← Fame Under Fire
Fame Under Fire
Kanye model assault allegations: YOUR questions about OUR interview
00:22:04
Kanye accuser Jen Ann case - your questions answered
Loading summary
Transcript47 lines
- [00:00]
A
Foreign. Hello, and welcome back to Fame Under Fire from BBC Sounds with me, Anushka Matandadawati. Just a warning, this episode will have strong language and contain themes some listeners may find upsetting. Now, a couple of weeks ago on Fame Under Fire, we brought you an exclusive. I'd flown out to New York to sit down with the actress Jenn Ahn. She accused Kanye west of sexually assaulting her on a music video set in 2010. She says he choked her and forced his fingers in and out of her mouth. Now, Kanye's lawyers don't deny it happened, but they say it was art and that Jen consented to it. You can go and listen to that episode now if you don't know what I'm talking about. But we did our episode and we put it out there and it got thousands of comments across social media. Some are really good, some make a lot of sense, some are, like, willfully ignorant. But we don't discriminate here. So we're gonna be answering all of them. And if we're answering questions, we need our resident trial attorney, Sean Kemp from South Carolina, who. Hi, Sean.
- [00:57]
B
Hey, Nosh, how are you doing? I hear it's kind of chilly over there.
- [01:00]
A
Oh, my God, we're sweating our tits off, Shaun. This is unbelievable. Like, this is unbelievable.
- [01:05]
B
Welcome to our world. Welcome to South.
- [01:07]
A
No, it's not the same. It's not the same. You have the ac. The ac. Everything here is built to insulate everything.
- [01:14]
B
You guys don't have air conditioning?
- [01:15]
A
No. No air conditioning. And this man is threatening to turn up in the UK in a heat wave in a three piece, probably corduroy suit and he's going to die on, on my watch. And I can't have that.
- [01:25]
B
Y' all don't have air conditioning?
- [01:27]
A
We don't have air conditioning. We only have insulation.
- [01:29]
B
I would like to formally announce that I will not be appearing for the Crosswires podcast next week for circumstances beyond my control. We will be appearing via zoom from the luxury of the air conditioning Kush spot in Charleston, South Carolina. Thank you all for coming.
- [01:46]
A
So, Sean, we've been through the comment sections of these posts and we're gonna deal with them head on. The first group that you picked out, there's a general theme of this being a either BBC conspiracy slash UK government conspiracy to take down Kanye West. I think you've got some of those, those comments.
- [02:02]
B
The timing of this is so sus right. When ye is selling out stadiums, who is really behind this? I'm sorry, I want to give it the respect it's due. Because this is why we stay at our common sections. Not our place to question the validity of a victim. Which I love that someone starts out that way. But the timing of this is very unsettling. And it almost seems like the UK is trying to double down on the fumbling on fumbling the opportunity. Either way, this is heartbreaking.
- [02:35]
A
Yeah. So there was a lot of those comments. And it kind of seems like this grand plan was being enacted by the BBC and the UK government. Actually, it was just me. Jen filed her lawsuit in 2024. That's when I approached Jesse Weinstein, her lawyer. It was right at the end of the Diddy trial. The only reason I was looking into any potential legal battles surrounding Kanye is because Kanye up, he turned up on the 13th of June. He kind of stomped around the Southern district of New York court and then left. Made headlines everywhere. I started looking at some of the stuff he'd been posting. I kind of had forgotten Kanye existed at that point because my whole life was just Diddy this, Diddy that, Diddy on trial, Diddy in the courtroom. I googled Kanye. I saw that he'd been tweeting stuff about Cassie and Diddy. The one that surprised me a bit was when he was saying, hey, question. If someone was to beat up their girl in public, would that be considered domestic violence? Or is that outdoor violence? Or is it just public indecency? And then puts, I'm just asking for a friend with a screenshot of that footage of Diddy assaulting Kassie in the hallway of a hotel that we saw multiple times throughout the trial. And I thought, why is Kanye getting involved with this? Then he turned up. I googled him. I saw Jen's case. Now, it's not the first time I've seen a civil lawsuit attached to a celebrity. The thing that piqued my interest in what Jen was alleging was the fact that this wasn't a closed door situation. She was saying that what she alleges happened to her happened to her on an open set. And she said there were a lot of people who witnessed it. Lots of layers of corroboration. And I thought, that's interesting. I haven't actually personally seen that before. So I reached out to her lawyer, Jesse Weinstein, in June, in 2025, and he told me rather unceremoniously, no, go away. She doesn't talk. She doesn't want to speak. I could see she'd put her name on the lawsuit, which is a big thing because a lot of People file as Jane does, particularly when it's against people with a public presence, a large public presence. She didn't want to speak at all. And it wasn't until March 2026 that we reconnected on this. And I actually asked Jen, why did it take so long? Why now? Why did you change? And she says it's because there was more evidence filed in the docket that corroborated what she was saying. If you don't know what I'm talking about. She had DM messages, direct messages with LaRue, whose music video set it was, where she seems to corroborate what happened, referring to it as a horrific incident and saying, you know, that she was traumatized by it as well. There are signed affidavits in docket from the makeup artist who said, I witnessed this and it was a sexual assault. And Jen was saying that this kind of bolstered her to come out and tell her story. Stories happen when they happen. There was no and we're going to do it now. She decided she wanted to come back. They decided they wanted to speak to Fame Under Fire. We made it happen as quickly as we could and we put it out there. So there's no real mystery of why did it come out at this time. And if we, for the YouTube editors who are going to take this and if you're with us on YouTube, just put those emails on the screen. Because I've got all the messages going to Jesse and when I sent them and when he decided, yeah, my editor Dan is raising his hands. I'll send them to you, Dan. We'll put them on the screen. The next one came through a lot. Sean, why did Jen wait 16 years to file this lawsuit? I just want to fact check that. Jen filed her lawsuit in 2024. She alleges this took place in 2010. So she actually waited 14 years. But she spoke to me in 2026. So 16 years to come and talk on a public platform. Now, there is a reason why Jen was able to file a civil lawsuit 14 years after the event. Can you just explain that?
- [05:52]
B
And we've talked about this several times, Anushka. When dealing with the Gender Motivated Violence act, usually you have a two year statute of limitations to bring a lawsuit. In this situation, they have increased that to nine years to bring a lawsuit. She is alleging that this happened in 2010, which would give us till 2019. But what ended up happening was New York City decided that you should have a two year look back provision. So they said anything that has happened to somebody, Anybody who has a sexually related claim that could be triggered by gender motivated violence, they will have an additional two years to bring the claim. So even though her claim should have been barred and stopped until 2019, in 2020, she had an additional amount of time and she was able to bring the claim and she ended up bringing the claim in 2024.
- [06:40]
A
And New York was actually praised for this because it was a recognition that with these types of alleged crimes, it can take people a while to realize that they were victimized in the first place, feel powerful enough to come up and file a civil lawsuit. So there was a lot of praise for New York.
- [06:55]
B
Absolutely. And even as a criminal defense attorney and a former prosecutor and somebody who does civil work, I looked at that and it is a great situation because everybody mourns in their own way. Anoushka, Everybody is victimized in their own way. Everybody handles trauma in their own way. For somebody to sit out there and say she is a victim, whether you believe her or not, but just assume all victims handle adversity the same way is ignorant. I'll just flat out say it. So if somebody is traumatized and it happens when they're 10, they may not be able to address the situation until they're 18, 19, 20. Some people who are victimized in a current home cannot do it until they get away from the individuals. And so New York was praised because they realized that everybody goes about things their own separate way. Some people are scared to go against individuals because they're very powerful. You look at the Harvey Weinstein's of America and they said they were so powerful they didn't want to go back against these people until they were out of power. And New York took all that into consideration.
- [07:53]
A
It's still a high burden of proof for the claimant though.
- [07:56]
B
Absolutely. Just because you bring it doesn't mean it automatically is believed. You have a right to bring it. And the lawsuit and the trial is still going to be hard on the victim, but you have the right to bring your case.
- [08:05]
A
But this is another thing that came up quite a lot in the comments sections, which I totally understand what people were saying. They were like, leave gender out of it. It doesn't matter if Jen is male or female. We should listen to what they have to say. But in this case with the Gender Motivated Violence act, you absolutely cannot leave gender out of it because there has to be gender animus established and it's so central to this case. Can you just expand on that a bit?
- [08:27]
B
I'm kind of smirking. Because lawyers out there, when they hear and if you just use some common sense, they're like, leave gender out of it. It's called the Gender Motivated Violence Act. So realistically it helps everybody. Like anyone can bring the lawsuit under there because anybody is going to make an allegation. This happened to me because I was a male. My female boss took advantage of me because I was male. My male boss took advantage of me because I was male. My female boss took advantage of me. So the situation you can almost always, a creative lawyer can almost always squeeze a sexually related claim under the Gender Motivated Violence Act. Hers is specifically saying he took power and control over me because I am a woman and he used his power as a man. But it can go completely the other way. So the reason I'm smirking a little bit and I don't mean to be disrespectful, but if there is sexual animus under your claim, if you feel as though somebody did something to you as a result of sexuality underneath it, male or female, you're going to be able to squeeze your claim under there because you're going to say the only reason they wanted to have sex with me is because I was male or female.
- [09:34]
A
How does that interact with like non binary people who identify as non binary or people who are trans?
- [09:40]
B
Same situation, gender. Like, you know, you treated me differently because of a gender. That's what I'm saying. You can get anybody under that lawsuit. Non binary, trans woman, male is gender.
- [09:51]
A
And that's why we get some responses from Kanye's lawyers to rebut the idea that he chose Jen for that scene because she was female, that he performed those acts which they define as artistic expression because she was female. His lawyers write, the evidence does not even support that ye knew at the time that plaintiff was female. The amended complaint does not allege that the sexualized conduct focused on or even mentioned body parts unique to a woman. Yea did not turn the camera towards plaintiffs breasts or groin, for example, to the opposite. The sexual act simulated oral sex, an act that may be without regard to gender in that men, women, non binary, whoever can perform oral sex. And so that is a response to them saying ye might not have been aware that Gen ahn was female at the time and he could have picked a man and done exactly the same thing in that scene directly because of them having to establish gender animus.
- [10:41]
B
It's creative lawyering. So the folks out there watching any lawsuit has to have elements. You have to go through the elements to make sure you can establish that you have a cause of action. So every court is gonna make sure that you hit the elements. The first element in this case is gender motivated. So that's what the lawyers are doing. They're trying to eliminate that creatively by saying, this was not gender motivated. Her gender did not motivate this sexual assault. And their response is going to be, yes, it did. Like, I mean, just very simply, the response is going to be, yes, it did. You did choose a woman. But it is going to be a high threshold. And you've seen Kanye sit for depositions. He's going to be, I'm an artist. This had nothing to do with this.
- [11:22]
A
So one of the rebuttals we had from Kanye's legal team in their motion to dismiss Jen's original claim was, there's no gender animus. There's a lack of gender animus. The other one, and perhaps the one that people are most confused by is the fact that they're saying, actually, yeah, it happened. The action took place. This constitutionally protected under the First Amendment because he was creating artwork at the time. And they say, quote, if the First Amendment protects the most offensive and disturbing themes, it necessarily protects the creative process that produces them. Sean, we've heard this First Amendment argument a little bit in the Diddy trial with he was making amateur porn in the freak offs, and that's protected under the First Amendment. Can you just explain it a bit?
- [11:59]
B
Yeah. And why that defense, in a way, should scare people. Anushka is, it's going to open Pandora's box, because, remember, this young lady is saying, she was assaulted, she was hurt, she was attacked, however you want to call it. And then you have somebody, a defendant, saying, well, nope, sorry, this is protected under the First Amendment. This is art. If we allow that, then you're going to have a whole category of individuals who are accused of potentially pedophilia, rape, incest, all of these other situations saying, this is art. And so this is why this is such a slippery slope of precedent that can be created. And that they're actually saying that it is a wild allegation that they're coming forth and saying, yeah, it happened. Yeah, we did it. Yes, she's right. It's allowed. And so it could also chill victims from having a right to come forward and bring their lawsuit and saying, I cannot bring a lawsuit because this person did this to me on a scene and say that it was art. It is such a chilling precedent that can be created. And you got a great point of what you just said about the Diddy situation is that we're starting to see this argument become more prevalent. And at some point in time, if we don't shut it down, it's going to be an argument that is happening over and over again, and it's really scary.
- [13:19]
A
But their response to that is this is retroactive criminalization. Jen consented to what was happening at the time, and then 14 years later, decided that she was being assaulted in that scene. So do you think that's not an adequate rebuttal to that?
- [13:33]
B
It's a great rebuttal, and hopefully we have a judge who writes the order the right way. Because you understand what I'm saying is what. We don't want to have any court say this is constitutionally protected rights, but we want these types of claims to go forward to the jury. We do not want to have defendants with the ability to have these claims thrown out and say victims don't get a right to be heard because the First Amendment allows assault if we color it in the phrases of art. And that's where this becomes very interesting. So, you know, you've talked to me many times. I am big on the First Amendment. I am big on protections. What I am not big on is people trying to loophole sexual behavior under the guise of First Amendments to utilize it to promote criminal activity. And there's a chance that this is what happened. Again, we're not saying what Jen said is truthful or not truthful. What I'm saying is the argument in and of itself could create some scary precedent that other individuals will utilize this to hide criminal activity. And more importantly, it can have a chilling effect on victims who are saying, this happened to me, but the director said it was art, you know, and then it starts to go in a little bit further. You know, we want to do a full forced sexual harassment scene. We want to do a forced sexual intercourse scene. We want to tie you up, but we're going to call it art. You cannot claim anything wrong on this. That's what I'm saying. You could see something going a little bit too far.
- [14:58]
A
It's certainly an interesting argument to make, particularly about the arts. Ten years on from the MeToo movement, and I wonder. This leads on to one of the questions we got a lot. It says, I don't get what happened. Where's the video? She says it's recorded. So Jen says this happened on a music video set. She says it was recorded at the time. And it is Jen's belief and Jesse's belief, her lawyer, that that video still exists and that when they subpoena, during discovery, that it will either be proven that it existed and then was deleted and there'll be some sort of trail for it, or they will get the actual footage back. Sean, if you have footage like that that they say would be entirely incriminating and you delete it, is it possible for them to figure out that you deleted even though it was 2010 or so many, many years ago, or is some digital evidence just lost?
- [15:45]
B
There's almost always a trail when it comes to computer. There is always a digital footprint. Very, very, very computer savvy individuals can always find out if something was created, if something existed, or if something was deleted. You want the video because it will show the world in more of a gratuitous way how it made you feel. And so you definitely want the video.
- [16:09]
A
And another question. Well, we've had a few of these. I picked this one out because it illustrates what some people were doing in the comment section, sort of analyzing Gen's behavior in the videos and making a determination on whether this is fact or fiction based on what they've seen. It says, quote, she's shaking her head while saying it or regaling what she says happened to her. No eye contact, wiping one tear, but multiple times to show you there was one. Chin down to protect her throat and blinking at a high bpm. Okay, okay, okay. As Wendy would say, let's take several
- [16:39]
B
seats, let's take several steps back.
- [16:42]
A
You're completely entitled to comment something based off of the skills or expertise you believe you have in a comment section on a publicly posted video. I will say that when people choose to sit down with journalists from a place like the BBC, multiple other news organizations, it's not a yes and interview. It's not a you say this happened to you. Yes. And that's terrible. Yes. And oh my God, you must have felt awful. Yes. And this. Yes. And that which we see a lot nowadays. You will be asked uncomfortable questions and you will be asked them quite a few times. Why didn't you go to the police? Why didn't you say stop? Why didn't you walk out during it happening? Why didn't you go to the doctors? Why didn't you go and report it afterwards? And I will say that me and Jen were recording for about four and a half hours and she was being asked those questions repeatedly by me. Now, she did get emotional multiple times. Sometimes we breaked, sometimes she was okay to record through it. It's a very stressful experience to talk to somebody You've never met before who isn't sat there entirely validating what you're saying, who is interrogating what you're saying. And so I just want people to remember that I don't know how we'd all perform in the same situation, especially when you know you're going to put it online. Somebody with a huge fan base and a fan base that are, I'll use the word devoted, are going to pick apart what you're saying, and so is everybody else. So I'll bear that in mind when we're looking at those comments and when we're reading into that. I think the thing that I bulk at a little bit with those kind of, I'll say, lay person analysis of body language in the comment section is that it kind of feels as a one size fits all for people telling their story, their version of events.
- [18:15]
B
I cannot say. You have no clue how much I hate when people say that. When. And again, I am a criminal defense attorney. I cross examine people for a living. I attack people on the stand, I break down their statements. And all of that being said, the one thing that I will never boldly do without evidence is to randomly call someone a liar, you understand? Just to say, well, you're lying. Social media has created this situation where we think that everybody must answer questions the way that we would answer questions. And any expert, any psychologist, any therapist will tell you, every parent out there will tell you every person is different. People ask questions differently. Some people are stone faced at eunuch, some people are very emotional. So we cannot sit there and watch any one video on any one person and say blank about him. And that goes for Kanye, that goes for her. You cannot look at people and make a determination on what's inside of their hearts and one side of their minds and what they're thinking. That's why we rely on this magical thing called evidence. And that's why we look for corroboration. And that's why they want the video from that day. That's why they want to take depositions and statements from witnesses. That's how we try a case not based upon social media. Watching the videos, that girl, she lying. You know she lying. How do you know that? So anyway, soapbox off.
- [19:33]
A
It is a bit frustrating when one of the top questions that was like, why is she talking to you? And why hasn't she filed a lawsuit? Yeah, she has filed a lawsuit. She has filed a lawsuit. That's the base of the whole bloody interview.
- [19:45]
B
Please, please, please. An educated insult is better than A blind insult. And that's what we try to do in a courtroom. We try to say, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you have sat here for the entire trial. That's why juries almost always get it right, as opposed to people just watching, because they're forced to watch the entire trial. If you remember when we talked about the Diddy situation, I said to you, the difference is that jury is watching a trial much different than anybody else is doing. They're not going to take bathroom breaks. They're not emotionally checking out because they're being forced with information the entire time. And that's why I believe our jury system almost always gets it right. Because they're not watching the Clippets. They're not watching the headlines. They're forced to watch the entirety of the trial.
- [20:29]
A
Well, Sean, next time I see you, you'll be in the uk.
- [20:33]
B
What? No. I have just announced zoom and zoom alone.
- [20:37]
A
We will literally get someone to fan you with a palm leaf. It will be me. I will fan you with a palm leaf and feed you grapes. Oh, bloody emperor. Just get your ass to the uk. We've got a festival to do. Okay. And maybe you will be less hot if you don't wear a three piece suit all the time.
- [20:54]
B
You must suffer for fashion.
- [20:57]
A
Sean, thank you very much. We really appreciate it.
- [20:59]
B
Thank you so much. I appreciate you having me. Anoushka.
- [21:04]
A
That was our resident trial attorney, Shawn Kent from South Carolina. And that's it for this episode of Fame Under Fire from BBC Sounds with me, Anushka Mutanda. Double. Keep sending us your questions on social media. It's Anoushkamd on Instagram and TikTok. Or you can WhatsApp us if you prefer. We're gonna see all of you at Crosswires in a couple of weeks, so get your tickets if you don't have them yet. And if you want to support this podcast, please like hype and subscribe.
- [21:29]
B
So, Alice Loxton.
- [21:30]
A
I'm here for the history. Well, Ben Henderson, I like the formality, and that's perfect because we have a lot of of history to share. Why did tea become such a British obsession? How did English turn into the language we speak today? And yes, why do women's clothes still not have pockets?
- [21:48]
B
Well, in our new podcast, Here for the History, we're investigating how stories from the past shape everyday life today.
- [21:55]
A
Basically, the things we've all noticed but never stopped to question. Listen on BBC Sounds or watch on YouTube. Just search for here for the history.