Loading summary
Transcript80 lines
- [00:00]
A
Foreign. You're listening to a Tenderfoot TV podcast.
- [00:10]
B
Hi friends, it's Celicia. So normally this week would be an off week here at True Crime. We just wrapped up three episodes on Molly Tibbets. And next Monday, September 1st, we're going to be kicking off with a brand new case. And I'll tell you right now, this story is a huge one. It's a case I've been digging into literally, literally for years, and I cannot wait to finally have the opportunity to share it with you. But rather than just having an off week going quiet, I wanted to share something else you might enjoy. I recently had the chance to be a guest on a podcast that I really admire called Women in Crime. And I thought it would be fun to bring that conversation here to the feed for you to check out. If you haven't listened before, Women in Crime is hosted by criminologists Megan Sachs and Amy Schlossberg and and every week they cover a new story about women and crime. Sometimes it's women who've been victims, sometimes it's women who've committed crimes, and sometimes it's about how women are treated within the criminal justice system. They bring a really thoughtful and unique lens. They both have these very incredible backgrounds. Megan worked as a federal probation officer before earning her PhD in criminal justice. And Amy has a PhD in criminal justice with a focus on policy analysis, which is but she also has a background in forensic psychology, so the perspectives they bring are really insightful. On the episode you're about to hear, Megan and I dive into the Cassie Ventura story and the trial of Sha Diddy Combs. We talk about the power dynamics at play, what the case says about justice in a post MeToo era, and how the criminal legal system handles cases like these. Overall, I really enjoyed exploring this case alongside Megan and felt so grateful for the opportunity. So while you wait for next week's new case, here's my guest appearance on Women in Crime.
- [02:04]
A
A woman's allegations against a powerful man triggered a media storm and high profile trial, but left many with questions about justice. This is the Cassandra Ventura Story. Hello listeners. Today's case is one that most of you have heard of and many of you, like me, have probably even followed this case in the media. Amy and I both closely followed the trial of Sean Diddy Combs in New York's federal courts this summer, and with the outcome just recently and so many questions about the meaning of justice in this case, I really felt like I needed to cover it. But today, Amy is unable to join Me. Columbia has her very busy teaching this summer, and though I miss her, for today, I'll be hosting this episode with Celisia Stanton from the podcast Truer Crime. Hi, Celisia.
- [03:12]
B
Hi. I'm so excited to be here.
- [03:14]
A
I am so thrilled you were here today. We picked this case together. Um, I just kind of said why I wanted to cover it. But why were you interested in covering this case?
- [03:26]
B
Yeah, so I. This case definitely stuck out to me. You know, you had kind of come up with a few cases that you thought kind of would converge, like what we typically talk about on our shows. And this one really stood out to me. One, because it's timely. Right. I feel like I am often covering cases on true or crime that are years or maybe decades old. And so I did want to kind of unpack something that felt like, all right, this is just happening. Everybody's watching it. And then also, like, I feel like kind of where this case is happening is really interesting. Right. It's in hip hop. It's in this, like, post me too world. And I feel like that's a world. This is a world where we're really still trying to find our footing, especially with cases like these. You know, it's like, how do we balance honoring victims and enacting justice in a system that doesn't necessarily have a long history on winning convictions in cases like this? So I was really interested to unpack it with you.
- [04:19]
A
Yeah, I think this is gonna be super interesting as a criminologist, too, I can tell you that, like, we cover criminal behavior, but we also cover deviant behavior. And it's very interesting because the two were kind of equated in this trial in some ways, but they're still different. So there's, you know, sort of a deviant act, but that doesn't necessarily make it criminal. But there are criminal acts here that could be or could not be deviant. So there's questions about how these two kind of parse out from. At least through my lens. And also, certainly, I think in the end, this question of was justice served? Is one that I would love for us to provide our insights on at the end of this episode.
- [05:03]
B
Yeah. Really wanna dive into that with you.
- [05:05]
A
Yeah. We have a lot to discuss there. For now, though, let's introduce everyone to the woman at the center of today's episode. Cassandra Elizabeth Ventura, known as Cassie, was born in New London, Connecticut, in 1986 to mother Hobson and father Roderick Ventura. And it was there that she attended a private school. Cassie's parents Lead a life away from the spotlight. But she is reportedly very close with both of her parents who are still together and who she has said publicly are a very strong support system for her. Cassie has one brother who is reportedly an entrepreneur, but very little information has been reported on him. Apparently he stays out of the spotlight as well as in fact Celicia. Some reports say his name is also Rod like his father, while others say his correct name is Daniel. So not quite sure. But again, he is keeping a low profile. Cassandra or Cassie began modeling at an early age. Just 14 years old. And hit magazines like Seventeen. Also appearing in a music video in 2002. And really at the heart of it, Cassie aspired to be an artist. So she did what a lot of artists do. She moved to New York, enrolling at the Broadway Dance center and hiring a vocal coach. Have you ever heard of the Broadway Dance Center? It's pretty famous here.
- [06:27]
B
I haven't, no. My mom grew up in Manhattan so my family lives there. So I'm very familiar with the area. But like, no, never heard of Broadway. What?
- [06:37]
A
That's so cool.
- [06:39]
B
Yeah, I'm actually coming out to New York soon, so definitely, you know, just kind of like hearing what she's describing too of her upbringing. It also reminds me of my mom because she, she went to like the high school that was in Fame and like, you know, was really into like honing for vocal. For vocal stuff. So yeah, it's just really interesting that overlap.
- [07:01]
A
That's very cool. Okay, back to Cassie. She was signed by the well known Wilhelmina models and she worked a lot while also appearing in commercials. Her star was on the rise and in 2004 she met music producer Leslie Ryan and the two co wrote the song Kiss Me, recorded it and after playing it for Tommy Mottola, Cassie was signed with next selection Life group. Now Leslie then wrote the song Cassie is best known for Me and you'd which was released in 2006 and was a hit. Did you. Were you a fan of that song?
- [07:38]
B
I mean in 2006 I was 11. So you know, I was a fan of a lot of songs that really. I didn't understand what any of it meant. But my kind of thing at that time was pulling up YouTube videos. I feel like YouTube was kind of new at the time and like singing the lyric videos to myself in my bedroom. So I'm sure maybe this made it into its rotation.
- [07:57]
A
I have to tell you, it hurts my feelings how young you are there because I forgot this song. Sorry. This song was a hit for People of my generation, so I'll say that. But after that release, Sean Combs took notice of Cassie's talent, though the two had previously briefly met in 2005. But it was in 2006 that he agreed to release Cassie's first real album in conjunction with his label, Bad Boy Records. And so began a partnership between Combs and Ventura. But in the end, I'm not sure anyone would call them partners. Cassie released her album in 2006, and it was a success with Me and you topping the charts. And while she did a number of public performances, they were met with some criticism. Cassie admitted that she had stage fright and her performances fell a bit flat earlier on, while Combs and others, they would tell the press that she would just grow out of this and that she was just new. And Cassie continued to work on her second album, Electro Love, but she released three singles that didn't do very well. Nonetheless, Cassie kept working, also appearing in small roles in movies like Step up two. Did you see Step up one or two?
- [09:16]
B
I did see Step Up. That one I'm familiar with.
- [09:19]
A
But behind the scenes, the relationship was with Diddy was more than just professional. In fact, the two began dating in 2007, shortly after Cassie became the face of Diddy's fashion label, Sean Paul. So, Celicia, there's an age difference here, I think.
- [09:39]
B
Yeah. So it's interesting because when Cassie and Diddy first meet, she's just 17 years old, and he's much older than her. I think about 16 years older than her. And so, you know, at this point, and it makes sense if they're just working together, that's fine. You're, you know, you're getting into the industry, especially the music industry young. But I do think that there's some power dynamics at play here because, you know, it has such a young person really trying to set up your career, you know, especially at that time, even now. But especially at that time, you're kind of being told, all right, this is your prime, right? You have certain number of years in this industry before you know, you're relevant. And so to have someone who's so rich and so powerful and also a lot older than you, I could imagine that, that, you know, you're gonna kind of form an interesting relationship in that there is a big power differential between the two of them.
- [10:30]
A
I mean, the power differential is the age and the actual power. He's a megastar in this world. But I. I do think it's good to point out that she was. She was really young.
- [10:41]
B
Yeah. And I think when they actually started dating, she was 21. So I, you know, she wasn't. Even though they met at 17. But it's kind of interesting. Cause you're like, well, they met at 17, they start dating when she's 21. It kind of makes you wonder what's happening in that timeframe between 17 and 21, because it's like, it just seems a little bit. A little bit odd. And I think he's about 37 or 38 when she's 21.
- [11:04]
A
Yeah. So a real differential here. And even though she became the face of his fashion label and their relationship becomes public, Cassie's career began to stall. She was working on some collabs. She did a song with Nicki Minaj, who I Love. But her second album never came to fruition. Her relationship with Diddy didn't become public until 2012. And by then, the pair had reportedly had ups and downs, though very few knew the real story behind the headlines. After a few more singles and a few more years, in 2018, Cassie's relationship with Diddy and Bad Boy Records came, came to an end. It had been 12 years, but Cassie seemed ready to move on. She went on to marry Alex Fine, a celebrity fitness coach, in 2019, and the pair currently have three children together. And that very well might have been the end of the story, or at least what the public knew, until a lawsuit was revealed and explosive video footage released shortly after. Cassie filed a civil suit against sean combs in 2023, alleging that during the course of their relationship, Sean Combs forced her to take illicit drugs, he sexually assaulted her, forced her to engage in sex acts with male sex workers, and frequently assaulted her. Combs settled the lawsuit in just one day. And while the amount was undisclosed at the time, we later learned that the total he agreed to pay was $20 million. This was kind of a bombshell, right?
- [12:50]
B
Yeah, it's so interesting because it's, you know, for her to come out so many years later, it kind of just begs the question of, like, well, why now? And I think what's really interesting about this case in particular is that, you know, she's actually spoken publicly about why she came forward, which is that there was this law passed in New York called the New York Adult Survivors Act. And it's kind of out of the ordinary in that it, when it was passed, it just provided victims of sexual violence this one year window. So from November of 2022 to November of 2023, these folks had an opportunity to file civil claims. Even after the statute of limitations had lapsed for any sexual crimes that they had been the victims of. And, you know, it was part of this really big wave of legislation which was called, like, the look back legislation. And all of this came out in the aftermath of the MeToo movement in the United States. So I think it's, like, very of the time to have this. This piece of legislation. And I think it's really interesting that she came forward at this period in time, because you have to wonder, too, if she was kind of thinking, you know, not only about maybe getting some justice for herself or whatever it might be, but also, like, what it would mean for somebody like her to accuse somebody of such high stature, somebody so wealthy, someone so powerful, that maybe it would encourage other victims to come forward as well.
- [14:14]
A
I think that's a great point. And it was such an interesting piece of legislation. And you have to wonder, if it wasn't for that one year period of legislation, would she have filed a lawsuit?
- [14:26]
B
Yeah.
- [14:27]
A
Regardless, Cassie's lawsuit would set off a chain of events that would put Diddy in the spotlight, and certainly not for the reasons he wanted. After Cassie's lawsuit, many other suits followed, with victims alleging several crimes over the course of three decades. And I mean, these crimes included physical violence, sexual assault, sexual trafficking, and more. And soon to follow was a federal investigation of Sean Combs and his crime, criminal conduct. Understand I'm saying criminal because we were talking about civil suits. Right now we're talking about instead of it going from money and individuals, we're going into a criminal court. And this was a big deal. This investigation was headed by the Department of Homeland Security. It moved quickly with agents raiding his homes in Miami and Los Angeles in 2024 in nothing short of what looks like, if you remember the footage, a full militaristic raid. Do you remember all the people outside of his. They looked like they were in full military gear outside his homes?
- [15:33]
B
Yeah. And I think it's just. It's so wild, too, because just to think about how all of this is starting with Cassie filing, you know, her civil suit and just sort of the avalanche of things that followed it. I don't know if you have any thoughts about this, but one of the things that I wonder about is like, okay, why do they actually decide to go after him? Is it because of the severity of the charges, like, the claims that folks are making? Is it because of the number of people coming forward? Is it because he is so rich and powerful and so, you know, this is like, what they think is a Good use of resources. But, yeah, very curious about that.
- [16:09]
A
Is it? Because all of those things put together in one, right? Is this the perfect storm? Also, I think there was an idea of moving certain charges forward. Like what we're. The charges that we're gonna talk about, like, sex trafficking, like, evolving how we look at sex trafficking and racketeering, organized crimes. So was Diddy's case also kind of a test case in how. How we evolve those charges now and move forward with them? Um, all of these questions are good questions, but nonetheless, things were about to get worse for Combs. In May of 2024, CNN released a 2016 video of Diddy chasing Cassie down. He's in his towel in the hallway of the Intercontinental Hotel, and he perpetrated a brutal assault on her, caught on cameras. I mean, this video was such a bombshell. He was hitting her in the head until she fell. Then he's kicking her in a very cowardly move, grabbing and dragging her down the hall. As we see Cassie barely moving on the ground. I don't know. This video was very shocking. It shocked me. I know that Diddy quickly issued a video statement stating this was him at his lowest. His behavior was inexcusable. But what were your thoughts about seeing this video of the assault and then Diddy's apology after?
- [17:36]
B
Yeah, I mean, I think that the. The video of the assault is. It's super horrifying. It's definitely tough to watch. And, you know, one of the main things that occurred to me as I was looking at it is, like, this is somebody who is acting very boldly, meaning Diddy. You know, he wasn't really afraid. It doesn't seem to do this out in the open in the hallway, you know, in a public, like, setting at a hotel, in front of cameras. So for me, that kind of indicates that this is not a man who fears consequences, which I think makes sense, because we end up finding out later, which, you know, we'll talk about. But there were folks working for him that, you know, their job was, in some ways, to make stuff like this go away, right? To try to get the video out of the hands of the hotel. So I'm sure he felt like, hey, it's all gonna be fine. But then, you know, on the flip side, too, I think what also strikes me is Cassie, the victim in this case, she's treated so horribly just on video. And obviously, we know she doesn't go to police immediately following this. You know, she doesn't end up filing the civil suit till years later. And so to me, that affirms this idea that not only is Diddy confident that he can get away with this, but Cassie is confident that he can get away with this. And I think that that kind of displays that power dynamic as well.
- [18:56]
A
Yeah, I think that's a very insightful point, Celisia. And this video also marked a pivotal point in the public's opinion, but it also foreshadowed an impending arrest of some type. We now know that Combs was arrested in September 2024. Maybe he wasn't charged, though, exactly what we thought he was going to be charged with, because maybe people thought, hey, he's gonna be charged with domestic violence. But in the federal system, Combs was charged with racketeering, sex trafficking, and transportation to engage in prostitution. Some of these are very serious charges. Holding with them the possibility of life in prison, which was splashed all over the headlines. Combs was denied bail and held at the Metropolitan Detention Center. Now, that is the MDC in Brooklyn. And I can tell you from having worked in that prison or interviewed people in that prison, it's very bad in the press. Judges have ordered reforms. It's, you know, we don't say prisons are nice places, but the physical conditions, the overcrowding, the lack of even. I think it's healthcare. Now, there are many things that have contributed to this not being a great place that you wanna be detained.
- [20:12]
B
Yeah. And if somebody like Sean Combs are you kept in kind of a separate.
- [20:17]
A
Area, you know, specifically, I don't know what his situation was, but I believe he was in what we call special housing unit. So Shu. He's probably not going to be out in the general population because he is a target. And so there are protections that have to be afforded. But I don't know that he was in complete solitary, but he would certainly not be with everyone else. It's a big institution, too. A lot of offenders housed there, or we won't say offenders at that point because they're pretrial. So this is defendants at that time. Now, people had asked why he was denied bail. There's two reasons. First of all, flight risk. If anyone's got the means to flee, I think we could agree it would be him. Right. There's also the danger to the community. So he was charged with violent crimes, some of which holding very long prison sentences. So on both those counts, possible danger to the community and to victims. And on the idea that he could flee, he was detained during that time. He was offered a plea deal, but refused it. Do you remember this? I remember Hearing it was very hush hush, but I remember hearing a rumor and I can't substantiate that it was for 12 years. Did you hear anything about that?
- [21:28]
B
Yeah, I didn't know too much about. About the plea deal. No. But I do think it's interesting again to deny plea deal. I mean, like, especially when you think about how the vast majority of people charged with crimes, especially crimes as serious as this would take a plea deal because the risk is so high. You know, that kind of. It is interesting that he doesn't take it. Right. You can, you can take that in two ways. Either that he is innocent or, you know, feels like he can be acquitted of these charges or that he just feels like he has, you know, the means and the power and the wherewithal to beat the charges. Regardless.
- [22:00]
A
Yes. Celisi, I don't know if you know this, but in fact, anywhere upwards, but a minimum of 90, 95% of people plead guilty take plea deals.
- [22:09]
B
Right.
- [22:10]
A
It's only and for many reasons, and most people just don't have the money to fight the state. State has more money or the federal government. But a number of people or most people plead guilty. But for Sean Combs, he was going to trial. The trial against Sean combs commenced on May 12, 2025, in downtown Manhattan's federal courthouse. This took place in the Southern District of New York, which, as many of our listeners know, is my old stomping grounds and where I served as a federal probation officer. So watching them, you know, enter the courthouse, it really brings me back, I have to say. It makes me miss being in the courts in the middle of it. Downtown Manhattan where I worked was so exciting. Like all the courthouses were there and I don't know, that was another lifetime ago. But I become more intrigued by the cases there. Certainly the judge in this case was not one that I was familiar with from my time there. This is Judge Aaron Subramaniam and a bit about Subramaniam here. He went to Columbia Law School and clerked for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, which I thought was so cool, and certainly other reputable judges. But, you know, that's the one that sticks with me. From 2007 to 2023, he worked at law firm Sussman Godfrey as a civil litigator. And he became the firm's youngest partner in 2011 at age 31, which is pretty young for partner. And he worked on some very complex litigation cases. So he already had quite the reputation in private practice. He was nominated by President Biden to the Southern District of New York's District court in just 2022, and then he wasn't appointed until 2023. So he is very new to the courts. That means that he doesn't have much of a sentencing history from which we can make predictions.
- [24:18]
B
Yeah, it's interesting.
- [24:19]
A
As I was a probation officer, I would know, I'd be writing a recommendation, a pre sentence report for, you know, a certain judge. And I'd know, well, they're going to go a little higher up in the range or someone's going to go a little lower because, you know, the history. But there's not much here which leaves room for a lot of speculation and that we're definitely going to do soon. Back to Diddy, though. The prosecution charged him with the following crimes. Racketeering, otherwise known as rico, two counts of sex trafficking, and two counts of transportation for prostitution. During the course of the trial, the prosecution called many witnesses to try to piece together what they called was a crime criminal organization led by Sean Combs. In this organization, they allege that he committed several crimes which included sex trafficking, drug distribution, transportation for prostitution, but also kidnapping, bribery, witness tampering and forced labor. So there were a lot of charges that come under this umbrella of racketeering at the center of the prosecution's case. And I think the most, we probably heard about the term you heard the most during this entire trial has to be freak offs, right?
- [25:36]
B
Yeah, no, definitely. And I think what's interesting too about all of these charges is just that I feel like for the average person, it's like, what do some of these things actually mean, like racketeering? And you know, what does it mean? Like, you know, something like drug distribution, like, what does that actually look like? But I feel like so much attention obviously goes towards the explosive sort of thing, evidence that had come out during the trial that you can. The technicalities of like, well, what is the case that the prosecution has to prove kind of gets lost.
- [26:08]
A
I think in this especially, I think there was a lot of confusion about how we define trafficking or how it was defined in the federal government and prosecuted. And also racketeering, and rightfully so, because racketeering, people will think of the historic way it was used and that was to prosecute the mafia, mob organizations, which were criminal enterprises. And so what the prosecution here was alleging was that Diddy was also running a criminal enterprise. And here are all the crimes that happened in this essentially organization, criminal organization. But a lot of them focused, or a lot of the testimony focused on freak offs which have come to be defined as these drug fueled sex parties in which Diddy coerced women into. Into sexual acts with male escorts. These freak offs frequently involved interstate travel which triggered what we call man act violations. And that means. Or that's the criminalization of transportation for prostitution across state lines. Many witnesses testified who worked for Diddy to setting up these parties and purchasing drugs for them. Right. We heard testimony like that. Multiple people testified to witnessing Combs assault Cassie and threaten her. And what I was surprised to hear was that some people even intervened to try to stop the assaults. I was pleasantly surprised because that must be a very scary position to be in.
- [27:40]
B
Definitely.
- [27:41]
A
Israel Torres, who was hotel security in a Los Angeles hotel that was the same of that attack by Diddy on Cassie, testified that Diddy tried to bribe him to keep him quiet. Now, you had said that of course that was going to be the course of action. Right. That's how he handled his crimes or his assaults.
- [28:01]
B
Yeah. And it seems like, you know, this is probably not this sort of like routine of maybe something, you know, an act happens out in public that could reflect badly on Diddy's reputation. You know, it seems like there's a whole procedure to get that under control. And I think, you know, it actually kind of reminds me of all this sort of like PR scandals that people have been talking about, like with Blake Lively and, and stuff like that recently, where you have entire apparatus around celebrities built to deal with situations like this. And so then it becomes a little bit blurry. It's like, okay, what, at what point is this just, just doing business and protecting the assets of the, of the business and, and when is it criminal?
- [28:43]
A
Yeah, that's a great question. And like you said, like, it's like a machine. It's like a machine built around them. And I think you make a good point. It's. You can relate this to other. You can relate this to other scenarios. You get the idea here that this is just the procedure to protect the assets, as you said. Further testimony in the trial, you have an ex girlfriend of Diddy's, using the pseudonym Jean, testified that she was drugged at freak offs and coerced into sex acts because she was financially dependent on Diddy. You also had Scott Mascudi, known in the music world as Kid Cudi. I'm gonna say that he's a little too old for you too.
- [29:20]
B
No, I mean, you know, I know Kid Cudi.
- [29:23]
A
Okay. All right. He testified that Diddy had once broken into his house and then arranged an arson attack on his car when he And Cassie dated briefly. So there's a lot of testimony from people who worked from Diddy, talking about the coverups, the bribes, things that they did to facilitate some of the freak offs or many of the freak offs. Then you have testimony from Kid Cudi and people who were another person who was in a relationship with Diddy. But I don't think there was any testimony arguably as powerful as that of Cassie Ventura.
- [30:02]
B
Yeah, and definitely this was something that I think the public was anticipating hearing about. And especially because, you know, this wasn't, you know, a televised trial. Obviously there was a lot of media coverage of it. But, you know, we didn't actually get to see people testifying. We just had here we're hearing these recaps, you know, saw the art, that kind of stuff. But we know that Cassie was set to testify, but it was tricky because she was actually eight months pregnant at the time. So, you know, coming in to testify shortly, you know, before she would be having her baby, she ends up making it testifying and she tells these horrific accounts about all of this abuse that she'd experienced, physical abuse, psychological control that he, that she felt Diddy had exerted over her. And then of course, being forced to participate in these freak offs, this non consexual sex acts. And you know, they play this video of the, of the assault, the one in the hotel hallway, and that's just kind of as powerful, you know, and her, her testimony sort of explaining that situation and that she, that she kind of gives the broader context for this moment too, which is that she was actually trying to escape one of these freak offs. And that's when Diddy had gone after her in the hotel hallway. But you know, of course that's what happens when she's being questioned by the prosecution. And then of course the defense is gonna go, they're gonna cross examine her. Um, and that is the, the tricky thing I feel like about putting a, a victim, a survivor on the stand is that obviously you have to withstand cross examination. That can be a really tough thing emotionally to have to relive that. Obviously these questions are targeted. They want to try to discredit you, you know, to make their case, which is their job. And so during her cross examination, the defense lawyers really used a lot of, actually both sides were using a lot of text messages to kind of show that, listen, you know, on the prosecution side, it was like Cassie was being coerced by Didi. Look at, you know, how they were, how he was speaking to her. Look at some of the things that she would say, and then on the defense side, it was like, look at how Cassie is responding. You know, look how Cassie is talking about these freak offs. Look how Cassie seems to want to participate, seems to be excited for these. And so, you know, all of those things kind of raised some doubt and, you know, potentially question, like, potentially would lead jurors to question her credibility because, you know, the defense is making this argument that she's a willing participant, that this relationship was consensual, they were both consenting adults, and that she chose to remain in this relationship for many years.
- [32:37]
A
Right. I think that's exactly what their strategy was. I mean, the crux of the defense was that Diddy's a bad guy. I think they conceded. He's. He's abusive, he's violent. They couldn't escape that.
- [32:49]
B
Yeah. And they were kind of like, with the elevator incident, I remember there was this idea of, like, yeah, yeah, yeah, this is probably domestic violence, but, like, this is not criminal in regards to the charges that we are discussing.
- [33:04]
A
Also, you know, they. They didn't shy away from the fact that he had some sexual proclivities that some people might find as we, you know, would say deviant or maybe even, you might say yucky. But that. That didn't make him a sex trafficker or the head of a criminal organization, you know, using just. Cause the prosecution used the word baby oil a lot. Didn't mean that that makes him guilty of something other, again, than just having different sexual preferences. So that was really the defense strategy. They called no witnesses, which some people find very surprising, but it is not at all uncommon in criminal trials.
- [33:43]
B
Yeah, I think this is really such a kind of like, you know, there are so many cases, obviously, that go through the criminal legal process every day. You know, but then there are these. These flashpoints. Right. These cases which really capture national attention. And then when that happens, I think there is maybe our understanding of what the system is, is maybe different than what it is in practice. And so I feel like for a lot of folks, it's like, okay, that seems suspicious. Like, why would the defense team not call any witnesses? Like, shouldn't they have something to present? Shouldn't they be bringing in evidence, building their own case? But, you know, I feel like that perhaps comes from some misunderstanding of what the goal of a criminal trial is. And, you know, Megan, I'm sure obviously you can speak from your criminology background, but one of the things that kind of always helps me when I'm thinking about these trials is thinking about my Own experience and how I used to frame things for high school debaters that I coached. I did debate in high school. I coached for 10 years. And in a debate round, there's always, you know, an affirmative side and a negative side. And the affirmative side is the one making the claim. They're the ones who have the burden of proof. So, you know, if the topic is something ridiculous like, you know, bananas are the best fruit, then it's not necessarily the negative's job to prove that strawberries are the best fruit. It's their job to prove that bananas aren't. So that same principle applies in a criminal trial in that the burden of proof is entirely on the prosecution. They have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Diddy is guilty of these individual charges. They don't have to. And the defense, on the other hand, doesn't have to prove that Diddy is innocent insofar as, like, you know, what we were talking about, like, oh, yeah, he's never done anything wrong. They just have to create enough doubt that, you know, proves that the prosecution didn't meet this very high standard. And, you know, I feel like the other thing, too, to keep in mind is that, like, a defense attorney obviously doesn't build their case just through calling witnesses, you know, when it's their turn. A lot of that work is happening in cross examination, like we were talking about. And if you're successfully, like, undermining the credit credibility of different witnesses and kind of highlighting inconsistencies, pointing out holes in the evidence, then you're injecting that reasonable doubt sort of as you go, and basically, you're making your case while the prosecution is also making theirs. So. Yeah, definitely thought that was kind of an interesting element, especially in the. In the public discourse about it.
- [36:02]
A
Yeah. I mean, you said that very well. And I didn't know that you coached a debate team. That makes sense. That's very cool.
- [36:09]
B
So.
- [36:10]
A
Right. It's not up to them to, you know, prove anything. They just had to show that the government hasn't proven those charges. And I think there was maybe a second concern as well. Like, anyone they brought in, what are they gonna say? Even if they have something good to say, do they know something bad? Is the prosecution, you know, once they open the door by putting a witness up there.
- [36:31]
B
Right.
- [36:31]
A
They don't know what could come out. Right. Like opening Pandora's box. So better to put no one up and just crack the prosecution's case.
- [36:40]
B
Yeah. I always hear from, like, listeners when we cover a case that has a trial and it's like, well, why didn't, you know, the. The person who was accused go on the stand and kind of explain their perspective? And it's like, that's, like, such a dangerous thing because, yeah, you can. Your. Your case could be. You know, it's a huge risk. Maybe it could be a benefit to you, but your case could be lost right there.
- [37:04]
A
It's usually not a benefit. And usually people only go up when they. Absolutely. There's no one else who could explain what happened. It has to be that person. Right. Well, whether or not the strategy works is for us to decide. But ultimately, Sean Combs was found guilty of two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution. And I think there was shock from a lot of people who thought that the government had made their case for the trafficking of Cassie. So this was very complex, and a lot of people asked me what I thought. In the end, I really didn't think the government made the case for trafficking of Jane based on the testimony that I heard. And with rico, yes, they might have satisfied some of the elements, but I think what happened with RICO is that the spirit of RICO was the problem. And what I mean here is basically that RICO exists to prosecute criminal organizations who operate for the explicit purpose of crime. Certainly, Diddy was at the helm of Bad Boy Records and his employees, some of them anyway, not all helped to facilitate some of his crimes. But I think in the end, the jury probably didn't believe that at its core, Bad Boy Records was a criminal enterprise or organization that existed just to facilitate these crimes. I think, rather, they might have seen it as more of a legitimate business in which people did commit crimes, but not necessarily for the organizational aspect. That's just my prediction on why they didn't see the racketeering. Um, did you have any predictions for the outcome here? Were you surprised by any of this? Disappointed? Anything?
- [38:44]
B
Yeah, I mean, honestly, I'm. I'm kind of with you on the RICO charges. I think that going into it, I didn't really think that he would be convicted on racketeering. I mean, like you were talking about earlier, this historically was used to prosecute the mob, which are these big organized crime families, right, where the purpose of the organization is to commit the crimes. And so, you know, I'm not really sure that I felt like there was enough evidence to present presented to support that that was the purpose of, you know, Diddy's. Diddy's company. It's like, you know, Diddy's company had a different purpose, and maybe there was some Other things that happened along the way. And I feel like that's RICO is kind of interesting because it's sort of this awkward fit maybe in some of these more modern cases. I mean, I know we've, we've seen prosecutors trying to apply it creatively recently in other cases like with the young thug trial or the, you know, Trump in Georgia. And I feel like I see what they're trying to do. I think that's really creative and innovative and interesting. But it's tricky when it's not what it was necessarily originally intended for. So it's not like tailor made for it. And I think it really does raise these bigger questions about, well, what does prosecution look like in these types of crimes, especially in this post MeToo era. Right. Because those cases, these cases are so often murky that it's not clear cut. You know, it's. There's not going to be slam dunk evidence in most cases. Gray area. It has to do with personal relationships. There's not always that ironclad evidence. But you know, at the same time we're trying to figure out like, how do we honor victims? We do want victims and survivors to come forward to tell their stories. We do want to, you know, to serve justice in those cases. But how do we kind of balance that with legal strategies that are going to be effective? That said, on the trafficking charges, I mean, I guess I was a little bit more surprised. I think I thought it could go either way. But I did think that the government had a stronger case on that point, at least when it came to Cassie. But I feel like when you look at the way that the defense was attacking the credibility of the victims because it wasn't just Cassie to some of the other victims, they were using text messages to kind of see, do the same thing of, hey, look, they were willing participants. I feel like that does create some doubt. But I will say that, you know, one of the things I've thought a lot about is that this case does kind of reflect what sex trafficking often looks like in that, you know, a lot of people maybe imagine trafficking, you know, just out in the world as like, oh, something more extreme. Right. People being kidnapped, locked up, their visitors. Yeah, exactly. They're unable to leave their captors. But you know, obviously in reality, as, you know, like, it's much more common, complicated, it's much more psychological. Yes. And a lot of times victims do technically have the freedom to walk away, but they don't feel like they can. And so that, that makes that psychological coercion like A really key part in a common reality, I think, for victims of trafficking. And, you know, I feel like in this case, when you have somebody who is as powerful as Diddy, you know, someone who really holds your career, your reputation, your safety physically and that, you know, that he can be violent. Yes. In his hands, that kind of creates a level of coercion that would be really difficult to break free from. So, yeah, I mean, while it wasn't necessarily what I would have predicted across the board, I do think that it really has raised really important questions about how we can handle these sorts of abuses and how we can balance that need for evidence with, you know, making sure that we are trying to improve, trying to do better, trying to figure out how we can enact justice for. For folks who are experiencing these sorts of things.
- [42:30]
A
In the end, I mean, what becomes. I mean, there's a very important conversation, and actually, we can talk about this at the end, about whether the system works or not. And what is to further those conversations, to possibly hold people accountable, to try to elicit justice in cases that seem very hard, to hold, you know, again, powerful people accountable. But now one of the questions that's facing everyone or that everyone has is, well, what does this mean for Diddy and what does it mean for his sentence? The discussion in the media has been, I would say. I don't wanna say incorrect. It's just more salacious. They talk about this statutory maximum that Diddy faces, which is 10 years for the two counts he was convicted on. So they keep saying, you know, a total of 20 years in prison. 20 years. But this is very far from the reality. Okay. And I had a live stream where I talked with the federal prosecutor. Some of our listeners attended, but we geeked out a little bit about the reason why. I won't do that too much here, but I'll just state that in the federal system, the Sentencing Reform act of 1984 mandated sentencing guidelines. In sentencing guidelines, basically you have a table. You have criminal history category and the offense level or the seriousness of the offense, they each get scored. You bring these scores together literally on a chart. One's on one, you know, horizontal axis and others on a vertical. So you bring these two scores together, and voila, you have this magical sentencing range. And that's how it really works. And when the defense. And also, by the way, the defense is gonna calculate their sentencing guidelines, and they're gonna be a little bit than what the prosecution calculates. Because even though there's some standard checks, there's a little bit of discretion in these. But the defense has calculated Diddy's guidelines using his lack of criminal history, which is not to say he doesn't have any. It's to say he doesn't have any legally. And what they think is his offense level for what he's actually been convicted of, they're putting him at 21 to 31 months in prison, which is very low. The prosecution, on the flip side, has him. When they score and they calculate these guidelines, they have him at 51 to 61 months. So you do have a discrepancy here. There is a probation officer, a federal probation officer, and by the way, that could have been me if it had been 20 years ago. Who's gonna come in and calculate and make this sentence recommendation to the judge. But we don't also have a record, again, of Judge Subramanian's history, so. So we're not sure how he's gonna decide. Is he gonna go higher with the prosecution? Lower somewhere in the middle? I think what is clear, though, is that he's not going to serve much more time. And I will tell you this, because even if the judge goes high, there is also the. Oh, gosh, the First Chance act, which means that he will get serious reduction in his time, no matter what. And he's already spent almost a year behind bars, and so there's a very real possibility that he could be going home at sentencing, in fact. And I don't know if people really realize that.
- [45:43]
B
Yeah, no, definitely not. I think that, like, you just kind of expect that if you're convicted of multiple crimes like this, too, that you would be going away for a long time, especially given, you know, the context around the situation. So. And I don't think people think about, like, the time served piece of it as well, like the time he spent in detention being potentially part of it.
- [46:07]
A
Right. So that brings us to kind of the end of the case. We have to wait and see the sentencing. But on women in crime, we like to do two more things before we go. And first is to look at the why this happened. So we look at the theory behind it, and then we wrap up by talking about do we think the system worked? Which is probably could be a whole series in itself on this case. But let me just start with why this happened. Now, he was not convicted of trafficking in rico. So, you know, taking that off the table kind of. I don't think there's much disputing the fact that he's a. Sean Combs has. He's a violent man who Has a history of multiple types of violence and in particular, abuse. So what I wanna focus on here is the explanation of his continued violence and the fact that he didn't get caught or punished until now. So a little bit about his background. I'm not totally familiar with his whole childhood and history. I wasn't the biggest Diddy fan before. I mean, I did not like his work. But I do know that he was born in the Bronx. I know at a very early age, his father was murdered. His mother moved him to Mount Vernon, New York, where he definitely attended a better school than in the Bronx. But it still wasn't, I would say, the best upbringing by what was reported. And his mother had parties in the home. I think he was exposed to drugs and other possible criminal influence, or at least very inappropriate influences. Early on, he gained the nickname Puff. Early on. Did you know. Do you know why he gained that nickname? I only knew that when I started looking into this episode.
- [47:39]
B
No, what is it?
- [47:41]
A
Because he would huff and puff in anger when he was mad.
- [47:44]
B
Oh, wow.
- [47:45]
A
So that's not really a good sign.
- [47:48]
B
No, not a. Not a good omen.
- [47:50]
A
It seemed like from an early age, he had a temper. I also wanna place this in some context. He rose to prominence during the whole East Coast, west coast feud of the 1990s, which was marked by rivalries, violence. You know, he was closely associated, good friends with Notorious B.I.G. whose murder in 1997 followed the killing of Tupac Shakur in 1996. I could get all sidetracked on this one. I just wanna say someone was arrested for Tupac's murder, but has not been tried yet. So technically, both deaths remain unsolved, but they are widely seen as retaliatory acts tied to this feud. And although Diddy wasn't necessarily linked to these crimes, he was actually in the middle of this. You know what I mean? He was thrown in the mix here. And he really was part of this retaliatory culture that normalized violence as a tool, you might say, for. Or a way to gain respect, to gain control, dominance. You know, there's a whole criminological theory that we talk about. It's called Code of the street, where it's like this toxic form of masculinity that emerges through violence, and it's a way to basically attain success no matter what. So I think that he finds himself in the middle of this kind of culture and coming up in this kind of culture and exposed to certainly all of this violence. And I'm not sure if you've you know, I heard a recent. I don't know, it was an episode of Dateline or, like, another show where a woman who was shot talks about how she was positive that it was Diddy who was the one who shot her, even though he, you know, didn't find himself charged with the crimes or convicted of the crimes.
- [49:42]
B
Oh, wow.
- [49:43]
A
So, yeah, I mean, again, he was not convicted of the crime, but she was like, I was in the nightclub. I'm positive it was him.
- [49:50]
B
Wow.
- [49:50]
A
This is a guy with a long history of violence. So I think that for Diddy, when we look at his power, he liked to instill fear in people. There's certainly evidence of that. He kind of wielded it as a currency. His toxic masculinity, I think, came from the culture that maybe he was a part of, but it was shaped a lot by fame and entitlement. And if you think about it, Celicia, unchecked privilege. Like, where was he? He wasn't getting punished, right? He's committing these acts. He's not getting punished. He gets away with committing these violent acts. I think his wealth and power, they did more than protect him. They emboldened him totally. You know what I mean? He operated with impunity. His status kind of gave him the right to do, to dominate. And I think he's used violence to maintain control, grip, power, everything. And it's like this in our world. It's a perfect storm of things that come together. He's learning this violence. He's learning that he can use it. He has too much power and control. It goes unchecked. So all of these things kind of led to his, I think, continuing all of these really awful behaviors. That was a lot, I realized. Sorry, that was a lot and a little heavy. But is there something else that you might see that you could explain his behavior over these decades, at least the violence?
- [51:24]
B
Yeah, I definitely. I mean, I think everything you're saying is super interesting and I agree with. And just kind of build on some of that a little bit. I think part of why, the reason that he was able to continue to do this, why he felt so untouchable, really comes down to a lot of things that are sitting at multiple intersections, right. Of race, gender, hip hop culture. And, you know, obviously, when it comes to sex crimes, women are already facing huge barriers to being believed. Right. That's been true for a long time. And even though MeToo kind of shifted some of that, there's still this deep cultural resistance, especially when the accused person is someone powerful like Diddy. But I think in hip hop specifically, there's even more layers. I was reading this article that got me thinking about this, and it was a piece in Time by Taylor Crumpton. And they were kind of pointing out how hip hop has always been sort of in an industry that's been trying to protect itself. Right. So from the beginning, the genre is facing all of these different sort of like attacks from law enforcement, the media, politicians. So there's kind of like this built in defensiveness to the genre. And then, you know, I feel like even to the point of like, you were talking about his unchecked privilege and sort of that idea of the code of the street. Is that what it was called?
- [52:45]
A
Yeah, it's code of the street.
- [52:46]
B
Yeah. And it makes me think about how, like, specifically in hip hop, when you have a lot of black men who are now able to obtain, you know, wealth and power that has traditionally, you know, that black folks have traditionally been excluded from, you want to keep that, right? You want to be able to be like, okay, I've gotten myself from one position to this new position. And so I think that there's some interesting racial dynamics that play here, specifically in that hip hop genre, of why the genre has sort of built this level of protectiveness around it. And I think that obviously, then who gets protected in that process is almost exclusively the men that are doing the work in that industry. And that is not to say that there aren't women in the industry doing great work and supporting all of the work that the men are doing, because they are. And I think that that's actually what's at play here, where you have black women who have been sort of expected to support and protect the culture, whether it be hip hop or black American culture, while simultaneously, you know, maybe being dehumanized by it. And that's why I feel like you have even people like Cassie facing so much skepticism. I think, you know, just in the media, her media treatment certainly wasn't all positive. And I feel like, you know, misogynoir is really running deep in this case. And in a lot of cases like it, you know, black women, we talked about how, like, women aren't believed. And then black women on top of that, I mean, yeah, that just adds a whole nother layer. And it's magnified, I think, and especially in a place like hip hop where power and masculinity are really intricately tied together. And so for me, that's a lot of why Diddy kept getting away with it. The industry protected him you know, his money protected him. And that kind of just sends this message to everybody around him, listen, there's not gonna be consequences for this. So it's almost self reinforcing because it's like, not only did he feel like, yeah, I'm gonna get away with this, but if all of the victims feel like, oh, yeah, he's gonna get away with this, then there's not even a point to putting up a fight. And so I think it's interesting because this is not just about him as one individual. I think it's about the systems and culture that enable him. It's about who gets protected, who gets sacrificed in that process. And just like kind of what we as a community are kind of willing to overlook and therefore allowing people to kind of preserve their power. And so that's why I feel like this, this case is really important, because I think we're being forced to reckon with just patterns that have been playing themselves out for decades.
- [55:20]
A
Yeah, I certainly think that's absolutely correct. And in the end, this power and wealth, some might say it bought him justice in the end. That's the question too. Is this justice? And it really depends on how you view justice. And we always talk about there are different, different ways to view it. But I will say this. Those who favor the prosecution's case will say that this is a letdown. That money and the institution. And it was interesting, the insight you had there. The institution of hip hop basically protected this man and bought him justice. Right. His convictions for these lesser counts won't get him more than a few years. And a lot of people would say that punishment doesn't fit the actual crime that Cassie and Jane and others, they didn't really get justice. Now, the counterargument from the defense side is that the prosecution overreached with the way they charged Combs and that this is the right verdict, that this is actually justice. It's a check on the power of the government trying to go too far. I mean, they are very interesting arguments on both sides. This is not a straightforward case by any means. It's going to have us talking for a long time. Whichever. I mean, the sentencing, whichever way it goes, will certainly give us a little bit more finality here. But I think you pointed out something good. And I'll ask you what your final thoughts are in the end. This investigation, the prosecution definitely at least reflects a broader recognition of power abuse, coercion, and protection in an industry, in an entertainment industry, and as you said, maybe even in the hip hop industry. And I Think we've also seen that with other prosecutions in MeToo, with Harvey Weinstein, R. Kelly, Bill Cosby. So I think there's definitely a challenge now challenging these powerful men who've been protected or found themselves protected for a while. So I do think also that the prosecutors, they were trying to further the way that RICO is viewed and trafficking is. And the laws do change and evolve. You can't expect it to be used exactly for what it was used for, you know, 50, 60, 70 years ago. So we have to recognize that behaviors will change, and certainly we have to adapt a little bit. But, you know, the jury didn't see it that way this time. I think certainly there's a lot of conversations about power, consent, and accountability. What are your thoughts here?
- [57:50]
B
Yeah, I think that, you know, when it comes to the question of justice and whether or not justice was served, I feel like. It feels like it's rare that conviction or not, that people who are victims or families of victims feel like now justice has been served when a conviction is handed down. You know, like, I think that justice is so much more complex for people, and there's so many elements to it. Right. Because you're gonna live with the harms of what you have experience regardless. And I think then there's a question of, like, what does it mean for our broader communities, for our society. Right. Is there. Is there a broader sense of justice here? And you do have to balance these two sides, like you were saying, where it's like, you know, you have to provide some checks. Right. It can't just be. You can just convict people of anything just because the public opinion, you know, falls one way. And then on the other hand, we do have to reckon with and acknowledge the long history of, you know, women not being able to come forward, you know, and that when they would come forward, their concerns weren't taken seriously. And so, you know, I think that it's encouraging that the prosecution even brought the case. I mean, this really could have, like, started with the civil cases and ended with the civil cases. And I think it's encouraging that they were like, you know what? We should give this a shot because we feel like there was wrong doing here, that there was criminal activity here. And I think that we can hopefully, hopefully for a future where there's more of this. I do feel like, you know, this is the beginning of a new chapter, more than, like, the end. You know, I think some people might hear a verdict like this and feel discouraged about it.
- [59:24]
A
Yes.
- [59:24]
B
But I feel like, hopefully this is the beginning of, you know, more brave folks coming forward and sharing their stories. And I hope that, you know, prosecutors will continue to pursue cases like this so that, you know, people do feel encouraged to come forward.
- [59:40]
A
Yeah, I think that's a really great point. And I think I agree that it really doesn't mark the end. I think it does mark the beginning of the way that we also challenge the laws and how they apply and who they apply to. At the very least, I think that bringing prosecutions like this do serve as a deterrent to those who find themselves in these positions of unchecked influence and power and having a machine around them to protect them. But they should realize that, you know, the protection of fame and wealth, it's not an immunity forever. All right. Well, Celicia, thank you so much for being here with us today. This was wonderful to talk about this case. I hope that our listeners will have enjoyed it as much as I did. Breaking it down with you.
- [60:28]
B
Yeah, it was so great getting to chat with you. Thank you so much for listening. If you enjoyed that conversation, definitely. Check out Women in Crime. Megan and Amy have such a smart and accessible way of breaking down these cases, and they cover everything like stories you've never heard before alongside the ones that dominated the headlines. And don't forget, we will be back here next Monday, September 1, with the start of our next trip crime Case. This is one of the biggest stories I've ever worked on, and I really believe it's going to stay with you. I just cannot wait for us to dive into this together. I'll see you then.