← The Downfall Of Diddy | The Case Against Sean 'Puffy P Diddy' Combs
The Downfall Of Diddy | The Case Against Sean 'Puffy P Diddy' Combs
Will The Jury Convict Sean Diddy Combs? Defense Expert Gives Inside Insight
00:34:23
Loading summary
Transcript57 lines
- [00:01]
Dennis Black
Ever notice your dog slowing down and having health issues and wonder, what can I do to make them better? Well, my friend, add rough greens to your dog's food for 90 days and I guarantee you'll see changes that will amaze you. Greetings, naturopathic doctor Dennis Black, inventor of rough greens here, and I invite you to give your pup the Ruffgreens 90 Day Challenge. In the first 30 days, you'll see shinier coats and increased energy. By day 60, your dog will have a stronger immune system, less shedding, improved joint function, all due to the live nutrients that you've added to their diet. And at 90 days, better digestion, reduced inflammation, improved heart health, and you may even have reduced their cancer risk. Fetch your dog a free Jumpstart trial bag today. Go to try roughgreens.com use promo code. Try rough. That's T R Y R U F F. Go to try rough greens.com use promo code. Try rough. You just cover the shipping. You don't have to change your dog's food to improve your dog's health. Just add a scoop of rough greens. Ever notice your dog slowing down and having health issues and wonder, what can I do to make them better? Well, my friend, add rough greens to your dog's food for 90 days and I guarantee you'll see changes that will amaze you. Greetings, naturopathic doctor Dennis Black, inventor of ruffgreens here, and I invite you to give your pup the Ruffgreens 90 Day Challenge. In the first 30 days, you'll see shinier coats and increased energy. By day 60, your dog will have a stronger immune system, less shedding, improved joint function, all due to the live nutrients that you've added to their diet. And at 90 days, better digestion, reduced inflammation, improved heart health, and you may even have reduced their cancer risk. Fetch your dog a free Jumpstart trial bag today. Go to try roughgreens.com use promo code. Try rough. That's T R Y R U F F. Go to try rough greens.com use promo code. Try rough. You just cover the shipping. You don't have to change your dog's food to improve your dog's health. Just add a scoop of rough greens.
- [02:01]
Tony
This is continuing coverage of United States vs Sean Diddy Combs from the Hidden Killers podcast and true crime Today it came and it went. The trial of Sean Diddy Combs a lot faster than I think a lot of us expected it to. But here we are. We're at the end. You may be listening to this after there's a verdict or seeing this after a verdict or while they're deliberating or right before? Because we're all in this very tight place right now. It's a legal chess match that's been unfolding in the federal trial of Sean Diddy Combs. Case has been packed with sex trafficking charges, graphic evidence, and a defense team that just dropped the mic. Like, we're not.
- [02:41]
Dennis Black
We're good.
- [02:41]
Tony
Go on, continue on. But by saying absolutely nothing, we're really no witnesses, no Diddy on the stand, just a quiet gamble that the jury shrugs and says, okay, well, let's see what that strategy is. I don't know. Was it a flex, a white flag to break it all down? I'm bringing someone in who's been on both sides of the courtroom. Defense attorney and former prosecutor Eric Faddis. Let's dive into that. No witnesses being called by the defense of Diddy. A lot of ways of looking at this. How are you looking at this now?
- [03:16]
Eric Faddis
It's a risk. It's a bold move. Does it signal confidence? Does it say that the defense believes the prosecution hasn't met their burden? It's their job to put on the evidence and meet that legal threshold. They haven't done it. We're not going to help them from the defense side, or is it some kind of tacit admission that they don't have a lot of folks who are going to back up their narrative? And so let's give it to the jury and hope for the best.
- [03:44]
Tony
Do you find it hard to really grasp what the strategy is in this case, since we can't hear the arguments in court? We can't hear or see how it's been going. We've just been getting reports from people, and obviously the words that we're hearing, I mean, it sounds horrible, the stuff that he was up to, but there's also questions of did they prove their case on all of the charges? And we'll get into that in just a few seconds. But is it more difficult to determine, you think, on the outside for an attorney or just a layperson to really feel what's going on in there?
- [04:16]
Eric Faddis
Totally. So, Tony, the federal courts have this policy where they don't allow video recording as a general rule on any of their cases. And so those sort of conflicts with the constitutional right to a public trial. And in fact, courts have said the public has an interest in knowing what's going on, especially in a high profile, nationally publicized case like this. And so we're sort of relegated to these second reports And. And what have you. But there have been a lot of them. There are journalists in the courtroom. And so we are receiving information, albeit kind of secondhand.
- [04:50]
Tony
Yeah, and that's an interesting thing about, you know, a public trial. And when they invented that and made that statement and made that the rule, obviously it wasn't a broadcast trial. It was public. So, I mean, what we're getting essentially, is the same sort of reporting we would have had, you know, many years ago by basically print reports. And then it turns into audio and all of that. But it is just, you know, people writing down their notes and coming back and reporting on it. We get the information now much quicker, you know, right after they walk out of the courtroom. But it's still the same sort of thing. Is that something that, you know, you think needs updating here in this country? Should we have federal courts allow public to not only, you know, see it if they happen to be geographically close by, but those who can't be. Should this been something that the public as a whole would have or should have been able to see go down?
- [05:40]
Eric Faddis
You know, the courts are very slow to reacting to advances in technology, advances in societal norms, and understanding that kind of thing. And so in my appraisal, what's the benefit of the court not allowing video to show these trials when nearly all state courts are open to that? What interests are they serving in doing that? That would outweigh the public. And the public's receiving information about very important cases that implicate some really weighty societal issues. I just don't see it. Let the cameras in there. Who cares?
- [06:17]
Tony
Yeah, I would agree. I don't really quite. I feel like it's one of those things where it's like, well, we're gonna keep operating on this the same way they operate on many other principles that have been proven to not be the best of ideas, like the parental thing with kids, and when they have one parent that's abusive. But it's still. It's best for reunification, not just keeping that kid away from the abuser. Reunification eventually, if we can make that, like, no, not always the best idea, but I digress. So we have closing arguments that are going on basically as we speak right now. But let's talk about the case itself. Prosecutors just right before going to closing arguments, dropped the arson and kidnapping charges against Diddy. Give me your insight. Why did they do that?
- [07:09]
Eric Faddis
This was a curious move, and I think it might come back to hurt him. You know, my apprehension is that, you know, you have a case as a prosecutor it looks good on paper and you think, oh gosh, I can prove all of these serious things and then you get in that gauntlet in trial. That's not always how it goes. And so I'm wondering if the prosecution wants the jury to focus on just the most compelling, the strongest potential grounds for the RICO charge and eliminated these other less strong grounds. However, it could look like they're kind of surrendering, that they're kind of saying, hey, we told you we could prove this stuff, but we actually can't. But trust us when we say we can prove these other crimes.
- [07:51]
Tony
Well, I mean, is that part of the case here? Considering once they started going, one of their witnesses did go missing and that witness was supposedly going to be kind of backing up a lot of their case with the RICO and the kidnapping. And since they really couldn't have the witness there for that, they had to kind of drop it and I guess. And then the rest of the case, the Diddy and or the Cassie area of all this, we certainly saw sexual coercion and abuse and things like that, but I don't know if it crosses the line to kidnapping. What about any other piece of this trial? Did you see that there was anything that would, would lead to anyone to believe that or was it just really not quite their reasonable doubt?
- [08:39]
Eric Faddis
You know, for me, the whole presentation by the government, that's just my opinion. It's been a bit underwhelming going into this. They came in guns ablaze and talking about arson and kidnapping and sex trafficking and people being drugged and these sort of like, you know, Caligula esque orgies with all of these stars, and that's not really what the evidence has been. And so I'm just wondering how the jury is going to be impacted by this 11th hour change. You know, are they going to say that, gosh, the government kind of, you know, made a lot to do about this case and, and then they didn't really have the goods, or are they going to say, hey, we're going to be laser focused on these other grounds for RICO that are more provable and that might spell doom for Diddy, is.
- [09:25]
Tony
That, I mean, that's got to be a difficult thing sometimes. And you got to figure out, I guess, who your jury is and how they're gonna react to whatever you're gonna put in front of them. Because, I mean, we've seen in many cases, and I'm sure you have seen in far, far, far more cases than me, they can be kind of confusing or they can be Confused, maybe I should say, even when the jury forms to most would not be that confusing. But if you don't look at them all the time and you're not used to seeing them. Yeah, I mean, it takes a little to figure this out. Is that something I mean, they're really concerned with here of let' simple as possible. Let's not let them just give a couple light charges and walk away. Let's have them. Really, the options are stark. It's either you're going to be checking the boxes and stuff that's going to put them away for at least 15 years or more, or you're not. There's nothing really, it seems light on the table here. Is that accurate?
- [10:20]
Eric Faddis
Oh, yeah, yeah, I think absolutely. And it's. It's an important point because the RICO charge itself is terribly confusing. The jury instructions that I've seen for that charge are difficult for a seasoned attorney to follow, let alone a layperson juror. And so perhaps the government wanted to simplify this for the jury and say, hey, you know, there aren't 20 moving parts now there are six. And that's more manageable for a jury because when there's confusion in that deliberation room, sometimes confusion translates into doubt, which can translate into reasonable doubt.
- [10:56]
Tony
Do they ask enough questions when they need to ask enough questions from back of that jury room? Just from your experience as a prosecutor or a defense attorney? Because you'll see both ends of it. Have you seen more where they come back and ask the right questions? Or more where they come back with a verdict? And it's like if you had just asked this question, you would have understood this better and it wouldn't have led you to that decision.
- [11:19]
Eric Faddis
You know, on the whole, in my experience, the jurors ask important questions while they're back there, including clarifying questions about the jury instructions, the charges, the verdict form, that kind of thing. Because if they don't and if there's some kind of misunderstanding, you can get inconsistent verdicts within a trial, and that itself can be a ground for appeal. So it's really important that the juries understand what they're supposed to be doing back there.
- [11:47]
Tony
Let's talk about the RICO charges. The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations act is being used to argue that Diddy ran a criminal enterprise involving sex trafficking, drugs and violence. And he's saying, no, that wasn't part of my company. That was just the weekends, basically. RICO allows prosecutors to bundle multiple acts under one broad umbrella. That's why we've been seeing it used outside of just like Mafioso type cases. We saw it in the R. Kelly case, we're seeing it here. But yeah, it is complex and controversial when applied outside of organized crime. So how exactly are prosecutors trying to meld this and form this in a way that a jury is going to understand it? So they get what a RICO charges and see how that applies to Diddy. How do you work that through your mind to explain it?
- [12:42]
Eric Faddis
So kind of the intellectual flow chart, if you will, for it is for a RICO charge, there's gotta be a criminal enterprise. And there have to be at least two predicate offenses that happen within 10 years that are connected to that criminal enterprise. Like running a stop sign isn't enough. They got to be serious crimes. And so I think the prosecution is going to argue that the Bad Boy Entertainment helped facilitate some of this sex trafficking that they contend was non consensual, that they set up hotels, that they engaged in payments at times. Sometimes they're fueling these hotel parties with drugs. And so what the prosecution is going to say is that the sex trafficking crimes themselves can be the predicate offenses for rico, so long as they can connect it to Bad Boy. You know, they've been able to have some successes in drawing those connections. There were some receipts and texts entered into evidence. On the other hand, there are some Bad Boy affiliates who say, hey, we didn't know about any criminal activity. We certainly didn't agree to facilitate it. And so that one, there's some conflicting evidence there.
- [13:46]
Tony
I mean, ultimately the man with the checkbook is Diddy. So he's gonna do what he wants and pull the funds from wherever. Is it really come down to where the funding for these parties came from or the people or persons involved who planned it? Because if you're operating off of Diddy's personal card, on thing on all this is that rico, even if you have employees helping to facilitate these things. But all the funding is coming out of, out of Diddy's personal account, not the Bad Boy Entertainment account. I guess the other question would be, who are these people employees of? Would they be employees of Bad Boy Entertainment? Cause I don't know the answer to that. I don't know how his assistants were set up or anybody set up. Was that Bad Boy or was that Sean Combs Enterprises or whatever it was called? I suppose it doesn't matter if it's Bad Boy or not. If it's under a. A business structure of any type, really, that would be constituting a RICO charge. Whether it's just, you know, you're employed to be making the life of Diddy, the life of Diddy as assistance and stuff. That's still a corporate structure. It's not Diddy personally.
- [14:57]
Eric Faddis
Totally. So to the first question, the funding is critical. I mean, certainly the jury is going to want to see, hey, were there business accounts that were used to rent out these hotels that were used, buy flights for mail escorts, that kind of thing? It's important, but it's not necessary. Under rico, you can have just the affiliates of the alleged criminal enterprise arranging things. And really the central piece is that did they have knowledge that there was some criminal activity going on, and did they coordinate all together to advance that criminal activity and connection with the criminal enterprise also? The criminal enterprise, that's like. It's a very low standard to meet that. It's kind of just a loose confederation of people who happen to be working in coordination. It doesn't even have to be a business here. It is a business. And so it's a much lower standard than people think to prove that some criminal enterprise exists. And I think that the government went far in trying to establish that in having text messages from other bodyguards and from executives at Bad Boy Entertainment, that all according to the government, sort of coalesce in some of these criminal acts.
- [16:13]
Tony
I think a lot of times when we hear the word sex trafficking or a layperson hears that, they're thinking, you know, a bunch of immigrants in the back of a truck or something that have been picked up, and this is. They're just. That's not how it typically. I mean, is that part of it Sometimes, sure, but that's not always how it has to be. I mean, the fact that, you mean sex work is illegal in most states, if you're getting. If you're purchasing a sex worker to come in from New Jersey and the party's in New York, we're crossing state lines, just a theoretical one out there. And the purpose of that person coming to that party is to do sex work with Diddy, his guests, whatever. Is that sex trafficking? Just like that. Even though that person is knowingly coming, they're not being forced, it's not coercion. They're getting paid. Is it sex trafficking if they're willingly coming for that purpose to another state?
- [17:18]
Eric Faddis
It's a really important point because I agree with you. There is kind of a misnomer in terms of sex trafficking and what that means. It doesn't need to include sort of, you know, forced migration of a bunch of people to go and do Something the charge in this case is sex trafficking by force, fraud or coercion, which requires that someone engaged in a commercial sex act by force, fraud or coercion. And so all that really depends on is having some commercial sex worker, which we have ample evidence of. The punisher, for one. So, and so then the remaining question is, was it by force, fraud or coercion? That's the part that the jury, I think, is gonna wrestle with. But sex trafficking is also a lower standard than perhaps our societal understanding might suggest.
- [18:07]
Tony
And that's the interesting part, I guess, of this case. It's not even so much about the state lines. It's about once they're there and they're there for that job. Was there force fraud or coercion involved in them performing the job, meaning they felt that they were being forced or coerced into having sex with people. That said, I think a gray line to a lot of jurors, especially if it is a sex worker, like, well, what were you expecting to have happen here? Diddy hired you to be a sex worker, but obviously rape is something that you would not really expect to be part of it. But we have to. Is there even evidence of, of that with some of the sex workers? It's gonna be a difficult one, I think, to convince a jury on, quite honestly. I mean, where do you think it stands? Cuz from what I've understood, from what I've taken out of a lot of this, from the testimony, other than the direct things with Cassie and some assistants and some people that are really directly close, we're not hearing a lot from sex workers that, you know, they're like held captive in Diddy's land. It seems they kind of came and went, at least most of them. Other ones who didn't get involved, a closer relationship, didn't seem to have those sort of stories.
- [19:29]
Eric Faddis
Right. As far as I can tell, none of these sex workers are alleging that they were forced to do something criminally that they didn't want to do. I think the sex trafficking by force, fraud, coercion charges are based on Cassie and based on Jane. And so, you know, if there was evidence, where did he said, hey, I need you to do this freak off or else I'm going to beat the hell out of you. That's, that's by force. That's sex trafficking by force, fraud or coercion.
- [19:54]
Tony
Sure.
- [19:55]
Eric Faddis
However, that, that's not what we. There was sort of this specter of threats that this implication and this subjective understanding from Cassie and Jane that they didn't feel like they had a choice, but that's not necessarily enough that the government's got to prove that Diddy knew. Cassie and Jane felt they didn't have a choice, and he forced them to do this anyway through his machinations, whatever they may be. And so that's kind of an added level of proving that Diddy knew that they didn't have a choice, felt they didn't have a choice, and went forward anyway in a coercive fashion. That's yet another layer that's gonna be difficult to prove.
- [20:32]
Tony
That's what I was expecting to see if he was gonna call any witnesses. I was expecting to see some people to come up and go, no, this wasn't coercion. No, this wasn't this. No, this wasn't that. Obviously no witnesses are called. Do you think there's nobody out there that would testify to that or is it just, let's not keep focusing on Diddy having sex with sex workers. Let's. It's already been brought out. We know that's happened. We don't think they proved it beyond a reasonable doubt that this was some sort of coercion. I don't know. Are you surprised that we didn't hear anybody backing up Diddy in any way, shape or form?
- [21:07]
Eric Faddis
I am surprised. I thought they would call at least like two witnesses or so who would come in and say, you know, hey, I'm from Bad Boy. I was at some at one of these parties and nothing seemed non consensual to me. No one was saying no. They weren't saying stop. They weren't, you know, their body language, which wasn't sort of resistant or something like that. It seemed perfectly consensual. I think that would go a long way. And then further, another witness they could have called is someone who said, hey, yeah, I work for Bad Boy. And I had no knowledge of any crimes going on. I was just doing my job, you know, day to day work. I would expect those types of witnesses to be called. They weren't called. Is it because they don't exist? That's a question that could be lingering in the jury's mind.
- [21:49]
Tony
I mean, or is it just, you know, let's leave it out by omission and then make the jury wonder, like, maybe nobody else does exist, but there are people who do exist who had quite a case against him. Cassie Ventura being one of them. The jury saw that video of him beating the crap out of her at the Intercontinental Hotel, stomping on her head, throwing a vase at her, dragging her through the hole. Pretty damaging stuff. And then they heard several days of her testimony that went far more dark and into brutal territory. That makes that video look pretty tame, quite honestly. We have that as being a big. A big part of this. How much do you think just that element of this case is gonna weigh on the jury's decision over all three charges? Just because of how damning that is and them maybe just being a little trigger happy going, he did that, he can go down for the other things too. Just kind of a, you know, you're a horrific human being. Let's just get you away.
- [22:45]
Eric Faddis
The shock factor cannot be understated. That video is terribly evocative in the worst way for Diddy. And on top of that, it sort of communicates to any common person, hey, if he's capable of doing that, he's at least capable of these other accusations, you know. That being said, one question I think that the defense should ask in closing argument rhetorically to the jury is, you know, was Cassie forced or. Excuse me, did that physical violence force Cassie to do these freak offs? You know, was there some direct imminent threat or was it just this was a complicated and abusive and horrible relationship, and on top of that, she chose to do these freak offs? You know, I think that subtle distinction is important because that physical force has to have a contributing factor to the sex trafficking by coercion. They got to make that link.
- [23:40]
Tony
They do. And I think that's obviously the abuse that he has drained down on her is pretty obvious. That question, though, is, you know, she has agency too. Did she just. Did she stay because she was fearful? I know she's argued that, and I get that. I believe she probably is fearful. But courts don't always look at it the same way a psychologist would. A psychologist could look at this and go, yeah, I get why you were here. This was fear, and you felt you had no choice, and this was why you were here. Here, courts don't quite grasp all of that quite the same way as a doctor would and understanding the psychology behind it. Do you think the court will see it that way or are they gonna look more at, you know, you're an adult, you were coming and going. You were not, you know, technically locked down there. You could have. There was a lot of windows where you could have used agency and got the hell out of there. Would it have been a mess? Would it have been hell? Yeah, I'm sure it probably would have been horrible, but. But it wasn't completely impossible. How do you think a jury and I'M not trying to victim shame here. I get why she stayed, but do you think that that is going to play well enough in front of a jury for them to believe that in.
- [24:48]
Eric Faddis
The court, to believe that without question, there are a series of unfortunate circumstances. Clearly some trauma was inflicted, people were victimized, abuse was going on. That seems pretty evident. That being said, a person who is an alleged victim getting on the stand and, hey, I was. So I was affected by all of these circumstances, and so I felt I didn't have a choice. I felt I couldn't leave. That is certainly regrettable, without question. Is that the same thing, though, as Diddy forcing someone to engage in a sex act because of those circumstances? That's a question that's separate and apart from these sort of sociological considerations that are clearly at play here. And the court looks at things a little bit more coldly, I would say. And the jury instructions don't allow for, you know, if you felt sorry for Cassie and you think she. She truly believes she didn't have a choice, you got to find them guilty. There's a lot more that has to be proven for. For a charge like this.
- [25:53]
Tony
Yeah, I mean, I would. I would certainly think so. Obviously, jurors are human, though, so if they were affected by this, you know, maybe they'll lean more in that direction. But, yeah, I mean, yeah, it is a colder lean because it's. It doesn't take all those factors into consideration. The fact that we also didn't see evidence of. Of co conspirators. I mean, that's usually part of a RICO case. We, maybe we do have co conspirators, but they took plea deals. I mean, does that still mean there's co conspirators? They said at the beginning and opening we're going to see co conspirators. We didn't see any co conspirators, like, explicitly named here. We saw, you know, know, some assistants that probably should be getting charged, but probably are not right now for their testimony. Is that. Was that showing co conspirators? I guess.
- [26:46]
Eric Faddis
You know, I thought it was a severe misstep by the government to not identify and charge co conspirators because we're talking about a criminal enterprise that's multiple people, that's affiliates, that's sort of a gang of folks who are doing crime together. But here we only have one person charged with a crime, so undercuts just our general understanding of what a criminal enterprise might be now. Now, certainly there were some folks who are engaged in some underhanded activities with drugs and arrangements and texts and everything else. But you know, do they appear to be criminal agents of Diddy who are all acting in concert to pull off this massive sex trafficking? That's a bit of a stretch.
- [27:31]
Tony
Yeah. Certainly had people who were complicit in doing it. But did they believe they were engaging in something that was illegal too? Or did they think this is just really, you know, just extreme behavior by one of the richest people out there that seems to like this stuff? You don't know, you know, how other than having to clean up some really messy rooms, I don't know that they would have known what exactly was going on behind closed doors. Or did they? I mean, there was testimony, not testimony, but we heard stories from people who had been out and claimed to have seen Diddy being very abusive to Cassie. Actually there was testimony about that in this trial. I forgot. So it does make you wonder behind closed doors at the house, assistance, things like that, if Diddy is willing to be abusive in public, at restaurants, towards the person he's with, I would think maybe behind closed doors that wouldn't be a far stretch to wonder if they were doing the same thing there.
- [28:33]
Eric Faddis
Very fair point. And there certainly was testimony about public assaults and that kind of thing. So, so what that means is that perhaps some of the bad boy entertainment folks had knowledge that there was at least some criminal activity like an assault going on. But, but, but another layer, another question is did they materially aid in bringing about further crimes with the knowledge that they're doing crime? That that's really what Rico contemplates. Like you said, think about the mafia for example. Those are all folks who they're doing when you know, five of them stop a retail or a bus with retail items, truck with retail items and then stick them up here. It's just a different scenario.
- [29:14]
Tony
Yeah, I mean it really is. Let's talk about the charges here for a moment and what specifically they are and what if convicted, Diddy could be facing. The charges carry minimum starting at 5, 15 years and could result in life if certain allegations are proven. We have the racketeering conspiracy. Accused of running a criminal enterprise under federal racketeering laws. Prosecutors alleged he orchestrated legal activities including sex trafficking, kidnapping, arson, bribery, forced labor, obstruction of justice and more as part of the long term scheme to control and exploit women and conceal his wrongdoing to you. Guilty. Not guilty. What are your thoughts?
- [29:57]
Eric Faddis
I'm thinking not guilty on this one. I've heard stories that the government's going to focus on the Forced labor piece as a predicate. That is just not the most compelling aspect of this trial at all to try and prove rico. And the government has limited the bases on which a jury could find that Diddy is guilty of RICO by limiting kidnapping and arson. So I think that charge is pretty shaky. I'm going not guilty, not the next.
- [30:27]
Tony
One that we're looking at. Sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion. One count pertains to alleged coercion. At least one woman victim. One who prosecutors say was recruited, harbored, transported, and forced into commercial sexual acts using threats, psychological manipulation, and possibly violence. So we do have one that is. Is there. I was expecting far more, honestly. And it certainly doesn't discount that one is having had this experience and is talking about it, while many more maybe are just afra or just don't want to be thrown into that world further than they actually were. What are your thoughts on the sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion charge, Eric?
- [31:05]
Eric Faddis
You know, these are the most, arguably the most serious because they do carry up to life in prison if convicted. One of the charges pertains to Cassie. The other one pertains to Jane, and it's really going to come down to was there force or coercion? And did that directly cause these alleged engage.
- [31:30]
Tony
Sorry, I didn't realize my mic was on.
- [31:35]
Eric Faddis
Oh, no problem. Okay. So it really comes down to whether the force, fraud or coercion, whether did he use that to knowingly cause these alleged victims to engage in commercial sex acts against their will?
- [31:49]
Tony
Will.
- [31:50]
Eric Faddis
And on that part there is conflicting evidence. There's certainly testimony under oath that they didn't want to do this and they felt they had no choice. There's other text messages where they're seemingly pretty open and into the free goss. And so this one could go either way. I'm leaning towards not guilty on these ones as well.
- [32:11]
Tony
Okay, number three, we go to Diddy. Accused of moving individuals across state lines with the intent to engage in prostitution. Part of the alleged pattern of orchestrated travel for freakoff parties involving escorts. Eric, what say you?
- [32:29]
Eric Faddis
This one's pretty strong, I think. I think this one is hard to defend against. The defense might say that, hey, Diddy was just paying for these folks time and not sex. But, you know, common sense and the testimony would tell us otherwise. I think he's going down on these ones. But the thing is, these are the least severe and he could even just get time served on these on these charges.
- [32:53]
Tony
What do you think? And this is a fun one. If diddy were to survive all of this, which there's a possibility, you know, I mean, egotistically survive and you know, PR. Survive is one thing I think that's been destroyed. But if you were to, you know, have freedom again, whether it be 15 years down the road or a few years down the road road, do you think he can reinvent himself? Do you think Diddy is done? Is he going to go the way of Ike Turner where it's just like, yeah, we remember you. Or, or do you think there's any path where Diddy can be redeemed or that he's going to attempt to go down at least, and he'll probably get some people if he takes a certain route?
- [33:36]
Eric Faddis
You know, it's a really interesting question. And I think that in our modern era, society is kind fed up with, with a bunch of rich people mistreating folks and especially in a criminal fashion and a sexual fashion. And I think we're kind of sick of that. We're not really going to look the other way anymore. On the other hand, in America, we love a story of redemption. And so is it at least theoretically possible that, that he could make some kind of comeback? You know, you think about Louis CK who's made quasi comeback after some controversy and, and other folks, you know, redemption I don't think is out of the question in America.
- [34:13]
Tony
America, I think if he became a preacher, that's. I mean, look it, MC Hammer did it. MC Hammer was not accused of this sort of stuff. Mace did it. Who was, you know, on mo money, mo problems again, not as big as Diddy. I think there's some other. I think Montel Jordan became a preacher again. Those guys didn't have those sort of accusations against them, but it kind of gave them a new life, gave them some new income. People look at their old school artists and go, oh, they, they're a preacher now. How nice. I would wonder if Diddy were to go down that road, spend a couple years silent, just kind of working his little ministry. Eventually he has a mega church and he's out there dancing around, he's asking for forgiveness and the Lord forgives him. And then everybody stands up and he does his songs and makes his money on the offerings. And nobody's the wiser because everybody forgets things in the course of just a few months. I would, I wouldn't say that I would be shocked, I would be surprised if in five to ten years from now there's not the Reverend Sean Combs out there. And everybody's like, oh, look at this.
- [35:18]
Eric Faddis
See the Church of Diddy. Yeah, it's coming up. You know, he's not the most pious individual, but that's.
- [35:25]
Tony
It's all gonna change. He's gonna act like that. He's gonna like, oh, I'm. It'll be like that, that forgiveness video that he put out with Cassie. I think he's gonna go down that road. And I'm so sorry. I was a horrible man. I was influenced by this and that. But now I'm found. I'm saved. And I want to save you. And there you go, Diddy. That's your ticket to, to get it going again. But I think he has to drop the name Diddy. I think it's got to be something like completely different. Just like Reverend Reverend Sean Combs or, you know, Rev D or something. It's going to happen.
- [35:55]
Eric Faddis
Yeah. He's already gone through a number of names.
- [35:57]
Tony
Exactly.
- [35:57]
Eric Faddis
He's got to come up with a new one.
- [35:59]
Tony
He's like a chameleon. He'll reinvent himself. I hope he doesn't, but I don't know. Stranger things have happened. Craving non stop true Crime updates. Press subscribe now and get the latest cases, analysis and expert commentary delivered straight to your feed only from the Hidden Killers podcast and True Crime today.
- [36:25]
Dennis Black
Ever notice your dog slowing down and having health issues and wondering, what can I do to make them better? Well, my friend, add rough greens to your dog's food for 90 days and I guarantee you'll see changes that will amaze you. Greetings naturopathic doctor Dennis Black, inventor of rough greens here, and I invite you to give your pup the Ruffgreens 90 Day Challenge. In the first 30 days, you'll see shinier coats and increased energy. By day 60, your dog will have a stronger immune system, less shedding, improved joint function mentioned, all due to the live nutrients that you've added to their diet. And at 90 days, better digestion, reduced inflammation, improved heart health, and you may even have reduced their cancer risk. Fetch your dog a free Jumpstart trial bag today. Go to try roughgreens.com use promo code. Try rough. That's T R Y R U F F. Go to try roughgreens.com use promo code. Try rough. You discover the shipping. You don't have to change your dog's food to improve your dog's health. Just add a scoop of rough greens.