November 21, 2025 • 50 mins
Why is this case unsolved? Why did they put so much stock in a false suspect? Epstein seems to be a good starting point for the sick and deranged that we consider the upper echelon of society. Names of royalty, celebrities, politicians, mob attorneys, and so much more. Is this the type of filth that John Ramsey was in business with? People that can make you “go away” to protect their livelihood. Or, is this just another cult?
Hit the Road Jack: Finding the Zodiac is broadcast live Fridays at 10AM PT on K4HD Radio - Hollywood Talk Radio (www.k4hd.com) part of Talk 4 Radio (www.talk4radio.com) on the Talk 4 Media Network (www.talk4media.com). Hit the Road Jack: Finding the Zodiac TV Show is viewed on Talk 4 TV (www.talk4tv.com).
Hit the Road Jack: Finding the Zodiac Podcast is also available on Talk 4 Media (www.talk4media.com), Talk 4 Podcasting (www.talk4podcasting.com), iHeartRadio, Amazon Music, Pandora, Spotify, Audible, and over 100 other podcast outlets.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/hit-the-road-jack-finding-the-zodiac--5297837/support.
Hit the Road Jack: Finding the Zodiac is broadcast live Fridays at 10AM PT on K4HD Radio - Hollywood Talk Radio (www.k4hd.com) part of Talk 4 Radio (www.talk4radio.com) on the Talk 4 Media Network (www.talk4media.com). Hit the Road Jack: Finding the Zodiac TV Show is viewed on Talk 4 TV (www.talk4tv.com).
Hit the Road Jack: Finding the Zodiac Podcast is also available on Talk 4 Media (www.talk4media.com), Talk 4 Podcasting (www.talk4podcasting.com), iHeartRadio, Amazon Music, Pandora, Spotify, Audible, and over 100 other podcast outlets.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/hit-the-road-jack-finding-the-zodiac--5297837/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
This program is designed to provide general information with regards
to the subject matters covered. This information is given with
the understanding that neither the hosts, guests, sponsors, or station
are engaged in rendering any specific and personal medical, financial,
legal counseling, professional service, or any advice.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
You should seek the services.
Speaker 1 (00:23):
Of competent professionals before applying or trying any suggested ideas.
Speaker 3 (00:52):
Good morning, truth seekers and true crime junkies. Welcome back
to another episode of Hit the Roadjack Finding the Zodiac.
I'd like to welcome Nolan del Campo to the show
this morning.
Speaker 2 (01:02):
Good morning everybody, Good.
Speaker 3 (01:04):
Morning, and thank you for always being here. I definitely
appreciate you.
Speaker 2 (01:08):
I try circumstances control sometimes.
Speaker 3 (01:13):
Ah that's life, right, It's a fallacy that we control anything.
I have a few things I just want to cover
for some laundry and research this week, which I thought
was interesting. But I did bring back up that uh
confession letter that was missing from Peter Wilson's file, which
(01:36):
has still got me a little bit on fire. But
you mentioned something that I didn't think about last week
because I had covered the letter without you. So I
just wanted to bring it back up because it's a
very good point that you made. We'll go ahead and
throw up on the screen this confession letter. Now, this
is the Palo Alto Police Department, and I believe the
(01:56):
name of this officer is Jay Verna, and he had
taken confession from William Coleman the morning after. And this
confession says original contact to subject William Coleman. And this
is on three p thirty one ninety six. It says,
during original contact to subject William Coleman for collecting evidence
(02:18):
for nine to one one call from residence in Palo Alto,
Subject William Coleman told me he had sex with victim
Kim on the night of the murder. On three point
thirty ninety six. Yeah, now we see that he's placed
it in evidence. And here's Jay Vernas sign off and
I'm assuming his officer number. Now we have this entry
(02:41):
down here at the bottom, which I was just tasked
with identifying that handwriting, and we do recognize that to
be my officer, Michael Yore, which is the arresting officer
who planted the blood evidence. I don't know if you
were with us when I talked about that blood evidence,
but I did review a report from a medical examiner
who stated that there was only two drop of mister
(03:02):
Wilson's blood found it the scene, two two drops.
Speaker 2 (03:09):
And that that's what he had injured his hand accidental
the cab right, this was.
Speaker 3 (03:16):
This was but this was planted blood. So you got
to remember when, yeah, he was in the hospital, basically
when William Coleman is having sex, having sex. I'm sure
that he threw that out there because they were going
to find his biological evidence, so he wanted to cover
it and make it look like it was consensual to
begin with. But William Coleman was in the hospital or
(03:37):
Peter Wilson was in the hospital having his pinky. He
had broken a finger and had a fingernail torn off
on his pinky, and he was had and that happened
in the cab ride in San Francisco when he was
exiting the cab at coltrans Uh, the cab driver accidentally
slammed his hand in the door. So everybody recognizes this
injury to be a brand new one that happened two
(03:58):
hours after the time that reportedly the DA claimed that
hawkduw Kim was killed and he was in the hospital
having this addressed and was there at the hospital until
ten pm at night. William Coleman doesn't get off work
and get home until approximately eight eight thirty, and that's
when he's stating that he's had this sex with hawkdew
Kim before she ends up murdered and found by mister
(04:22):
Wilson at three am, three fifty eight am whatever. That
is the bigger question which you brought to mind, which
was even though we know that Officer Yore had four
hundred thousand dollars worth of motive in order to, you know,
basically get Peter Wilson convicted, so he could never contest
this lost money or anything else that was missing at
(04:42):
the time. But you mentioned that Vernon would have had
to have known about this particular situation, right, I mean
he would.
Speaker 2 (04:52):
Think, so, yeah, he's signed off. I mean, otherwise you
could make him.
Speaker 3 (04:56):
Look that right well, and it gets removed from Michael
Yo or not from Jay Verna. But even even if
you know you're had done this behind his back, you've
got to think that they have cock talk, right, they're
talking shop about what's going on, what cases are being convicted,
and and he knows and I don't know if he
knows all the evidence involved with the case. But it
(05:17):
seems very suspicious that he would stand up and say
something about this testimony.
Speaker 2 (05:24):
So that never came out at trial.
Speaker 3 (05:27):
It was Nope, it was removed from the file, so
page nine, and just.
Speaker 2 (05:30):
The fact that he had made the statement to begin with, yeah,
it was removed so he so nobody.
Speaker 3 (05:36):
Asked him about that then he I guess in the
original trial he had been discussing or had been testifying
to the fact that he had been having relations on
some type of a basis with Hawk Jew Kim and
he would go down into the basement to have sex
with her.
Speaker 2 (05:51):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (05:52):
Again, that sounds to me like a leading statement that
is going to lead you to believe that he's I
just don't see why she would end dad after one
of these sexual accounters, him being the only one that
suspicion of him absconding and leaving the country, you know,
cutting off his bracelet, his ankle bracelet and leaving the
country if he wasn't in fact guilty for this murder.
Speaker 2 (06:14):
And conveniently he said it was a pattern, it wasn't
just one time, one little flame. That that way makes
it look like, oh, it's not out as ordinary for
it to.
Speaker 3 (06:24):
Happen that night exactly.
Speaker 2 (06:26):
You don't know that lying through his butt.
Speaker 3 (06:30):
Well, he probably raped her and killed her in the process,
knowing that he was going to find himself in a
whole lot of trouble. It would be my guest.
Speaker 2 (06:37):
He was able to blame his roommate.
Speaker 3 (06:40):
Well, I mean, I can't imagine that mister Wilson had
never walked in on one of these events, you know,
if they were actively on a constant basis having sex
and meeting up in the basement. He Wilson claimed that
she never went down into basement, that it was basically just.
Speaker 2 (06:55):
Nothing about this. So yeah, I don't believe. Well, I
believe the statement that he had sex with her that night,
but ongoing.
Speaker 3 (07:04):
Thing, Yeah, dead or alive?
Speaker 4 (07:05):
Did he? Yeah?
Speaker 3 (07:10):
Pulld the pants down. There's a leaf on her buttox
underneath their underwear and underneath her pants that's found by
the corner once they remove her clothes, which means that
she was on that floor butt naked and then redressed
at least halfway at that point. Either way, I do
believe in I think that it's very you know, poignant
to point out to everybody that this other officer took
(07:30):
this particular confession which confirms that Peter Wilson could not
have killed her because she was alive at the time.
He was in the hospital having his hand addressed from
the cab accident. So onward and upward, we're going to
do something about that. I just don't know what, all right. So,
since we've been talking so much about the Epstein stuff,
we just saw that the House boats for four and
(07:52):
twenty seven to one to release the Epstein files, sending
the bills to the Senate. It's his representative, Clay Higgins,
a Republican from Louisiana, was the only member to vote
against the measure, which I thought that was interesting, but
I do kind of understand his philosophy. It says overcoming
months of opposition from President Trump and his Republican allies. Now,
of course I'm sure that this is you know, media
(08:15):
is weaponized this statement to make it look bad on Trump.
But as we get into the article, they kind of
flip the script really quick. So if you only read
the first couple lines of this, of course you're hating
Trump for not doing something he says he was going
to do. Right, It says the US House representatives on
Tuesday overwhelmingly voted to pass a bill to compel the
(08:36):
Justice Department to release all of its files related to
the investigation of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The vote
was four twenty seven to one, with Representative Clay Higgins,
a Republican from Louisiana, being the only member to vote
against the legislation, known as the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
It needed two thirds of the House to pass, and
that's an overwhelming pass at four twenty seven one. Higgins
(09:01):
displayed explained his no vote in a lengthy post on X.
He says, I've been a principled no on this bill
from the beginning. Higgins wrote on X. What's wrong with
the bill three months ago is still wrong today. It
abandons two hundred and fifty years a criminal justice procedure
in America. As written, this bill reveals and injures thousands
(09:22):
of innocent people, witnesses, people who provided alibis, family members, etc.
If it acted in its current form, this type of
broad reveal of criminal investigative files released to a rabid
media will absolutely result in innocent people being hurt. Not
by my vote, he says, So let's talk about that.
I do believe that it can possibly hurt people. Epsteina
(09:46):
is dead, right, So what's there really to hide or conceal.
If they're concerned about people who's given alibis to others,
then what's the concern there. They're going to be injured
because it's going to be found out that they lied
and they an investigation exactly, So I'm not really good.
(10:06):
I get it witnesses and family members of course, because
it's great, but they have the right to redact these names.
They have the right to redact the individuals that they
want to keep private.
Speaker 2 (10:18):
Victims and family members the victims. I think one to
oh too, I think they do afraid of them being horrid.
I think it's unfounded.
Speaker 3 (10:29):
Exactly. Let's see refuse. And the other thing is is that,
you know, when they talk about the two hundred and
fifty years of criminal justice procedure in America, we have
so many crimes that have gone unsolved that family members
have to actively fight in the court system to get
FOYA files released in order to you know, follow up
(10:49):
any type of leads or investigation that occurred in the case.
Speaker 2 (10:55):
Of criminal injustice.
Speaker 3 (10:58):
Well, we're going to get to that bring you get
to that the bipartisan measure introduced in July by Democratic Rep.
Rocanna of California and co sponsored by Republican Rep. Thomas
Massey of Kentucky. Now this is interesting because they claimed
that that Trump and the Republicans were the ones that
were not wanting it right, But this bipartisan measure was
(11:19):
actually introduced by two little says, by Democratic Rep. Wrote
Conna of California and co sponsored by Republican Rep. Thomas
Massey of Kentucky. So not all Republicans obviously were on
board with we're going to hide these things.
Speaker 2 (11:36):
What happened that Trump just backed away from his opposition
to it because he thought it was hurting him politically,
so he said, well, go ahead, And well, when the
majority of the Republicans said okay, let's.
Speaker 3 (11:50):
Go forward, Lindsey says, she's here if one can let
her in. And you know the other part of that
is is that just like Trump was instructed not to
release the JFK files in his first round, I find
it probable that he was also instructed not to release
these files as well because it's going to hinder harm
(12:11):
or her injured. Ah, them the people that are involved,
not necessarily Trump individually, but he clearly is just that puppet.
It only allowed to release what people are allowing him
to release. So don't get mad at him for something
that he can't get past or done when there's so
much opposition coming secretly. Obviously he's not going to come
(12:32):
back and tell us who said don't release it. We're
never going to use those I.
Speaker 2 (12:36):
Think a lot of information has already been destroyed too. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (12:40):
Yeah, So it goes on to say would require the
boj to publish in a searchable and downloadable format all
unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials related to Epstein
within thirty days. Some of Epstein's survivors watched Tuesday's vote
from the House gallery. The bill's passage drew cheers from
the chamber. Trump, who for months that oppose the release
(13:01):
of the files, reversed course on Sunday, urging House Republicans
to vote for their disclosure because we have nothing to hide.
Speaker 2 (13:08):
So, but notice is non classified, so they're not going
to release everything. They're going to categorize lots they're just classified.
Speaker 5 (13:17):
A lot of people are saying that as they're looking
through them.
Speaker 4 (13:20):
The emails or the documents, like the thousands of documents
that they are finding things. It's just sifting through them.
It's just going to take time to sit through them.
Speaker 2 (13:29):
So yeah, well, I'm sure there's there's some some juicy
stuff in there.
Speaker 5 (13:35):
There is, but it's not.
Speaker 3 (13:40):
Going to know everything right, And I don't know we'll.
Speaker 2 (13:44):
Get that smoking gun. But they're interesting things that are revealed.
Speaker 3 (13:49):
Well, and that, yeah, and that, and that's going to
lead me right on into Gazelle Maxwell because of course
I found some interesting things online about that too. What's next?
It says the legislation now had to the Senate, which
must pass it before to scent a Trump to sign.
I didn't get.
Speaker 2 (14:05):
She doesn't want to get killed by Epstein.
Speaker 3 (14:08):
Who's that? Oh? Well, I think she's being protected. I mean,
my honest thoughts is that she's just part of that mob.
She may even be a MK ultra socialite, because she
is a socialite, and we do see that in these
documentaries that they're talking about her, almost as if she
was programmed to be this way through her father, through
(14:28):
his dealings, through the people they dealt with, and she
was a super sexually active person who was trying to
always get people to have sex. It wasn't just about
providing the need for Epstein. Some of the things she
did is absolutely crazy. If I was at a party
as a guest and she had presented some of these
options to me, I would have been absolutely floored and
(14:48):
blown away. Yeah I will.
Speaker 4 (14:50):
And as that's an indicator of being exposed to it
as a child, so she thinks it's like okay, and
automatically like an instinct to do it to others whenever
they're older.
Speaker 3 (15:03):
She found that she was getting the attention that she
wanted when she introduced those type of things, for sure.
And yes, you can be programmed, Yes you can be
brought up in a certain way, and I'm sure that
she might be able to rely on that. But that
doesn't mean you don't know the difference between right and wrong. No,
it doesn't, you know. I mean, otherwise it wouldn't be secret.
Right Otherwise, if you felt you were fine and that
(15:24):
what you were doing was not wrong because of the
way you were raised, then you just speak your truth.
I remember when I was selling candles and I had
become a leader, and we went to a leader's retreat,
and of course now I'm sitting around all the big wigs,
the ones that are way high up, and I'm at
a table enjoying dinner with them, and I say, my
leader taught me to do this, and they went, oh,
(15:46):
that's illegal, you can't do that, that's not right. I
was like, oh my god, I do not know I
was taught to do that. But I also wasn't ashamed
in hiding it, right, I knew no better. So I said,
this is what I do to make a goal or
to achieve something. And I was explained to how that
was incorrect, the wrong way, And of course the shame
(16:09):
and the embarrassment that I felt at that point in
time was kind of horrendous. But I learned that, oh,
we just don't operate that way, okay, So I needed
to change my gears. So you from it, Yeah, yeah,
you learn and you change, you know, continue to do it.
But when you're dealing with children, there's just that there's
a that's on line that everybody grew up with. You know,
you don't touch children, you don't abuse children, you don't
(16:31):
provide children to your significant other because you can't keep
up with the sexual needs like this is just insane.
Speaker 4 (16:38):
So of course It's like the same thing you would
do with like drugs or alcohol, like you don't you
don't put that in their in their reach, like right,
in the.
Speaker 5 (16:49):
Same concept.
Speaker 2 (16:50):
Amazing how how many rich and powerful people he had
contacts with. I think a lot of these people just
felt they're above the law. Basically, yeah they did, yea.
Speaker 3 (17:00):
And of course this list came out, which I started
going down the list, and I was like, Wow, all
these red stars that you're seeing next to names are
all definite Democrats, right, But I couldn't find not even
one Republican on this list. And as I'm having this
discussion with my girlfriend who's been my dentist for thirty years,
we go back and forth between the heinous acts of
(17:21):
politicians and the upper echelon of society, and I mentioned
to her, I don't even see Republican names on here.
I'll share. I'll share this list with you. Adam Perry,
Lang Acon, al Gore, Alan Dershowitz, Albert Pinto, Alec Baldwin,
Alan Badera, Liam Alison mac Alyssa Rodgers, Anderson Cooper, Andrea Mitrovich,
(17:47):
Andres Pastrana, Angelina Joe Lee, Anthony Kitis, Anthony Wiener, Wiener,
Winer whatever, Barack Obama, Ben Affleck, Bernie Sanders, Beyonce, Knowles,
Bill Clinton, Sagat, Bruce Willis. I think that's supposed to
be Casey Wasserman, Callum Hudson, o'doy or o'dole. I'm not sure.
(18:09):
Karen Casey, Celine Dion, Charles Barkley, Charlie Sheen, Charlie's Thearren,
Chelsea hands Cher, Chris Tucker, Chris Wagner, Chrissy Tigan, Cindy Lopez,
Claire Hazel, Courtney Cox, Courtney Love, Demi Moore, Dan Schneider,
David Coach, David Spade, David your Your Ovesky, Dolores Zoragwetta, Donovan, Mitchell,
(18:36):
Doug Band, Drew Barrymore, Ed Buck, Ed Tuttle.
Speaker 5 (18:39):
Wow, that's a new one.
Speaker 4 (18:41):
W want youre Drew Barrymore is Megan's cousin, Megan Walsh's.
Speaker 3 (18:46):
Cousin really really well?
Speaker 4 (18:50):
I have to share a picture of them as a
kid on the on the Show with You next time.
Speaker 2 (18:55):
Wow. Yeah, where did this log come from?
Speaker 3 (18:58):
It was posted somewhere on Actually I think that it
came up in a feed on Facebook and somebody had
posted this.
Speaker 2 (19:06):
I think you would go out of your way to
name to avoid naming prominent Republicans.
Speaker 3 (19:12):
Well, and as I did some research, of course, I
saw that when Trump's purportedly agreed and said Republicans must
release this, he also went in and told them to
remove any Republicans from any list or mention or names
or anything else. So as I was doing my recent
and I thought it was odd. It's like I told Monica,
(19:34):
I was like, these are all at least all the
red stars are definite. I'm wondering if I go back,
and I could guess that several more on here, like
Anderson Cooper and Ellen DeGeneres and some of these other
individuals that are on here, likely Democrats too because of
their lifestyles, right, they believe in same sex marriage, which
Republicans try to fight. So there are some that you
could probably just assume are Democrats, And the lack of
(19:58):
Republicans is what astonished me, and that's why I shot
it over to her. But if Trump did in fact
say it's fine to release them, but remove any mention
of Republicans, then that's why this type of a list
that's just really bashing on Democrats is coming out instead
of one that's full. And this list, i'm sure is
nothing in comparison to the actual names on it, especially
if you're talking nineteen ninety six to what he got
(20:20):
busted finally twenty fifteen, twenty sixteen, somewhere around there. Well,
twenty nineteen is when he went to jail for it,
when they started seriously looking at him.
Speaker 2 (20:32):
A lot of these people on this list are really
pro women's rights too, and then very anti like liberals.
They're not down with child's trafficking, sex trafficking like woope Goldberg,
come on right open children. Yeah, So I don't this
(20:54):
this list is questionable.
Speaker 4 (20:57):
No, And that's what I was saying from a newspaper.
Speaker 3 (21:00):
Well, and it's just people that associated with him and
went to the island or had flown on his plane. Right,
it's not necessarily indicating that these individuals were involved, but.
Speaker 2 (21:10):
Had association with them. We don't know, right, right, some
of them did, we know, you know, several of the
people on here we know did.
Speaker 3 (21:18):
But there, That's what I'm saying that Ultimately, this is
what the media is doing though to us to enforce
this hatred between groups of politicians. We're going to put
out a list, and I'm sure that somewhere floating around
(21:39):
on one of my DEM's friends page is a list
of all Republicans like I get this stuff because I
tend to be, you know, mad at those in power
in a democratic stage. And we're going to talk about
why you're in just a second. So the partial release
after Epstein's death on August tenth, oh, I forgot. I
(21:59):
want to read the other piece that came with us.
So this was a posting. This list was a posting
off of this mean that says Bush opened the case
against Epstein in two thousand and five, Obama buried it
in two thousand and nine, Trump reopened it in twenty nineteen.
Biden had the ebsoen list his entire presidency. Get your
facts straight. So everybody wants to bash Trump for not
(22:21):
having released this stuff yet when Biden was in possession
of all of this for the four years of his presidency.
So Epstein's death, New York Judge lorett O Presco ordered
the unsealing of documents from a defamation case against Gazell
Maxwell in twenty fifteen. Anyone who had their name contained
in these documents had until January first, twenty twenty four
(22:41):
to appeal to have their name removed, after which date
the documents would be unsealed. The court documents, unsealed in
January twenty twenty four, contained little information that had not
already been known public knowledge. Individuals mentioned in the release
court documents included Prince Andrew, former US President Bill Clinton,
Donald Trump to Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, lawyer Alan Dershowitz,
(23:05):
singer Michael Jackson, and physicist Stephen Hawking. Most were mentioned
in passing and not accused of any wrongdoing. Model scout
Jean Luke Brunell, accused of sexual abuse by one of
Epstein's victims, had died by suicide in twenty twenty two
in Paris, France, while under investigation for the rape in
sex trafficking of minors. So does anybody know who this?
(23:27):
Oh it's a model scout that's even scarier, like her
job is too fine.
Speaker 4 (23:32):
Oh yeah, there's a whole thing about the model thing
with that dealing with Epstein.
Speaker 3 (23:38):
Oh, I'm sure, well, with.
Speaker 4 (23:41):
France and all, that's how he would get them. He
would get a bunch of them from there.
Speaker 3 (23:46):
And so the suicide. It's funny that we've got Epstein
committing suicide. We've got model scout Jean Brunell committing suicide.
Are they suicided? Is more my question?
Speaker 4 (23:58):
Well, you look up how many under Clinton in associates
with Clinton, how many of those have been suicide?
Speaker 5 (24:07):
Suicide?
Speaker 3 (24:07):
Oh yeah, like something like one hundred and four. People
have reportedly saying it's it's a ridiculous number. There's no
way I know of one person I think in my
life has committed suicide. And it was many, many, many,
many moons ago. Now that is not something one hundred
and four people around you come on. So on July
(24:29):
twenty fifth, when a CNN reporter asked Trump whether he
planned a pardon Maxwell, he answered noncommittally, I'm allowed to
do it, but it's something I haven't thought about. On
August first, the Bureau of Prisons confirmed that, following the interview,
Max Bowell was transferred. So following this question to Trump,
she's been transferred to federal prison Camp Brian and Brian, Texas,
a minimum security facility with dormitory style housing, generally considered
(24:52):
less unpleasant than other federal prisons. The White House, what's that?
Speaker 2 (24:58):
Love? Fed?
Speaker 3 (24:59):
Love? Ed? The White House, reporters that Maxwell had received
no preferential treatment and suggested that her move was routine okay,
counter arguing that the move was unusual, Senator Jack Read
on August eight asked the Director of Bureau of Prisons
to explain. Additionally, contrary to the Bureau of Prison's own
(25:20):
rules for sex offenders, Maxwell was deemed eligible to work
outside the Brian prison. First reported on August eleventh by
Alison Gill. In November, she reportedly receiving special privileges and
planning to apply for commutation of her sentence. The whistle
blower blower that released this information was fired from the prison.
So doesn't this kind of sound like Epstein in two
(25:41):
thousand and six. They jail him, but they give him
the right to work out of the prison for most
of the day only returns. Yeah, this is ridiculous. This
is not the type of treatment and we're not talking.
I know child molesters that have molested one child and
gone to prison for years, they were not least during
that time, they were not set back out on the
(26:03):
public to victimize again or to enjoy their life. They
had to serve their sentence, do their dues and then
get out we've got this happening now twice, not with
just Epstein, but also with Maxwell.
Speaker 4 (26:16):
But it didn't it wasn't very clear on it said outside,
Does that mean just outside in the yard?
Speaker 3 (26:23):
No, No, No, this is a dormitory style This is
a dormitory style prison where it's not even really a
very secure prison, is what it's making it sound like.
Speaker 2 (26:33):
So but I think it meant outside the prison premises.
Speaker 3 (26:37):
Yes, yeah, so just like Epstein was allowed to do.
And what could she possibly be doing for work? I'm
not even gonna go there.
Speaker 4 (26:46):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (26:47):
August Versus, the US Federal Bureau of Prisons confirmed that
Maxwell had been transferred from FCI Tallahassee to Federal Prison
Camp Brian and Brian, Texas, a minimum security facility among
the facilities with the lowest level of security in the
federal system, with limited or no perimeter fencing. That's what
I was looking for. Limited And that.
Speaker 4 (27:09):
Sounds like a work release because my husband works at
work release, and they don't have they don't have stuff
around us.
Speaker 5 (27:16):
They could just walk outside.
Speaker 3 (27:18):
Yeah, dormitory style housing with a and a relatively low
staffed inmate ratio. Regarded as one as the one of
the best federal prisons to serve time in the White House,
told reporters that she had received no preferential treatment and
suggested that her move was routine. On August fifth, Rajah
Krishna Morty, a US representative, proposed to the US House
(27:42):
Committee on the Judiciary House Resolution one nineteen Dash six
thirty five, which affirms that Gaslaine Maxwell's conviction and sentencing
were more than warranted by the facts, and any receipt
of a pardon, commutation or other form of clemency by
Gazelle Maxwell would deny survivors the justice they deserve, and
opposes the granting of a pardon, commutation or other form
(28:04):
of clemency to Gazelle Maxwell Gislaine Maxwell. There After, Joseph Schnitt,
the acting Deputy Chief of Special Operations for the Department
of Justice, was caught on video claiming that Maxwell was
transferred to a lesser security prison as a way to
keep her mouth shut from countering anything said by the administration.
The DOJ and Schnitt himself responded on fourth in September
(28:26):
twenty twenty five by stating that Schnitt had no connection
to the Epstein case. On twenty second, of August, the
Department of Justice released transcripts and recordings of interviews with Maxwell.
In November twenty twenty five, US Congressman James Raskin reported
that a whistleblower had informed him that Maxwell was receiving
special treatment during her incarceration at a minimum security prison,
(28:48):
including having custom meals delivered to her guests, allowed to
bring computers during visits, access to a service dog and
training as a companion, and having the wardens send out
documents and emails on her behalf. These alleged privileges sparked
to probe into the Trump administration, And now of course
we have somebody who's that whistleblower I'm assuming is the
(29:08):
one they're discussing that was fired from the prison for
releasing that information.
Speaker 5 (29:13):
Where did you find this? Because no one's reporting it.
Speaker 3 (29:16):
Nah, they don't want to report it. This was actually just.
Speaker 4 (29:20):
If like this, because then that then we get put
it out and then it's like.
Speaker 3 (29:24):
Ha ha yeah. Yeah. If you're if you're believing whatever
it is that you have come across your your TV,
then there's no incentive. If they can feed you what
they feed you, there's no incentive to dive in and
do any research. But again, I wanted to see what
was going on with her after the fact, and I
find that she's living a luxurious life no different than
(29:45):
what Epstein's first round was. And where is I mean,
this is a smack in the face to all the victims.
Speaker 5 (29:54):
Yeah, I'm gonna look at that prison and research it so.
Speaker 3 (29:59):
Well, Nolan said, it's the luxury of federal prisons, right, Yeah.
Speaker 2 (30:04):
You're several like that. For instance, in Pleasanton, there's a
maximum and a minimum security there, and I had a
client that was at both because they didn't likely he
was doing. He was at the minimum but first with
unlimited access to phone and working outside and doing pe
type stuff and you know, playing softball. But then I
(30:24):
guess he's gone on their nerves. They moved him over
to the maximum side. So way different, went right right?
Speaker 4 (30:31):
Well, here here we do that we have a work
release is strictly work release inmates only, and then we
have the maximum one.
Speaker 5 (30:39):
So and my husband works at the work release one.
And they just know they just.
Speaker 4 (30:44):
Go outside anytime they please and mow the lawn like
it's their house.
Speaker 5 (30:49):
It's insane.
Speaker 4 (30:50):
Even if they're serving for murder, they let them do that,
and I asked him, I'm like, why do they let
them do that? And he's like, I don't know, why
don't you ask them?
Speaker 3 (31:02):
That's crazy. Well, and another feed that popped up in
my on my phone this week is House Democrat charged
with stealing five million in FEMA funds and making illegal
campaign contributions. Now, I always like to err on the
side of the fact that we know that the media
will weaponize things and make somebody look guilty before they're
(31:22):
found guilty, and of course I want to caution everybody
on that. But when I when I saw this, I
did read it for what it was worth. And what
it really meant to me is that this woman and
her family owns a healthcare company and then she is
somehow voted in in Florida as a Democrat, and during
(31:43):
the COVID vaccine funding that was going on, they filtered
off I'm guessing about five million dollars she used it
for her campaign, is what it's saying to enrich herself
to become a politician, and that they basically were laundering
this money and reusing it for themselves. My bigger complaint
(32:04):
about this overall, I mean, I get it she's a
crook and clearly FEMA. I mean, if you've been indicted,
and that's what this is saying. She's been indicted, So
it's not just a headline stating that she, you know,
did something that she may or may not have done
just to ruin her reputation. She has literally been indicted
in this particular article. But I was more upset with
(32:25):
the fact that we have politicians who have collective interest
in medical and healthcare. And I feel like, if you
have stocks or shares, or own a company, invest you know,
interested in any of these type of things, you should
not be a politician who makes the decision as to
whether or not healthcare is controlled by the government and
(32:46):
forced upon us in a way that isn't necessarily beneficial
to us. I'm doing the new open enrollment right now,
and I was shocked to see that the monthly. Now,
of course there's the subsidy from the government, and that's
what Trump is trying to say, Let's give that back
to the people, and then they it will create a
supplying demand, which then should lower health care costs overall,
(33:08):
because the insurance companies aren't getting free range of charging
whatever they want because they're making whatever they want just
to boost their profits. But mine's about thousand dollars a month,
So twelve thousand dollars a year is supposed to be
paid to these healthcare insurance companies, which doesn't make any
sense because I'm lucky if I see doctor feel and
(33:29):
squeal and smash and grab, you know, once every one
or two years. I'm very low level maintenance as far
as medical is concerned. I don't have medications that I'm
I'm on a daily or monthly basis. It's more like
if I got one, it's because I had some issue
with one thing. I got one prescription throughout the year
and I'm done. And so this literally was asked of
(33:51):
me as I'm filling out the application, how often I go,
how many prescriptions I have? They are literally gauging your
healthcare based off of your that.
Speaker 4 (34:01):
Now, yes, I was in the open environment in a
long time because my work provides it for like entirely,
thank God, right when I did, but I did used
to do it, so I would I would have to
go and do the same thing you did.
Speaker 5 (34:14):
And that's new because that used to not be on there.
Speaker 2 (34:17):
Right thousand a month currently.
Speaker 3 (34:21):
That's what that's what the bill is. Six hundred and
eighty one of that would be subsidy from the government,
and then the balance of that thousand would be coming
out of my pocket. Either way, they're still getting one
thousand dollars a month.
Speaker 2 (34:33):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (34:34):
Yeah, at the Trumps.
Speaker 2 (34:35):
Point about it, they want he wants to pay people
directly and not not have the big medical people and
hospitals and what not. Take their chuck right to that point.
But it's still I think it's the Affordable Care Act.
I think is important to a law of people, and
I don't like to see any.
Speaker 3 (34:54):
But to what degree we're we're literally financing other people's
In my sug suation, we're literally financing other people's medical care.
And to me, I've always felt that insurance was basically
legalized mob activity pain me to protect you a choice.
Speaker 2 (35:10):
If you don't have that, then you just got to
have standard insurts that's gonna cost just as much, or insurance,
or you just quit your.
Speaker 3 (35:18):
Job and go on Medicare or medical Oh those are
great options, let me tell you, those are great options. No,
all right, I'm just again.
Speaker 2 (35:31):
I have insurance because I had two serious injuries this year.
Speaker 3 (35:36):
Right, there's that possibility. That's the chance you take by
not being insured. It's no different to me. It makes
me feel like, could they one day force us to
ensure our electronics when we purchase them.
Speaker 2 (35:50):
You have to have homeowners insurts, and homeowners doesn't cover
a shit.
Speaker 4 (35:53):
Right, I had a lake and it would not cover it.
Speaker 2 (35:58):
And you have to have currenture.
Speaker 3 (36:02):
Yeah, of course on all ends to be and that is.
Speaker 4 (36:06):
Based and that has been changed to be based on
your credit score, which I do not like. That is ridiculous.
Speaker 3 (36:13):
I hadn't heard it should not ever be.
Speaker 5 (36:15):
It shouldn't. Yeah, my husband told me that.
Speaker 4 (36:17):
I was like, why is it so much higher than like,
you know, because like when I had changed and got
and got a different car, but it was like a
while ago. It was like a couple of years ago,
and I noticed it. I was like, why is it,
why is it doing? Why is it so high like
all of a sudden, like two hundred dollars more. It's
not because of the car, because it was the same
year as the previous one, uh, and nothing was different.
Speaker 3 (36:39):
And so we did have some hike, like we did
have some hikes and insurance over the last couple of years.
I have a friend that sells it for I think
it's UH Farmers or no State farms, and yeah, and
when when they were getting ready to do the hikes,
he would tell me that they had gone into agent
meetings and they were discussing that we were going to see,
(37:00):
you know, a thirty percent increase. While I didn't see
a thirty percent increase, I saw probably more like, well,
maybe it is about a thirty percent increase. Yeah, because
I went from roughly about one hundred dollars a month
to one hundred and forty dollars a month one hundred
and fifty dollars a month, So I did see that
thirty percent increase that he was talking about. Either way,
(37:21):
I just don't think that our politicians should have any
interest or relation to me. That would be like a
notary notarizing their own document that benefited them against somebody
else's harm.
Speaker 2 (37:32):
Right.
Speaker 3 (37:33):
Yeah, that's a conflict of interest if you ask me,
because they're the ones meant to vote on these particular issues. Now,
if they want to continue to subsidize it and require
us to have insurance, Nolan, I am not against that,
but let us be in control of that so that
we can then create the supplying demand that reduces the
cost of insurance. Because I saw that part of my fee,
(37:54):
So roughly about fourteen hundred is the actual policy premium.
But then there's another four hundred dollars use of insurance fee.
What the he is a use of Yes, what the
heck is a use of insurance speed? We're forced to
use you. You shouldn't be charging us for it, my ransomer.
Speaker 4 (38:16):
So is that going to be in an enacted that
you're going to be required to do it again?
Speaker 3 (38:22):
Well, no, what it is is it's going to expire
on December thirty first. And this is why the Democrats
were holding up the entire government from the from opening
up after the shutdown, is because they were trying to
get that leverage in to the funding to extend the
ACA contributions to these insurance companies for I don't know
(38:44):
if it was just another year or what it was,
but they're due to expire at the end of this
month or at the end of December, and I say,
let it expire, let's renegotiate, give back to the people,
and figure out a way to reduce these costs, because
that's ridiculous. I mean even to get a.
Speaker 4 (38:57):
SELLI we should not be ever required to have it
and get penalized at the end of the year.
Speaker 3 (39:02):
If we don't have it. I like literally started crunching numbers.
I want to say that the penalty is about forty
eight hundred dollars if I if I don't take it
and only pay the government forty eight hundred at the
end of the year. That means I have taken fifty
two hundred to you know, sixty two hundred dollars out
of the insurance company's pockets by violating it and going
against that policy on my own. See how that worked.
Speaker 4 (39:29):
But what am I remember that time where they took it.
They took gladly whenever I don't have it. Every month,
every month that you didn't have it, they took a chunk.
Speaker 3 (39:40):
Right you get. Yeah, you're getting charged for whether you
and I will gladly pay the bill for fueling squeal
and for my my one time of visit a year
maybe because I got some flu or virus or cold
or whatever. I would gladly play that over twelve thousand
dollars over a year. Yes, yeah. Oh, and then another
(40:00):
representative and I'm not being down on the Democrats. This
is just the stuff I'm shown. Was also indicted in
June after she clashed with law enforcement officers in connection
with the Trump administration's detention of undocumented immigrants. She pleaded
not guilty to forcibly impeding and interfering with federal law
enforcement officers at an ICE facility in her state. So
(40:21):
we've got another indicted Democrat.
Speaker 2 (40:25):
A lot of legislators, especially in California, have been trying
to bring light to do all the wrongdoings and and
the Gestapo tactics of ice and arresting people that are
actually American citizens just because they're brown skin, things like that,
And is that true?
Speaker 3 (40:48):
The media sight is wondering.
Speaker 2 (40:51):
It's been happening in California.
Speaker 3 (40:57):
But that's what they're saying, and that these people can't
prove up. All they're being asked is shows your documents, right, Like,
once you show your documents that you're a legal citizen,
then there's no further harm.
Speaker 2 (41:10):
Well do they have the right to ask them?
Speaker 3 (41:12):
Why don't they?
Speaker 2 (41:14):
Well have committed a crime.
Speaker 3 (41:16):
Some people have illegal, fraudulent documents.
Speaker 2 (41:20):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (41:21):
Well, it's like if you get pulled over in a
car and they say I need to see your idea.
You've been drinking, you don't have to legally, you don't
have to legally give them your ID.
Speaker 3 (41:31):
Here's the thing. Don't do that that I was told
about that particular. It's a.
Speaker 2 (41:37):
H gosh.
Speaker 3 (41:38):
My cousin tried to tell me the same exact thing.
You're gonna find yourself hemmed up because you're now resisting
the request by the officer. I my cousin tried to
tell me, because I don't even need to have a
driver's license, because you don't even have to give it
to them when they pull you over. That is complete
ps Because I also have a brother that's a CHP officer,
and he told me, yeah, I would, I would use
(42:00):
a better analogy of your pulled over sir, have you
been drinking tonight? No? I have not. All right, blow
into this thing. You have an opportunity to prove your LID.
Speaker 5 (42:08):
That was where I was gonna go next.
Speaker 3 (42:09):
Yeah, yeah, So that to me is more of a
good analogy. For you got pulled over and they're now
asking if you're a legal resident and you have to
prove that up. That's no different. It's no different. You
have an opportunity to prove your innocence. Back to John
Denay Ramsey, gosh, oh my god, you guys, we did
forty three minutes on all my raims.
Speaker 4 (42:31):
Well that was a big update, I mean really, because
we have it's been silent on it scene for a while.
Speaker 3 (42:38):
On the Epstein Files. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I was kind
of interested, like I said, and I climbed into it
just because it looked to me that that list was
being catered towards the Republicans. For us to hate Democrats.
Speaker 2 (42:51):
Clearly made up by someone with an angle.
Speaker 3 (42:56):
There. It's all with an angle if it isn't for
the fact that the rhetoric they're trying to put out there.
So this can reinforce two things. One we're going to
make the Republicans out at the Democrats because all Democrats
on here, or two it's going to be attempting to
prove up that somehow Trump instructed them to remove every
Republican from the list. Either way, it's meant to cause
(43:18):
division and hate. Yeah, correct, John Benny Ramsay. We got
to the We got to the heart. She had this
red heart that was drawn on her hand. That it's
crazy that anybody would be asked where this came from
or why the parents would be questioned on this, because
(43:38):
little kids right on themselves all the time. That is
just the thing. You've had a little kid, they have
at one point in time or another colored themselves or
their siblings with a marker.
Speaker 5 (43:49):
I want to know who did that, though, because why.
I don't think why it was just.
Speaker 3 (43:56):
Why, I don't know.
Speaker 5 (44:00):
I just have always had a good feeling about that.
Speaker 2 (44:02):
All right, Do you have a picture of it? Is?
Speaker 3 (44:05):
Yes, the pictures right here on the right, right here, okay.
Speaker 5 (44:11):
And I don't think that she was it on the
left or right hand.
Speaker 3 (44:18):
Yeah, it looks like her left and that would make
her right handed, So that would mean that well, I
don't know if she is right handed. That would be
one of the questions to ask us to confirm. Here's
what I want to point out is that it's drawn
in the direction you would draw it steering at yourself.
If somebody else had drawn this on her hand, wouldn't
the heart be the opposite direction.
Speaker 2 (44:38):
I can't even tell it it's a heart, I.
Speaker 3 (44:40):
Know me either. It's very it's very.
Speaker 5 (44:43):
Many times, that's how I see it.
Speaker 3 (44:45):
It's very faint. I can't really make out that it
looks like a heart. It's not a good heart. It's
not a great looking heart. If it is, I mean,
we've got a rounded bottom instead of a pointed bottom.
Speaker 2 (44:55):
It could be a clue or maybe it's nothing.
Speaker 4 (44:57):
Who knows, And I think it might be a distraction.
Speaker 3 (45:01):
If I grabbed your hand and I pulled it towards
me to write on it, that heart would be the
opposite direction. The point would be towards her at least something,
it would It would not that would be That would
mean whoever did it was either sitting behind her and
held her hand out in front of them to do
it in that direction, right or.
Speaker 5 (45:22):
Turn your hand.
Speaker 3 (45:24):
Yeah, yeah, like it is. It would have been awkward.
And that just doesn't seem to me to be right.
But again, I think it's neither here nor there that
they focused so much on this red heart, but they
dedicated obviously an entire article crucial clue of the little
red heart, Like it's some big.
Speaker 2 (45:43):
They're trying to say the context that because of this heart,
that Patsy changed your story.
Speaker 3 (45:50):
No, I think that they they just, you know, they
wanted to make a big deal out of the pineapple.
They wanted to make a big deal out of this,
that or the other. This It was just another.
Speaker 4 (46:00):
I have something about the pineapple that I found out
last week and it was actually hold.
Speaker 3 (46:05):
On, let me, let me finish this thought real quick.
I know that in my side is that Jack had
a red red heart tattoo on his arm, and everybody
has tried to play into that was some scheme or
some evidence that Jack left behind that he committed this crime.
While again I don't feel that Jack committed this crime.
I feel like he is a potential for the letter,
(46:25):
but I think that that would have been a group
effort and we'll see why later. But go ahead.
Speaker 4 (46:29):
Sorry, Okay, So this is so random, too, like, and
I guess she mentioned it because I was watching something
on John Binney last week and my my daughter came
up and she was like.
Speaker 5 (46:44):
Something about pineapple.
Speaker 3 (46:48):
Oh your sound is gone, Yeah, your sound is gone. Yeah,
we can't hear you. She don't know we can't hear her.
All right, So onto the other evidence, it says the
absence of that social media her friend, can.
Speaker 5 (47:09):
You hear me? So I don't know if it's true,
but that's freaking weird and.
Speaker 3 (47:16):
Not put together. Her eating the pie. Yeah, I can't
all right anyways, the absence of matching duct tape is
what this art. This was actually on the documentary, and
so there was the absence of matching duct tape that
was found on the body. So they did not find
any duct tape in the entire house, so as if
(47:37):
somebody had left with that particular duct tape.
Speaker 2 (47:40):
And the duct tape was not the same as regular
duct tape, right, correct.
Speaker 3 (47:44):
It was a gaffer's tape, it says, so it was
more it was thinner than your average duct tape. So
that and the portion of the brush, the paintbrush that
was used to uh physically violator was missing as well.
So there's a couple of things that are not coming
to light or is not present or found in the household,
(48:06):
which means that they, if the parents were responsible, they
would have had to have an opportunity to get rid
of it, which we don't see any time frame in
which they had in order to be able to get
rid of those things, at least so that they were
never found. We lost you on that pineapple message. But
we're down to the last minute now, so we're going
to be getting to the pineapple, I believe here soon
(48:27):
We're going to get into that information so we can
cover the pineapple on the next episode.
Speaker 4 (48:34):
Okay, I just thought that was really really weird. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (48:39):
Yeah, we lost an audio also.
Speaker 4 (48:41):
So they didn't like it because I obviously got into
something I was supposed to get into that That's why they.
Speaker 5 (48:46):
Cut me off.
Speaker 3 (48:49):
Yeah, can you say it really quick?
Speaker 4 (48:52):
So apparently pineapple does something to a woman's body where
it makes you w E t.
Speaker 5 (48:58):
Down there whoa yes when you eat it, And I
was like, what.
Speaker 3 (49:05):
Devil, we'll devil. We'll definitely come back to that.
Speaker 5 (49:09):
I immediately thought about John Benney. I was like, holy
s h I t oh my god.
Speaker 3 (49:15):
Oh that's it. That sickening if that's true. But now
I feel like I need to go do this test
over the weekend. I know, all right, you guys, that
is our final minute. We are done for this week.
I know that we didn't hit much on the John
Benny ramsay, but I did feel that the other issues
(49:36):
were very important, just to show that we are still
seeing these same type of syndicate and mob activities that
are continuing on and the rich still get away with
whatever it is that they want to get away with.
Everybody have a wonderful weekend and we will see you
next Friday. Thank you guys for being here by it
(50:01):
is not
Speaker 2 (50:04):
Becau
This program is designed to provide general information with regards
to the subject matters covered. This information is given with
the understanding that neither the hosts, guests, sponsors, or station
are engaged in rendering any specific and personal medical, financial,
legal counseling, professional service, or any advice.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
You should seek the services.
Speaker 1 (00:23):
Of competent professionals before applying or trying any suggested ideas.
Speaker 3 (00:52):
Good morning, truth seekers and true crime junkies. Welcome back
to another episode of Hit the Roadjack Finding the Zodiac.
I'd like to welcome Nolan del Campo to the show
this morning.
Speaker 2 (01:02):
Good morning everybody, Good.
Speaker 3 (01:04):
Morning, and thank you for always being here. I definitely
appreciate you.
Speaker 2 (01:08):
I try circumstances control sometimes.
Speaker 3 (01:13):
Ah that's life, right, It's a fallacy that we control anything.
I have a few things I just want to cover
for some laundry and research this week, which I thought
was interesting. But I did bring back up that uh
confession letter that was missing from Peter Wilson's file, which
(01:36):
has still got me a little bit on fire. But
you mentioned something that I didn't think about last week
because I had covered the letter without you. So I
just wanted to bring it back up because it's a
very good point that you made. We'll go ahead and
throw up on the screen this confession letter. Now, this
is the Palo Alto Police Department, and I believe the
(01:56):
name of this officer is Jay Verna, and he had
taken confession from William Coleman the morning after. And this
confession says original contact to subject William Coleman. And this
is on three p thirty one ninety six. It says,
during original contact to subject William Coleman for collecting evidence
(02:18):
for nine to one one call from residence in Palo Alto,
Subject William Coleman told me he had sex with victim
Kim on the night of the murder. On three point
thirty ninety six. Yeah, now we see that he's placed
it in evidence. And here's Jay Vernas sign off and
I'm assuming his officer number. Now we have this entry
(02:41):
down here at the bottom, which I was just tasked
with identifying that handwriting, and we do recognize that to
be my officer, Michael Yore, which is the arresting officer
who planted the blood evidence. I don't know if you
were with us when I talked about that blood evidence,
but I did review a report from a medical examiner
who stated that there was only two drop of mister
(03:02):
Wilson's blood found it the scene, two two drops.
Speaker 2 (03:09):
And that that's what he had injured his hand accidental
the cab right, this was.
Speaker 3 (03:16):
This was but this was planted blood. So you got
to remember when, yeah, he was in the hospital, basically
when William Coleman is having sex, having sex. I'm sure
that he threw that out there because they were going
to find his biological evidence, so he wanted to cover
it and make it look like it was consensual to
begin with. But William Coleman was in the hospital or
(03:37):
Peter Wilson was in the hospital having his pinky. He
had broken a finger and had a fingernail torn off
on his pinky, and he was had and that happened
in the cab ride in San Francisco when he was
exiting the cab at coltrans Uh, the cab driver accidentally
slammed his hand in the door. So everybody recognizes this
injury to be a brand new one that happened two
(03:58):
hours after the time that reportedly the DA claimed that
hawkduw Kim was killed and he was in the hospital
having this addressed and was there at the hospital until
ten pm at night. William Coleman doesn't get off work
and get home until approximately eight eight thirty, and that's
when he's stating that he's had this sex with hawkdew
Kim before she ends up murdered and found by mister
(04:22):
Wilson at three am, three fifty eight am whatever. That
is the bigger question which you brought to mind, which
was even though we know that Officer Yore had four
hundred thousand dollars worth of motive in order to, you know,
basically get Peter Wilson convicted, so he could never contest
this lost money or anything else that was missing at
(04:42):
the time. But you mentioned that Vernon would have had
to have known about this particular situation, right, I mean
he would.
Speaker 2 (04:52):
Think, so, yeah, he's signed off. I mean, otherwise you
could make him.
Speaker 3 (04:56):
Look that right well, and it gets removed from Michael
Yo or not from Jay Verna. But even even if
you know you're had done this behind his back, you've
got to think that they have cock talk, right, they're
talking shop about what's going on, what cases are being convicted,
and and he knows and I don't know if he
knows all the evidence involved with the case. But it
(05:17):
seems very suspicious that he would stand up and say
something about this testimony.
Speaker 2 (05:24):
So that never came out at trial.
Speaker 3 (05:27):
It was Nope, it was removed from the file, so
page nine, and just.
Speaker 2 (05:30):
The fact that he had made the statement to begin with, yeah,
it was removed so he so nobody.
Speaker 3 (05:36):
Asked him about that then he I guess in the
original trial he had been discussing or had been testifying
to the fact that he had been having relations on
some type of a basis with Hawk Jew Kim and
he would go down into the basement to have sex
with her.
Speaker 2 (05:51):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (05:52):
Again, that sounds to me like a leading statement that
is going to lead you to believe that he's I
just don't see why she would end dad after one
of these sexual accounters, him being the only one that
suspicion of him absconding and leaving the country, you know,
cutting off his bracelet, his ankle bracelet and leaving the
country if he wasn't in fact guilty for this murder.
Speaker 2 (06:14):
And conveniently he said it was a pattern, it wasn't
just one time, one little flame. That that way makes
it look like, oh, it's not out as ordinary for
it to.
Speaker 3 (06:24):
Happen that night exactly.
Speaker 2 (06:26):
You don't know that lying through his butt.
Speaker 3 (06:30):
Well, he probably raped her and killed her in the process,
knowing that he was going to find himself in a
whole lot of trouble. It would be my guest.
Speaker 2 (06:37):
He was able to blame his roommate.
Speaker 3 (06:40):
Well, I mean, I can't imagine that mister Wilson had
never walked in on one of these events, you know,
if they were actively on a constant basis having sex
and meeting up in the basement. He Wilson claimed that
she never went down into basement, that it was basically just.
Speaker 2 (06:55):
Nothing about this. So yeah, I don't believe. Well, I
believe the statement that he had sex with her that night,
but ongoing.
Speaker 3 (07:04):
Thing, Yeah, dead or alive?
Speaker 4 (07:05):
Did he? Yeah?
Speaker 3 (07:10):
Pulld the pants down. There's a leaf on her buttox
underneath their underwear and underneath her pants that's found by
the corner once they remove her clothes, which means that
she was on that floor butt naked and then redressed
at least halfway at that point. Either way, I do
believe in I think that it's very you know, poignant
to point out to everybody that this other officer took
(07:30):
this particular confession which confirms that Peter Wilson could not
have killed her because she was alive at the time.
He was in the hospital having his hand addressed from
the cab accident. So onward and upward, we're going to
do something about that. I just don't know what, all right. So,
since we've been talking so much about the Epstein stuff,
we just saw that the House boats for four and
(07:52):
twenty seven to one to release the Epstein files, sending
the bills to the Senate. It's his representative, Clay Higgins,
a Republican from Louisiana, was the only member to vote
against the measure, which I thought that was interesting, but
I do kind of understand his philosophy. It says overcoming
months of opposition from President Trump and his Republican allies. Now,
of course I'm sure that this is you know, media
(08:15):
is weaponized this statement to make it look bad on Trump.
But as we get into the article, they kind of
flip the script really quick. So if you only read
the first couple lines of this, of course you're hating
Trump for not doing something he says he was going
to do. Right, It says the US House representatives on
Tuesday overwhelmingly voted to pass a bill to compel the
(08:36):
Justice Department to release all of its files related to
the investigation of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The vote
was four twenty seven to one, with Representative Clay Higgins,
a Republican from Louisiana, being the only member to vote
against the legislation, known as the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
It needed two thirds of the House to pass, and
that's an overwhelming pass at four twenty seven one. Higgins
(09:01):
displayed explained his no vote in a lengthy post on X.
He says, I've been a principled no on this bill
from the beginning. Higgins wrote on X. What's wrong with
the bill three months ago is still wrong today. It
abandons two hundred and fifty years a criminal justice procedure
in America. As written, this bill reveals and injures thousands
(09:22):
of innocent people, witnesses, people who provided alibis, family members, etc.
If it acted in its current form, this type of
broad reveal of criminal investigative files released to a rabid
media will absolutely result in innocent people being hurt. Not
by my vote, he says, So let's talk about that.
I do believe that it can possibly hurt people. Epsteina
(09:46):
is dead, right, So what's there really to hide or conceal.
If they're concerned about people who's given alibis to others,
then what's the concern there. They're going to be injured
because it's going to be found out that they lied
and they an investigation exactly, So I'm not really good.
(10:06):
I get it witnesses and family members of course, because
it's great, but they have the right to redact these names.
They have the right to redact the individuals that they
want to keep private.
Speaker 2 (10:18):
Victims and family members the victims. I think one to
oh too, I think they do afraid of them being horrid.
I think it's unfounded.
Speaker 3 (10:29):
Exactly. Let's see refuse. And the other thing is is that,
you know, when they talk about the two hundred and
fifty years of criminal justice procedure in America, we have
so many crimes that have gone unsolved that family members
have to actively fight in the court system to get
FOYA files released in order to you know, follow up
(10:49):
any type of leads or investigation that occurred in the case.
Speaker 2 (10:55):
Of criminal injustice.
Speaker 3 (10:58):
Well, we're going to get to that bring you get
to that the bipartisan measure introduced in July by Democratic Rep.
Rocanna of California and co sponsored by Republican Rep. Thomas
Massey of Kentucky. Now this is interesting because they claimed
that that Trump and the Republicans were the ones that
were not wanting it right, But this bipartisan measure was
(11:19):
actually introduced by two little says, by Democratic Rep. Wrote
Conna of California and co sponsored by Republican Rep. Thomas
Massey of Kentucky. So not all Republicans obviously were on
board with we're going to hide these things.
Speaker 2 (11:36):
What happened that Trump just backed away from his opposition
to it because he thought it was hurting him politically,
so he said, well, go ahead, And well, when the
majority of the Republicans said okay, let's.
Speaker 3 (11:50):
Go forward, Lindsey says, she's here if one can let
her in. And you know the other part of that
is is that just like Trump was instructed not to
release the JFK files in his first round, I find
it probable that he was also instructed not to release
these files as well because it's going to hinder harm
(12:11):
or her injured. Ah, them the people that are involved,
not necessarily Trump individually, but he clearly is just that puppet.
It only allowed to release what people are allowing him
to release. So don't get mad at him for something
that he can't get past or done when there's so
much opposition coming secretly. Obviously he's not going to come
(12:32):
back and tell us who said don't release it. We're
never going to use those I.
Speaker 2 (12:36):
Think a lot of information has already been destroyed too. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (12:40):
Yeah, So it goes on to say would require the
boj to publish in a searchable and downloadable format all
unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials related to Epstein
within thirty days. Some of Epstein's survivors watched Tuesday's vote
from the House gallery. The bill's passage drew cheers from
the chamber. Trump, who for months that oppose the release
(13:01):
of the files, reversed course on Sunday, urging House Republicans
to vote for their disclosure because we have nothing to hide.
Speaker 2 (13:08):
So, but notice is non classified, so they're not going
to release everything. They're going to categorize lots they're just classified.
Speaker 5 (13:17):
A lot of people are saying that as they're looking
through them.
Speaker 4 (13:20):
The emails or the documents, like the thousands of documents
that they are finding things. It's just sifting through them.
It's just going to take time to sit through them.
Speaker 2 (13:29):
So yeah, well, I'm sure there's there's some some juicy
stuff in there.
Speaker 5 (13:35):
There is, but it's not.
Speaker 3 (13:40):
Going to know everything right, And I don't know we'll.
Speaker 2 (13:44):
Get that smoking gun. But they're interesting things that are revealed.
Speaker 3 (13:49):
Well, and that, yeah, and that, and that's going to
lead me right on into Gazelle Maxwell because of course
I found some interesting things online about that too. What's next?
It says the legislation now had to the Senate, which
must pass it before to scent a Trump to sign.
I didn't get.
Speaker 2 (14:05):
She doesn't want to get killed by Epstein.
Speaker 3 (14:08):
Who's that? Oh? Well, I think she's being protected. I mean,
my honest thoughts is that she's just part of that mob.
She may even be a MK ultra socialite, because she
is a socialite, and we do see that in these
documentaries that they're talking about her, almost as if she
was programmed to be this way through her father, through
(14:28):
his dealings, through the people they dealt with, and she
was a super sexually active person who was trying to
always get people to have sex. It wasn't just about
providing the need for Epstein. Some of the things she
did is absolutely crazy. If I was at a party
as a guest and she had presented some of these
options to me, I would have been absolutely floored and
(14:48):
blown away. Yeah I will.
Speaker 4 (14:50):
And as that's an indicator of being exposed to it
as a child, so she thinks it's like okay, and
automatically like an instinct to do it to others whenever
they're older.
Speaker 3 (15:03):
She found that she was getting the attention that she
wanted when she introduced those type of things, for sure.
And yes, you can be programmed, Yes you can be
brought up in a certain way, and I'm sure that
she might be able to rely on that. But that
doesn't mean you don't know the difference between right and wrong. No,
it doesn't, you know. I mean, otherwise it wouldn't be secret.
Right Otherwise, if you felt you were fine and that
(15:24):
what you were doing was not wrong because of the
way you were raised, then you just speak your truth.
I remember when I was selling candles and I had
become a leader, and we went to a leader's retreat,
and of course now I'm sitting around all the big wigs,
the ones that are way high up, and I'm at
a table enjoying dinner with them, and I say, my
leader taught me to do this, and they went, oh,
(15:46):
that's illegal, you can't do that, that's not right. I
was like, oh my god, I do not know I
was taught to do that. But I also wasn't ashamed
in hiding it, right, I knew no better. So I said,
this is what I do to make a goal or
to achieve something. And I was explained to how that
was incorrect, the wrong way, And of course the shame
(16:09):
and the embarrassment that I felt at that point in
time was kind of horrendous. But I learned that, oh,
we just don't operate that way, okay, So I needed
to change my gears. So you from it, Yeah, yeah,
you learn and you change, you know, continue to do it.
But when you're dealing with children, there's just that there's
a that's on line that everybody grew up with. You know,
you don't touch children, you don't abuse children, you don't
(16:31):
provide children to your significant other because you can't keep
up with the sexual needs like this is just insane.
Speaker 4 (16:38):
So of course It's like the same thing you would
do with like drugs or alcohol, like you don't you
don't put that in their in their reach, like right,
in the.
Speaker 5 (16:49):
Same concept.
Speaker 2 (16:50):
Amazing how how many rich and powerful people he had
contacts with. I think a lot of these people just
felt they're above the law. Basically, yeah they did, yea.
Speaker 3 (17:00):
And of course this list came out, which I started
going down the list, and I was like, Wow, all
these red stars that you're seeing next to names are
all definite Democrats, right, But I couldn't find not even
one Republican on this list. And as I'm having this
discussion with my girlfriend who's been my dentist for thirty years,
we go back and forth between the heinous acts of
(17:21):
politicians and the upper echelon of society, and I mentioned
to her, I don't even see Republican names on here.
I'll share. I'll share this list with you. Adam Perry,
Lang Acon, al Gore, Alan Dershowitz, Albert Pinto, Alec Baldwin,
Alan Badera, Liam Alison mac Alyssa Rodgers, Anderson Cooper, Andrea Mitrovich,
(17:47):
Andres Pastrana, Angelina Joe Lee, Anthony Kitis, Anthony Wiener, Wiener,
Winer whatever, Barack Obama, Ben Affleck, Bernie Sanders, Beyonce, Knowles,
Bill Clinton, Sagat, Bruce Willis. I think that's supposed to
be Casey Wasserman, Callum Hudson, o'doy or o'dole. I'm not sure.
(18:09):
Karen Casey, Celine Dion, Charles Barkley, Charlie Sheen, Charlie's Thearren,
Chelsea hands Cher, Chris Tucker, Chris Wagner, Chrissy Tigan, Cindy Lopez,
Claire Hazel, Courtney Cox, Courtney Love, Demi Moore, Dan Schneider,
David Coach, David Spade, David your Your Ovesky, Dolores Zoragwetta, Donovan, Mitchell,
(18:36):
Doug Band, Drew Barrymore, Ed Buck, Ed Tuttle.
Speaker 5 (18:39):
Wow, that's a new one.
Speaker 4 (18:41):
W want youre Drew Barrymore is Megan's cousin, Megan Walsh's.
Speaker 3 (18:46):
Cousin really really well?
Speaker 4 (18:50):
I have to share a picture of them as a
kid on the on the Show with You next time.
Speaker 2 (18:55):
Wow. Yeah, where did this log come from?
Speaker 3 (18:58):
It was posted somewhere on Actually I think that it
came up in a feed on Facebook and somebody had
posted this.
Speaker 2 (19:06):
I think you would go out of your way to
name to avoid naming prominent Republicans.
Speaker 3 (19:12):
Well, and as I did some research, of course, I
saw that when Trump's purportedly agreed and said Republicans must
release this, he also went in and told them to
remove any Republicans from any list or mention or names
or anything else. So as I was doing my recent
and I thought it was odd. It's like I told Monica,
(19:34):
I was like, these are all at least all the
red stars are definite. I'm wondering if I go back,
and I could guess that several more on here, like
Anderson Cooper and Ellen DeGeneres and some of these other
individuals that are on here, likely Democrats too because of
their lifestyles, right, they believe in same sex marriage, which
Republicans try to fight. So there are some that you
could probably just assume are Democrats, And the lack of
(19:58):
Republicans is what astonished me, and that's why I shot
it over to her. But if Trump did in fact
say it's fine to release them, but remove any mention
of Republicans, then that's why this type of a list
that's just really bashing on Democrats is coming out instead
of one that's full. And this list, i'm sure is
nothing in comparison to the actual names on it, especially
if you're talking nineteen ninety six to what he got
(20:20):
busted finally twenty fifteen, twenty sixteen, somewhere around there. Well,
twenty nineteen is when he went to jail for it,
when they started seriously looking at him.
Speaker 2 (20:32):
A lot of these people on this list are really
pro women's rights too, and then very anti like liberals.
They're not down with child's trafficking, sex trafficking like woope Goldberg,
come on right open children. Yeah, So I don't this
(20:54):
this list is questionable.
Speaker 4 (20:57):
No, And that's what I was saying from a newspaper.
Speaker 3 (21:00):
Well, and it's just people that associated with him and
went to the island or had flown on his plane. Right,
it's not necessarily indicating that these individuals were involved, but.
Speaker 2 (21:10):
Had association with them. We don't know, right, right, some
of them did, we know, you know, several of the
people on here we know did.
Speaker 3 (21:18):
But there, That's what I'm saying that Ultimately, this is
what the media is doing though to us to enforce
this hatred between groups of politicians. We're going to put
out a list, and I'm sure that somewhere floating around
(21:39):
on one of my DEM's friends page is a list
of all Republicans like I get this stuff because I
tend to be, you know, mad at those in power
in a democratic stage. And we're going to talk about
why you're in just a second. So the partial release
after Epstein's death on August tenth, oh, I forgot. I
(21:59):
want to read the other piece that came with us.
So this was a posting. This list was a posting
off of this mean that says Bush opened the case
against Epstein in two thousand and five, Obama buried it
in two thousand and nine, Trump reopened it in twenty nineteen.
Biden had the ebsoen list his entire presidency. Get your
facts straight. So everybody wants to bash Trump for not
(22:21):
having released this stuff yet when Biden was in possession
of all of this for the four years of his presidency.
So Epstein's death, New York Judge lorett O Presco ordered
the unsealing of documents from a defamation case against Gazell
Maxwell in twenty fifteen. Anyone who had their name contained
in these documents had until January first, twenty twenty four
(22:41):
to appeal to have their name removed, after which date
the documents would be unsealed. The court documents, unsealed in
January twenty twenty four, contained little information that had not
already been known public knowledge. Individuals mentioned in the release
court documents included Prince Andrew, former US President Bill Clinton,
Donald Trump to Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, lawyer Alan Dershowitz,
(23:05):
singer Michael Jackson, and physicist Stephen Hawking. Most were mentioned
in passing and not accused of any wrongdoing. Model scout
Jean Luke Brunell, accused of sexual abuse by one of
Epstein's victims, had died by suicide in twenty twenty two
in Paris, France, while under investigation for the rape in
sex trafficking of minors. So does anybody know who this?
(23:27):
Oh it's a model scout that's even scarier, like her
job is too fine.
Speaker 4 (23:32):
Oh yeah, there's a whole thing about the model thing
with that dealing with Epstein.
Speaker 3 (23:38):
Oh, I'm sure, well, with.
Speaker 4 (23:41):
France and all, that's how he would get them. He
would get a bunch of them from there.
Speaker 3 (23:46):
And so the suicide. It's funny that we've got Epstein
committing suicide. We've got model scout Jean Brunell committing suicide.
Are they suicided? Is more my question?
Speaker 4 (23:58):
Well, you look up how many under Clinton in associates
with Clinton, how many of those have been suicide?
Speaker 5 (24:07):
Suicide?
Speaker 3 (24:07):
Oh yeah, like something like one hundred and four. People
have reportedly saying it's it's a ridiculous number. There's no
way I know of one person I think in my
life has committed suicide. And it was many, many, many,
many moons ago. Now that is not something one hundred
and four people around you come on. So on July
(24:29):
twenty fifth, when a CNN reporter asked Trump whether he
planned a pardon Maxwell, he answered noncommittally, I'm allowed to
do it, but it's something I haven't thought about. On
August first, the Bureau of Prisons confirmed that, following the interview,
Max Bowell was transferred. So following this question to Trump,
she's been transferred to federal prison Camp Brian and Brian, Texas,
a minimum security facility with dormitory style housing, generally considered
(24:52):
less unpleasant than other federal prisons. The White House, what's that?
Speaker 2 (24:58):
Love? Fed?
Speaker 3 (24:59):
Love? Ed? The White House, reporters that Maxwell had received
no preferential treatment and suggested that her move was routine okay,
counter arguing that the move was unusual, Senator Jack Read
on August eight asked the Director of Bureau of Prisons
to explain. Additionally, contrary to the Bureau of Prison's own
(25:20):
rules for sex offenders, Maxwell was deemed eligible to work
outside the Brian prison. First reported on August eleventh by
Alison Gill. In November, she reportedly receiving special privileges and
planning to apply for commutation of her sentence. The whistle
blower blower that released this information was fired from the prison.
So doesn't this kind of sound like Epstein in two
(25:41):
thousand and six. They jail him, but they give him
the right to work out of the prison for most
of the day only returns. Yeah, this is ridiculous. This
is not the type of treatment and we're not talking.
I know child molesters that have molested one child and
gone to prison for years, they were not least during
that time, they were not set back out on the
(26:03):
public to victimize again or to enjoy their life. They
had to serve their sentence, do their dues and then
get out we've got this happening now twice, not with
just Epstein, but also with Maxwell.
Speaker 4 (26:16):
But it didn't it wasn't very clear on it said outside,
Does that mean just outside in the yard?
Speaker 3 (26:23):
No, No, No, this is a dormitory style This is
a dormitory style prison where it's not even really a
very secure prison, is what it's making it sound like.
Speaker 2 (26:33):
So but I think it meant outside the prison premises.
Speaker 3 (26:37):
Yes, yeah, so just like Epstein was allowed to do.
And what could she possibly be doing for work? I'm
not even gonna go there.
Speaker 4 (26:46):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (26:47):
August Versus, the US Federal Bureau of Prisons confirmed that
Maxwell had been transferred from FCI Tallahassee to Federal Prison
Camp Brian and Brian, Texas, a minimum security facility among
the facilities with the lowest level of security in the
federal system, with limited or no perimeter fencing. That's what
I was looking for. Limited And that.
Speaker 4 (27:09):
Sounds like a work release because my husband works at
work release, and they don't have they don't have stuff
around us.
Speaker 5 (27:16):
They could just walk outside.
Speaker 3 (27:18):
Yeah, dormitory style housing with a and a relatively low
staffed inmate ratio. Regarded as one as the one of
the best federal prisons to serve time in the White House,
told reporters that she had received no preferential treatment and
suggested that her move was routine. On August fifth, Rajah
Krishna Morty, a US representative, proposed to the US House
(27:42):
Committee on the Judiciary House Resolution one nineteen Dash six
thirty five, which affirms that Gaslaine Maxwell's conviction and sentencing
were more than warranted by the facts, and any receipt
of a pardon, commutation or other form of clemency by
Gazelle Maxwell would deny survivors the justice they deserve, and
opposes the granting of a pardon, commutation or other form
(28:04):
of clemency to Gazelle Maxwell Gislaine Maxwell. There After, Joseph Schnitt,
the acting Deputy Chief of Special Operations for the Department
of Justice, was caught on video claiming that Maxwell was
transferred to a lesser security prison as a way to
keep her mouth shut from countering anything said by the administration.
The DOJ and Schnitt himself responded on fourth in September
(28:26):
twenty twenty five by stating that Schnitt had no connection
to the Epstein case. On twenty second, of August, the
Department of Justice released transcripts and recordings of interviews with Maxwell.
In November twenty twenty five, US Congressman James Raskin reported
that a whistleblower had informed him that Maxwell was receiving
special treatment during her incarceration at a minimum security prison,
(28:48):
including having custom meals delivered to her guests, allowed to
bring computers during visits, access to a service dog and
training as a companion, and having the wardens send out
documents and emails on her behalf. These alleged privileges sparked
to probe into the Trump administration, And now of course
we have somebody who's that whistleblower I'm assuming is the
(29:08):
one they're discussing that was fired from the prison for
releasing that information.
Speaker 5 (29:13):
Where did you find this? Because no one's reporting it.
Speaker 3 (29:16):
Nah, they don't want to report it. This was actually just.
Speaker 4 (29:20):
If like this, because then that then we get put
it out and then it's like.
Speaker 3 (29:24):
Ha ha yeah. Yeah. If you're if you're believing whatever
it is that you have come across your your TV,
then there's no incentive. If they can feed you what
they feed you, there's no incentive to dive in and
do any research. But again, I wanted to see what
was going on with her after the fact, and I
find that she's living a luxurious life no different than
(29:45):
what Epstein's first round was. And where is I mean,
this is a smack in the face to all the victims.
Speaker 5 (29:54):
Yeah, I'm gonna look at that prison and research it so.
Speaker 3 (29:59):
Well, Nolan said, it's the luxury of federal prisons, right, Yeah.
Speaker 2 (30:04):
You're several like that. For instance, in Pleasanton, there's a
maximum and a minimum security there, and I had a
client that was at both because they didn't likely he
was doing. He was at the minimum but first with
unlimited access to phone and working outside and doing pe
type stuff and you know, playing softball. But then I
(30:24):
guess he's gone on their nerves. They moved him over
to the maximum side. So way different, went right right?
Speaker 4 (30:31):
Well, here here we do that we have a work
release is strictly work release inmates only, and then we
have the maximum one.
Speaker 5 (30:39):
So and my husband works at the work release one.
And they just know they just.
Speaker 4 (30:44):
Go outside anytime they please and mow the lawn like
it's their house.
Speaker 5 (30:49):
It's insane.
Speaker 4 (30:50):
Even if they're serving for murder, they let them do that,
and I asked him, I'm like, why do they let
them do that? And he's like, I don't know, why
don't you ask them?
Speaker 3 (31:02):
That's crazy. Well, and another feed that popped up in
my on my phone this week is House Democrat charged
with stealing five million in FEMA funds and making illegal
campaign contributions. Now, I always like to err on the
side of the fact that we know that the media
will weaponize things and make somebody look guilty before they're
(31:22):
found guilty, and of course I want to caution everybody
on that. But when I when I saw this, I
did read it for what it was worth. And what
it really meant to me is that this woman and
her family owns a healthcare company and then she is
somehow voted in in Florida as a Democrat, and during
(31:43):
the COVID vaccine funding that was going on, they filtered
off I'm guessing about five million dollars she used it
for her campaign, is what it's saying to enrich herself
to become a politician, and that they basically were laundering
this money and reusing it for themselves. My bigger complaint
(32:04):
about this overall, I mean, I get it she's a
crook and clearly FEMA. I mean, if you've been indicted,
and that's what this is saying. She's been indicted, So
it's not just a headline stating that she, you know,
did something that she may or may not have done
just to ruin her reputation. She has literally been indicted
in this particular article. But I was more upset with
(32:25):
the fact that we have politicians who have collective interest
in medical and healthcare. And I feel like, if you
have stocks or shares, or own a company, invest you know,
interested in any of these type of things, you should
not be a politician who makes the decision as to
whether or not healthcare is controlled by the government and
(32:46):
forced upon us in a way that isn't necessarily beneficial
to us. I'm doing the new open enrollment right now,
and I was shocked to see that the monthly. Now,
of course there's the subsidy from the government, and that's
what Trump is trying to say, Let's give that back
to the people, and then they it will create a
supplying demand, which then should lower health care costs overall,
(33:08):
because the insurance companies aren't getting free range of charging
whatever they want because they're making whatever they want just
to boost their profits. But mine's about thousand dollars a month,
So twelve thousand dollars a year is supposed to be
paid to these healthcare insurance companies, which doesn't make any
sense because I'm lucky if I see doctor feel and
(33:29):
squeal and smash and grab, you know, once every one
or two years. I'm very low level maintenance as far
as medical is concerned. I don't have medications that I'm
I'm on a daily or monthly basis. It's more like
if I got one, it's because I had some issue
with one thing. I got one prescription throughout the year
and I'm done. And so this literally was asked of
(33:51):
me as I'm filling out the application, how often I go,
how many prescriptions I have? They are literally gauging your
healthcare based off of your that.
Speaker 4 (34:01):
Now, yes, I was in the open environment in a
long time because my work provides it for like entirely,
thank God, right when I did, but I did used
to do it, so I would I would have to
go and do the same thing you did.
Speaker 5 (34:14):
And that's new because that used to not be on there.
Speaker 2 (34:17):
Right thousand a month currently.
Speaker 3 (34:21):
That's what that's what the bill is. Six hundred and
eighty one of that would be subsidy from the government,
and then the balance of that thousand would be coming
out of my pocket. Either way, they're still getting one
thousand dollars a month.
Speaker 2 (34:33):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (34:34):
Yeah, at the Trumps.
Speaker 2 (34:35):
Point about it, they want he wants to pay people
directly and not not have the big medical people and
hospitals and what not. Take their chuck right to that point.
But it's still I think it's the Affordable Care Act.
I think is important to a law of people, and
I don't like to see any.
Speaker 3 (34:54):
But to what degree we're we're literally financing other people's
In my sug suation, we're literally financing other people's medical care.
And to me, I've always felt that insurance was basically
legalized mob activity pain me to protect you a choice.
Speaker 2 (35:10):
If you don't have that, then you just got to
have standard insurts that's gonna cost just as much, or insurance,
or you just quit your.
Speaker 3 (35:18):
Job and go on Medicare or medical Oh those are
great options, let me tell you, those are great options. No,
all right, I'm just again.
Speaker 2 (35:31):
I have insurance because I had two serious injuries this year.
Speaker 3 (35:36):
Right, there's that possibility. That's the chance you take by
not being insured. It's no different to me. It makes
me feel like, could they one day force us to
ensure our electronics when we purchase them.
Speaker 2 (35:50):
You have to have homeowners insurts, and homeowners doesn't cover
a shit.
Speaker 4 (35:53):
Right, I had a lake and it would not cover it.
Speaker 2 (35:58):
And you have to have currenture.
Speaker 3 (36:02):
Yeah, of course on all ends to be and that is.
Speaker 4 (36:06):
Based and that has been changed to be based on
your credit score, which I do not like. That is ridiculous.
Speaker 3 (36:13):
I hadn't heard it should not ever be.
Speaker 5 (36:15):
It shouldn't. Yeah, my husband told me that.
Speaker 4 (36:17):
I was like, why is it so much higher than like,
you know, because like when I had changed and got
and got a different car, but it was like a
while ago. It was like a couple of years ago,
and I noticed it. I was like, why is it,
why is it doing? Why is it so high like
all of a sudden, like two hundred dollars more. It's
not because of the car, because it was the same
year as the previous one, uh, and nothing was different.
Speaker 3 (36:39):
And so we did have some hike, like we did
have some hikes and insurance over the last couple of years.
I have a friend that sells it for I think
it's UH Farmers or no State farms, and yeah, and
when when they were getting ready to do the hikes,
he would tell me that they had gone into agent
meetings and they were discussing that we were going to see,
(37:00):
you know, a thirty percent increase. While I didn't see
a thirty percent increase, I saw probably more like, well,
maybe it is about a thirty percent increase. Yeah, because
I went from roughly about one hundred dollars a month
to one hundred and forty dollars a month one hundred
and fifty dollars a month, So I did see that
thirty percent increase that he was talking about. Either way,
(37:21):
I just don't think that our politicians should have any
interest or relation to me. That would be like a
notary notarizing their own document that benefited them against somebody
else's harm.
Speaker 2 (37:32):
Right.
Speaker 3 (37:33):
Yeah, that's a conflict of interest if you ask me,
because they're the ones meant to vote on these particular issues. Now,
if they want to continue to subsidize it and require
us to have insurance, Nolan, I am not against that,
but let us be in control of that so that
we can then create the supplying demand that reduces the
cost of insurance. Because I saw that part of my fee,
(37:54):
So roughly about fourteen hundred is the actual policy premium.
But then there's another four hundred dollars use of insurance fee.
What the he is a use of Yes, what the
heck is a use of insurance speed? We're forced to
use you. You shouldn't be charging us for it, my ransomer.
Speaker 4 (38:16):
So is that going to be in an enacted that
you're going to be required to do it again?
Speaker 3 (38:22):
Well, no, what it is is it's going to expire
on December thirty first. And this is why the Democrats
were holding up the entire government from the from opening
up after the shutdown, is because they were trying to
get that leverage in to the funding to extend the
ACA contributions to these insurance companies for I don't know
(38:44):
if it was just another year or what it was,
but they're due to expire at the end of this
month or at the end of December, and I say,
let it expire, let's renegotiate, give back to the people,
and figure out a way to reduce these costs, because
that's ridiculous. I mean even to get a.
Speaker 4 (38:57):
SELLI we should not be ever required to have it
and get penalized at the end of the year.
Speaker 3 (39:02):
If we don't have it. I like literally started crunching numbers.
I want to say that the penalty is about forty
eight hundred dollars if I if I don't take it
and only pay the government forty eight hundred at the
end of the year. That means I have taken fifty
two hundred to you know, sixty two hundred dollars out
of the insurance company's pockets by violating it and going
against that policy on my own. See how that worked.
Speaker 4 (39:29):
But what am I remember that time where they took it.
They took gladly whenever I don't have it. Every month,
every month that you didn't have it, they took a chunk.
Speaker 3 (39:40):
Right you get. Yeah, you're getting charged for whether you
and I will gladly pay the bill for fueling squeal
and for my my one time of visit a year
maybe because I got some flu or virus or cold
or whatever. I would gladly play that over twelve thousand
dollars over a year. Yes, yeah. Oh, and then another
(40:00):
representative and I'm not being down on the Democrats. This
is just the stuff I'm shown. Was also indicted in
June after she clashed with law enforcement officers in connection
with the Trump administration's detention of undocumented immigrants. She pleaded
not guilty to forcibly impeding and interfering with federal law
enforcement officers at an ICE facility in her state. So
(40:21):
we've got another indicted Democrat.
Speaker 2 (40:25):
A lot of legislators, especially in California, have been trying
to bring light to do all the wrongdoings and and
the Gestapo tactics of ice and arresting people that are
actually American citizens just because they're brown skin, things like that,
And is that true?
Speaker 3 (40:48):
The media sight is wondering.
Speaker 2 (40:51):
It's been happening in California.
Speaker 3 (40:57):
But that's what they're saying, and that these people can't
prove up. All they're being asked is shows your documents, right, Like,
once you show your documents that you're a legal citizen,
then there's no further harm.
Speaker 2 (41:10):
Well do they have the right to ask them?
Speaker 3 (41:12):
Why don't they?
Speaker 2 (41:14):
Well have committed a crime.
Speaker 3 (41:16):
Some people have illegal, fraudulent documents.
Speaker 2 (41:20):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (41:21):
Well, it's like if you get pulled over in a
car and they say I need to see your idea.
You've been drinking, you don't have to legally, you don't
have to legally give them your ID.
Speaker 3 (41:31):
Here's the thing. Don't do that that I was told
about that particular. It's a.
Speaker 2 (41:37):
H gosh.
Speaker 3 (41:38):
My cousin tried to tell me the same exact thing.
You're gonna find yourself hemmed up because you're now resisting
the request by the officer. I my cousin tried to
tell me, because I don't even need to have a
driver's license, because you don't even have to give it
to them when they pull you over. That is complete
ps Because I also have a brother that's a CHP officer,
and he told me, yeah, I would, I would use
(42:00):
a better analogy of your pulled over sir, have you
been drinking tonight? No? I have not. All right, blow
into this thing. You have an opportunity to prove your LID.
Speaker 5 (42:08):
That was where I was gonna go next.
Speaker 3 (42:09):
Yeah, yeah, So that to me is more of a
good analogy. For you got pulled over and they're now
asking if you're a legal resident and you have to
prove that up. That's no different. It's no different. You
have an opportunity to prove your innocence. Back to John
Denay Ramsey, gosh, oh my god, you guys, we did
forty three minutes on all my raims.
Speaker 4 (42:31):
Well that was a big update, I mean really, because
we have it's been silent on it scene for a while.
Speaker 3 (42:38):
On the Epstein Files. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I was kind
of interested, like I said, and I climbed into it
just because it looked to me that that list was
being catered towards the Republicans. For us to hate Democrats.
Speaker 2 (42:51):
Clearly made up by someone with an angle.
Speaker 3 (42:56):
There. It's all with an angle if it isn't for
the fact that the rhetoric they're trying to put out there.
So this can reinforce two things. One we're going to
make the Republicans out at the Democrats because all Democrats
on here, or two it's going to be attempting to
prove up that somehow Trump instructed them to remove every
Republican from the list. Either way, it's meant to cause
(43:18):
division and hate. Yeah, correct, John Benny Ramsay. We got
to the We got to the heart. She had this
red heart that was drawn on her hand. That it's
crazy that anybody would be asked where this came from
or why the parents would be questioned on this, because
(43:38):
little kids right on themselves all the time. That is
just the thing. You've had a little kid, they have
at one point in time or another colored themselves or
their siblings with a marker.
Speaker 5 (43:49):
I want to know who did that, though, because why.
I don't think why it was just.
Speaker 3 (43:56):
Why, I don't know.
Speaker 5 (44:00):
I just have always had a good feeling about that.
Speaker 2 (44:02):
All right, Do you have a picture of it? Is?
Speaker 3 (44:05):
Yes, the pictures right here on the right, right here, okay.
Speaker 5 (44:11):
And I don't think that she was it on the
left or right hand.
Speaker 3 (44:18):
Yeah, it looks like her left and that would make
her right handed, So that would mean that well, I
don't know if she is right handed. That would be
one of the questions to ask us to confirm. Here's
what I want to point out is that it's drawn
in the direction you would draw it steering at yourself.
If somebody else had drawn this on her hand, wouldn't
the heart be the opposite direction.
Speaker 2 (44:38):
I can't even tell it it's a heart, I.
Speaker 3 (44:40):
Know me either. It's very it's very.
Speaker 5 (44:43):
Many times, that's how I see it.
Speaker 3 (44:45):
It's very faint. I can't really make out that it
looks like a heart. It's not a good heart. It's
not a great looking heart. If it is, I mean,
we've got a rounded bottom instead of a pointed bottom.
Speaker 2 (44:55):
It could be a clue or maybe it's nothing.
Speaker 4 (44:57):
Who knows, And I think it might be a distraction.
Speaker 3 (45:01):
If I grabbed your hand and I pulled it towards
me to write on it, that heart would be the
opposite direction. The point would be towards her at least something,
it would It would not that would be That would
mean whoever did it was either sitting behind her and
held her hand out in front of them to do
it in that direction, right or.
Speaker 5 (45:22):
Turn your hand.
Speaker 3 (45:24):
Yeah, yeah, like it is. It would have been awkward.
And that just doesn't seem to me to be right.
But again, I think it's neither here nor there that
they focused so much on this red heart, but they
dedicated obviously an entire article crucial clue of the little
red heart, Like it's some big.
Speaker 2 (45:43):
They're trying to say the context that because of this heart,
that Patsy changed your story.
Speaker 3 (45:50):
No, I think that they they just, you know, they
wanted to make a big deal out of the pineapple.
They wanted to make a big deal out of this,
that or the other. This It was just another.
Speaker 4 (46:00):
I have something about the pineapple that I found out
last week and it was actually hold.
Speaker 3 (46:05):
On, let me, let me finish this thought real quick.
I know that in my side is that Jack had
a red red heart tattoo on his arm, and everybody
has tried to play into that was some scheme or
some evidence that Jack left behind that he committed this crime.
While again I don't feel that Jack committed this crime.
I feel like he is a potential for the letter,
(46:25):
but I think that that would have been a group
effort and we'll see why later. But go ahead.
Speaker 4 (46:29):
Sorry, Okay, So this is so random, too, like, and
I guess she mentioned it because I was watching something
on John Binney last week and my my daughter came
up and she was like.
Speaker 5 (46:44):
Something about pineapple.
Speaker 3 (46:48):
Oh your sound is gone, Yeah, your sound is gone. Yeah,
we can't hear you. She don't know we can't hear her.
All right, So onto the other evidence, it says the
absence of that social media her friend, can.
Speaker 5 (47:09):
You hear me? So I don't know if it's true,
but that's freaking weird and.
Speaker 3 (47:16):
Not put together. Her eating the pie. Yeah, I can't
all right anyways, the absence of matching duct tape is
what this art. This was actually on the documentary, and
so there was the absence of matching duct tape that
was found on the body. So they did not find
any duct tape in the entire house, so as if
(47:37):
somebody had left with that particular duct tape.
Speaker 2 (47:40):
And the duct tape was not the same as regular
duct tape, right, correct.
Speaker 3 (47:44):
It was a gaffer's tape, it says, so it was
more it was thinner than your average duct tape. So
that and the portion of the brush, the paintbrush that
was used to uh physically violator was missing as well.
So there's a couple of things that are not coming
to light or is not present or found in the household,
(48:06):
which means that they, if the parents were responsible, they
would have had to have an opportunity to get rid
of it, which we don't see any time frame in
which they had in order to be able to get
rid of those things, at least so that they were
never found. We lost you on that pineapple message. But
we're down to the last minute now, so we're going
to be getting to the pineapple, I believe here soon
(48:27):
We're going to get into that information so we can
cover the pineapple on the next episode.
Speaker 4 (48:34):
Okay, I just thought that was really really weird. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (48:39):
Yeah, we lost an audio also.
Speaker 4 (48:41):
So they didn't like it because I obviously got into
something I was supposed to get into that That's why they.
Speaker 5 (48:46):
Cut me off.
Speaker 3 (48:49):
Yeah, can you say it really quick?
Speaker 4 (48:52):
So apparently pineapple does something to a woman's body where
it makes you w E t.
Speaker 5 (48:58):
Down there whoa yes when you eat it, And I
was like, what.
Speaker 3 (49:05):
Devil, we'll devil. We'll definitely come back to that.
Speaker 5 (49:09):
I immediately thought about John Benney. I was like, holy
s h I t oh my god.
Speaker 3 (49:15):
Oh that's it. That sickening if that's true. But now
I feel like I need to go do this test
over the weekend. I know, all right, you guys, that
is our final minute. We are done for this week.
I know that we didn't hit much on the John
Benny ramsay, but I did feel that the other issues
(49:36):
were very important, just to show that we are still
seeing these same type of syndicate and mob activities that
are continuing on and the rich still get away with
whatever it is that they want to get away with.
Everybody have a wonderful weekend and we will see you
next Friday. Thank you guys for being here by it
(50:01):
is not
Speaker 2 (50:04):
Becau
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com