alter the trial schedule to accommodate their desire for pre-redacted exhibits during Jane’s testimony. The news outlets had asked the Court to either delay Jane’s appearance or require the Government to reorder its witnesses, arguing this would allow them time to review and redact sensitive exhibits in advance. Jane’s legal team objected to this request, emphasizing that any such adjustment would cause unnecessary delay and disrupt the carefully planned sequence of the Government’s case. The letter underscored the importance of protecting Jane’s safety and anonymity, which had already been granted by the Court, and argued that forcing a delay or a change in witness order to serve media access interests would place an undue burden on both the witness and the integrity of the trial. Jane’s counsel maintained that the existing procedures—including real-time redaction and controlled access to sensitive materials—were sufficient to balance the media’s rights with the paramount need to shield Jane from further harm or unwanted exposure. The letter urged the Court to reject the news organizations’ request and allow Jane’s testimony to proceed as scheduled. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source: gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.380.0.pdf Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In his charging requests submitted to the court, Sean “Diddy” Combs and his legal team are seeking to shape the jury instructions in a way that narrows the scope of the government’s accusations and emphasizes the burden of proof required for a conviction. Central to the requests is the insistence that jurors be explicitly instructed not to infer guilt based on Diddy's celebrity status, past lifestyle, or media portrayals. The defense wants the judge to highlight that fame and wealth are not indicators of criminality, and that allegations alone—no matter how salacious or repeated—do not amount to evidence. Furthermore, they ask that any references to other alleged “bad acts” not directly charged in the indictment be carefully limited to prevent undue prejudice. The defense is also pushing for jury instructions that stress the presumption of innocence and the government’s obligation to prove each element of every charge beyond a reasonable doubt. They are particularly focused on the RICO charges, asking that the court clarify the complex nature of racketeering law and caution jurors not to convict based merely on association with others accused of wrongdoing. By parsing the instructions this way, Combs’ team is attempting to preemptively insulate him from the cumulative weight of the government’s broader narrative, which alleges years of systemic abuse, coercion, and criminal enterprise. Ultimately, these requests are a tactical maneuver to keep the trial tightly focused on the evidence at hand—and to limit the emotional or cultural weight the prosecution hopes to bring into the courtroom. to contact me: bobbycapucci source: gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.273.0.pdf Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In his charging requests submitted to the court, Sean “Diddy” Combs and his legal team are seeking to shape the jury instructions in a way that narrows the scope of the government’s accusations and emphasizes the burden of proof required for a conviction. Central to the requests is the insistence that jurors be explicitly instructed not to infer guilt based on Diddy's celebrity status, past lifestyle, or media portrayals. The defense wants the judge to highlight that fame and wealth are not indicators of criminality, and that allegations alone—no matter how salacious or repeated—do not amount to evidence. Furthermore, they ask that any references to other alleged “bad acts” not directly charged in the indictment be carefully limited to prevent undue prejudice. The defense is also pushing for jury instructions that stress the presumption of innocence and the government’s obligation to prove each element of every charge beyond a reasonable doubt. They are particularly focused on the RICO charges, asking that the court clarify the complex nature of racketeering law and caution jurors not to convict based merely on association with others accused of wrongdoing. By parsing the instructions this way, Combs’ team is attempting to preemptively insulate him from the cumulative weight of the government’s broader narrative, which alleges years of systemic abuse, coercion, and criminal enterprise. Ultimately, these requests are a tactical maneuver to keep the trial tightly focused on the evidence at hand—and to limit the emotional or cultural weight the prosecution hopes to bring into the courtroom. to contact me: bobbycapucci source: gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.273.0.pdf Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In his charging requests submitted to the court, Sean “Diddy” Combs and his legal team are seeking to shape the jury instructions in a way that narrows the scope of the government’s accusations and emphasizes the burden of proof required for a conviction. Central to the requests is the insistence that jurors be explicitly instructed not to infer guilt based on Diddy's celebrity status, past lifestyle, or media portrayals. The defense wants the judge to highlight that fame and wealth are not indicators of criminality, and that allegations alone—no matter how salacious or repeated—do not amount to evidence. Furthermore, they ask that any references to other alleged “bad acts” not directly charged in the indictment be carefully limited to prevent undue prejudice. The defense is also pushing for jury instructions that stress the presumption of innocence and the government’s obligation to prove each element of every charge beyond a reasonable doubt. They are particularly focused on the RICO charges, asking that the court clarify the complex nature of racketeering law and caution jurors not to convict based merely on association with others accused of wrongdoing. By parsing the instructions this way, Combs’ team is attempting to preemptively insulate him from the cumulative weight of the government’s broader narrative, which alleges years of systemic abuse, coercion, and criminal enterprise. Ultimately, these requests are a tactical maneuver to keep the trial tightly focused on the evidence at hand—and to limit the emotional or cultural weight the prosecution hopes to bring into the courtroom. to contact me: bobbycapucci source: gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.273.0.pdf Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

​On April 24, 2025, Judge Steven Hippler issued a ruling on the admissibility of key evidence in the trial of Bryan Kohberger, who is accused of the November 2022 murders of four University of Idaho students. The judge determined that the majority of the 911 call made by one of the surviving roommates could be presented to the jury, as it falls under exceptions to the hearsay rule, such as present sense impression and excited utterance. However, certain portions of the call, including statements made by an unidentified woman relaying secondhand information, were deemed inadmissible due to lack of firsthand knowledge and contemporaneity. Additionally, the judge allowed the use of a transcript of the 911 call as a demonstrative aid during the trial, provided it is properly authenticated and accompanied by appropriate jury instructions. ​ Regarding text messages exchanged between the two surviving roommates, D.M. and B.F., the court found that many of these messages are admissible under the same hearsay exceptions. These texts, sent in the early hours of November 13, 2022, include descriptions of a masked intruder and expressions of fear and confusion, which the court considered to be spontaneous reactions to a startling event. The judge emphasized that the admissibility of these messages is contingent upon the prosecution establishing the necessary foundation at trial. The defense had objected to the inclusion of these messages, arguing that they lacked context and could be misleading; however, the court concluded that, when properly contextualized, they are relevant and admissible. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source: Idaho judge deals more defeats to Bryan Kohberger’s defense | Idaho Statesman Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In Case Number CR01-24-31665, defendant Bryan C. Kohberger has filed a reply to the State's response regarding his motion to strike the death penalty due to his diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). The defense asserts that Kohberger's ASD results in significant impairments in communication, reasoning, social skills, and understanding others' reactions—factors that, according to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Atkins v. Virginia, diminish moral culpability and render the death penalty unconstitutional for individuals with such disabilities. They emphasize that these deficits have been present since early childhood and persist into adulthood, affecting Kohberger's adaptive functioning despite his high intelligence quotient (IQ). The defense references the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), noting that individuals with ASD may exhibit a substantial gap between intellectual abilities and adaptive functioning, leading to challenges in daily living, self-care, socialization, and communication. ​ to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source: Ty A Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The journey through the court documents continues in this episode as we take a look at the Yik Yak warrant. (commercial at 8:26) to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source: 030723+Order+to+Seal++Redact+-+Yik+Yak+Inc.pdf (amazonaws.com) Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The Moscow Police department was under heavy criticism and pressure to solve these murders and at the start of the investigation, they shot themselves in the foot with poor communication that ended up seeing them walk back previous comments. However, the actual police work behind the scenes was exceptional. In this episode, we take a look at the work behind the scenes by the investigators using the newly released documents as a guide. (commercial at 12:25) to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source: Idaho search warrants show Moscow homicides police work before Bryan Kohberger’s arrest (yahoo.com) Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

​In Case Number CR01-24-31665, defendant Bryan C. Kohberger has filed a reply to the State's response concerning his Motion in Limine #7, which seeks to exclude testimony related to a witness's identification of the intruder based on "bushy eyebrows." The defense argues that such testimony is highly subjective and could lead to wrongful convictions, emphasizing that mistaken identifications have historically been a leading cause of such outcomes in the United States. They contend that allowing the witness, referred to as D.M., to describe the intruder's "bushy eyebrows" would be tantamount to an in-court identification of Kohberger, which they believe is inappropriate given the circumstances. Furthermore, the defense highlights that D.M. has a personal interest in drawing eyes and eyebrows, suggesting that her focus on this feature may not be a reliable basis for identification. They also point out that D.M. was interviewed multiple times by law enforcement, and her descriptions evolved over these interviews, raising concerns about the consistency and reliability of her testimony. The defense asserts that admitting such subjective identification could unfairly prejudice the jury and undermine Kohberger's right to a fair trial. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source: Ty A Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

On the morning of June 6, 2025, during Sean "Diddy" Combs' federal sex trafficking and racketeering trial, a woman identified as "Jane" resumed her testimony, providing harrowing details about their relationship. She described being coerced into participating in prolonged, drug-fueled sexual encounters, often referred to as "freak-offs" or "hotel nights," which involved male escorts and were orchestrated by Combs. Jane recounted instances where she was pressured to engage in unprotected sex, despite her objections, and felt compelled to comply due to her financial dependence on Combs, who paid her rent and provided substantial cash payments. Jane's emotional testimony included accounts of feeling disgusted with herself and expressing a desire to end these encounters, only to be met with dismissive responses from Combs. She read aloud text messages from 2023 in which she conveyed her distress, stating that the sexual encounters made her feel like they were "the only reason you have me around and pay for the house." Combs' response was reportedly, "Girl, stop." Her testimony aligns with earlier statements from other witnesses, including singer Cassie Ventura, who have accused Combs of similar patterns of abuse and coercion. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source: (2) Live updates: Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs trial continues with investigation into Cassie Ventura relationship | CNN Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

It is an uphill battle for "Jane" to maintain her anonymity in the Sean "Diddy" Combs trial due to the extraordinary public interest and media scrutiny surrounding the case. The combination of Combs’ celebrity status, the severity of the charges—racketeering, sex trafficking, and related offenses—and the cultural weight of the #MeToo movement has turned this trial into a national spectacle. Every courtroom development is being live-blogged, dissected on social media, and aggressively pursued by entertainment outlets, making it difficult for any witness to avoid public exposure. Additionally, "Jane" has provided some of the most graphic and emotionally charged testimony thus far, implicating Combs in deeply disturbing acts that drive the government’s core narrative of coercion and abuse. Her role is so central that her testimony is likely to be the subject of intense post-trial analysis and media pursuit, increasing the risk of her identity leaking through unofficial channels even if the court maintains a protective order. Moreover, federal courtrooms, unlike many state courts, do not allow video recording or live broadcasting, which does offer some protection. However, this is counterbalanced by the aggressive reporting of major outlets and the presence of numerous journalists in the courtroom, all eager to unearth every detail about the key witnesses. The very nature of "Jane’s" testimony—recounting intimate and traumatic experiences—has already made her a figure of intense curiosity. Compounding this, her prior relationship with Combs, her visibility in the New York nightlife scene, and mentions of specific events and dates in testimony create a breadcrumb trail that determined parties, whether members of the press or online sleuths, could follow to uncover her real identity. In such a high-profile case, history shows that anonymity is difficult to preserve once public and media obsession reaches a certain pitch. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source: Who is Jane? Diddy trial's anonymous witness testifies Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

On the afternoon of June 5, 2025, during Sean "Diddy" Combs' federal sex trafficking trial in Manhattan, a woman testifying under the pseudonym "Jane" recounted harrowing experiences from their relationship, which began in late 2020. She described being coerced into participating in prolonged, drug-fueled sexual encounters, termed "hotel nights" or "freak-offs," often involving male escorts and excessive use of baby oil—sometimes up to two dozen bottles in a single session. These events, she testified, were orchestrated by Combs, who would direct the activities while observing and masturbating. Jane detailed how she was expected to wear specific attire, such as provocative lingerie and high heels, and adhere to Combs' preferences regarding her appearance, including hair and nail styles. Despite expressing her discomfort and repeatedly telling Combs that she did not want to engage in sex with other men, she felt compelled to comply due to his financial control over her, including paying her rent and providing substantial cash payments. Jane's testimony aligns with earlier accounts from other witnesses, including singer Cassie Ventura and former assistant "Mia," who have accused Combs of similar patterns of abuse and coercion. During her emotional testimony, Jane spoke softly, often avoiding eye contact with Combs, who was present in the courtroom. The proceedings were marked by heightened tension, especially after Judge Arun Subramanian admonished Combs for attempting to interact with the jury through nods and facial expressions, warning that any further misconduct could result in his removal from the courtroom. The trial, now in its fourth week, continues to delve into allegations that Combs used his influence and resources to exploit women over a span of two decades to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source: June 5, 2025 - Day 17 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 a filing to Judge Subramanian in United States v. Combs, S3 24 Cr. 542 (AS), the Government requests permission to admit limited additional testimony from expert witness Dr. Dawn Hughes. This request comes in response to what prosecutors describe as "forceful and repeated" arguments made by the defense during their cross-examination of the witness known as Mia. The defense, the Government argues, presented misleading implications about Mia’s behavior and credibility—specifically regarding how victims of abuse are expected to act. Prosecutors contend that this line of questioning has "opened the door" for rebuttal testimony addressing misconceptions about trauma responses. The Government seeks to have Dr. Hughes offer expert insight drawn from her original notice, focused solely on clarifying how victims of abuse often exhibit behaviors that may seem counterintuitive to jurors unfamiliar with trauma psychology—such as delayed reporting, continued contact with abusers, or minimized disclosure. This testimony, they assert, is necessary to correct the jury’s potential misinterpretation created by the defense's narrative. The request is framed as narrow in scope and designed not to go beyond the boundaries previously set by the Court, but rather to preserve the integrity of the witness's testimony in light of the defense’s strategy. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source: gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.376.0_1.pdf Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In a filing to Judge Subramanian in United States v. Combs, S3 24 Cr. 542 (AS), the Government requests permission to admit limited additional testimony from expert witness Dr. Dawn Hughes. This request comes in response to what prosecutors describe as "forceful and repeated" arguments made by the defense during their cross-examination of the witness known as Mia. The defense, the Government argues, presented misleading implications about Mia’s behavior and credibility—specifically regarding how victims of abuse are expected to act. Prosecutors contend that this line of questioning has "opened the door" for rebuttal testimony addressing misconceptions about trauma responses. The Government seeks to have Dr. Hughes offer expert insight drawn from her original notice, focused solely on clarifying how victims of abuse often exhibit behaviors that may seem counterintuitive to jurors unfamiliar with trauma psychology—such as delayed reporting, continued contact with abusers, or minimized disclosure. This testimony, they assert, is necessary to correct the jury’s potential misinterpretation created by the defense's narrative. The request is framed as narrow in scope and designed not to go beyond the boundaries previously set by the Court, but rather to preserve the integrity of the witness's testimony in light of the defense’s strategy. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source: gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.376.0_1.pdf Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In this filing, the government submits its proposed jury instructions, also known as “requests to charge,” ahead of Sean Combs’ upcoming trial. These instructions lay out how the jury should interpret the law as it applies to the charges in the Third Superseding Indictment, including conspiracy, racketeering (RICO), drug trafficking, sex trafficking, and related offenses. The government requests standard instructions on presumption of innocence, burden of proof, credibility of witnesses (including cooperating witnesses and law enforcement), and the meaning of reasonable doubt. Critically, it also asks the court to include specific legal definitions tied to each alleged crime—for example, the elements of a RICO enterprise and the requirements for proving participation in a drug distribution conspiracy. Furthermore, the government includes instructions regarding the consideration of co-conspirator statements, evidence of prior bad acts, and accomplice testimony, reflecting the sensitive and complex nature of the allegations against Combs. The proposed charges emphasize that the jury must evaluate the case based solely on the evidence presented, without speculation or bias, and that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. These instructions, if accepted by the judge, will guide the jury through the legal standards necessary to determine whether Combs is guilty on any or all of the multiple felony counts he faces. The submission underscores the government's intent to secure clear, legally sound guidance for the jury in what is expected to be a high-profile and multifaceted trial. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source: gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.275.0.pdf Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In this filing, the government submits its proposed jury instructions, also known as “requests to charge,” ahead of Sean Combs’ upcoming trial. These instructions lay out how the jury should interpret the law as it applies to the charges in the Third Superseding Indictment, including conspiracy, racketeering (RICO), drug trafficking, sex trafficking, and related offenses. The government requests standard instructions on presumption of innocence, burden of proof, credibility of witnesses (including cooperating witnesses and law enforcement), and the meaning of reasonable doubt. Critically, it also asks the court to include specific legal definitions tied to each alleged crime—for example, the elements of a RICO enterprise and the requirements for proving participation in a drug distribution conspiracy. Furthermore, the government includes instructions regarding the consideration of co-conspirator statements, evidence of prior bad acts, and accomplice testimony, reflecting the sensitive and complex nature of the allegations against Combs. The proposed charges emphasize that the jury must evaluate the case based solely on the evidence presented, without speculation or bias, and that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. These instructions, if accepted by the judge, will guide the jury through the legal standards necessary to determine whether Combs is guilty on any or all of the multiple felony counts he faces. The submission underscores the government's intent to secure clear, legally sound guidance for the jury in what is expected to be a high-profile and multifaceted trial. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source: gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.275.0.pdf Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

​Bryan Kohberger, charged with the 2022 murders of four University of Idaho students, has filed a motion titled "Strike Death Penalty RE: Autism Spectrum Disorder" in an effort to remove the death penalty as a sentencing option if convicted. The details of this motion remain sealed, leaving it unclear whether Kohberger has been formally diagnosed with autism or if his defense team is pursuing such a diagnosis. This strategy represents the latest attempt by Kohberger's defense to challenge the application of the death penalty in his case. Previously, his attorneys have argued that Idaho's methods of execution, such as lethal injection and firing squad, constitute cruel and unusual punishment, and that evolving standards in the U.S. reflect a shift away from capital punishment. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source: 022425-Defense-Motion-inLimine-13-RE-Conditions-Aggravator.pdf Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

​In his affidavit, defense expert Sy Ray challenges the State's motion regarding AT&T Timing Advance records in the case against Bryan Kohberger. Ray asserts that AT&T's Timing Advance data, which can accurately determine a mobile device's location, was available and utilized by law enforcement during their 2022 investigation. He provides evidence that the FBI obtained such data from AT&T for over 3,800 devices, excluding Kohberger's, and contends that the prosecution's claim—that AT&T did not produce Timing Advance records in 2022—is misleading. Ray suggests that the absence of Kohberger's Timing Advance data is either a significant deviation from standard investigative procedures or indicative of intentional withholding of exculpatory evidence. He concludes that the prosecution's motion misrepresents the facts and aims to conceal potentially exonerating information. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source: 032625+Defendants+Notice+of+Filing+Affidavit+iso+Obj+to+the+States+MIL+RE+ATT+Timing+Advance+Records.pdf Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.