Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of The
Diddy Diaries. In this episode, we're going to pick up
where we left off in the last episode, and that's
with Count three sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion
Victim number two, Jane Doe. Count three is essentially the
same offense as Count two, but relating to a second woman,
Victim two, who has been publicly identified only by the
pseudonym Jane. Jane's a former long term girlfriend of Colmes
who dated him from twenty twenty one into his arrest
in twenty twenty four. The charge here alleges that Colmbs
likewise forced or cores Jane into commercial sex acts again
the freak off encounters with paid participants against her will.
The legal elements are identical. The government must prove Colms
abuse Jane to engage in a commercial sex act through threats, violence,
or other coercion. Although Jane's relationship with Colms began many
years after after Cassie's, her testimony indicated a very similar pattern,
which the prosecution argues shows Comb's mo remained the same.
So what kind of evidence did the prosecution provide? Well.
Jane testified during weeks four and five of the trial,
providing a second, first hand account that largely echoed Cassie
Ventura's story. Her testimony is critical in showing that Cassie's
experience was not an isolated case. Rather, Combs allegedly repeated
his course of tactics with another victim, strengthening the inference
that it was intentional and part of his standard behavior,
and according to prosecutors, Jane confirmed that Colmbs expected her
to participate in frequent freak offs also dubbed hotel knights
during their relationship. She described sex parties in the same terms,
days long, drug fueled encounters with multiple male escorts brought
in to perform sex acts. Initially, Jane's said she participated
to please Combs because she was trying to satisfy her
boyfriend's desires. However, as time went on, she began to
feel obligated and unable to say no. A major reason
was financial dependence. Jane testified that in twenty twenty three,
Combs began paying her rent on an expensive apartment where
she lived with her young son. She feared that if
she refused the freak offs, Combs would cut off his support,
and that she and her child would lose their home.
This is a powerful example of coercion by fraud or
exploitation of vulnerability, using financial control to compel sexual compliance,
attempts to refuse, and violence. Jane told the jury that
she repeatedly told Colmbs she no longer wanted to participate
in the Orgies. Each time he allegedly dismissed her concerns
and continued to pressure her. Her breaking point came in
twenty twenty four, when an argument over the Freak Offs
escalated and Calm assaulted her, leaving her with a black eye.
This incident of violence served to instill fear that refusing
him would result in harm classic coersion. While we don't
have independent video of that assault, Jane's testimony is that
it happened, and it mirrors the pattern of physical abuse
seen with Cassie. It shows the jury that Combs was
willing to get violent to enforce his sexual demands with
Jane as well. Like Cassie, Jane explained that Colmb's influence
over her was not purely physical. He had cultivated and
emotional hold. Even as she grew to dread the freak Offs,
she still loved him, and he used that affection against her.
For example, by paying her bills, he made her feel
indebted and controlled. She indicated that at times she convinced
herself to go along with his wishes out of love
or fear of losing him, which underscores how complex and
insidious the coersion was. At the back of Jane's account,
Prosecutors pointed to evidence such as text messages and emails.
On cross examination, the defense introduced some of Jane's texts
where she spoke about the freak offts in seemingly positive terms. However,
prosecutors would highlight those texts in context. Jane explained she
sometimes took the initiative to arrange the encounters herself, contacting
certain male escorts, for instance, so that she could have
some control over who was involved. In other words, her
planning wasn't because she truly wanted them to happen, but
because they were going to happen regardless. She preferred to
choose escort she was comfortable with rather than be surprised
by someone. Combs picked that nuance is crucial. It reframes
her apparent complicity as a survival mechanism. Prosecutors also showed
evidence of Colm's financial arrangements for Jane. Bank records leased
documents indicating that COLMS paid her rent, and that corroborates
her story about why she felt unable to defile theme.
It turns the abstrac idea of financial coercion into something
concrete the jury can see. Jane's testimony doesn't have the
external eyewitness cooperation the way Cassies did, since her relationship
was more recent and perhaps more private. However, Mia, the
former assistant, testified that she observed colmb's abuse and sexual
misconduct during this timeframe as well. Mia didn't specifically talk
about Jane by name, but she described colmb's assaulting female
employees and being generally coercive. If Mia was working for
Colm's while he was with Jane, her account of Colm's
behavior adds credibility to Jane's claims. Also, kid Cutty's testimony
about colmb's jealousy and violence back in twenty eleven the
car bombing incident suggests that as late as twenty twenty
one twenty twenty four, Colmbs still had the same dangerous tendencies,
which makes Jane's allegations more plausible, so had the defense
Rebut this the defense approach to Jane's count was very
similar to Cassie's, with some additional angles given Jane's unique circumstances.
The defense attorneys underscored that Jane stayed with Combs up
to the bitter end, and remarkably, Colmbs was still paying
her rent and even her legal fees as of her testimony.
They confronted Jane with the fact that she professed love
for Combs on the stand and is effectively being financially
supported by him during the trial. The implication that they
want the jurors to draw is that Jane might have
ulterior motives or divided loyalties if Comb's truly trafficked her
wise he paying her bills. The defense insinuated that maybe
Jane was testifying under pressure from the government while still
being kept by Colmbs, a confusing dynamic that could raise
questions about her credibility or level of victimization. The defense
also used Jane's own admissions on cross to suggest that
she was a willing participant. They noted that Jane sometimes
arrange the freak offs herself, choosing the men and scheduling
the sessions. This, they argue, is not what a corus
victim would do. Rather, it's what a consenting partner and
an adventurous sex life might do. They also cited messages
where Jane spoke about the freak offs without complaint, possibly
even with enthusiasm, for example, thanking Colmbs for a wild night, etc.
And because Jane testified that at first she went along
to please them, Ie started consensually, the defense emphasized that
there was no clear a point where it stopped being consensual,
suggesting it's a gray area being unfairly criminalized in hindsight
and similar to Cassie. The defense highlighted that Jane never
went to the police or told outsiders she was being
forced until after combs arrest. In fact, Jane's cooperation with
the government began once Colmbs was jailed and could no
longer support her. The defense implies they want jurors to
think Jane might be retaliated or ensuring she stays on
the gravy train. Since Colms is still paying for her lawyers,
they hinted she might tailor her testimony favorably to avoid losing.
That it's a delicate insinuation. Practically, Jane had little incentive
to lie against Colmbs if he's supporting her. But the
defense angle might be that she was so unafraid of
him that she can even admit love and take his money,
meaning she never viewed herself as a victim. The defense
also argue that Jane's claims are less substantiated by independent
evidence than Cassie's. There's no widely known video of Combs
attacking Jane, unlike Cassie's twenty sixteen video. Jane's black eye
incident relies on her word, and Jane, by her own admission,
took active steps in the freak offs, which muddies the narrative.
The defense leaned into these differences to separate Jane's count
from Cassie's. Injuror's minds, maybe you believe Cassie, but Jane
is a different story. Now, Jane's testimony essentially establishes the
second instance of the same crime as count two. If
the jury found Cassie was trafficked, they may be inclined
to believe Jane as well, given the strike in parallels
in their accounts. The prosecution has argued that Jane's case
shows Colmb's pattern continued. He didn't stop abusing women after Cassie.
He found a new girlfriend and did it again. Legally,
eage victim's case stands on its own merits, but evidence
of Cassie's abuse can indirectly bolster Jane's by showing a
propensity or a common scheme, especially since the defense claims
these women consented. Showing a pattern can Rebut that that said,
Jane's situation has some complicating factors. The fact that she
remained financially entangled with Colmbs even as she testified could
confuse the jury. Some jurors might wonder if Jane is
testifying freely or under some influence, though one could argue
if Colmbs is paying her lawyers that if any, would
incline her to favor him, making her testimony against him
even more credible. The defense use of Jane's own behavior
arranging encounters positive texts presents a challenge. It introduces doubt
about her mindset. From a legal standpoint, The core elements
appear to be present for Jane as well. She engaged
in commercial sex acts the freak offs with paid escorts.
She says she did so under coercion, financial threats, and
actual violence. The jury will have to parse whether her
acts were truly under duress. One key point in Jane's
favor is that she explicitly testified she tried to stop
any one letter That strong evidence of non consent going forward.
Her fear of losing housing for her and her child
is exactly the kind of vulnerability traffickers exploit. Federal law
recognizes serious harm, and trafficking can be financial or psychological harmed,
not just physical. If jurors believes, they may view Jane
as another victim who perhaps hasn't fully disentangled emotionally, financially
from an abuser. That actually rings true to real life patterns.
Victims often have conflicted feelings and sometimes even ongoing ties.
The defense succeeded in illustrating Jane's conflicting feelings, but those
conflicts do not negate coercion. In fact, they can be
evidence of how deep the manipulation ran. Now what do
I think? The likelihood of a conviction on count three
is well moderate the high. The evidence for Jane's count
is persuasive, but slightly less clear cut than Cassie's. Some
jurors might be unsure what to make of Jane still
accepting Comb's money. Others might reason that colmb's continued financial
support is itself a continuation of the control or perhaps
even hush money. If the jury has already accepted that
colmb's traffic Cassie, they may find it easy to believe
he did the same to Jane, especially since Jane's testimony
echoed Venturas so closely, including being pressured into freak offs
and feeling unable to refuse the defense. Consent arguments are
similar retreads. If those failed to convince jurors regarding Cassie,
they likely won't succeed with Jane either. However, their iserusk
the jury could split their verdict. If they perceive a difference,
they might convict on Cassie's count but hesitate on Jane's
if they think that Jane was more of a consensual
partner who later had regrets. This could happen if, say,
Jane's demeanor or admissions on the stand, left some jurors
doubting her level of coercion. Still, the safer bet is
that the jury will see both women as victims of
the same pattern, given the accumulative evidence of colmb's course
of tactics and the consistency between Cassie and Jane's accounts.
And that's why I think that a conviction on count
three is quite likely unless jurors get hung up on
the peculiar fact that Colmes was financially helping Jane to trial,
which is an unusual wrinkle. On balance, the prosecution's thorough
presentation likely mitigated that, making a guilty verdict on count
three a strong possibility alongside count two. All right, we're
going to wrap up right here and in the next
episode dealing with the topic, we're going to talk about
Count four, Transportation to engage in prostitution Victim one, Cassie.
All of the information that goes with this episode can
be found in the description box. What's up, everyone, and
welcome to another episode of the Diddy Diaries. As we
continue to barrel towards a verdict in the Shaw Didty
Combs trial, we're going to continue taking a look at
where things currently stand now that week six has come
to its completion. Count number four, Transportation to Engage in
prostitution Victim one, Cassie. Count four charges Combs under the
Federal Man Act US Code, Section twenty four to twenty
one with transporting an individual across day lines with the
intent that they engage in prostitution or other unlawful sexual activity.
In this case, victim one again Cassie Ventura, is the
individual he's alleged to have transported for such purposes. In
every day terms, prosecutors say homes flew or brought Cassie
to different states so that she could take part in
his orchestrated sexual encounters that involve prostitution. The law doesn't
require that the victim herself be a prostitute. It's sufficient
if the transportation was for the purpose of any person,
the victim or someone else engaging in a commercial sex
act that's illegal. Since COM's freak offs involved paid sex
workers and often took place in various cities New York,
Los Angeles, Miami, et cetera, any interstate travel involved can
trigger this statute. Essentially, this count is a more specific
aspect of the trafficking scheme. It focuses on the act
of moving caut around to facilitate the sex parties, which
is a crime on its own, even apart from coercion.
And to prove this count, the prosecution has presented evidence
of Combs and Cassie's travel, itineraries and planning out of
state sexual encounters. Several pieces of evidence stand out, including
the following testimony on travel for freakofs. Cassie testified that
Combs often like the stage of the freak offs in
exotic or at private locations, not just at home. For instance,
she said Combs would book luxury hotel suites and other
cities specifically to hold these marathon sex events. She recounted
one instance where Colmbs took her to the La Hermitage
hotel in Beverly Hills and had the room prepared with
a kinky setup a blow up pool filled with lubricant
and oil for one of those freak off sessions. That
implies that they traveled from New York, where they primarily lived,
to California for the purpose of that sexual encounter. Cassie
also meant trips to Miami in Las Vegas, where similar
activities occurred. The Guardian reported that Cassie said Colmbs often
booked rooms at the La Hermitage Beverly Hills to host
freak offs, which directly supports that he transported her to
engage in those acts. We also heard from former colmb's
assistants and staff who corroborated that travel was a big
part of executing colmb's directives. Brendan Paul and David James
testified that they or other team members would book flights,
charter jets, a, reserved blocks of hotel rooms in various
states whenever Colmes was planning a rendezvous party. They indicated
that women and male sex workers were flown in as needed.
For instance, James described being present when Colmbs decided on
a whim at four a m. In Los Angeles to
fly somewhere or do something extreme, showing travel was constantly
used to facilitate Combs's wishes. The prosecution entered travel records,
such as flight logs or hotel receipts, into evidence to
show specific days were Combs to Cassie out of state
and that those trips coincided with freak off events. We
also add testimony from mal escorts such as Charet Punisher Hayes.
The mal escort indicated that he was sometimes transported across
day lines for these assignments. He met Colmbs in Cassie
initially in New York, but he worked for them up
to a dozen times, and some of those times were
in other states. Hayes and another escort testified to being
flown to a location to meet Combs in Cassie. That's
evidence that Combs caused people to cross day lines for
sexual encounters. Even if it was the escort of traveling
rather than Cassie, the law could apply. Because Colmbs is
transporting an individual. The statue can apply to either the
person who will engage in the act or someone who
will facilitate it. However, given the indictments phrasing, it seems
they're focusing on transporting the women themselves. Also, we had
another example ented was the flight on colmb's private jet
to Las Vegas in twenty fifteen where colmb's assaulted Cassie midflight.
George Kaplan, an assistant, testified on that flight that Colmbs
brutally attacked Cassie in the bedroom of the plane, with
Cassie screaming, isn't anybody seeing this? That incident shows that
while literally in transit between states, Colmbs was violently enforcing control,
and the reason for that trip was a party or
event in Las Vegas, and of course another freak off.
Given the pattern, so it can be inferred that the
very purpose of flying to Las Vegas may have been
connected to the sexual exploitation, even if just to have
her accompany him to an event where things happened, and
in another instance, Kid Cutty's testimony indirectly relates. He said
that Colmbs flew to Los Angeles from New York after
learning of Cassie's involvement with Cutty, which led to the
break in and arson attempt. While not prostitution related, it
shows Colmbs did not hesitate to physically move across the
country in response to issues around his sexual possession of Cassie,
and the core evidence on this count is logistical details
showing that Combs and Cassie frequently traveled together and that
these travels were tied to comb sexual plans. Prosecutors highlighted,
for example, that Cassie accompanied Colmbs on his tours and
his business trips, but unlike typical girlfriends, her travel itinerary
often coincided with freak offs arranged at the destination Cassie's
own words, she testified that Combs directed these freak offs,
including flying in mal sex workers and taking her on trips,
specifically for these marathons. Now, of course, Diddy's defense argued
that while Combs and Cassie traveled a lot, the travel
wasn't for the purpose of prostitution. Instead, they frame it
as yes, Shawn and Cassie flew to Los Angeles often,
he has homes and businesses there. Any sexual activity that
occurred was just a byproduct, not the reason for the trip.
They emphasized that Colmbs is a globe trotting celebrity and
Cassie was his girlfriend who naturally traveled with him. In
other words, the flights were for business meetings, music events,
award shows, vacations, not explicitly to engage in sexual acts.
They also contended that Cassie's participation wasn't prostitution. She wasn't
being paid to have sex. She was Colm's partner, and
even though the mal escorts were paid, the defense might
claim that Colmbs didn't transport Cassie with the intent for
her to engage in prostitution, mostly transported the male escorts,
who are the ones being paid for sex. However, this
is a bit of a semantic dodge, but a possible argument. Basically,
if anyone was committing prostitution, it was the male participants,
and Colms didn't need to transport them with Cassie. They
can separately. However, since the initial indictment combined multiple victims,
in one Man Act count and then was separated. It
appears the transportation count as taylor to a particular woman.
That suggests prosecutors have the evidence that Combs specifically transported
Cassie for a sexual purpose. Now the defense, they responded
that even if he had a sexual motive, that it
wasn't the sole motive. They tried to raise doubts like
Combs took Cassie to LA for a music video shoot
and while they were indulged in a freak off, but
that's not the same as transporting for the purpose of prostitution.
If the jurors think that the travel had plausible, legitimate purposes,
they could be unsure if the statute applies. The defense also,
of course, falls back on consent. If they maintained Cassie
consented to the sexual activity, they might argue there was
no unlawful activity intended, aside from the technical fact that
hiring escorts is illegal, But consent isn't a defense to
the Man Act charge if prostitution occurred, so that likely
won't fly legally. Still, it might confuse a lay jur
if they I think everyone went willingly on the trip.
The defense could thus encourage a view that these were
just consensual adult trips and the law shouldn't criminalize it.
Now listen, for count four, the prosecution does not need
to prove force or coercion, only that Combs knowingly transported
Cassie across state lines with the intent that she engaged
in sexual act for which someone could be charged here prostitution.
Given all the evidence of planning freak offs in various states,
this seems well supported. If the jury believes that Combs
to Cassie to say, California, specifically to carry out freak
coffs involving paid sex workers, that's a textbook Man Act violation,
and the trickiest element is intent. The jury must find
that one of COM's dominant purposes in the travel was
to elicit sexual activity. However, prosecutors have tied timelines together,
for example, showing messages like Holmes telling an assistant to
fly Cassie out to Miami and also arrange for some
male dancers to be there, and such evidence as presented
is very compelling. But even absent those smoking gun messages,
the pattern of travel and sex can speak for itself.
If every time Colmbs went to lay a freak off,
ensued jurors can infer that was part of the reason
for going The jurors can also use common sense. Combs
had residences in multiple states and could have done these
acts anywhere, but evidence shows he moved people around to
avoid detection a form of strategy to do freak offs privately,
and multiple articles and reports noted that colmb's team would
arrange flights for sex workers and set up hotel rooms
out of town. And then we heard the testimony backing
it all up, which shows the calculated use of interstate
travel to facilitate these sex crimes. So what's the likelihood
of a conviction on count four? Well, in my opinion,
hi compared to the more complex trafficking counts, the man
act count is relatively straightforward. If the jury has already
convinced Combs ran freak offs and that male prostitutes were involved,
then any proven instance of Comb's taking Cassie to another
state to do that would fulfill this count. Cassie and
others testimonies give multiple instances. For example, Cassie being flown
to a hotel in another state specifically for a freak
off on her birthday is direct evidence of that crime.
Also recall Cassie's twenty eighteen break up rate occurred in
Los Angeles. After she moved there, Colmbs flew out and
assaulted her. Although not prostitution per se, it shows he
was crossing states to engage in sexual domination. The defense
attempts to cast travel as innocuous might not hold weight
given how clearly these journeys were tied to sexual episodes.
Jurors who accept the broader narrative will likely find that
colmb's interstate travel with Cassie was part and parcel of
that exploitation. Thus, a conviction on count four seems very likely.
If the jury is inclined to convict on the related
sex trafficking count count number two, it would be consistent
for them to hold him accountable for using interstate channels
to commit those acts. All right, So that's gonna do
it for count number four. In the next episode, we're
gonna wrap this bad boy up with count number five.
All of the information that goes with this episode can
be found in the description box. What's up, everyone, and
welcome to another episode of The Diddy Diaries. In this episode,
we're gonna continue on with our endgame series and wrap
this bad boy up with count number five Transportation to
engage in prostitution Victim number two Jane. Count five is
the Man Act, a charge corresponding to Victim two Jane.
It alleges Combs transported Jane across stay lines for the
purpose of engaging in an unlawful sexual activity prostitution. This
is essentially a mirror of Count four for the second victim,
requiring proof that that Combs moved Jane between states with
intent that she participate in commercial sex acts i e.
The freak offs with paid participants, and much like with Cassie,
the prosecution showed that Colmb's relationship with Jane also involved
significant interstate travel explicitly linked to the sexual hotel nights.
Jane testified that she accompanied Colmbs on many trips as
his girlfriend, and that the freak offs occurred in multiple cities.
Given that she was with them from twenty twenty one
to twenty twenty four, Comb's business and appearances and perhaps
hiding from New York scrutiny post Cassie suit, might have
had them traveling. Jane's statement that freak offs were also
called hotel nights point directly to hotels that were away
from their home base. She described going to different places
like Miami, La Atlanta, or overseas anywhere. The principle is
the same. If she was pressured into a freak off
on those trips, that would indicate that the travel facilitated
the prostitution. Now the prosecution, they use the same pattern
of evidence in staff testimony as for Cassie, Comb's crew
arranged for mal escorts to show up during Jane's trips
as well. That's documentation. Colmb's paid for Jane's travel, and
the messages sent between them clearly show the intent. Even
Jane's rent arrangement implies that he moved her to New
York if she wasn't from there, or kept her able
to travel with them by covering expenses. Less directly, but
the fact that Comb's kidnapped Clark to confront ky Cutty
shows a precedent that he physically transports people when motivated
by a personal sexual jealous issue. Now it's a different context,
but it underscores that interstate travel was part of his
toolkit in controlling his relationships. Now, haw do his diddy
defend something like this? Well? For Jane's man at count,
the defense arguments mirrors those four Cassis, perhaps even with
a bit more to say, since Jane joined them in
a period where Combs was already facing more scrutiny. They
asserted that Combs and Jane traveled as any couple might,
for work or leisure, not specifically to commit crimes. Jane
sometimes arranged freak offs, and the defense argued that implies
if any travel happened around those events, it was her intention, too,
muddying the idea that Colmbs solely transported her for it.
They also brought up the fact that Jane is from
out of state. Originally that Jane lived in California and
Colmbs flewort in New York to live with them when
they started dating, and they asserted that that was normal relocation,
not trafficking. However, that relocation itself is done to keep
her as his companion in sexual events could actually fulfill
the law. They also tried the angle that Combs paying
her rent in New York was simply him caring for
his girlfriend, not a bribe to travel or do anything illegal. Essentially,
the defense lumped all of that into their narrative. There
was no sex crime conspiracy, There was no unlawful intent
behind any travel, so what's the likelihood of a conviction
here on count five? While the evidence for count five
rides on whether the jury finds Jane's freak off participation
to be tied to travel, if they believe Jane's account
that she was pressured into hotel sessions and that these
occur during trips or required moving her around, then intent
is shown. Even Jane's statement that she feared losing her
home suggests that even the provision of housing, which presumably
was in a particular location he wanted her, was part
of controlling where she would be for him. And here's
one scenario colms moving Jane to New York from elsewhere,
paying a rent with the expectation should be available for
freak offs, that initial act itself could be seen as
transporting for prostitution enticement to reside somewhere for sex. The
indictment uses trans insportation broadly, Enticing or moving someone to
a location for illicit sex also counts. Given how closely
Jane's testimony paralleled Cassie's, it's likely the jury similarly parallel
their verdicts. If they convict on Cassie's man act, they'll
likely do so on Jane's absent of specific doubt. One
possible wrinkle since Jane's credibility might be a bit more contested.
If a jury disbelieves I'm of Jane's story, they might
hesitate on her accounts. But if they credit her account
of being pressured on multiple state trips, then count five
is made out. Now, what's the likelihood of a conviction
on count five transportation of Jane? I would say that
it's moderate to high, and it should track closely with
count three's outcome. If the jury convicts on sex trafficking Jane,
they almost certainly will convict on transporting her for a prostitution,
because the latter is even more clear cut subset of
the behavior. Conversely, if they had doubt about Jane's victimization,
they might acquit on both counts three and five. Four. However,
as things stand after six weeks, the prosecution strengthened Jane's
story by aligning it with cassies and providing corroboration, and
the defense didn't produce any bombshells to discredit Jane aside
from her complicated feelings. Therefore, assuming the jury leans toward
Jane was coerced, they will likely also agree that Colmbs
intentionally moved her across jurisdictions to facilitate the coerse sex acts,
constituting a man act violation. So where does this all
leave us? Six weeks into the trial, the prosecution has
delivered a compelling and richly detailed case that Sean did
he Comb's engaged in a sustained pattern of sexual exploitation
and violence, rising to the level of federal crimes. Each
count in the indictment addresses a different facet of this
alleged conduct, and for each the evidence is so far substantial.
Racketeering conspiracy count one, the government unveiled what looks like
an entire ecosystem of criminal conduct around comes with multiple
independent acts from freak offs to an arsin to hush money,
fitting together to form a cohesive narrative of an illicit enterprise.
And with a prosecution closing its case, the defense has
no more chances to break the credibility of the witnesses,
So the prosecution appears to be meeting it's every burden.
En Rico jurors have heard enough to identify at least two,
indeed many more, predicate crimes Combs agreed to commit with others.
The defense betrayal of Combs as merely flawed but not
a racketeer, has been undermined by the sheer, extremity and
coordination of the acts described. The likelihood of conviction on
count one currently seems strong, though not guaranteed. It will
depend on whether the jurors view the evidence as a
single criminal scheme or just a series of personal incidents.
Sex trafficking counts two and three. The testimony a Cassie
Ventura in Jane has been deeply damaging to calms. They
presented as to women from different periods, unknown to each other,
telling almost the same harrowing story that symmetry greatly bolsters credibility.
The prosecution has effectively shown force en coercion through beatings,
threats control of finances and careers, which is exactly what
the sex trafficking law targets. The defense elicited that these
women had moments of consent or even enjoyment, but in
context those seem like coping mechanisms rather than true freedom.
Provided the jury understands that consent can be negated by
fear and abuse, the government has likely met its burden
of proving Calms course these victims into commercial sex convictions
on both counts two and three appear likely if the
jurors believe the women and the corroborating wa witnesses. Only
if jurors are swayed by the defense characterization of the
freak offs as consensual swinging, might these counts be at risk,
an argument that seems to have little factual support after
hearing about black eyes, death threats and desperate emails. Man
Act counts four and five. These are somewhat more technical,
but essentially flow from the above. If the jury concludes
that Comb's orchestrated a legal sexual conduct, it's a short
step to conclude he also used interstate travel to achieve it.
The evidence of the private jets at a state hotel,
orgies and flying in participants is largely unrefuted. The defense
hasn't really contested that travel happened, They only contest the
intent behind it. Giving holmes lifestyle and the context, the
intent seems evident. Thus convictions on the transportation counts are
also very likely. It's worth noting that splitting hairs on
these counts isn't intuitive. Won't want to acquit on a
travel technicality if they think he did the trafficking more
likely they will treat these as additional corroborative offenses. Perhaps
the easiest charges for the prosecution to get a unanimous
verdict on are the man act ones, since they involve
simpler questions did he move her for sex? Yes? Or no?
Based on pattern and planning. In conclusion, as the defense
prepares its very limited case, they've indicated it may only
last a day or two, Combs faces an uphill battle.
The current status after six weeks heavily favors the prosecution.
They have presented a narrative back by emotional testimony and
tangible proof, whereas the defense has largely been limited to
cross examining and trying to pull coals. Unless the defense
can produce a highly compelling counter narrative or catch a
major witness in a lie which hasn't happened so far,
the likelihood of a conviction on each count is high.
Each charge reinforces the others. The racketeering count gives context
to the trafficking, The trafficking count gives gravity to the
transportation counts, and the transportation counts provide a legal acts
that support the racketeering. This interlocking nature of the evidence
is a classic strength and complex trials. If jurors accepted
as a whole, it becomes very convincing. Of course, the
ultimate decision rests with the jury, and they'll be reminded
to consider each count separately. It's always possible one or
more jurors might have lingering doubts about certain aspects. For example,
they might wonder if calling it racketeering is too much,
or if Jane's continued love for Colmbs means the government
overstated her coercion. The defense will surely play on any
such doubts in closing arguments. However, based on the case
thus far, the legal analysts observing the trial are largely
in agreement that the prosecution has presented a powerful case.
There's a sense that calms defense, essentially asking the jury
to believe all these people are lying or exaggerating for money,
is thin. As one former prosecutor commented, Rico trials with
multiple victims can be overwhelming for a jury because by
the third or fourth witness, the pattern is unmistakable, and
that seems to be happening here. In closing, at this
six week juncture, combs prospects look grim. The prosecution appears
to be meeting its burden of proof on each count
under the law, and the likelihood of a conviction on
all counts is significant if the jury finds the witness
is credible. While the defense may score some points around
the edges, for instance, emphasizing consent and inconsistencies, it would
require a major shift in perspective for the jury to
overlook the mountain of evidence of coercion and conspiracy, and
with the trials soon coming to its climax, Seawan Colmbs
could very well be headed toward a sweeping guilty verdict
on all five counts, a legal downfall as dramatic as
a lifestyle that came before it. All right, So that's
where things currently stand as far as I can see it,
as we cruise into this pivotal week number seven, with
the prosecution saying that they're prepared to rest their case
after today probably, and then the defense has said that
they're only going to need a couple of days, and
considering the timeframe we're dealing with, it looks like it's
going to be a sprint to the finish line, and
we're going to be here every step of the way.
As they come down the home stretch. All of the
information that goes with this episode can be found in
the description box.