Diddy Fallout, Tupac/Biggie Claims & the Anna Kepner Case — Attorney Faddis Breaks It All Down

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Downfall Of Diddy | The Case Against Sean 'Puffy P Diddy' Combs

Episode: Diddy Fallout, Tupac/Biggie Claims & the Anna Kepner Case — Attorney Faddis Breaks It All Down
Date: December 16, 2025
Host: Tony Brueski
Guests: Eric Faddis (Defense Attorney, Former Prosecutor), Stacy Cole, Todd Michaels

---

Overview

This episode of "The Downfall of Diddy" features host Tony Brueski and defense attorney/former prosecutor Eric Faddis in a wide-ranging discussion about the mounting legal and public fallout surrounding Sean "P. Diddy" Combs. The conversation dives into Diddy's response to explosive documentaries, possible defamation and copyright issues, shocking murder and conspiracy allegations linked to the Tupac Shakur and Notorious B.I.G. cases, and finally pivots to another riveting criminal case—the death of Anna Kepner aboard a cruise ship, looking at the complexities of jurisdiction and charging minors in high-profile investigations.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Diddy's Legal Battles with Recent Documentaries & Copyright Issues

(03:00 – 07:59)

• Diddy's Team vs. Netflix/50 Cent Documentary
  • Diddy's team labeled the new Netflix documentary a “shameful hit piece,” threatened legal action, and claimed the footage was stolen, all before the show's global release. Despite threats, Diddy has not sued Netflix.
  • Tony Brueski: “They've floated rumors of a billion dollar lawsuit... since the documentary premiered on Netflix to 22 million viewers, Diddy hasn't actually filed anything against Netflix.” (03:20)
• Legal Perspective on Footage Ownership
  • Eric Faddis explains that Diddy would need to prove contractual rights to the footage for any successful copyright claim—a murky issue since reports say formal contracts might not exist.
  • Eric Faddis: “My understanding is there might not be a whole lot of documentation regarding that agreement. And so that's going to cloud the waters even further.” (04:35)
• Verbal vs. Written Contracts
  • The need for clear contracts is stressed. Without them, it devolves into “he said, she said” disputes, and piecing together emails or texts may be necessary.
  • Faddis: “Certainly best practices is to memorialize a contract like this in writing... if there is no written contract.” (05:55)

2. Defamation, Public Figures, and Actual Malice

(07:19 – 13:00)

• Defamation Standard for Public Figures
  • Diddy, as a public figure, faces a high bar to prove “actual malice”—he must show Netflix/50 Cent knew statements were false or showed reckless disregard for the truth.
  • Faddis: “To prove actual malice is a high bar. And that's for a good reason—because we want the public to be able to comment about public figures without fear of repris[al] in the courts.” (07:59)
• Opinion vs. Fact in Defamation
  • Statements like former partner Kirk Burroughs’ claims about Diddy’s involvement in Tupac/Biggie’s deaths are opinions, not facts—making lawsuits difficult.
  • Faddis: “You can really only sue for misstatements of fact. A person's opinion is kind of just something to which they're generally entitled.” (10:54)
• PR Strategies and Chilling Effect
  • The threat of billion-dollar lawsuits often has more PR value than legal weight—meant to lodge doubt or chill criticism.
  • Brueski: “It's a stronger rebuttal to say, ‘we're gonna sue you for a billion dollars’ versus just, ‘no, they're lying.’ Whether it ever happens or not doesn't really make a goddamn bit of difference. Because in the public's mind, that stone has been put into place.” (15:22)

3. Former Partners, Ongoing Lawsuits, and the Challenge of Proving Damages

(15:55 – 17:44)

• Diddy’s NBCUniversal Lawsuit
  • Diddy’s $100 million defamation case against NBCUniversal is weakened because his own statements admit his reputation was already damaged.
  • Faddis: “To prove defamation... you’ve got to say, ‘hey, I have damages, meaning this impaired my reputation.’ Well, if your reputation is in the dirt already, how much lower can it get, bro?” (16:28)
• Long-Term PR and Comebacks
  • The advice: “shut the fuck up”—lay low, don't stir the pot if any hope of a comeback exists.
    • Brueski: “Right now, when you’re constantly hitting back on all this... the more [Diddy] stirs this pot, the more attention goes back onto Diddy.” (17:45)

4. Lawsuit Numbers and Legal Realities

(19:20 – 21:18)

• Why Billion Dollar Lawsuits?
  • “Huge” figures are often chosen for headline impact, not real calculations.
  • Faddis: “They’re just kind of eyeballing it and hoping for some public traction with throwing out these huge numbers.” (19:35)
• Examples from Media History
  • Gawker case (Hogan) and Trump’s lawsuits show such claims aren't always frivolous; big settlements sometimes just make problems “go away.”

5. Murder Allegations – Tupac and Biggie

(23:35 – 33:44)

• Explosive Allegations in the Documentary
  • The documentary doesn't only allege abuse—it suggests Diddy was involved in the deaths of Tupac and Biggie. Keefe D’s court documents name Diddy 47 times, but prosecutors aren’t currently targeting Diddy in these murder cases.
  • Brueski: “If this were any other murder case... is it weird that Diddy has not been seriously looked at in terms of, from a legal perspective?” (24:41)
• Likelihood of Criminal Charges
  • Faddis notes the statute of limitations is not a barrier for murder charges, but decades-old evidence and lack of government interest at the time make charges unlikely now.
  • Faddis: “The fact that it’s been this long... makes it less likely that Diddy would be charged or ultimately convicted for these alleged acts.” (26:29)
• Civil Liability?
  • Civil wrongful death lawsuits have a lower bar, but the statute of limitations (3–5 years) has long expired.
• Ongoing Federal Investigations
  • It’s possible but unlikely that evidence on Diddy’s involvement would have been missed. Sometimes prosecutors limit the scope to avoid endless, sprawling trials.
  • Faddis: “They may have come across something and... made a sort of a strategic decision. ‘Hey, we think we have enough anyway to put this guy away. We're not going to... blow this thing up entirely.’” (30:04)

6. Diddy’s Business Relations, Exploitation Claims, and “Bad Guy” Persona

(31:29 – 34:12)

• Allegations of Dodgy Business Practices
  • Many accusations speak more to Diddy as a ruthless businessman than a murderer. Holding back funeral costs, pushing Biggie to stay in LA—all could be seen as cold promotional strategies rather than criminal acts.
  • Faddis: “If they are true, they prove that Diddy is a scoundrel when it comes to business activities.” (32:56)

7. The Death of Anna Kepner – Legal Quagmire on the High Seas

(34:35 – 52:38)

• Background
  • 18-year-old Anna Kepner died on a cruise ship, with her 16-year-old stepbrother as a suspect. Allegations surfaced via custody battle documents, not law enforcement. The investigation is mired in questions of jurisdiction and bureaucratic hurdles.
  • Brueski: “It seems more like a bureaucratic nightmare... once the bureaucracy catches itself up and figures out its right hand from its left. Pretty much knows who did what.” (37:11)
• Legal Hurdles
  • Jurisdiction: Cruise ships can fall under laws of their flag nation or other ambiguous legal regimes, complicating prosecution.
  • Evidence Collection: Cruise personnel—not police—are first responders; errors can jeopardize cases.
  • Juvenile vs. Adult Charging: Whether the stepbrother should be charged as a juvenile or adult is a core decision influenced by the severity and context.
• Family Dynamics as Mitigating Factors
  • Family Chokeholds: The defense may argue that stepbrother’s actions seemed “normal” in a family where even adults reportedly used chokeholds.
  • Mitigating Factors: These facts might lower culpability in the eyes of the prosecutor or court, but aren't a full defense if charged as an adult.
  • Faddis: “There are all these little signatures... that pathologists will look at to try to infer... was this on purpose or was this an accident?” (47:56)
• Conflicting Statements and Doubt
  • Numerous conflicting family statements create “reasonable doubt,” potentially helping the defense.
  • Faddis: “If one person’s saying X, the other person said the exact opposite, does that give you some doubt? Is that doubt reasonable?” (44:41)
• Proving Intent vs. Negligence
  • For a murder conviction, the prosecution must show intent, not just recklessness or negligence.
    • Criminally negligent homicide could be a lesser charge.
  • Faddis: “Those are much more difficult charges to prove, especially because you have that sympathetic factor potentially that he didn’t know his own strength and wasn’t trying to do this.” (49:24)
• Juvenile Brain and Responsibility
  • Hosts debate how responsible a 16-year-old can be; comparison to teens driving cars and common youthful ignorance.
  • Brueski: “At 16... you’re still learning that shit at that age... there’s a learning curve. There just is.” (51:19)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On PR Lawsuits:
  • “It’s a stronger rebuttal to say, ‘we’re gonna sue you for a billion dollars’... Whether it ever happens... in the public’s mind, that stone has been put into place.”
    — Tony Brueski (15:22)
• On Contract Deficiency:
  • “What were those verbals? What did each person say? What did they actually agree to? That’s going to be a huge mess.”
    — Eric Faddis (05:55)
• On Defamation Standards:
  • “A defense always to defamation is truth.”
    — Eric Faddis (10:54)
• On Old Murder Allegations:
  • “The fact that it’s been this long... makes it less likely that Diddy would be charged or ultimately convicted for these alleged acts.”
    — Eric Faddis (26:29)
• On Civil vs. Criminal Cases:
  • “Unlike in a criminal murder case, where there’s usually no statute of limitations... in a civil wrongful death context, you’re usually looking at three to five years.”
    — Eric Faddis (26:37)
• On Proving Intent:
  • “You have to prove that he did this intentionally and knowingly that this was... a conscious objective to bring about the death.”
    — Eric Faddis (47:56)

---

Timestamps for Critical Segments

• Diddy & Documentary Lawsuit Fundamentals: 03:00–07:59
• Defamation Law, Actual Malice for Public Figures: 07:19–13:00
• Diddy’s PR Strategy, Previous Legal Losses: 15:22–17:44
• Huge Damage Figures, Media Lawsuit History: 19:20–21:18
• Tupac/Biggie Murder Allegations: 23:35–33:44
• Anna Kepner Case: Cruise Ship Jurisdiction & Charging the Minor: 34:35–52:38

---

Conclusion

This episode dissected Diddy’s precarious position amid escalating allegations—both civil and criminal—and highlighted the complexities in pursuing justice, whether for high-powered celebrities or tragic victims like Anna Kepner. Attorney Eric Faddis breaks down the legal realities amid media storm, underscoring the difference between PR bluster and real legal jeopardy on all fronts.

Transcript

[Rocket Money Advertiser]

Think about the last time you had a cancel subscription. There's probably some waiting on hold, some guessing at your password, some mind numbing small talk, and maybe after all that, you still weren't able to cancel it. Good news, it doesn't have to be this way. Thanks to Rocket Money Rocket Money tracks, manages, and can cancel your subscriptions for you. When you connect your accounts, you'll see a complete picture of all your reoccurring subscriptions all in one place. Rocket Money organizes your subscriptions by due date and notifies you when something's coming up, so you'll never be caught off guard when you get charged. If you see a subscription you want to cancel, Rocket Money simplifies the process. Instead of waiting on hold for an hour, you can cancel it right from the app. Rocket Money will even try to get you a refund for the money you spent on subscriptions you forgot about. Stop wasting your time trying to cancel subscriptions the hard way. Make your life easier and go to RocketMoney.com cancel. That's RocketMoney.com cancel or download the app from the Apple app or Google Play stores.

[Grainger Advertiser 1]

If you're a maintenance supervisor for a commercial property, you've had to deal with everything from leaky faucets to flickering light bulbs. But nothing's worse than that ancient boiler that's lived in the building since the day it was built 50 years ago. It's enough to make anyone lose their cool. That's where Grainger comes in. With industrial grade products and dependable, fast delivery, Grainger can help with any challenge.

[Grainger Advertiser 2]

From worn out components to everyday necessities. Call click grainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.

[Rocket Money User/Promoter]

You really want to be better with your finances. You try to put money away in savings. You look for deals. You wrote out a budget once a long time ago, yet you still overdraft from time to time. And you still have debt. The truth is, managing money is not easy, but Rocket Money can help. Rocket Money shows you exactly what you're spending every month. From there, the app helps you make a budget that meets your financial goals. The app even gives you real time alerts when you're about to go over your budget so you don't spend too much with Rocket Money. You can also see all of your subscriptions at a glance and cancel the ones you don't want right from the app. Rocket Money can even try to get you a refund for some of the money you wasted. Plus, you can use the Smart Savings feature to Start putting more money away. Rocket Money analyzes your accounts to determine the optimal time to stow away cash without going over your budget. Our members report that the Rocket Money app saved them more than $700 a year. Getting better with money doesn't have to be a pipe dream. Rocket Money can make it a reality. Go to RocketMoney.com cancel or download the app from the Apple app or Google Play stores.

[Grainger Advertiser 1]

If you're a maintenance supervisor for a commercial property, you've had to deal with everything from leaky faucets to flickering light bulbs. But nothing's worse than that ancient boiler that's lived in the building since the day it was built 50 years ago. It's enough to make anyone lose their cool. That's where Grainger comes in. With industrial grade products and dependable, fast delivery, Grainger can help with any challenge.

[Grainger Advertiser 2]

From worn out components to everyday necessities. Call clickranger.com or just stop by Granger for the ones who get it done.

[Tony Bruski]

This is Hidden Killers live with Tony Bruski, Stacy Cole, and Todd Michaels. Diddy's team has called the 50 Cent documentary a shameful hit piece before it even aired. They sent Netflix a cease and desist letter the day before the documentary dropped, claimed the footage was stolen, and accused the streamer of handing creative control to a longtime adversary with a personal vendetta. Yeah, they did it and it made for great television. They've threatened legal action. They've floated rumors of a billion dollar lawsuit. And yet since the documentary premiered on Netflix to 22 million viewers, Diddy hasn't actually filed anything against Netflix. He did, however, sue NBCUniversal for 100 million over a different documentary. And that case is now hanging by a thread after his own courtroom statements potentially torpedoed his defamation, his defamation claims. So what's the actual legal exposure here? Does Diddy have grounds? Does Netflix and what about 50 personally? Joining us to discuss Eric Faddis, defense attorney, former prosecutor. Thank you for joining us. Diddy's team has called the footage and the documentary stolen, but Netflix and the director say it was obtained legally. From a legal standpoint, what would Diddy actually have to prove to pursue a copyright or misappropriation claim over footage that was filmed by his own videographer.

[Eric Faddis]

Yeah, Tony, there are a few legal wrinkles to this one. So Diddy would have to show that he had rights to that video that he had contracted with this videographer. And it's gonna be important to at what that contract might say if there is a written one. And then on Top of that, does that include rights to distribution? Does it include some sort of prohibition against the videographer not transferring it to other people? It's very kind of murky and my understanding is there might not be a whole lot of documentation regarding that agreement. And so that's going to cloud the waters even further.

[Tony Bruski]

It's just kind of a prime example of why when you're doing something like this, if you're going to have access to yourself with people with cameras, with microphones, that you have everybody on the same page, you have everybody signing the same thing. You don't just hope for the best, which it seems like might have been going on here. Michael Oberles, who shot a lot of the footage, says a fill in freelancer handed it over without authorization. And there's reports too that Diddy never had for formal contracts with the people filming him again. Does this go back to you gotta cross those T's and dot those eyes.

[Eric Faddis]

Did he? It doesn't. It doesn't. And what I mean Tony, is that certainly best practices is to memorialize a contract like this in writing to say hey, Diddy has rights to this, to these videos that are being shot. It can't be transferred to somebody else. It can't be published or distributed by anybody else without ditties consent. That would be ideal. I don't know if there is such a written contract to that effect. That being said, you can still have a enforceable legal contract with someone as a general rule if it's a verbal contract. Now there are some exceptions to that. But then when we have a verbal contract, you know, what were those verbals? What did each person say? What did they actually agree to? That's going to be a huge mess. And did he is not well protected in that sense if there is no written contract.

[Stacy Cole]

But wouldn't it just be a he said she said kind of a situation? I mean wouldn't they just be basically a pissing match at this point if it were a verbal contract?

[Eric Faddis]

It very well may be, Stacey. And additionally what they'll look at is they'll look at if they're already writing like emails, even if it's not a formal contract. Maybe they discuss the terms in an email, maybe they discuss the terms in some text messages, maybe there are voicemails. You're going to have to look to these sort of collateral sources to deter, to piece together, hey, is there an actual contract here? And if so, what does it hold?

[Tony Bruski]

Dang, when it comes to public figures it's different to a certain extent. Than just a private citizen to a certain extent, as far as what one puts out in public and then what people comment on or what people make observations on. When it comes to defamation, that means he'd have to meet the actual malice standard, proving Netflix or 50 Cent knew the claims were false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. How high is that bar in practice here? And can you give us a sense of how rarely public figures win in cases like this?

[Eric Faddis]

Yeah, Tony, So we've seen sort of an emergence of these cases, including with President Trump. He's filed a lot of defamation claims, but it's still a very high bar because you have to get inside the head head of the person who allegedly redistributed this information in a misleading way or in a false way. So how do you get into their head? If they thought what they were doing was just depicting the truth and they're using video footage that hasn't been altered, there's no AI putting words in his mouth. That's gonna be a pretty tall order there. And so to prove actual malice is a high bar. And that's for a good reason because people, we want the public to be able to comment about public figures without fear of repris in the courts. And so that's why there's that high bar.

[Stacy Cole]

In our comments section, Gen Z is asking, it isn't libel or slander. What are your thoughts on that?

[Eric Faddis]

Yeah, so. So libel is generally regarded as a written defamation, whereas slander is usually verbal defamation, but it all comes under defamation. So that's when someone says something false about you and it causes you damages. Here they're using video clips. And so if video clips are authentic, it's hard to argue that what's depicted is false. You have to instead argue that it's kind of indirect defamation, that it's, there are omissions, there are misleading cherry picking in terms of the clips. They create a false impression in the viewer's mind. So that's an added layer of this convoluted legal drama that could play out. Like Tony said, Diddy has sued before on this.

[Tony Bruski]

Some of the bigger revelations, accusations in the documentary come from Kirk Burroughs, that's Diddy's former business partner, the person who was at the start of Bad Boy Entertainment is the one who originally had like 25% stake in the company. And in the docket, he talks about how that was taken from him. He says on camera, I think that Sean now in my mature mind, had a lot to do with the death of Tupac and he Ushered Biggie to his death. Those are some explosive statements or accusations to make. Is Netflix protected? Because those are Burroughs opinions, not Netflix's actual factual assertions. And what about Burroughs himself? Is that something that he can just say aloud on camera and not expect any sort of reprisal? It's an opinion, yes, but it's asserting something as well. What kind of legal stance is there when someone is making these sort of claims based on their opinions, based on what they've witnessed?

[Eric Faddis]

It's a really important distinction in the law, because in defamation, you can really only sue for misstatements of fact. A person's opinion is kind of just something to which they're generally entitled. They could say, hey, I think Diddy's a monster. That's not a statement of fact. That's an opinion. And so typically, they can't go after a person for stating an opinion. Now, if that person is saying, hey, these facts, X, Y and Z happened, and I'm aware of them, and I'm distributing that to the public, that's where Burrows might be in some hot water, assuming that those facts are untrue. But a defense always to defamation is truth.

[Tony Bruski]

Is the way he said it, though, is that. Is it being said in a factual way, like he, you know, he did this, or is it, you know, he's saying, like, in my, you know, being more mature, I think this, you know, Then the other one is he ushered him to his death. I mean, that seems a little more direct. I mean, we're arguing semantics here, but that's what would be argued in court, isn't it?

[Eric Faddis]

Oh, 100%. And, you know, there's some gray area in terms of what is a fact and what is an opinion. And I think Netflix will have a defense because they'll be able to say, hey, look, we're just putting forth the statements of another person, and they'll style it as the opinions of another person. But Burroughs would be the one, if those statements are untrue, to be more likely to risk some sort of legal action against him. But, yeah, when it comes to facts or opinions, it's really a gray area at times. And you have to look at the context, you have to look at the history. They'll look at at prior statements by Burroughs. They'll look at really how direct his assertion was and whether he couched it in, hey, this is just kind of my feeling at the time or this happened. And if we get into the realm of this happened, that's where you're in potential defamation grounds. Again, if what he was saying was.

[Tony Bruski]

Untrue, the fact that some of these areas that are being discussed in this case revolve around murder. And if Diddy has nothing to hide here, obviously you wouldn't be very fearful of things coming out in discovery that wouldn't be there. But if you do, if you are like, again, just saying if, playing the if game, if he is somehow involved in this and he sues, doesn't that open up the grounds for discovery and a whole lot of shit that maybe he doesn't want a lot of people paying attention to or looking at of legal mind?

[Eric Faddis]

You know, Diddy sent his cease into Sizzler to Netflix on December 1st, it's now the 12th, and we haven't seen a lawsuit. Is that the reason? Maybe because if he did file such a lawsuit, like I said, a defense to defamation is truth. And so they could engage in discovery whereby he could be deposed on these issues. Now, he could claim a Fifth Amendment privilege against testifying because there's probably no statute of limitations on murder in those jurisdictions. But gosh, yeah, getting into prior emails, prior texts, even contemporaneous with what happened, interviewing people who might know things, a lot can be revealed during that discovery process. So it's a risky endeavor to even file the suit because you open yourself up to those potential revelations.

[Stacy Cole]

So why even bring it up at this point? Is this just a scare tactic to shut your mouth?

[Eric Faddis]

I think there's a few things. I think it's possibly a scare tactic to try to get Netflix to relent. They haven't. The documentary is wildly successful. But on top of that, perhaps it's an optics thing to sort of get this statement out to the public that, hey, we think this stuff is false. We are considering legal action on it. And even if they don't take the action, perhaps it lodges in the minds of viewers that, hey, this is their. Diddy has come out refuting what was said during these documentaries. And so even if no legal action is pursued, there's sort of a narrative and a PR piece to it that might benefit.

[Tony Bruski]

And that's how people are going to remember any of these things, where it's like, isn't Diddy suing about? Like, even if he doesn't, people are going to have that in their mind. So it's the rebuttal, and it's a stronger rebut to say, we're gonna sue you for a billion dollars versus just, no, they're lying. They're a bunch of liars. You know, that that sounds like It's a little more serious, a little more grounds to it. Whether it ever happens or not doesn't really make a goddamn bit of difference. Because in the public's mind, that stone has been put into place.

[Stacy Cole]

It's happening.

[Tony Bruski]

Yeah.

[Eric Faddis]

Yeah, that's right. Yeah.

[Tony Bruski]

The. The other lawsuit that Diddy had filed against NBCUniversal for $100 million over a different documentary that's now hanging by a thread. NBC is using his own words against him. His words of, I lost my career, I totally destroyed my reputation, to argue that the documentary didn't cause his reputational harm. How damaging is that admission to any future defamation claims that he might have against Netflix?

[Eric Faddis]

It's a problem, Tony. It's a problem for Diddy because to prove defamation and to prevail on it, you've got to say, hey, I have damages, meaning this impaired my reputation. Well, if your reputation is in the dirt already, how much lower can it get, bro? Like, if you were this largely considered a villain by everybody, and now you're considered a villain by everybody, still hasn't really impaired your legal situation much. It's gonna be hard to prove that reputational damage with those admissions from Diddy's own mouth.

[Tony Bruski]

Is this something where it would. I mean, if you are. If you're looking at this big picture, you're looking at this long term. And if Diddy's, you know, Diddy, I'm sure he wants to stage some sort of a comeback of some shape or size. God knows what. I keep saying. I think he's gonna be a preacher when he comes out. But if you're gonna try and play your long game and come back at some point in time, right now, wouldn't it make sense just to shut the fuck up? Just do your time. Don't make waves. Just do your thing and then emerge several years later as. Whatever, you're gonna emerge as a reformed.

[Stacy Cole]

Man of the plot.

[Tony Bruski]

Because right now, when you're constantly hitting back on all this, everybody's gonna look at. All anyone has to do is like, he shoots his mouth off. That's not fair. Here's the Cassie video.

[Rakuten Advertiser]

Watch.

[Tony Bruski]

It was like, oh, okay. Even if it has nothing to do with the argument, it's just like, look what you did. And it's like, that's how it ends. I mean, it's just, you're a horrible person. Look what you did. Would it make more sense just to shut up right now for Diddy and just kinda let people do what they're gonna do? People are gonna say things the more you fight back, the more he stirs this pot, the more attention goes back onto Diddy. And it's that whole adage of, you know, any attention is good attention. Any publicity is good publicity. It's not always.

[Eric Faddis]

Or is it, you know, in my appraisal, he doesn't need more attention on these alleged incidents right now. You know, we have like 100 some civil cases. We have this massive, nationally covered federal criminal trial. We have these documentaries now. You know, the more he fights, like you said, the more attention it brings to these allegations. It might make sense to just kind of keep your head down, do your time, wait for things to die down a little bit. Public will get consumed with some other saga and then reemerge as. As. As. Like Stacy said, this reformed man of the cloth, Gen Z in the comments says, Reverend Diddy, that might be the better play at this point with just how saturated the public consciousness is with these allegations against.

[Stacy Cole]

Can we go back to the amount of money that they're assigning to these lawsuits? How do they sit back and say, well, we're going for a billion dollars or we're going for 100 million? How do these dollar figures get assigned to these lawsuits? I'm just curious as a layperson.

[Eric Faddis]

Yeah, sometimes, you know, it's what dollar figure sounds the coolest? Which one's right. It's gonna make the biggest blast. Which one is going to get headlines saying, oh, Diddy's gonna sue for a billion dollars? I doubt that they've had time to really calculate the damages in any scientific fashion. I think they're just kind of eyeballing it and hoping for some public traction with throwing out these huge numbers. That's what I often see in cases.

[Stacy Cole]

Like this, $1 billion.

[Tony Bruski]

Well, I mean. And. Well, here's the thing, too. I mean, sometimes these cases work. I mean, Gawker was taken down by Hulk Hogan.

[Stacy Cole]

Good point.

[Tony Bruski]

You know, so. And everybody look at that, going, nah.

[Stacy Cole]

And that was one of my favorite sites. I used to go to that all the time.

[Tony Bruski]

It was powerful. I mean, and it was. It was a video of. You know, it was dark. But it. They don't always fall apart. That's the thing. I mean, and if you're suing Netflix for a billion dollars, crazier things have happened.

[Eric Faddis]

Totally. I mean, you look. And you look too, Tony, at the Trump lawsuits. You know, a lot of people, these are based on interviews, like the 60 Minutes interview and stuff like that. These are. This is video content. This is not, you know, some AI fabricating His words. But yet he was still able to successfully maneuver himself and deal significant blows to these media platforms through this litigation. So it can be a powerful vehicle even when all we're talking about is video content and whether it creates a misleading impression.

[Tony Bruski]

And who knows what his financial situation is these days. I would imagine trying to gather up some way of making money would be important to pay for these legal fees that he has. Who knows? I don't know. Maybe he's got enough and it's all good. But if you don't, and you're not gonna be making money off music anytime ever again, making some money on a settlement might be a good way to fund whatever the hell you need to fund. And if sometime it is just cheaper, which is the case, like with a lot of the Trump ones, was just make this go away. It's gonna cost more to litigate this, even if we win, than it's going to be if I just pay this and just say we're done. And so I wonder if that's part of the game too. You just don't know at this point.

[Eric Faddis]

Yeah, it certainly could be. And one thing too, Tony, is that in these types of cases, an attorney might want monetary compensation, but they might be eyeing some other type of compensation like g. Public exposure, gaining notoriety, that kind of thing. And sometimes they'll even do it on. On a contingency or partial contingency basis, meaning they'll render legal services. And if they win, they get a cut of that. If they don't win, well, they're still a. A super famous attorney now. They might get, you know, 100 new clients, and that itself might pay in part for the services rendered.

[Stacy Cole]

Yeah, I'm not sure Diddy is a client that you really want to have, though. He seems like he throws you under the bus at just, you know, drop of a hat.

[Tony Bruski]

Hey, he had some Mark Agnifolo and all that. He's had some pretty good attorneys. And I mean, it just shows. I mean, no matter how sometimes it feels like the darker someone is, if you're the attorney and you can bring shed light and make light stick on some of the darkest shit, it shows you're a pretty damn good attorney.

[Eric Faddis]

Oh, yeah, 100%. And you know, me personally, I don't shy away from controversial clients. I've represented some influencers and this gentleman, David. David Lesh, who's kind of this environmental provocateur influencer, hated by many, loved by many. I represented him. It's all public, so I can talk about it. But, yeah, those sorts of things can be opportunities for attorneys, especially those who are trying to make a name for themselves.

[Tony Bruski]

Yeah, and it shows skill. I mean, without a doubt. I mean, it shows the ability of what a good attorney is able to do. The Netflix documentary doesn't just accuse Diddy of abuse and exploitation. It goes straight at the two biggest unsolved murders in hip hop history. Former LAPD detective Greg Kading appears on camera. Keefe D's 2008 and 2009 police interviews are played in which he claims Diddy offered a million dollars to have Tupac and Suge Knight killed. Kirk Burrows says on camera that he believes Diddy had a lot to do with the death of Tupac and ushered Biggie to his death. Meanwhile, Keefe D is sitting in a Nevada jail awaiting trial, now pushed to August 26, facing first degree murder charges for Tupac shooting. He's named Diddy 47 times in court documents. And prosecutors in Las Vegas have reportedly decided not to pursue Diddy as a witness or subject in that case. So where does this actually stand? Is there any world in which Diddy faces criminal charges related to either murder case? With us, Eric Faddis DEFENSE ATTORNEY FORMER PROSECUTOR yeah, I mean, they're forced. You know, back in the 90s, back in 96, 97, there was rumblings. Did he have something to do with it now? I mean, look, we got a lot of shit here now. There's a lot of people, there's witnesses, there's documentation, there's. I mean, and there's lack of two. But I don't know, take the word Tupac and Biggie out of this. If this were any other murder case and you have this accusation that this person ordered this hit, and then there's. I don't know if they can find. They can trace the money trail at this point, probably doubtfully. But I mean, is it weird that Diddy has not been seriously looked at in terms of, from a legal perspective in this case? I mean, Keefe D's on trial, gonna be on trial for the murder here. Seems like Diddy was in that world too.

[Eric Faddis]

Yeah, Tony. And it's certainly possible that there could be some criminal exposure for Diddy. One thing that potentially cuts against that is the timeline of all of this. You know, as you know, the murders happened in the Ninet. Keefe D, my understanding is the first time he started talking about Diddy, at least in a videotaped interview that I've seen was 2008. That was almost two decades ago. And they didn't do anything, then they didn't, or at least they didn't pursue Diddy and charge him at that point. Now you do have more coming out. You have Burroughs coming out talking on camera. You have some documentation, that kind of thing. But if they were gonna do it, the government really should have honed in back when that information was fresh and it wasn't two decades old. The fact that it's been this long of a time, that causes potential legal problems and makes it less likely that Diddy would be charged or ultimately convicted for these alleged acts.

[Stacy Cole]

What about a civil lawsuit from the families? Would that give them a lower burden of proof to go after?

[Eric Faddis]

That's so there. There's trade offs in the civil system. One benefit is, like you said, Stacey, lower burden of proof. You only have to prove it's more likely than not that a person caused a wrongful death. However, the big hurdle which be fatal is the statute of limitations. So unlike in a criminal murder case, where there's usually no statute of limitations, you can bring the case, you know, 50 years after it happened in a civil wrongful death context, you're usually looking at three to five years within which you must bring that case. And we are years and years beyond that.

[Tony Bruski]

We passed that a little while ago. Reports indicate that Las Vegas prosecutors decided not to to pursue Diddy as a witness or subject in the Tupac case. They apparently couldn't find corroborating evidence from Keefe D's claims. Okay, that's where it's been sitting. But we just had the Keefe D trial now pushed back even further now into August of next year because there's more discovery to be gone through. Is there anything to be read into with this? The fact that it keeps getting pushed back, the fact that we're learning more and more of these allegations about Diddy, and again, it's all that he made, did he maintains his innocence in all this. It could. I mean, could there be things here, could there be pieces that they still have yet to get to in discovery or are looking at very closely that could relate to Sean Combs? Or is this just all, you know, a case with other pieces of evidence that need to be gone through that are not related in any way, shape or form?

[Eric Faddis]

Well, it's, you know, I can only speculate, and it could just be that there were normal delays within the draw, within the court process. On the other hand, I've seen cases where a murder is alleged and we're getting on the eve of trial, and all of a sudden the Person wants to talk, they want to cooperate, they want to provide more information, perhaps disclose more witnesses, perhaps talk about where other physical items could be that are related to these allegations. And then this is both the side, the prosecutor and defense attorney go into court. And sometimes they'll even go up to the bench and do a non public bench conference where they'll tell the judge, hey, this guy is going to come forward and be a cooperative witness with prosecution, but we need another six months in order to pursue what we want to pursue. The judge will say, hey, let's kick it down the road and if this results in some substantial justice later, so be it. I can't say that that's what happened, but that's what's happening here. But I've seen that pattern in other cases.

[Tony Bruski]

If there was anything to the accusations against Diddy and Tupac and Biggie.

[Eric Faddis]

Would.

[Tony Bruski]

They have discovered that in the federal investigation that we just went through in the federal trial that he was found innocent of so many charges on? I mean, obviously they were looking at very different type things. They weren't looking at murder. But I'm just wondering if sometimes when you're investigating you come across other shit like by accident, and then that leads to new charges that really had nothing to do with the original, but they did a deep dive on the man. From a federal standpoint, at least we assume they did. If there was anything to it, do you think that something strong would have already surfaced?

[Eric Faddis]

I can't help but wonder if those and that federal criminal litigation, you know, it spanned the investigation, spanned decades of allegations. And I wonder if they, they may have come across something and they may have looked at it and said, hey, this is such a massive undertaking to try and add in some kind of murder charge from the late 90s for this prominent rapper that we think we got enough as it is and we're going to go with what we have because the alternative would be extending this years. So it's possible that they acquired some information and made a sort of a strategic decision. Hey, we think we have enough anyway to put this guy away. We're not going to, to blow this thing up entirely. So yeah, that's possible.

[Tony Bruski]

Interesting. Like there may be, I would imagine there's a file somewhere with some information in, but maybe not enough to do much with. But that's not to say that more information couldn't come to it later.

[Eric Faddis]

Yeah, right. And perhaps the information would have required such a massive undertaking. Substantial resources, years of investigating, dozens of witnesses that they said, hey, sometimes they'll send that information to other jurisdictions in which a charge could be brought. They'll say, hey, we can't jump on this right now, but if you all want to jump on it, do it. And who knows, those practices happen.

[Tony Bruski]

There's some accusations in here that would, you know, you would say they're circumstantial. They don't, you know, tie Diddy directly to the murder. If anything, they tie Diddy to being, you know, a cheap asshole more than a murderer. Of the accusation of, okay, we said that we're gonna take care of this funeral. We get the bill. Oh, we're gonna charge that to you back to Diddy. And that's been disputed too. It's been disputed from the other side saying, no, that never happened. And then people say, well, it was the way that the charges were in there. It wasn't like a line item of like Biggie's big ass funeral. It was added in other ways and padded in there. So that's pretty shitty. But then you also have the allegation that Burroughs makes that Diddy pushed for Biggie to stay in Los Angeles, which ultimately led to his death in territory just six months after Tupac's murder, where it was not a great idea for anybody of that ilk to be in that specific setting. There was a lot of hate at that moment in time and the violence was very, very real. But he wanted to push for it. Biggie didn't want to be there there, but he pushed for him to stay there and then he got killed again. It's a shitty move, but it could also be a shitty move of a record executive going, we need to get our sales up over in la, so you better stick around and push the product.

[Eric Faddis]

That's the thing is a lot of the allegations in this documentary that pertain to business, if they are true, they prove that Diddy is a scoundrel when it comes to business activities. Activities. But that being said, he's got like potential defenses on that. Like you said, he's a promoter, right? So he's got to promote Biggie. And perhaps in his mind the strategy at the time was, hey, let's, let's, let's have a dust up. Let's stir some stuff up out here on the west coast that's going to generate more attention, perhaps more album sales. He didn't, he didn't know that Diggy would get killed, but certainly with little Rodney, I think is his name, and some of the other alleged business associates who claim Diddy just screwed them out of Everything. I feel bad for those folks if that's true.

[Stacy Cole]

Biggie could have, couldn't he have left? I mean he was of free will. So we think.

[Tony Bruski]

Yeah, I mean allegedly. Same way like an abused wife could leave the relationship.

[Stacy Cole]

Good point, good point.

[Tony Bruski]

You know, I mean he's under contract. He's under contract to promote the albums. There's, it's, if you, if you want to do what you're doing, you got to keep doing this, like it or not. So I mean, yeah, in theory, but you know. Yeah, yeah.

[Eric Faddis]

I mean to do briefly to Stacey's point, like, you know, some of these artists are not sophisticated in the business world and so they don't exactly know and they're, they're getting information from their handlers and managers and promoters and they're, they're accepting it's, you know, with, with faith and perhaps that was part of, of how did he directed all of this happening?

[Tony Bruski]

Yeah, yeah. Is this a very interesting insight, a very interesting spotlight now being shown in areas that we've never really seen before of this case and in areas that I don't think we ever thought we would see, especially 30 years later. It's quite compelling and very interesting to watch. Let's move on over to the Anna Kempner case. Anna is dead. 18 year old Anna Kempner, she died on a cruise ship in the middle of the night. Night though court filings in the custody battle, not the FBI or through them we have learned her 16 year old stepbrother is the suspect. Allegedly her own parents have acknowledged it in legal documents. Witnesses have described aggression, chokeholds, a family dynamic the adults either missed or ignored and yet no charges yet. So what's happening behind the scenes? Why the delay and what does that tell us about, about where this case is headed? Defense attorney and former prosecutor Eric Fadis is here to walk us through what is really going on. Let's just get right into this here. We haven't heard anything from the FBI directly. Everything we know about this suspect comes from court filings within the family court for a custody battle. What does this tell you about where this investigation stands? Because as of right now, no one's been arrested yet.

[Eric Faddis]

Nothing. You know, a lot of unanswered questions and probably a lot of confusion on the legal side. And here's what I mean. So when these things happen on cruise ships, sometimes it's difficult to determine jurisdiction. Does you know, the laws of the Caribbean apply to do American laws apply? Where did it happen? Do we know where it happened? At what point during the cruise. On top of that, the investigative teams that look into this initially are not the FBI. They're not even police departments usually. They're just, you know, cruise personnel. And so that there can be errors in terms of evidence gathering and preservation. And I'm just wondering if all of those problems are creating a real issue for authorities who may want to pursue this but are having these impediments.

[Stacy Cole]

It makes me wonder if, and I don't want to give anybody a weird idea, but if you're going to commit a crime, sounds like a cruise ship might be a great place to do it.

[Tony Bruski]

Sounds like you need a cruise on Carnival.

[Eric Faddis]

I can't advise people of that, Stacy, but it sounds like you can.

[Stacy Cole]

I'm not an attorney, but it just seems like there's so many variables at this point that if you're going to be a criminal and this is. You want to get away with something, that might be the place to do it. Just saying.

[Tony Bruski]

I mean, yes and no. I mean, there are certainly the. When it comes to jurisdiction, that becomes the issue. But at the same point, you couldn't pick a more monitored location. I mean, like in this case here, it's not like anybody's getting away with anything. This seems more like a bureaucratic nightmare than it does who did it, because we already know, at least according to the reports. There's camera footage showing who came and went from the room. There's the key card logs. There's all of this that are. I mean, it's black and white. It's there. Once the bureaucracy catches itself up and figures out its right hand from its left. Pretty much knows who did what, I think for the most part. But you get all these other things. The jurisdiction, all of that does play a big role into how a case case can or will be prosecuted, doesn't it?

[Eric Faddis]

Oh, totally. I mean, if you bring a case in the wrong jurisdiction, it could be dismissed. And that's a tremendous black eye in a murder case. And then on top of that, just determining that the jurisdiction. My understanding is these cruise lines have like, what are called home flags, which sort of is supposed to denote the. The legal system that applies to what happens on the cruise ship. But that's not set in stone. That's not. And so, you know, becomes really difficult. And if it did happen and if jurisdiction is given outside of the US that makes it exponentially harder and probably decreases the likelihood of any conviction. And so a lot of legal hurdles.

[Tony Bruski]

Here in this one, the suspect is only 16. How does that complicate charging decisions here and why? What sort of calculus is going on on whether to charge him as a juvenile or push for adult prosecution if, if he's the guy.

[Stacy Cole]

Or how about a youthful offender?

[Tony Bruski]

It's not Oklahoma.

[Eric Faddis]

True. Yeah. You know, certainly as a prosecutor, you look at a number of things. When I was a prosecutor and such an allegation would arise, we would talk about, hey, is this adult conduct that's deserving of adult consequence? You know, certainly if the allegations are true and it's murder, asphyxiation, then then that would militate in favor of charging this person as an adult. But some jurisdictions, that's difficult to do. And, and sometimes the defense attorney says, wait a sec, this needs to be in juvenile court. And there's a fight about it with the judge. And so, you know, they could be charged considering charging this person as an adult. On top of that, there's a custody battle in which this allegation arose. Does that. That have some impression of bias? Does that have some impact on the credibility of whoever is making this accusation? A lot of moving parts.

[Tony Bruski]

And the interesting part on this is if we're trying to determine if this is going to be charged as a juvenile or an adult and these accusations are coming out in a custody battle, which would imply a juvenile is involved, it's a custody battle. So when these accusations come out and we're hearing things like Anna's dad put the older 18 year old stepbrother in a chokehold. He's alleging that in the court at one point in time when there was a exchange of custody to force him to go where he was supposed to be going, you have the boyfriend making these accusations of improper behavior at the home and them warning the family and all of that. Would those arguments, I mean, essentially you're throwing the parents under the bus to argue innocence or lesser accountability for the youth. If he's charged there, would that have to be a youthful charge? Would it have to be charged as a youth to make those sort of arguments? Because it seems like they might have a bit of a case there. Somewhat circumstantial, but mitigating factors that would have played into why this kid thought a chokehold was appropriate on his stepsister.

[Eric Faddis]

Right. And it gives rise to additional questions of could it have been an accident? Could it have been some siblings horsing around?

[Tony Bruski]

They do this in the house. Look, even dad does it, you know.

[Eric Faddis]

Yeah, you know, that's a consideration as well in terms of charging. And then on top of that, like you said, there are these Potential mitigating factors where prosecutor might look at it and say, hey, if he learned all of this from his parents, does that make him less morally blameworthy? Does that make him less culpable than a 40 year old who would have done this to somebody on their own volition? Perhaps. Should that factor into the charging decision in those discussions behind closed doors of prosecutors offices? It does.

[Stacy Cole]

And maybe that's taking so long to get something rolling here.

[Tony Bruski]

Can those same arguments be made though if he's, if he's charged as an adult?

[Eric Faddis]

You know, they can be made, but in sort of a different fashion with these charges. An adult, they become really just mitigation as opposed to like a legal defense. Right. So, so that they become something that might make it less serious could cause the prosecutor to exercise some leniency or the judge. But, but it, but it's not a defense at the adult level. And yeah, it would just be like a mitigating circumstance that might ignore to the benefit of the defendant somewhat, but not a ton.

[Tony Bruski]

Let's assume that the 16 year old is going to be charged with something as an adult or as a youth. We don't know. But let's just go down that road for a moment and assume that that happens. All these conflicting statements that have now been made, you have the grandparents saying, yeah, they all got along great, it was lovely and I get it, they're seeing it from their perspective. I don't think they're like actively lying. I just think they see it from a grandparent viewpoint. Then you got the parents. I do question their, they have some skin in the game here, especially with the custody battles of making sure things look rosy and wonderful. That's why they're going. And maybe this is why they're going with the three amigos route. Or maybe they truly did view them as the three amigos and we're completely unaware of the issues which can be true even if it's directly in front of you. Some parents are just oblivious to what the hell's going on around them. Some people are oblivious to what's going on around them. Take parenting out of it. So I'm not saying that that couldn't be a possibility. But then you got the kids, you got the other, the 18 year old talking about the chokeholds with the stepdad, you got the boyfriend that's talking about, about the alleged inappropriate behavior there and the dad of the boyfriend saying that we warned the family about this. All these different people from the same unit telling a different story. How does this hurt or help the defense of the 16 year old should charges ever be brought.

[Eric Faddis]

I think it potentially helps the defendant and here's why. You know, when I was a prosecutor it would be such a challenge when such allegations would arise. Compromise in a divorce or custody case because it is so emotionally charged. People have such a motivation to get the outcome they want. It's the most important thing in the world having you know, custody of your kids or, or you know, the property you built forever, whatever. And so credibility becomes a real issue and especially when you have these conflicting statements as a process armies as a defense attorney at a jury trial, you know, know, if one person say an X, the other person said the exact opposite, does that give you some doubt? Is that doubt reasonable? Like, you know, it just really clouds things when, when disallowations arise and that custody context, it makes it a lot difficult, more difficult for the prosecution.

[Tony Bruski]

Yeah, it's, it's going to be fascinating to see how this all plays out and, and, and just how responsible or what sort of, what sort of responsibility the 16 year old may be facing, what sort of charges he may be facing for what happened if he had anything to do with it. Is there a world in here where they're looking at other possibilities of other people? Obviously there's no way. The only other thing is if somebody came through the window of the balcony and then they escaped on a raft, which obviously did not happen happen. It's pretty clear cut it seems as to where this is going. I guess I'm just wondering how long do you think it's going to take before they actually do pull the trigger here on making charges or pressing charges?

[Eric Faddis]

You know, the authorities would have to try to conclusively rule out any kind of alternative suspect. And when you have a big cruise ship, a bunch of people on there, even when you have these records of key card usage and everything else else, you know that there can be malfunctions in technology and whatever else. So they've got to sort of cross their T's and dot their I's in that sense. And then after that they got to try to prove what happened. And is, is what happened a malicious intentional killing? Is it an accident? Is it some sort of non criminal conduct in that regard. And so there are a lot of sort of boxes the prosecutors have to check before they get to the charging decision. And that could be part of that delay.

[Tony Bruski]

Because it's not just going to come out of the gate. I mean you were just going to go to the gate with like murder one or something. Especially if, if we're looking at this as a 16 year old who look, the optics of it look like it's a 16 year old, if from what we're understanding, maybe had a thing for his stepsister, maybe got angry and choked her out, and maybe didn't realize his strength. I mean, you'd have to really, what would you have to do to show that this was, you know, weird with malicious intent? I mean, obviously when you're choking someone out, you got to kind of know things could go bad. At least you'd think you would. But if dad's doing it to your brother.

[Stacy Cole]

Yeah, maybe you don't.

[Tony Bruski]

Family dynamic, maybe you don't think this is anything. This is just how things work in our house, sir.

[Eric Faddis]

You have to, you have to prove if, if this 16 year old did this, which I. I have no idea, but if he did, you'd have to prove that he did this intentionally and knowingly that this was. He had a conscious objective to bring about the death of his sister. Sister. And so in terms of evidence, some things you look at are the severity of the injuries, including to the neck. In, in strangulation and asphyxiation cases, often you're looking at, there's a hyoid bone and you got to determine, the pathologist would determine was that high hyoid bone broken. That is often a signature of some intentional strangulation as opposed to some accidental conduct. So that there are all these little signatures that pathologists will look at to try to infer there from, was this on purpose or was this an accident?

[Tony Bruski]

And at that age when you don't even know your strength, I mean, how do you even prove if he knew it was intentional unless he has writings of it or something or told somebody, I'm gonna go kill that bitch. I'm not even saying he did. I highly doubt it's that at all. I don't know, it just. This feels like a very. A family that really didn't have its screws down very well.

[Stacy Cole]

Their boundaries were really blurry.

[Tony Bruski]

Yeah, very loose boundaries. Exactly. And shit got out of hand. I don't know. I mean, it could be completely wrong, but it's a hard one to prove. What would be the lesser of the charges that he could face in something like this?

[Eric Faddis]

Yeah. So there are charges typically for like criminally negligent homicides. That's where you're not intentionally trying to kill somebody, but you're acting with gross negligence. A gross deviation from the standard of care that someone else in those circumstances would use. And so if you got your arm around somebody's neck for five minutes and they're turning blue and they're saying, stop, I can't breathe. And you're still going, that's certainly negligent. And that might be a lesser offense. But on the flip side, you got proof that he knew what he was doing and he wasn't just horsing around. You look at that, that Steinbeck novel comes to mind where there was that guy who was, I think he like killed mice and stuff like that because he didn't really know his own strength and he didn't intend to kill them. And so those are much more difficult charges to prove, especially because you have that sympathetic factor potentially that he didn't know his own strength and wasn't trying to do this.

[Tony Bruski]

And it's a 16 year old.

[Stacy Cole]

Yeah, it's a 16 year old. But again, if you're putting your, your arm around somebody's neck or hands, I think you kind of have an idea of what you're up to. It's not like punching him in the.

[Eric Faddis]

Gut or something, I would think, but.

[Tony Bruski]

Here I'm playing devil's advocate here too. Look, he's 16, where his body was just look at. But listen, six months ago his body was a bit different. 12 months it was a bit different. Two years ago it was a bit different. So his strength, you're still learning that shit at that age. You're still very much developing physically at that age. So if you don't, I mean, granted there's gotta be some sort of common sense here of like I'm doing too much, but I don't know, I remember a lot of dumb boys at that age who would choke up people and fuck around with people and think they're just joking around, they didn't know their fucking strength.

[Stacy Cole]

And I get what you're saying, but we also put a couple thousand pound machine in their hands at 16 and say, yes, you can drive. So we're also.

[Tony Bruski]

Yes, but you're not gonna argue driving. But no, I agree. It's another thing where you have to understand the realities of what you're going into. But there is also cases where as a 16 year old getting into an accident, judges and courts do look at that with some grace sometimes of like, this is a brand new driver. Was this with malice? Yes, there certainly is a very large responsibility that comes along with it. But at the beginning of you using it, no matter who it is or what it is, or if it's even your own body that you are suddenly have developed into. There's a learning curve. There just is.

[Rakuten Advertiser]

Yeah.

[Eric Faddis]

And on top of that I remember and this is dark and I never did this but in high school there were some people who they were bored and they would choke each other out to the point where they would pass out out and thank heavens it didn't go that baby step further which could have resulted in death. But it's hard to say exactly what was going on in that room, what the intentions were and how the death ultimately was occasional.

[Tony Bruski]

Yeah, I mean you got to look at it that 16 perspective which basically is dumbass. And when you look at everything through that prison him of dumb ass like oh well a lot of other possibilities are very real here. You know, that's a scary thing. It's a fascinating case. We'll keep watching it. Eric Faddis, Defense Attorney, former prosecutor as always, thank you so much for coming on and giving us your insight on these cases. Until next time, for Eric, Todd and Stacey, I'm Tony Bruski. We'll talk again real soon. Want more on this case and others? Then press subscribe now and don't miss a moment of true crime coverage from Tony Bruski and the Hidden Killers Podcast.

[Rocket Money User/Promoter]

Think about the last time you had to cancel a subscription. There was probably some waiting on hold, some guessing at your password, some mind numbing small talk, and maybe after all that, you still weren't able to cancel it. Good news, it doesn't have to be this way. Thanks to Rocket Money, Rocket Money tracks, manages, and can cancel your subscriptions for you. You when you connect your account, you'll see a complete picture of all of your recurring subscriptions all in one place. Rocket Money organizes your subscriptions by due date and notifies you when something is coming up so you'll never be caught off guard when you get charged. If you see a subscription you want to cancel, Rocket Money simplifies the process. Instead of waiting on hold for an hour, you can cancel it right from the app. Rocket Money will even try to get you a refund for the money you spent on subscriptions you forgot about. Stop wasting time trying to cancel subscriptions the hard way. Make your life easier and go to rocketmoney.com cancel. That's rocketmoney.com cancel. Or download the app from the Apple app or Google Play stores.

[Grainger Advertiser 1]

If you're a maintenance supervisor for a commercial property, you've had to deal with everything from leaky faucets to flickering light bulbs. But nothing's worse than that ancient boiler that's lived in the building since the day it was built 50 years ago. It's enough to make anyone lose their cool. That's where Grainger comes in. With industrial grade products and dependable, fast delivery, Grainger can help with any challenge.

[Grainger Advertiser 2]

From worn out components to everyday necessities. Call click grainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.

[Rakuten Advertiser]

The holidays are here and that means it's the most wonderful time of the year. To save with Rakuten Use Rakuten to stack cash back at your favorite stores on top of holiday sales. That's savings on savings. With Rakuten, you can get cash back on gifts for everyone on your list, from toys for the kids to kitchen gear for the person who loves to cook to electronics for everyone. You can even save on something for yourself. Just shop the stores you love and cash back is automatically added to your account and you can get paid with gift cards, PayPal or check. Or eligible American Express card members can even choose to earn membership rewards points instead of cashback back. It's truly a no brainer. Join for free today and get a new member bonus after minimum qualifying purchases. Just go to rakuten.com, download the app, or install the browser extension. That's R A K U T E N Terms and conditions apply.

[Rocket Money Advertiser]

Think about the last time you had a cancel subscription. There's probably some waiting on hold, some guessing at your password, some mind numbing small talk, and maybe after all that, you still weren't able to cancel. Good news, it doesn't have to be this way. Thanks to Rocket Money, Rocket Money tracks, manages and can cancel your subscriptions for you. When you connect your accounts, you'll see a complete picture of all your reoccurring subscriptions all in one place. Rocket Money organizes your subscriptions by due date and notifies you when something's coming up, so you'll never be caught off guard when you get charged. If you see a subscription you want to cancel, Rocket Money simplifies the process. Instead of waiting on hold for an hour, you can cancel it right from the app. Rocket Money will even try to get you a refund for the money you spent on subscriptions you forgot about. Stop wasting your time trying to cancel subscriptions the hard way. Make your life easier and go to rocketmoney.com cancel that's rocketmoney.com cancel or download the app from the Apple app or Google Play stores. Okay, it's kind of embarrassing how bad I am at budgeting.

[Rocket Money User/Promoter]

Let me see your Charges.

[Eric Faddis]

Ugh.

[Rocket Money Advertiser]

Fine.

[Rocket Money User/Promoter]

You spent over $600 on takeout last month.

[Rocket Money Advertiser]

Month? I can't cook. You know this.

[Rocket Money User/Promoter]

Yes, I have had your disgusting food, but you're literally paying for a meal subscription on top of that.

[Rocket Money Advertiser]

Whoa, wait, wait, wait. That. That can't be right.

[Rocket Money User/Promoter]

Look, just get Rocket Money. It shows you all of your expenses in one place and even tracks your subscriptions. And if there's a subscription you don't want, which for you, there are a lot you don't need, you can just cancel right in the app with a few taps.

[Rocket Money Advertiser]

So you mean I don't have to call anyone to cancel?

[Grainger Advertiser 2]

Nope.

[Rocket Money User/Promoter]

No hold times or anything. And they'll even try to get you a refund on some of the months of wasted money, which is a lot of money for you.

[Rocket Money Advertiser]

Okay, okay.

[Rocket Money User/Promoter]

And if you thought I was done, I'm not. The app can also help you make a budget that works for your income. Anytime you get close to your spending limits, it alerts you so you know exactly where your money is going at all times.

[Rocket Money Advertiser]

All right, Emin, what do I have to do?

[Rocket Money User/Promoter]

Go to RocketMoney.com cancel or download the app from the Apple or Google Play stores.

[Grainger Advertiser 2]

If you're the purchasing manager at a manufacturing plant, you know having a trusted partner makes all the difference. That's why, hands down, you count on Grainger for auto reordering. With on time restocks, your team will.

[Grainger Advertiser 1]

Have the cut resistant gloves they need.

[Grainger Advertiser 2]

At the start of their shift. And you can end your day knowing they've got safety well in hand. Call 1-800-GRAINGER, click grainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.

[Rocket Money Advertiser]

You really want to be better with your finances. You try to put money away in savings. You look for deals. You wrote out a budget once a long time, yet you still overdraft from time to time. And you still have debt. The truth is, managing money is not easy. But Rocket Money can help. Rocket Money shows you exactly what you're spending every month. From there, the app helps you make a budget that meets your financial goals. The app even gives you real time alerts when you're about to go over your budget so you don't spend too much. With Rocket Money, you can also see all your subscriptions at a glance and cancel the ones you don't want right from the app. Rocket Money can even try to get you a refund for some of the money waste. Plus, you can use the smart savings feature to start putting more money away. Rocket Money analyzes your accounts to determine the optimal time to stow away cash without going over your budget. Our members report that the Rocket Money app save more than $700 a year getting better with money doesn't have to be a pipe dream. Rocket Money can make it a reality. Go to RocketMoney.com cancel or download the app from the Apple app or Google Play Stores.

[Grainger Advertiser 1]

If you're a maintenance supervisor for a commercial property, you've had to deal with everything from leaky faucets to flickering lightweight bulbs. But nothing's worse than that ancient boiler that's lived in the building since the day it was built 50 years ago. It's enough to make anyone lose their cool. That's where Grainger comes in. With industrial grade products and dependable, fast delivery, Grainger can help with any challenge.

[Grainger Advertiser 2]

From worn out components to everyday necessities. Call clickgranger.com or just stop by Granger for the ones who get it done.

[Rocket Money Advertiser]

Think about the last time you had a cancel subscription. There's probably some waiting on hold, some guessing at your password, some mind numbing small talk, and maybe after all that, you still weren't able to cancel it. Good news, it doesn't have to be this way. Thanks to Rocket Money, Rocket Money tracks, manages and can cancel your subscriptions for you. When you connect your accounts, you'll see a complete picture of all your reoccurring subscriptions all in one place. Rocket Money organizes your subscriptions by doing date and notifies you when something's coming up so you'll never be caught off guard when you get charged. If you see a subscription you want to cancel, Rocket Money simplifies the process. Instead of waiting on hold for an hour, you can cancel it right from the app. Rocket Money will even try to get you a refund for the money you spent on subscriptions you forgot about. Stop wasting your time trying to cancel subscriptions the hard way. Make your life easier and go to rocketmoney.com cancel that's rocketmoney.com cancel console. Or download the app from the Apple app or Google Play stores.

[Grainger Advertiser 1]

If you're a maintenance supervisor for a commercial property, you've had to deal with everything from leaky faucets to flickering light bulbs. But nothing's worse than that ancient boiler that's lived in the building since the day it was built 50 years ago. It's enough to make anyone lose their cool. That's where Grainger comes in. With industrial grade products and dependable, fast delivery, Grainger can help with any challenge.

[Grainger Advertiser 2]

From worn out components to everyday necessities. Call clickranger.com or just stop by Granger for the ones who get it done.

[Rocket Money Advertiser]

Okay, it's kind of embarrassing how bad I am at budgeting.

[Rocket Money User/Promoter]

Let me see your charges.

[Rocket Money Advertiser]

Ugh, fine.

[Rocket Money User/Promoter]

You spent over $600 on takeout last month.

[Rocket Money Advertiser]

I can't cook. You know this.

[Rocket Money User/Promoter]

Yes, I have had your disgusting food, but you're literally paying for a meal subscription on top of that.

[Rocket Money Advertiser]

Whoa, wait, wait. That. That can't be right.

[Rocket Money User/Promoter]

Look, just get Rocket Money. It shows you all of your expenses in one place and even tracks your subscriptions. And if there's a subscript you don't want, which for you, there are a lot you don't need, you can just cancel right in the app with a few taps.

[Rocket Money Advertiser]

So you mean I don't have to call anyone to cancel?

[Rocket Money User/Promoter]

Nope. No hold times or anything. And they'll even try to get you a refund on some of the months of wasted money, which is a lot of money for you.

[Rocket Money Advertiser]

Okay. Okay.

[Rocket Money User/Promoter]

And if you thought I was done, I'm not. The app can also help you make a budget that works for your income. Anytime you get close to your spending limits, it alerts you so you know exactly where your money is going at all times.

[Rocket Money Advertiser]

All right, Emin, what do I have to do?

[Rocket Money User/Promoter]

Go to RocketMoney.com cancel or download the app from the Apple or Google Play stores.

[Grainger Advertiser 2]

If you're the purchasing manager at a manufacturing plant, you know having a trusted partner makes all the difference. That's why, hands down, you count on Grainger for auto reordering. With on time restocks, your team will.

[Grainger Advertiser 1]

Have the cut resistant gloves they need.

[Grainger Advertiser 2]

At the start of their shift. And you can end your day knowing they've got safety well in hand. Call 1-800-GRAINGER click granger.com or just stop by Granger for the ones who get it done.

[Grainger Advertiser 1]

If you're a maintenance supervisor for a commercial property, you've had to deal with everything from leaky faucets to flickering light bulbs. But nothing's worse than that ancient boiler that's lived in the building since the day it was built 50 years ago ago. It's enough to make anyone lose their cool. That's where Grainger comes in. With industrial grade products and dependable, fast delivery, Grainger can help with any challenge.

[Grainger Advertiser 2]

From worn out components to everyday necessities. Call clickgrainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.

[Grainger Advertiser 3]

If you're an H Vac technician and a call comes in, Grainger knows that you need a partner that helps you find the right product fast and hassle free. And you know that when the first problem of the day is a clanking blower motor, there's no need to break a sweat. With Grainger's easy to use website and product details, you're confident you'll soon have everything humming right along. Call 1-800-GRAINGER Click grainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.

[Grainger Advertiser 2]

If you're the purchasing manager at a manufacturing plant, you know having a trusted partner makes all the difference. That's why, hands down, you count on Grainger for auto reordering. With on time restocks, your team will.

[Grainger Advertiser 1]

Have the cut resistant gloves they need.

[Grainger Advertiser 2]

At the start of their shift, and you can end your day knowing they've got safety well in hand. Call 1-800-GRAINGER click granger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.