← The Downfall Of Diddy | The Case Against Sean 'Puffy P Diddy' Combs
The Downfall Of Diddy | The Case Against Sean 'Puffy P Diddy' Combs
From Celeste’s Death to Diddy’s Sentencing: What Prosecutors Aren’t Saying-WEEK IN REVIEW
00:51:37
Loading summary
Transcript117 lines
- [00:00]
A
This is the story of the 1. As a maintenance supervisor at a manufacturing facility, he knows keeping the line up and running is a top priority. That's why he chooses Grainger. Because when a drive belt gets damaged, Grainger makes it easy to find the exact specs for the replacement product he needs. And next day delivery helps ensure he'll have everything in place and running like clockwork. Call 1-800-GRAINGER clickgrainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.
- [00:30]
B
This is Hidden Killers Week in Review.
- [00:32]
C
A look back at the most prolific.
- [00:34]
D
Stories of the week.
- [00:35]
B
This is Hidden Killers live with Tony Bruski, Stacy Cole, and Todd Michaels. Let's move on and continue the conversation. But now for more of a legal perspective. We have a missing girl, a body in the trunk of a Tesla, and a rising music star at the center of it all right now, no one has been char the cause of death, it's still pending, but questions are stacking up about timeline, silence and whether justice is coming at all. As you heard Jennifer Coffendaffer recently say. Yeah, this thing, we may not know exactly what was the cause of death. That's the medical examiner. I'm kind of paraphrasing that today. Now we're joined by criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor Eric Faddis to unpack the legal fault lines in this case involving Celeste Rivas Hernandez and the artist known as David. So let's start here. I know you've been watching this thing. What does the law see here? And more importantly, what are we still waiting for in terms of charges legally against somebody?
- [01:48]
C
Yeah, Tony, I think the law sees a lot of holes so far in this case based largely on how things went down and the possible timeline, like you said, that there's there hasn't been a cause of death determined. There hasn't been a manner of death determined in terms of, you know, the prosecution that they need probably to have something along those lines from a coroner, a medical examiner saying how this person perished. Otherwise, we're potentially looking at charges for actions taken after her demise, which would be much less serious.
- [02:24]
B
Much less serious. But I mean, it's serious nonetheless. You got a body in the trunk of the car that you own, but if you were to go in and press charges, you certainly would want those, want those to stick. What are the risks of if they were to go in and just theoretically charge David for having a body dismembered in the trunk of his car, and that's whatever charge that technically would be, what are the Risks of jumping in with that right now without anything beyond that.
- [02:57]
C
You know, it's problematic in part because the charges would probably be something like abuse of a corpse or concealment or obstruction of an investigation, something along those lines. And while those, like you said, are serious, probably in the. In the felony neighborhood, they're not homicide. Now, if they did charge this soon, one concern is that they would have much less access to David. David would either hire his own attorney or be appointed. Appointed one. And from there, you can't talk to him directly. You can't interview him. And so a number of hurdles would pop up if there was a charge at this sort of preemptive stage.
- [03:37]
B
But aren't those hurdles already there? He has started hiring some high power attorneys to represent him at this point, sir.
- [03:45]
C
Yeah. I mean, there are a number of hurdles in this case that could make things more difficult, but they're already extremely difficult for the prosecution. It's a huge uphill battle. How in the world did this poor young girl's BO body get into this vehicle? And in the condition that it was in when it was found? All of these are really important questions for which I haven't seen any reports showing answers.
- [04:08]
B
Is there a level of concern about liability for the LAPD if they were to go in too quick, really, with anything because of the nature of the case, because of the nature of how high profile it is. If this were David without a four in the middle of where the A is supposed to be, and it was just, you know, David Jones down the road that really, you know, works at the defunct family video, would it be. Would he be arrested by now, or are they being more cautious because of the nature of this, do you think?
- [04:44]
C
I think that's a good insight, Tony. I think they are being more cautious now. Oftentimes, the prosecution has a significant immunity when it comes to charging decisions. And if they got something wrong, they got it wrong. And oftentimes, a layperson, a regular David, might not have the resources to pursue the government for their errors. Here we have this superstar who purportedly has significant resources. And. Yes. So any misstep on behalf of the police would be scrutinized by his legal team, and they would look for exceptions to that immunity. And there are exceptions to potentially go after the police if the police do charge him and get it wrong.
- [05:24]
D
I wonder if. I'm about to ask a really obscure question, but how many. And you may not know the answer to this, but how many times does law enforcement come across a body in a trunk? Do you Think. I mean, because this is. Seems unusual, but maybe this is a fairly common occurrence.
- [05:44]
C
Bodies come up in the most unexpected of places. Sometimes, you know, when I was a prosecutor, we would go out on death calls where there was a body that was in an apartment and it appeared to have been there for weeks or even potentially more than a month. Oftentimes bodies surface in bodies of water, things like that. You know, sometimes they are found in places where unhoused people congregate and that kind of thing. So, yeah, coming across a body is not unusual, even. Even in circumstances where it's in a car or some other locale. Not uncommon at all.
- [06:24]
B
I mean, right now we have a body in a trunk. We have dismemberment of a body. Whoever did this, there are certainly charges to be made for something here. I mean, what sort of charges would we be looking at right now before they can even get to the area of possibly murder? And might we never even get to murder if there's not enough evidence that points to murder?
- [06:55]
C
You know, some of those charges could include. We look at the Robert Durst case, which is a very publicized case. There was an HBO documentary on it. He was charged with murder and with dismemberment of a body, or I'm not even sure if he was charged with the dismemberment itself, but. But really the only thing that they could prove was his actions after the individual died. And so here, some of those charges that could come up for actions post death are abuse of corpse or the California equivalent, obstruction of investigation. Because you're essentially trying to hide evidence, potentially destruction of evidence. Those things can come up. But, yeah, sometimes the investigation doesn't elucidate how the victim died. And when you don't have that information, sometimes you only can go on what happened after the fact that you can prove. And so we may not even see some kind of murder investigation, and we don't even know for sure that it was a murder at this point. No.
- [07:52]
B
I mean, what does it tell you when the medical examiner comes out, just as the other day, and says, we may never know the actual cause of death?
- [07:59]
C
I think that's kind of telegraphing for the public, like, hey, all eyes are on this case. The public wants justice. They want to know what happened to this poor girl. And I think the medical examiner is sort of priming them for a possible future revelation that, hey, not only do we not know the cause of death, but without that critical predicate fact, which is almost necessary in most homicide investigations, we might not even get to the homicide phase or a homicide charge. And I think they're sort of softening the blow of that preemptively by this statement.
- [08:33]
B
I mean, does that tell us that there is nothing in the toxology? Does that tell us that there's no visible wounds to what is left of the corpse that could be attributed directly to death? Like there's not a bullet in the head or things of that nature that would be conclusively tied to a homicide or an intentional homicide of some sort, or even a suicide maybe.
- [09:00]
C
You know, the medical examiner has an incentive to come forward with any inculpatory evidence, incriminating evidence that it might have about how that this person died. And so when they come forward and say, hey, we don't really. Don't really have anything to give you, that tells me they didn't find any significant evidence of strangulation. They didn't find evidence of a gunshot wound. They didn't find conclusive evidence of a stabbing or something like that, like that. They probably didn't find evidence of a poisoning or of a drug overdose. Otherwise, the toxicology report may have revealed that and they may have reported that. So them being this tight lipped about it kind of tells me that unfortunately they might have nothing at this point.
- [09:41]
D
Boy, that's disturbing. But again, you know, I go back to the Ellen Greenberg case, you know, so, yes, I want to believe the medical examiner, I really do. But are they trying to hide something? And I'm not saying that they are, but I just. There's always this now element of, hmm, now I question things and I never questioned before. So I don't know.
- [10:04]
C
Stacey, I think you're right to do that. You know, we've had several cases come forward where the medical examiner either doesn't have an answer or the answer they initially give is it appears to be wrong, like in the Allen Greenberg case. And so I think there's more scrutiny upon medical examiners to look at what they're doing, look at what their findings are, how they conducted their analysis, what their conclusions might be and how valid those conclusions are. I think it's important to kind of pick that apart and, you know, does. Is it at least possible that they got it wrong, that they missed something? Could there be a second autopsy? Even from defense? There could. So this might not be the last word on the medical examination of Celeste's body.
- [10:50]
B
How difficult is it to determine if there was some sort of physical altercation or some sort of physical trauma to a body that would have caused death when the body is literally in pieces.
- [11:06]
C
You know, it's incredibly hard because not only is the body itself disjointed, but on top of that, it is eroded, it is decomposed. There might have been biological signs that may not exist anymore. For example, there could have been DNA transfer from the culprit, but some of that could have eroded such that it is no longer testable. They need to, of course, look under the fingernails of Celeste, if they can, that they need to look at any sort of bruising that appears unnatural. But that's gonna be really hard because of the state the body in when they found.
- [11:46]
B
When you see that this body was literally in the trunk of his frunk of his car on a busy road, obviously it's gonna get towed at some point, and it did. What does that tell you about whoever did this? I mean, is that screaming, catch me. And I'm not saying it's David who did it, but whoever did it screaming, catch me, or is this just utter, just stupidity of not thinking one step ahead, that you put a body in a frunk of a car and you leave it on the road for a handful of days, the car is going to get towed at some point, you think legally?
- [12:28]
C
I think there are multiple possible interpretations. One possible interpretation is that David was a young guy, he was 20 or so, and he was dumb and he wasn't thinking about the consequences. He was going on tour, he's obsessed with his other life, and he just sort of made it a really stupid mistake by putting this serious evidence in his vehicle. That's one. A second possible interpretation is that someone was trying to frame data and say that, hey, look how obvious it is. There's a dead body in the star's car. Must be him. Go after him and leave me alone. A third potential interpretation is that there was just, yeah, some sort of incompetence on behalf of whoever was involved in this. And they, you know, maybe they're in Ecuador now, who knows? So there's a number of ways that this can be read, none of which are very clear, none of which are very helpful for the prosecution. I mean.
- [13:23]
B
It seems highly unlikely to me that it was David that put the body in the trunk or in the front of the car.
- [13:30]
D
It's too obvious.
- [13:31]
B
It's too obvious. So what my mind goes to is a fixer of, you know, he's got the money, he's got his posse, he's got his group, and, you know, and they all seem to be, for the most part, fairly young and inexperienced in life. I'm wondering if, like, he had his fixer, you know, that has never had to fix anything like this before, but, you know, also young and dumb and understanding that they do chalk the. The tires of cars on streets and do tow them, but being young and dumb, may be completely unaware of this little factoid considering they've only been driving for about four years of their lives.
- [14:07]
D
Right?
- [14:08]
B
So it's. It makes me wonder if just.
- [14:13]
C
If.
- [14:14]
B
There were other people involved in this, how many people were involved in this in terms of trying to cover this up? Does this scream to you like this is some sort of evil, maniacal, we gotta kill her and hide the body? Or is it like, shit, something happened. Now we gotta, you know, cover this shit. Although Weekend at Bernie's, but in a really bad way.
- [14:37]
C
Yeah, my read on it, and this is just speculation at this point, just my opinion is that it looks to me like there was something horrible that happened. I don't know if this was an accident, a drug overdose, a domestic violence issue that got worse. Something horrible happened. And then folks sort of scrambled to say, God, what can we do about this? Well, if we dismember her, maybe it'll be more difficult for the police to conduct an analysis. And I don't know where else to put her in this busy in LA city. Perhaps we just hide her in the front of this car for the moment and cross our fingers and try to come up with a different plan. No other plan arose, and here we are. That's kind of my take. But again, that's just my opinion, let's say.
- [15:23]
D
And maybe. Oh, sorry, Tony, go ahead. I'm just. I wonder if I watched a little too much Scooby Doo here, but I just feel like this is so freaking obvious that to me, it feels like somebody is trying to frame him for this. That maybe he was getting too popular and becoming too much of a threat. So I'm trying to create, like, some musical competition here. I just, I. I feel like this is so freaking obvious. Why would you hide a body in your own car?
- [15:56]
C
What?
- [15:56]
D
I mean, go rent a car. Go steal a car. Go dump in the.
- [15:59]
B
Don't put a body in a car.
- [16:01]
D
Well, there. Yeah, go put it in the woods or something. Go dump it in a river. There's so many opt. Why put it in that car that's registered to him? So to me, it just seems like Shaggy and Scooby need to come up with a different version of this. It doesn't feel right. Something just seems too obvious.
- [16:19]
C
Oh, totally. And no I hear you, Stacy. And, you know, thinking about, hey, if there was something else going on, you know, my understanding is Celeste was unfortunately kind of a wayward teen for whatever reason. And sometimes you come in contact with some unsavory folks and perhaps something happened, and those unsavory folks knew she had a connection. Connection with David. Well, hey, what's a really good way to get the heat off of us? Let's put it on somebody else.
- [16:43]
D
Correct.
- [16:44]
C
You know, breaking into a car is not terribly hard. There are ways that this could have been done in a frame job and someone else is the culprit, and David is getting. Getting the heat. Now, that's a possibility.
- [16:56]
B
Let's say that.
- [16:57]
D
That's where I'm leaning. That's. That's just. I'm. I'm looking at everything that everybody is saying, and I just feel like this is somebody who has a vendetta against him somehow, for some reason that we don't know. And it just. Let's get the pressure off of us. Just like you said, Eric, let's put it on someone else. It's gonna take the attention away from us.
- [17:16]
B
Let's say it's all young and dumb. Let's say it was panic, it was frantic. We don't know what to do. And they're all, you know, and it was. It was an accident or it was an overdose or something of that nature, and they're. They're trying to cover it up for whatever reason there may be. And there does seem to be plenty of reason to not put this young girl in the presence of David in any sort of legal standpoint, considering the age difference. Let's say it is all that there wasn't a murder. Is that sellable? Is that something that. How would that be looked at from a legal standpoint?
- [17:54]
C
Yeah, it reminds me again of the Bob Durst case, where he allegedly had an altercation with a roommate or someone who was living in his apartment complex. Robert Durst says was self defense. And then Robert Durst kills him and dismembers his body. And then, you know, argued to the jury that, hey, Robert Durst, there was this horrible thing that happened. It was self defense. Robert Durst didn't know what to do. He may have exercised bad judgment, but that's not the same as being guilty of killing this person. So there are arguments that can be made, even if there was some involvement after the fact with. With her body. And so, yeah, even though it's not a warm and fussy type of argument to be made it's something that defense sometimes has to do, and jurors have been receptive to it in the past.
- [18:47]
B
How missing do you think she actually was? Because now the timeline kind of got a bomb thrown into it just the other day of she's been missing for a year. I mean, and again, we gotta run this through the prism of what's been reported, what's officially been said, and what reality may be that just has not come out into the public sphere yet. But she was reported missing on April 5, and then five months later, she's caught on her security camera at the house where she was reported missing from arguing with the neighbors. Now, Coffendaffer kind of explained that a bit too, of like, yeah, when they reported missing and they're found or they show back up, you don't necessarily have a found report that gets filed. But. But I guess I'd be really curious to know what the hell's going on with her family or not going on with her family for this to be out there that she's been missing. But was she really missing? Or was it just. She kind of did whatever the hell she wanted to do and there really were no guardrails for this young woman. Or maybe there were guard. I don't know. Maybe it was just a really bad home. I have no idea. Because obviously she was a runaway many a time. So there's many reasons for that.
- [20:01]
C
That totally. You know, I think missing might be kind of a misnomer in this case, because, you know, she was there. There's evidence that she's not, you know, not missing. Her whereabouts are not completely unknown. They were known by some at least five months after the. The date that she was reported missing. You know, it seemed like she was kind of a runaway minor at the time. And unfortunately, that happens all the time in every significant city in America. So, you know, the fact that she was a runaway usually means she's looking for a place to stay. She's looking for resources, she's looking for support. And unfortunately, those poor young folks can fall into some pretty ominous hands under those circumstances. I fear that may have happened to Celeste.
- [20:48]
B
Right now, David has said nothing. As a defense attorney, would you advise him just to stay silent right now, or does silence start to hurt your case at some point?
- [21:02]
C
You know, if I was his counsel, I would absolutely recommend that he continue to not make any sort of statement to the government, not subject himself to some kind of interview. He's already in a decent legal position as it is because he has at least an alibi in terms of when her body was found, he was out on tour. What I might do, though, is defense can always issue a statement. They can issue a statement to the government. They can issue a statement publicly. It can be very brief. It can say, hey, David is, you know, devastated by the loss of Celeste here, but had nothing to do with her demise and was out of the country when her body was found. It could be as easy as that. But even if you do that, you're admitting some association with Celeste while she was a minor. So there are pitfalls there, too. It might be best to just kind of clam up and say, hey, government, it's your job to prove this. Have at it. And it seems like they can't so far.
- [21:57]
B
The reality is, though, we know there was a relationship there of some sort. We don't know the nature of it, but. But we have video of, you know, on live streams together. There's video of her, you know, in different places. And I mean, so, I mean, it's established there's a relationship there. We don't know if it was sexual. I think that is still very much up in the air. I think that's very much up for question. I think a lot of people want to jump to conclusions, but until we actually have something definitive, we have no idea. We don't. Everybody hears a case like this and they want to jump to it. It's another R. Kelly maybe or maybe not at all. We have no idea as of right now. All that being said, and we don't know those answers when they're trying to figure out what's going on here and what sort of charges can be brought, what are they gonna be looking for in terms of defining some of this to go forward, to do whatever they're gonna do, eventually somebody's, I would think, would need to be charged here.
- [23:06]
C
Well, certainly the medical examiner is going to try and analyze whether there was any evidence of sexual activity. Now, perhaps the body was in such a state that that analysis is futile. On top of that, they're going to look at the digital footprint, Tony, like you said, that there are, you know, discord chats and. And certain videos that appear to some to show Celeste and David together. They're going to look at text messages. They're probably doing a search warrant for David's phone, if they haven't already. I think they have, but they're going to look at all of that digital evidence. They're probably going to look at any prior location of Celeste devices. If they can try to triangulate those with cell phone towers determine where she was on specific days throughout this duration during which she was allegedly missing. So there's a lot they can still try to put together to recreate this history between David and Celeste. We know there is something there, we just don't know what it is.
- [24:04]
B
Is, is. Is. Is he missing a window here?
- [24:07]
C
Be.
- [24:07]
B
I mean, just again, because, you know, we don't want to or he wouldn't. Legally, it's not in his best interest to be connected with a minor for obvious reasons. But if there is nothing going on here, is, is he missing his window here? PR wise, public wise. If, if he did not have anything to do to get to his fans, to get to the public and play that part of the game, because just letting it go to the public, he'll be Jeffrey Dahmer in a week or two. The way the public goes with rumors and such. And at some point, I think you want to get ahead of that to try and steer the narrative in some direction. Hopefully you're doing it honestly. But obviously people do steer it in other ways. But is this a missing opportunity at this moment in time to speak to the public in some sort of way?
- [25:04]
C
Tony, there's surely a concern that the social narrative about what happened or would possibly happen could work to the detriment of David in terms of his professional interests. So, yeah, it would make sense if he wanted to get ahead of it and say, hey, we had, if this is true, a platonic relationship. Keep in mind, David wasn't some 40 year old guy. He was like 20 at the time. It wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility for him to be platonic friends with someone younger. Whether it's appropriate or not, it's a different question. But on the flip side, you know, his Spotify ratings and listenership has exploded. That there have been. He has received a lot of attention and arguably some professional benefits from this entire situation, as grotesque as that might be to look at it that way.
- [25:55]
B
Yeah.
- [25:56]
C
So perhaps keeping the mystery going and having this sort of intrigue in some perverse way could serve his professional interests.
- [26:04]
D
Could, could.
- [26:06]
B
All you gotta do is put a body in your trunk and boom, you get the list.
- [26:09]
D
Well, I was just gonna say, is this a new marketing channel?
- [26:13]
B
Oh, God. I think, yeah.
- [26:16]
D
Do I need to leave now? Should I show myself out?
- [26:19]
B
I mean, R. Kelly, I think his music, like Spike, Michael Jackson's, you see this in cases like, I mean, then it drops usually dramatically. It's like a whoo and then a oh, And I think some of that just comes too from obviously R. Kelly and Michael Jackson are very different caliber artists than David was. But I would imagine in some cases like this, it's more so folks over the age of 30 going, who the hell's David?
- [26:45]
D
Yeah, we're just doing that with bad bunny too. So I don't know what a bad bunny is, is what I was hearing. So yeah, that happens.
- [26:53]
B
So, I mean, I don't know. You may have some of that. One more question on this one before we move on to a conversation about Diddy. If Celeste had been your client, if her family were your client right now or your daughter, what would you be demanding right now of this investigation?
- [27:11]
C
Good question. I would be demanding that all search warrants that can lawfully be issued be issued for the premises where David was staying, for his digital devices, for Celeste's digital devices. On top of that, my understanding is a lot of Tesla's maintain digital digital data that can, that can show when a vehicle was unlocked, when, when a vehicle was moving, when it was parked, that kind of thing. On top of that, investigation into all of Celeste's friends, certainly they need to investigate David and his, his team. But, but Celeste friends, that's, that's who people, 17 year olds or whatever that maybe 15. Excuse me. Yeah, young people confide in their friends like that. I would make sure that all that investigation was happening and if it wasn't, I would, would have my own team with their private investigators uncovering everything they could possibly uncover and to make sure this is a diligent and comprehensive investigation and see if any answers can be gleaned.
- [28:15]
B
Hopefully they'll, we'll find out some information soon and hopefully for those who did care about her, they will get that, that information as well. Let us know your thoughts in the comment section on YouTube if that's where you are watching us and be sure to press subscribe wherever you're downloading podcasts so you don't miss of our continuing coverage on this case. Let's go on to Diddy. It's a case. It's no longer about guilt. That part's done. What happens next is where the real weight comes in. Federal prosecutors won over a decade behind bars. The defense just over a year. And the judge, well, he's about to decide how much of Diddy's past gets to show up in the future. Eric Faddis, criminal defense attorney, former prosecutor with us to break down what that sentencing really means as we're on the eve of it. You may be listening or watching this after the sentencing has been done. So keep that in mind. But we're gonna talk about the possibilities here of what could be going on with our judicial system when you have power, fame, and federal law all colliding. Let's start there. The government wants over 11 years for Diddy. Diddy's team wants about 14 months. How does a federal judge begin to split the difference in a like this?
- [29:35]
C
Eric? Yeah, Tony. I mean, clearly there is really a chasm between what the prosecutors want and sends and what the defense wants. That's not uncommon. The judge is going to look at a number of factors. They're just going to look at the seriousness of the convictions, not necessarily the charges, especially the charges on which he wasn't convicted. They're going to look. The judge is going to look at the relative lack of criminal history. You know, defense is arguing, hey, Diddy has made serious contributions to the community. That's something the judge can look at. And very significantly, the judge is going to consider the victim's position. My understanding is Cassie has submitted a letter talking about how this traumatized her and how she's afraid of things in the future. Judges give great weight to what victims say and what their position is at sentencing. So he's going to have to balance all of those considerations and come to a number.
- [30:30]
B
Is he going to be considering people beyond the individuals in this case? I mean, I know may not be supposed to be doing that, but I'm wondering, you know, he's a human being. Will they be doing that? Because you have a lot of other people who have made accusations, who have civil suits. There's, you know, there's a plethora. I mean, just look at all the people who came out against Diddy in this process, in all of these documentaries. All these people who have said pretty horrible things about Diddy. And if he's a free man and he has, you know, ungodly amounts of money still, there's a lot of things he could do to those people if he were to be vindictive. Of course, you don't, you know, that would certainly. I would think there'll be a tight eye on that. You can't just have carte blanche to go and go after your enemies. But, you know, people have done it. There's passive ways of doing it that, you know, could be somewhat legal. There's a lot of fear that is out there for anyone who's interacted with Diddy and has spoken out against Diddy and their interactions or exposed Diddy for what he has done or has allegedly done in the past. How much weight is the judge gonna be giving all of that as a collective, including Cassie Ventura's victim impact statement, which she went on, and that was a very powerful letter talking about her fear and the trauma that she still endures to this day after having been with Diddy. And a warning to the court as well, saying he's going to keep a fear defending.
- [32:07]
C
You know, certainly the judge can consider the level of dangerousness that the defendant poses to the public in deciding what the sentence should be. Like you said, we have that letter from Cassie where she said, hey, I'm afraid something's going to happen, like he could hurt me or somebody else. You know, I bet Diddy behind bars was fuming when, when these hundred plus accusers came forward and he's in a little box just sort of twiddling his thumbs with not much efficacy. So is there a concern that if he were released, he would wreak vengeance upon these folks? Surely that is a concern. That being said, the judge should not consider sort of unproven civil allegations, especially when lawsuits are ongoing. The judge would be wrong, I think, to say, hey, there's 100 people plus who came forward accusing him of stuff, so he must be a super bad dude. I'm going to lock him up for a long time. I think that that would be unjust. But other jurists might disagree.
- [33:03]
B
Yeah, I mean, the prosecution wants the court to apply a cross reference for sex abuse, but he wasn't convicted for sex abuse. I mean, how is that even on the table?
- [33:12]
C
Right. I think that's a really important question because, you know, the judge can take a holistic view in fashioning a sentence for a defendant, can take into consideration of the defense history, that kind of thing. But the judge typically shouldn't give weight to unproven accusations that a jury rejected in this exact same trial. Trial. You know, certainly there were some inflammatory claims by a lot of folks and it rubbed folks the wrong way. And it's unpleasant to talk about. But, but to hold that against Diddy, when the jury said, hey, there's just not enough evidence to convict him, I think would be wrong. That might be an unsatisfying opinion for some folks to stomach. But, but I think that that is that it would be improper for the judge to consider, you know, sex trafficking in the sign of the sentence. When Diddy was acquitted of that.
- [34:02]
D
He just has so many people in a circle. I. And so all of these people who came out and, and spoke out against him, hoping For a different outcome for this trial, they must just be living in fear because it's not just Diddy, it's everybody around him that he has paid to be part of his entourage.
- [34:21]
B
And still could keep paying if, you know, like, new entourage, new folks that could jump in. In here, you know.
- [34:28]
C
Yeah, oh, sure. I mean, you look at, you know, Kid Cudi, the rapper claims that that Diddy and or his accomplices threw a Molotov cocktail in the Kid Cudi's vehicle. And this was years ago, and this was simply for, you know, Kid Cudi being with Cassie Ventura at the time. So, my gosh, if someone, you know, we're talking about cheating on the one hand or. Or maybe not even cheating, and then on the other hand, we're talking about these people who have put him in a box for over a year, that is a pretty unpleasant circum. He would be 10 times as mad, potentially. He has the resources to do something. But, you know, this defense is going to argue, hey, he's been through the ringer. He's just going to try to move on with his life, and he's not interested in that retribution. And the judge is going to have to see which side he believes is.
- [35:17]
D
Would there be any protection for any of the people who spoke out against him? I mean, could they request some sort of protection from him, even though, you know, he's kind of innocent on some charges?
- [35:30]
C
You know, so there is likely going to be at least some prison sentence, and from there, there's going to be a parole tail after that. Parole is like probation. A person is supervised. That is almost certainly going to happen. And as a condition of parole or probation, it's not uncommon to have protection orders and to have no contact orders with not only victims, but also witnesses who kind of, you know, stuck their. Put their neck on the line for this prosecution, which ultimately failed in large part. So those folks would be understandably fearful and the judge could fashion some conditions preventing contact between Diddy and those folks.
- [36:10]
D
Yeah, but, you know, people break through those all the time, too.
- [36:13]
B
So just, I mean, and I think what the public needs to remember here, he wasn't convicted of anything to do with the Cassie video. That was just pieces of evidence. That was not the crime that was being charged. There's never been. He's never been charged with anything for that crime.
- [36:32]
D
And that was so hard for the public to see. That was hard for.
- [36:36]
B
But that's what he remembers. That's. Everybody thinks of, and it's real. I mean, it's not like that didn't happen. So there's a lot of legal gymnastics going on. There's a phrase that the feds are using, a lot of here, conduct that establishes the offense of conviction. Can you translate that for people who feel like this sounds like legal gymnastics and, you know, we're kind of hiding things under the shelves and, oh, where is it now? I mean, what is. What does that mean and what is going on?
- [37:03]
C
That, to me, seems like a phrase that they're trying to use to broadly encompass any sort of negative evidence against Diddy that they want the judge to consider. I mean, look, looking at that video, it's not. It doesn't meet an element of interstate transportation for prostitution. It's not a constituent part of the conviction that was sustained. But I think the prosecution is saying, hey, this is part of the larger saga here. This is part of who did he is and his dangerousness. Judge, you need to consider this. Of course, defense is saying, hey, there wasn't even a charge based on this. And this is sort of inflammatory stuff and not related to what his punishment should be for transporting someone across state lines to have sex with his girlfriend.
- [37:54]
B
Well, obviously they didn't throw out the conviction. They wanted that. The other day the judge said, nope, we're not throwing this out. If you're the defense attorney in this case, how do you argue for mercy when the court and the public has already heard the stories, seen the stories, watch the video of the abuse that this man doled out to Cassie on camera and all the accusations that we have heard over the years?
- [38:25]
C
I think first off, you own some of that. You say, hey, look, Diddy is a flawed person. He has made some terrible choices. He has had a negative impact on a lot of people, people he came across with, including people that loved him. And that's a problem. But that is not something for which you should be putting him in a box for 11 years. So these complicated relationships and that kind of thing, that's one thing. But what we're talking about is what should his punishment be for transporting a male escort across state lines to have sex with his girlfriend? And I would argue if I was his counsel, that, hey, this is tantamount amount to like a state level prostitution charge. And had we been in that forum, he would have got maybe probation, maybe nothing at all. And so, Judge, you know, we need to kind of keep the focus on that for which he's been convicted. And not just everything under the sun that people say is bad about Diddy.
- [39:22]
B
Is there going to be Appeals immediately on this. Like, let's say he does. No matter what he gets. Let's say he gets five years. Let's cut the difference that. I mean, as to what you just said, and playing devil's advocate, I'm not in any way sticking up for Diddy, but let's say he gets the five years or something of that nature. If we're playing by the rules of the game. You're exactly right. If this weren't Diddy, if this were, you know, Chuck, you know, I don't know, whatever, you know, from Brooklyn, who was doing this with no fanfare, no fame, nothing. Yeah, it could very easily be nothing, but it's Diddy. And then there's these other things out here in the ether that point to him being a bad dude. But again, they had nothing to do with the charges of what he had been convicted on. So you have all of that playing here in the ether. Is it the fame? Is that playing against him in this, in terms of what his sentencing may end up being?
- [40:26]
C
It could be. You know, I think with a lot of defendants, these prior interactions, these prior alleged bad acts are not necessarily unearthed to the court. They're not unearthed to the entire world the way that they were for Diddy and I think, you know, for the prosecution, you're arguing that, hey, his fame, his prestige, if you want to call it that, his influence only makes him more culpable. You know, should have. If anyone should have avoided this, it should have been him. And then on the defense side, I think you say, hey, look, he's been turned into a pariah. And there was this sensationalist, inflammatory indictment. We thought we were going to see these, you know, Caligula esque orgies and people in sexual servitude and chains. None of that happened, Judge. And he cannot be punished for those accusations that were never proven. So I think the fame part can come to both ways. Are.
- [41:22]
B
Go ahead, Stacy.
- [41:23]
D
Does his. I. I guess what I'm. I'm trying to ask, does his past and. And things like the video that we saw with Cassie, do those play a role in the sentencing, or do we have to keep them separate? I mean, do you think the judge is thinking in his head, there are these other things that we've seen that actually exist as facts, even though they didn't really pan out during the trial? Do those things get taken, you know, into account during the sentencing phase?
- [41:55]
C
It's a really important question because look at the allegations that he or an associate of his bomb kid Cudi's car. Well, there was no conviction based on that. That's an extremely dangerous act. Somebody bombed the car. There's videos of it, are pictures rather. And so. But can we hold that against Diddy in this trial? I think the judge should be cautious about doing that. You know, on the other hand, the judge does get to consider the dangerousness of the defendant if he is let out and that was an act of alleged retaliation. Could there be more retaliation down the line? So there's not a bright line rule as to how the judge can look at that. It's going to come down to a human being sitting on that bench and having to make a really tough decision while the entire world watches.
- [42:41]
B
Yeah, Diddy's team is arguing and they're going to argue that he's already served some harsh time at M.D. see, in Brooklyn, Feds are obviously saying, no, not enough. Does that time serve there at that crumbling federal jail? Is that gonna buy some goodwill at sentencing? Is there gonna be some time served added or not added on, but taken into consideration and basically shaved off whatever sentence he may get?
- [43:09]
C
Oh, yes, in all likelihood, he will receive credit for the time he has served. So, you know, for example, if there was a one year prison sentence, he's already served, I think more than a year now in custody, he's going to get credit for that. If there's a three year sentence, people might say, oh, gosh, well, you know, it's going to be three years. Well, no, it's going to be two years and it's probably going to be less than two years because some of that time he's not going to have to do the full duration of the time. Even in the federal system, there are accommodations for, you know, good time and reasons for folks to be let out, that kind of thing. So, yeah, that's going to work to his advantage. His attorneys are going to say, hey, look, he has been, you know, in a box for the past year based on, you know, asking somebody to come across the state lines and have sex with his girlfriend. Enough is enough, judge is the way defense goes down.
- [44:02]
D
Well, and that's fair that if he's already. I mean, he's serving the time. So I. To me that seemed. That feels fair on the outside as a layperson, but. But I don't know.
- [44:12]
B
Just when you consider the overall monster that a character that he appears to be based on hundreds of accounts, it doesn't. But that's where the reality strikes us. Very harsh. There's been some talk that Diddy might speak at his sentencing. In your experience, when you got a defendant like this, get up and talk, does that ever help in terms of sentencing or pr?
- [44:43]
C
It can really help, and it can really hurt. It's such a gamble because especially somebody like Diddy who's been able to kind of pop off and say whatever he wants. He had all this money, all this fame. He's sent controversial stuff in the past, and he feels empowered to do that. Could he go off the rails and say something that really dangerous damages his. His chances of sentencing? He could. On the other hand, if I was his counsel, I would encourage him to own some of the things that. That are not disputable and, And. And take accountability and show remorse for those things. You know, he should come out and say, hey, look, I abused Cassie in that video. That was wrong. I laid my hands on a woman in a very violent fashion. I. I horribly regret that, and that that had an impact on Cassie without question, and I've had negative impacts on other people, too, and of that, and I'm really sorry for that judge. And then you go into sort of the more favorable mitigation that they can talk about, like a lack of criminal history, contributions to the community, philanthropically and otherwise, and you balance out that accountability with some favorable information. That's one way to play it, but a gamble nonetheless.
- [45:56]
B
There are still countless civil suits against Diddy. His legal nightmares are not over yet. How do you think the future plays out in terms of. Terms of that world of these civil suits that are going to exist? Are some of those going to fall away because he was found not guilty on some of the more serious charges in this case? Or is this litigation just gonna continue to go on and on and on? And I guess with the fact that there are a lot of those things that are out there, and it seems that some of the civil suits led to these initial charges. I mean, could we end up seeing a repeat of this on. On a federal level again or on. On a state level or something?
- [46:41]
C
In. In the criminal world, you know, those civil system, there are cases that can look really good on paper. And I think the federal prosecutors thought, hey, this case looks really good on paper. But then when you get in that gauntlet of trial, things are different. You know, things might not go how you expect. You might have one of your main witnesses not even show up like the federal government had. I think it. The civil claimants pause because they might say, hey, look, I thought this was super solid. But we saw how something believed to be super solid played out in federal Court in Diddy's favor that might have some of these claimants second guessing, hey, can I prove these charges at trial, especially the ones that are from years or more than a decade ago, where there's probably scant evidence that they can compile at this point, Perhaps it leads to more settlements of those claims. I think the advantage goes to Diddy in terms of how this case can potentially affect those civil cases.
- [47:41]
B
When the. When the sentence drops, what are you going to be listening for in the judge's language?
- [47:48]
C
You know, I'm sure the judge is going to speak to the impact that. That these. That this case has had on the victims, on Cassie Ventura and the other woman, her name escapes. Escapes it. But he's going to talk about that. And I think it's probably, might even lead off with that by saying, hey, this is a process where you came in here and you, you know, Cassie was pregnant when she did this. That would be terribly uncomfortable for her, talking about embarrassing private matters. I think the judge is going to speak to that. And then I think the judge is likely going to also balance that by saying, hey, look, I've got a sentence based on what this conviction is not based on him blowing up a car, not based on 100 civil suits. I've got a sentence based on. Based on, you know, he brought two prostitutes, sex workers, across state lines, and they had sex with his girlfriends at the time. That is just. They're just. They just aren't the crimes of the century.
- [48:43]
B
Okay, one more question, and we'll go around the circle for this one. When Diddy's free, whenever that may be, what. What does the future of Diddy look like in the public eye, Eric?
- [48:56]
C
Oh, that's. That's. That's a big question. You know, of course, it could be that his reputation is so impaired that he will never return to the former status that he enjoyed. Alternatively, you know, America loves the story of redemption, and I'm not saying Diddy is necessarily deserving of that, but that could be a direction these things go. You know, we look at Louis ck, we look at Kevin Spacey, they're starting to come back in to sort of mainstream work, rightly or wrongly. And so folks who have been been debased before because of their own actions, that's not always the final chapter here. And I'm not sure it's going to be the final chapter for Diddy.
- [49:39]
D
Stacy, I have two words for you. Chris Brown.
- [49:45]
B
Still going.
- [49:47]
D
Yep.
- [49:48]
B
Still going.
- [49:49]
D
As a woman, I. I'm repulsed by it, especially because we saw that video. I can't get that video out of my head. It's my worst nightmare. It really is. And I can't forgive him for that. I just can't. So I'm not one of his fans and I will never be one of his fans, to quote Mommy Dearest Movie. But no, I will never be one of his fans.
- [50:12]
B
Todd, I don't think I have to even say anything after that statement because Chris Brown is a perfect example of somebody who did some horrible stuff who is bigger now than he was then.
- [50:24]
D
Yeah, what the hell.
- [50:25]
B
Yeah, I'm going to hope. I think I'm wrong. I think you guys are probably right. Ike Turner.
- [50:35]
D
There you go.
- [50:36]
B
Different. Different time and place.
- [50:37]
C
Different.
- [50:37]
B
Different time. I think that's the difference. Different time. People didn't, weren't, weren't up for forgiving or I don't know forgiving is even the word or just being blissfully ignorant as to what they're concerned consuming. And I think we have too much of that and not a lot of understanding of what supporting monsters looks like and what it does because it makes me feel good right now. So.
- [51:02]
D
Oh well, yeah, can we throw in? We've had a lot of great people in our chat today, a few that needed a flick on the nose. But I think we should end with this. Rose City just made me giggle out loud. Loud. Diddy's music was mediocre and his clothing line not fit for Walmart.
- [51:23]
B
I 1000% agree.
- [51:25]
D
You win.
- [51:26]
B
You win. And we'll, we'll wrap on that. Let us know your thoughts in the comment section on YouTube if that's where you're watching us. If not, join us there to search Hidden Killers with Tony Bruski to find us. And be sure to press subscribe while you are there as well so you don't miss any of the cases that we cover for you. You right here at the Hidden Killers Podcast and True Crime today. Until next time for Eric Stacy Todd. I'm Tony Brusky. 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.