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 with our first week's summary, and
that is with Cassie Ventura back on the stand and
this time for cross examination. Thursday, May fifteenth, twenty twenty five.
After a night to digest Cassie's harrowing testimony, Thursday morning
brings a sense of trepidation. The question on everyone's mind
how well Didty's lawyers cross examined Cassie. Attacking a sympathetic
accuser to harshly can alienate a jury, but they must
challenge your credibility to mount any defense. Word is filtered out,
perhaps from motions. Argued Wednesday after hours that the defense
plans a focus on Cassie's infidelity and the couple's volatile dynamic. Indeed,
defense attorney Mark Agnafilo boldly told the judge that infidelity
will be featured subject of the cross and that everyone
knew this was coming. They foreshadowed a narrative of mutual
violence and mutual cheating, Essentially that Cassie wasn't the helpless
victim that she portrays, but an active player in a turbulent,
hedonistic relationship. The courtroom is as crowded as ever. As
Cassie retakes the stand at nine thirty am, she's visibly
drained but determined. Anna Stavio rises for the defense. A
conscious choice, perhaps a woman, to question a woman on
these intimate matters, likely calculated to appear less confrontational. A. Stavio,
in a calm, almost friendly tone, begins, good morning, miss Ventura.
Cassie responds in kind, to everyone's perhaps pleasant surprise. The
cross examination is polite and low key. A Stavio strategy
is clearly to avoid villainizing Cassie. There's no angry grilling,
no raised voice. Observers later say it felt at times
like two friends chatting. This approach is disarming. It lulls
the jury and perhaps puts Cassie at ease, making her
more likely to concede points. Stavio starts by acknowledging how
hard it must be for Cassie to relive these experiences,
which catches Cassie off guard. Then she gently pivots, I
want to talk about some of the messages you and
Shawn exchanged during your relationship. She says. What unfolds is
the defense most potent tool Cassie's own words, preserved in
text messages and email from the time when these events
were happening. Astavio produces print outs of several explicit text
message exchanges between Cassie and Colms. She doesn't read them
in a delicious way, but matter of factly. On August ninth,
two thousand and nine, mister Combs texted you, when do
you want to freak off? Lol? And you replied I'm
always ready to freak off. A few jurors raised eyebrows.
A Stavio continues quoting another message from two days later,
when Cassie sent Colmbs a highly explicit sexual text, the
context of which is not read aloud, just alluded to
as an explicit message, and Combs are applied with excitement,
and you responded me too, I just want to be uncontrollable,
a Stavio says, stressing Cassie's enthusiastic phrasing. Cassie looks visibly uncomfortable,
but doesn't deny it. If that's what the text says,
then yes, I said that, she affirms, perhaps now understanding
the defense game plan. A Stavio highlights these messages to
suggest Cassie was a willing participant who had times initiated
freak offs. Another message July twenty thirteen, Cassie to Colmbs,
which we could have foed before you left, And in
twenty seventeen, Cassie wrote, I love our fos when we
both wanted a. Stavio asked Cassie to read that one
aloud herself. Cassie does quietly, I love our fos when
we both wanted a. Stavio then asks what did you
mean by that, Miss Ventura. Cassie takes a moment. At
that point, I was saying what I thought he wanted
to hear. She explains. When I said loving freak offs,
they were just words. I didn't truly love them. This
is a critical pushback. Cassie basically says she often feigned
enthusiasm to appease Combs. A Stavio nods, I see, so
you are lying to him in these texts. Cassie clarifies
I was. I was trying to keep him happy. I
wouldn't call it lying so much as surviving. The defense
also underscores Cassie's frustration and agency. They introduced messages where
Cassie complained about the relationship lacking more than sex. Late
two thousand and nine, Cassie email Combs, upset that he
would rush her off the phone and not spend quality time.
In other words, she wasn't a passive doll, she argued
with him, had her own needs. A. Stavio then slides
in the topic of infidelity. She establishes that Colmbs had
other women and Cassie knew it, then pointedly asked, you
are also seeing someone else towards the end of your
relationship with mister Combs. Correct Cassie tenses this is referencing
Alex Fine, who Cassie began dating around twenty eighteen while
technically still with Combs. Cassie answers, carefully, I began seeing
the man who is now my husband after Sean and
I were already broken up. We were on a break. A.
Stavio presses, weren't you still living at Shawn's house at
the time. Cassie admits she was. Briefly The defenses implying
Cassie cheated on Combs, which, in their narrative, might have
provoked some of his rage or undermines her victimhood, as
if to say she was capable of doing wrong too.
It's a risky line, but they pursue it lightly. A
Stavio notes how Cassie expressed jealousy when Holmes ped attention
to other women. You didn't want him seeing others, but
he didn't let you see others either, right. Cassie responds,
he didn't want me seeing anyone period, but yes, he
did what he wanted. A Stavio then draws out that
Cassie's jealousy sometimes led to fights where she might start
yelling or even throwing things. Cassie admits that at times
she'd smash things out of frustration. The defense subtly seeds
the concept of mutual conflict without outright calling her an aggressor.
They mentioned an incident hypothetical where Cassie won slap calms
during an argument. Cassie doesn't recall specifics, but says if
I ever hit him, it was in self defense or
at a sheer desperation. Throughout this, a Stavio remains warm.
If Cassie cries, a Stavio offers her a moment and
a tissue. The courtroom observes this for what it is
a tactic to get Cassie relaxed and talkative, and it
works to an extent. Cassie occasionally volunteers context to defend herself.
I said that because I was scared he'd get mad
if I said no, and Ostavio listens sympathetically, but then
uses the very admission to underscore out Cassie was not
physically forced to type those eager messages. She chose to
play catom. The jury leans forward, reading the text on
their monitors. One female jur looks troubled when seeing Cassie's
flirtatious words, perhaps thinking why would she play along so
eagerly if she hated it. Another juror shakes his head
at one particularly raunchy line from Cassie, while a few
others dark glances at Comb's who appears relaxed at the
defense table, arms folded and legs crossed. He even cracks
a slight smile at one intimate joke read aloud as
if reminiscing about better times. This body language Combs, appearing
calm and almost chummy with his lawyer while his worst
secrets are erred, is noted by the press. Some wonder
if it plays his confidence or callousness. Next to Stavio
addresses the settlement and financial motive. She brings up the
twenty million Cassie received in the civil settlement. That amount
of money could certainly help when one's career installed, could
it not, she asks? The prosecution objects to the career
stall premise sustained. A Stavio rephrases, you hadn't released an
album in many years, right? Cassie agrees she only ever
released one in two thousand and six. As we know
the insinuation Cassie might have needed money. A Stavio asked
whether Cassie's family was in financial hardship by twenty twenty three.
Cassie firmly says no, not at all. A Stavio asked,
did you have to pay your lawyers from that settlement?
Cassie says she can't speak about the details due to
the NDA. It's a brief hint that you got money.
You might have motive to exaggerate, but Cassie's earlier tearful
statement I'd give it back to a race really blunted
that angle. The defense likely recognized that and doesn't belabor
money much. Astavio also touches on Cassie's post relationship success,
how she got married started a family moved on, possibly
trying to suggest she recovered okay, thus maybe it wasn't
so bad. Cassie counters that she still deals with PTSD,
hence the therapy now. Estavio carefully navigates the Atlantic City
incident where Cassie threatened the man. You were prepared to
have someone hurt the man on Shawn's instruction. Weren't you,
she asks softly. Cassie looks pained. I was terrified. I
wasn't prepared to I was doing what Seawn told me.
I never actually heard anyone but a Stavio notes Cassie's
own words on the recording. I'll kill you. Someone else
is gonna do it. She asks, you said those things, right, Cassie, Yes,
I did. There's no walk in that back. So in
that moment, you were willing to use violence to protect
Shawn CCT. Cassie responds that she would have actually done it.
She was just desperate. The defense lets it linger and
it's opponent image Cassie, sounding like a mob, enforce her
even if under duress, and throughout Thursday, Jersey two cassies,
one from the past and texts flirty, compliant, even aggressive
at times, and one on the stand, vulnerable, remorseful, resolved.
It's complex and likely confusing for some. The defense aims
to so reasonable doubt. Maybe this wasn't a one sided
saga of abuse. Maybe it was a twisted romance with
blame on both sides. By late Thursday, Astavio concludes her
cross with a respectful thank you, Miss Ventura, and Cassie
has held up remarkably well. She shed tears at points,
especially discussing the shame and the league videos, but never
lashed out or crumbled under pressure. In fact, her willingness
to acknowledge uncomfortable fact that she sent those texts, that
she threatened that man, might have bolstered her credibility more
than any denial could. As legal analysts note on TV
that night, the defense got some mileage with the texts,
but Cassie didn't waiver that deep down, she never wanted
those frea coughs. If the jury believed she was essentially
coerced by love and fear, those messages don't equal consent
in a legal sense. Still, others suggested at least one
juror might wonder if Cassie is reframing history in hindsight,
was she truly that unwilling if she sometimes said she
loved it. The question hangs before Cassie steps down for
good on Friday morning, there's a brief redirect where a
prosecutors allow her to clarify a couple points, like that
she often had to fight her way out of contracts
and the relationship, and that her enthusiastic texts were just
to keep them calm. She and Estavio share a surprising
moment a Stavio thanks her for answering in Cassie. He
nods politely, a far cry from the hostility scene in
some cross exams. It was a measured human exchange. One
observer said, she's tough. I feel for her, but I'm
trying to keep an open mind, and that epitomizes the
state of play. Cassie's testimony four day's worth dominated Week
one and undeniably advanced the prosecution's case, but the defense
managed to poke a few holes and introduce complexity. All right,
we're gonna wrap up right there, and in the next episode,
we're gonna pick up with Friday, May sixteenth. 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 wrap up our look back at the first week
of the Ditty Trial Friday, May sixteenth, twenty twenty five.
By Friday, Cassie Ventura's marathon on the stand is finally over.
There's a most a collective excel in the court room.
When Judge Submarinian announces just after lunch, Miss Ventura, you
may step down. Thank you for your testimony. Cassie gathers
her files, wipes a final tear from her eye, and
walks back to her seat, where her husband squeezes her hand.
Jurors watch or go, understanding they've just heard from the
government star witness. As MPR later put it, the extent
in detail of her testimony showed how central she is
to the government's case. Yet the week isn't over. The prosecution,
aware of the old adage corroborate corroborate corroborate, uses the
remaining hours of Friday to reinforce Cassie's account with two
supporting witnesses, one from law enforcement, one an eyewitness insider.
Witness number three Special Agent Yasin Binda of Homeland Security
and Agent Binda with Homeland Security, part of the human
Trafficking unit. She's the agent who plan Comb's arrest in
September of twenty twenty four and executed the search warrant.
Her testimony is straightforward and methodical. She describes the raid
a tactical team to Colmbs into custody without incident. He
reportedly in shock at being arrested. Benda's assignment was to
catalog evidence at the scene. What she found in the
suite or a personal lounge is a physical echo of
cassie stories. She lists the items multiple bottles of baby
oil and lubricant, a professional lighting device the kind DJs used,
apparently installed for mood lighting, approximately nine g's in cash,
and a bag. Also seized were some illegal substances, likely
small quantities of drugs, and several smartphones and memory drives.
Juror's note how each item seems to map into Cassie's descriptions.
The baby oil infamous by now, the colored lights Cassie
had mentioned Colmbs like the room dark with special lighting
during freak offs. The cash used for paying escorts like
fill up presumably. Benda holds up a photograph of these
objects arranged on a table. It's Exhibit forty seven a
visual of the implement's turned evidence. The link is clear
Colmb's environment was stocked for freak offs. This undercuts any
notion by the defense that freak offs were exaggerations. Clearly
Colmbs had dedicated supplies. Benda also confirms that digital evidence,
likely including some of those freak off videos, was retrieved,
but details are not shared nope in court, likely due
to privacy rulings on Cross. The defense does not have
much to hit her on. Perhaps they clarify that the
baby oil and cash aren't illegal by themselves, chicily HARKing
back to Garrigo's baby oil line, but the implication remains,
it's not a crime that baby oil, but combined with
everything else, its corroboration of coercive sex acts. Witness number four,
Don Richard, the last witness of week one, comes with
a bit of celebrity or herself. Don Richard is called
and there's a murmur in court. Richard is known as
a singer who was once part of Danity Kane, the
girl group Combs formed in his two thousand reality show
Making the Band, and later a member of Diddy's group
Dirty Money. Essentially she's a former bad boy artist who
work closely with Combs. Her presence is significant. She's not
an alleged victim like Cassie, but a witness who saw
things from an insider vantage point. In fact, she filed
her own civil lawsuit last year, accusing Colmbs of creating
a toxic and abusive working environment in her bad boy days,
including claims that she witnessed them violently assault Cassie. So
her motives could be painted by the defense as grudges
or self interest, But her testimony is potentially very damaging
because it offers an outsider's corroboration of Cassie's abuse. Don Richard,
stylish and poised, takes the oath. She testifies only briefly
on Friday. Her full testimony will spill into next week,
the judge notes, but what she does say is vivid.
Richard recounts an incident at Comb's home in either late
two thousand and eight or two thousand and nine, when
she was present with Cassie and Combs after a recording session.
Cassie was in the kitchen trying to cook eggs for Combs.
Richard recalls Combs was apparently intoxicated and became belligerent, perhaps
paranoid about something or upset how long breakfast was taking.
Without warning, Comb snatched the hot skillet from the stovetop
and lunged at Cassie with it. Dawn described how Cassie
yelped induct dropping into a fetal position on the floor
to protect yourself. Combs then, according to Dawn, punched and
kicked her repeatedly while she was down, screaming obscenities. He
ended by putting his form around Cassie's neck in a
chokehold and dragging her up a staircase by her hair.
Don's voice quivers as she states, I was scared for
I had never seen anything like that before. Meanwhile, the
courtroom is transfixed. Here is the third party witness, not Cassie,
not on Calm's payroll anymore, confirming one of the worst
beatings Cassie described. For jurors, if they believe Don Richard,
it's a big deal. It shows Cassie didn't bruise herself,
didn't make this up. Others saw Comb's violence with their
own eyes. The defense will likely attack Richard next week,
saying she's disgruntled and jumping on the bandwagon her lawsuit
seeks money after all, but as a Friday, her account
stands unchallenged and powerfully supportive of Cassie's credibility. As Richard's
brief direct ends, court stops at five PM, so cross
examination of her will start Monday of week two. Week
one of the trial concludes. The jurors are dismissed for
the weekend, with stern instructions not to discuss or consume
any media. They've been through an emotional ringer and surely
will try to decompress those sequestering their minds from the
case might be impossible. Outside the courthouse on Friday evening,
it's a media circus. Cassie Ventura exits, flanked by US
marshals and her attorneys. A crowd assembled across the street
cheers and calls her name. She doesn't speak to the press.
Gag order is likely in place, and she offers a
slight wave and a tearful smile before ducking into a
black SUV. Meanwhile, legal pundits on TV try to sum
up the week. One calls it one of the most
riveting first weeks of testimony I have seen in a
federal trial. Another notes that the prosecution accomplished a lot.
They put on their star witness for four days, and
she was extremely compelling. They cooperated with the video, an eyewitness,
and even the accused own former employee. Indeed, in five days,
the government presented two civilian eye Witsess Flores and Richard
to violence, one participant to sexual abuse, Philip, a federal agent,
with physical evidence, and of course Cassie's comprehensive account tying
it all together. That's a strong start by any measure,
but defense attorneys on commentary panels are not conceding by
any means. One veteran defense lawyer opines the government's case
hinges almost entirely on Cassie Ventura. If even one or
two jurors doubts parts of her story, maybe due to
those texts or the fact she states so long, that
could be enough for a reasonable doubt on the sex
trafficking counts. They highlight that the defense scored points by
using Cassie's own words to show apparent consent and by
emphasizing the mutual chaos of the relationship. The concept of
mutual abuse or mutual violence is floated. As NPR pointed out,
it's a narrative deployed in other celebrity cases and has
been used many times times before. The defense seems to
be leaning that way, not denying that wild, even violent
things happened, but arguing they were a part of a
consensual sexual dynamic that Cassie later regretted or reinterpreted. It's
a tricky defense, another analyst says, because jurors might think,
even if she agreed to some kinky stuff, she surely
didn't agree to being beaten to a polt. The line
between consent and coercion via fear is where this trial
will likely be won or lost. Judge Submaranean's roll so
far also draws praise. He's maintained order and fairness, shielding
jurors from explicit videos, and balancing both sides concerns in
evidentiary rulings. He denied media access to pornographic exhibits, perhaps
wisely to keep focus on testimony, not voyeurism. He also
reportedly admonished attorneys in sidebar to keep questioning respectful, which
might have been fluents the gentle cross style. As week
one closes, the tone of the trial is set. The
prosecution came out with a dramatic narrative of exploitation, supported
by emotional testimony and damning corroboration. The defense responded with
a nuanced counter narrative, aiming not to prove Comb's innocent
of bad behavior, but to reframe the bad behavior as
beyond the scope of federal crimes, or not as wholly
one sided. In essence, the defense concedes Comb's flaws, his
horrible violence caught on tape, his hedonistic sexual appetites, but
maintains he is not a trafficker or a racketeer, just
a flawed man whose private life is being criminalized. For
the jury, it comes down to credibility. Cassie's credibility got
a boost from others Flores, Richard, et cetera, but it
also took some hits via her own contradictions, enthusiastic texts,
first testimony of reluctance. If the jurors believe Cassie wholeheartedly,
Combs is in deep trouble on the sex trafficking counts
because their story checks all the boxes force fraud, coercion,
interstate transport for illicit sex, and a pattern suggesting a
criminal enterprise. However, if jurors suspect Cassie was a willing
participant who later reframed the experience. They might hesitate to
convict on trafficking. They could see it as extreme BDSM
or a toxic relationship, but not a federal crime. The
defense only needs one or two jurors to feel that
doubt for a home jury or acquittal on key counts.
Looking ahead to week two and beyond, there are key
things to watch additional accusers. The prosecution mentioned other women
like Jane and Mia in opening We can expect that
these women, likely under pseudonyms, were first names only to testify.
Jane's story teased in openings involve Combs making her participate
in freak coughs, not allowing condoms, making her reduce sexual
lacks after vomiting, and a violent episode of door kicking
and assault. If Jane testifies and echoes Cassie's narrative with
her own example, that could be devastating corroboration. It would
show Cassie wasn't uniquely treated that way. It was COM's
modus operendi, and the defense will likely attack Jane's anonymity
If she testifies under a pseudonym, they might suggest she's
less accountable or credible. They'll also likely highlight any differences
in stories to avoid a pattern being too clear. Insiders
and enterprise evidence beyond Don Richard, prosecutors might bring in
former employees like the chef or driver mentioned, who can
attest to how colmb's staff was used to procure drugs,
arrange escorts, or keep victims in line. That goes to
the racketeering element that there was an enterprise bad boy
or is in her circle engaging in criminal conduct. If
an employee says yes, I was ordered to lock a
woman in a car at gunpoint, or I routinely delivered
ecstasy to mister Colmb's before these parties, it will strengthen
the RICO count. The defense will counter that if such
things happened, Colmbs alone is responsible, not a coordinated enterprise,
essentially trying to sever the RICO by portraying these as
isolated acts or a personal misbehavior, not organizational policy. The
defense's case. It's unclear if comb Side will put on
a case beyond cross examination. They haven't promised specific witnesses yet.
It's unlikely Combs himself will testify. The risk would be enormous.
Cross exam would be brutal. With his past deeds. However,
they might bring in character witnesses, friends, ex girlfriends who
had positive relationships, et cetera, maybe to say that they
never felt forced, or expert witnesses on sexual behavior coologists
to discuss consensual role play or the concept of mutual
abuse to bolster their theory. The judge would have to
allow such experts, and prosecution would likely present their own
counter experts, eg. An expert on domestic abuse explaining why
victims sometimes act like Cassie did, staying and even appearing
to consent due to trauma bonding her fear the jury
perception management. Thus far, both sides have been very cognizant
of how the jury perceives them. The prosecution laid out
their case in a logical chronological fashion, not overloading too
many witnesses at once, letting Cassie's story land fully. The defense,
by cross examining with courtesy, aim to appear reasonable and
not as if they're bullying a victim. This likely scored
them some points in juror's eyes, at least for style
in coming weeks, as evidence perhaps becomes less emotional. Financial records,
travel records showing flights to freak offs, etc. The defense
might be more aggressive on technicalities. We see emotions for
judgment of acquittal at the end of the prosecution case
Standard Rule twenty nine motions arguing the evidence is insufficient
on one or more accounts. For instance, they might argue
that even if everything Cassie said is true, the elements
of commercial sex Act for trafficking aren't met because it
was ostensibly for Comb's personal gratification, not profit, a legal
long shot but a possible argument. Or they may challenge
the by force, fraud or coercion element by saying Cassie's
own actions show it wasn't force or fraud but a
twisted form of consent. The judge is unlikely to throw
out charges given the evidence, but these arguments preserve issues
for appeal sensitive allegation handling. The court likely has more
evidentiary battles ahead. For example, if there are more explicit
videos to be shown, perhaps one of the freak off
tapes that Combs are recorded, expect the press to renew
the request to view them and the judge to carefully
restrict it. Also, if any miners are extremely sensitive allegations
come up. One civil suit had an allegation of a
thirteen year old, but that woman withdrew her claim. It's
not part of this trial. As far as we know,
the judge will be extra cautious. So far, all accusers
are adults, a bit young adults. Public repercussions outside the
trial is being watched as a potential ME two milestone
in the music industry. If Week one set any tone,
it's one of accountability finally catching up. Cassie even said
she filed her suit thanks in part to the New
York law, the Adult Survivors Act, that opened the window
for old sex abuse claims. That context might not be
explicitly in trial, but it looms over it already. Executives
and artists are quietly discussing what it means for the
industry's culture of silence around powerful figures. One entertainment journal
is tweeted, if didd he can face a reckoning, No
one's untouchable. Public opinion seems to be edging towards believing Cassie.
The graphic detail and her palpable pain lend her great credibility.
As for the major themes emerging, consent verse coercion is
number one. The jury grappling with questions like Can someone
say I'm always ready to freak off in a text
and still be a victim of trafficking? The law says yes,
if that consent was not truly freely given, coerced by
fear or intoxication. The prosecution will hammer home that initial
apparent consent can be manufactured by yours of grooming and intimidation.
The defense will cling to any evidence of autonomy. Cassie
showed to say she wasn't held captive, she had free
will and used it e g. She eventually found another partner, etc.
Power and control is another theme. Cassie's testimony illuminated how
Colmbs dominated every aspect of her life, career, clothing, who
she talked to. The prosecution will use this to show
the entire relationship with steeped in a power imbalance, essentially
arguing that Cassie's agency was stripped away. The defense might
pivot to say Cassie was actually savvy and leveraged the
relationship for her own benefit when it suited her. They
suggested as much by highlighting she wanted more from her
career and eventually found someone else. Trauma aftermath is a
theme that came out strongly too Cassie's mental health struggles
attempted suicide therapy, I'll underscore that something horrific happened to her.
The defense didn't really counter that, except by noting she
has a family and implying she's fine now. But trauma
doesn't vanish, and jurors may sympathize deeply with her efforts
to heal. Finally, mutual abuse, the phrase itself is controversial
among domestic violence experts. Many say it's very rare for
abuse to be truly mutual. Usually one person is the
primary aggressor. If the defense goes further down that path,
agnafilo already uttered hitting on both sides. In count in court,
the prosecution might bring in an expert to explain react
to violence e g. Victims sometimes strike back or go
along with abuse as a survival mechanism, which doesn't make
it mutual. They might also point out Cassie weighed maybe
one hundred and twenty pounds to colmb's one hundred and
ninety and that power dynamics were never equal given as
wealth and control. The jury will have to parse these
dynamics carefully. As the weekend it calms vulnerabilities in the
trial as stark, multiple accusers, hard evidence like the video
and physical items, and a narrative that, if believed, takes
every box for sex trafficking, interstate travel, payments to escorts,
psychological coercion. The defense vulnerabilities are equally real. They are
essentially admitting Calms did awful things, but asking jurors to
either excuse it as not criminal or blame the victim too.
That's a tough sell and oppost me to era, but
not impossible if they can get jurors hung up on
technical definitions or disliking Cassie's choices. The trial is set
to continue for several more weeks, and we anticipate testimony
from the remaining accusers to show Colms didn't just do
this to Cassie. From former staff, to establish the enterprise
of enablers, possibly from medical experts. Cassie's therapists might testify
to her PTSD diagnosis, which bolsters her credibility, and perhaps
from character witnesses from Colms. The one wonders who would
dare in this climate. Maybe old friends who will say
they never saw him hurt anyone, which prosecution can counter
by you weren't in private with them and Cassie were you.
In terms of likely strategic pivots, the prosecution will probably streamline.
Now that Cassie, their big gun has been deployed, they
might pivot to build the mountain of evidence mode piling
corroboration so that the jury cannot dismiss Cassie as an outlier.
Will see more digital evidence, perhaps texts from other women
to Combs, maybe alleger or payments to escorts or travel
itineraries showing women being flown in. There was mentioned men
were flown to freak offs in La Miami, Vegas. Presumably
they have receipts and tickets. They will also reinforce the
legal elements deliberately asking an FBI agent or analysts to
testify that Combs organizations spent x amount on paying people
for sex to trigger man act, or that he communicated
via interstate channels about these encounters. This can be very dry,
but it's necessary to bulletproof the charges. The defense, seeing
the impact Cassie's testimony, might adjust how aggressive they are
with upcoming witnesses. With Cassie, they tread lightly. If Jane
testifies anonymously, they might be more aggressive, arguing that anonymity
prevents a fair cross, maybe a motion to compel her name,
which has already been denied multiple times. The defense could
also pivot to more legal arguments. For instance, by week's end,
Agnafilo hinted at a theme He said both sides and
opening acknowledged the relationship was volatile, meaning even the prosecution
framed it as tumultuous rather than one side of captivity.
They might seize on that to argue that the government
is overreaching by painting a domestic situation as a federal
crime spree. We might also see the defense push a
bit more on the lack of police reports or third
party intervention at the time. Why did no one call
nine one one? Flores didn't either, he handled the bride
attempt internally. Don Richard didn't call police when she saw
the skilled incident, presumably out of loyalty or fear. In
that moment. The defense could argue that if it were
so so bad, surely someone would have gone to the
authorities earlier. The prosecution will rebut because Colmbs was so
powerful and intimidating, that's why. And indeed Cassie's long silence
until she felt safe is typical of abuse cases. Legally,
by Friday, Judge Submaranean denied the media's request to see
the explicit videos, making it less of a public spectacle
than it could have been. However, transcripts the testimony or
a public and the details are out. The trial is
making waves. Many note that Comb's a man who has
dominated every room he's in for decades, is now reduced
to watching others tell his story, largely without his control.
He occasionally confers with lawyers, but he's mostly impassive, except
for moments like making a herd sign to his daughter
during her break Tuesday. That gesture a father is seeking
comfort or giving reassurance was poignant. It shows another side
of him to the jury, and they also see a
family man who is loving in his own way. Perhaps
one defense strategy later could be to have one of
his children or family members testify to his character. It's
doubtful they'd risk it, but if they feel desperate, they might.
As the sun sets on Friday, one can almost feel
the collective exhale of everyone involved. Week one of the
Shandittycomb's trial was intense and illuminating. The narrative momentum currently
favors the prosecution, having set the tone that this trial
is about alleged horrors behind closed doors, finally dragged into
the light. The defense, however, has signaled their counter narrative
effectively enough to keep a door open for doubt. Next week,
the trial moves from primarily Cassie's chapter to the accounts
of others and the nitty gritty of establishing each charge.
The prosecution's vulnerability maybe if the accusers are less compelling,
or if cross examination exposes inconsistency. The defense vulnerability is frankly,
the shear a weight of evidence and risk of looking
like they're excusing abuse. They'll likely continue the measured tone,
maybe pivot to technical arguments in some nation, like even
if you believe Cassie, the government didn't improve a commercial
sex element beyond a reasonable doubt, or there is no
enterprise because it was all one man's private life. But
those can sound like excuses if jurors are emotionally convinced.
In the end, this trial is not just determining Shawn's
legal fate. It's a referendum on accountability for the powerful.
Week one set a high bar for drama and depth,
and during this narrative we've journeyed from the opening gavel.
Through five days of wrenching testimony, we've seen a powerful
man's secret life exposed, a survivor reclaiming a revoice, and
a justice system grappling with how to qualify a decade
of decade and abuse in legal terms. The first week
absolutely least at the trial's tone, one of seriousness, respect,
and unflinching examination of dark allegations. The jurors of felt shock, sympathy,
and possibly skepticism. They've heard phrases like cycle of abuse, violence,
and sex trafficking used in court to describe Colmb's relationship
with Cassie. They've seen a celebrity seemingly reduced to tears
in sketches, and in contrast, glimpsed them as an alleged
tyrant on video. The foundation is laid. As we end
this week's recap, the courtroom stands adjourned, but the story
is far from over. The defense will find its counter attack.
The prosecution will fortify its positions. Will Mora Colmbs in
our circle break their silence? Will Colmbs himself take any
gambles in his defense? The coming weeks hold the answers,
and if Week one is any indication, it will be
a battle of narratives as much as facts. Stay tuned
for next week's proceedings, because as this trial unfolds, it's
not just the fate of Sean Didty Combs on the line,
but a spotlight on the music industry's dark as corners
and a message that no amount of fame puts anyone
above the law. All right, folks, that's gonna do it
for this week's recap. Now, remember, if you want to
make sure you don't miss anything, click on that subscribe
button so you get all of the details as they
become available as the government continues to try and make
its case against Sean Didty Combs. All of the information
that goes with this episode can be found in the
description box.