Sean “Diddy” Combs accused of gang rape of teen girl in new lawsuit

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: How in the world is sex trafficking the same as paying someone for sex? Strippers and escorts work perfectly legal jobs.

Sex trafficking is human trafficking/sexual slavery - pimping someone out /forced sex as a moving enterprise (key word: moving enterprise). Women that are sex trafficked do not have their own luxury apartments in NY and LA and certainty aren’t able to enjoy time on another coast 6 hours away from their pimp . They are driven from van to van or house to house literally shackled by fear and without any finances to leave sometimes not even knowing where they are or who is sleeping with them. Cassie still had the escorts phone number, the escorting companies numbers, and had the ability to see her parents, her friends, and travel to and fro throughout the entire decade. That was not trafficking and it’s an insult to real victims for her to say it was

One of the charges against Combs is literally transportation of prostitutes. This charge doesn’t need consent or coercion. He directed/paid for/ orchestrated the transportation of prostitutes for sex across state lines. This is separate from sec trafficking.

This transportation charge can qualify as the criminal enterprise/activity for the RICO charge. Also a sex trafficking charge doesn’t need coercion if the person is a minor (not sure if that will come up in trial but it is the exception to coercion, threat element).

Traffickers do not pay for sex work/escorts. Escorts and the sex work pay them.

Diddy was a client. The escort agency is the trafficker who sent the escort “across state lines”.

Yeah, your logic doesn’t work. But in your ridiculous theory, the agency is literally the agent of Diddy, working at his request and payment. Your money laundering example doesn’t work. Diddy is the john and bring the john is illegal.

Please go to law school. Your trolling is insane. But it did give me a good laugh.

I am not trolling. That’s like arresting the drug addict instead of the drug dealer/trafficker. The escorts were not sent by Diddy. They were sent by their employer. If escorting is trafficking, then the agency owners are the traffickers. He is just the rich pervert client

Ummm both get arrested. Both the druggie and the dealer.

[Anonymous]

Live updates for today. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/live-blog/sean-combs-diddy-trial-cassie-ventura-live-updates-rcna207140

[Anonymous]

Dawn Richard, a former member of the girl group Danity Kane, is expected to take the witness stand today once lawyers finish questioning Cassie Ventura, prosecutor Maurene Comey said.

Richard last year filed a lawsuit against Combs, accusing him of groping, assaulting and imprisoning her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: How in the world is sex trafficking the same as paying someone for sex? Strippers and escorts work perfectly legal jobs.

Sex trafficking is human trafficking/sexual slavery - pimping someone out /forced sex as a moving enterprise (key word: moving enterprise). Women that are sex trafficked do not have their own luxury apartments in NY and LA and certainty aren’t able to enjoy time on another coast 6 hours away from their pimp . They are driven from van to van or house to house literally shackled by fear and without any finances to leave sometimes not even knowing where they are or who is sleeping with them. Cassie still had the escorts phone number, the escorting companies numbers, and had the ability to see her parents, her friends, and travel to and fro throughout the entire decade. That was not trafficking and it’s an insult to real victims for her to say it was

One of the charges against Combs is literally transportation of prostitutes. This charge doesn’t need consent or coercion. He directed/paid for/ orchestrated the transportation of prostitutes for sex across state lines. This is separate from sec trafficking.

This transportation charge can qualify as the criminal enterprise/activity for the RICO charge. Also a sex trafficking charge doesn’t need coercion if the person is a minor (not sure if that will come up in trial but it is the exception to coercion, threat element).

Traffickers do not pay for sex work/escorts. Escorts and the sex work pay them.

Diddy was a client. The escort agency is the trafficker who sent the escort “across state lines”.

Yeah, your logic doesn’t work. But in your ridiculous theory, the agency is literally the agent of Diddy, working at his request and payment. Your money laundering example doesn’t work. Diddy is the john and bring the john is illegal.

Please go to law school. Your trolling is insane. But it did give me a good laugh.

I am not trolling. That’s like arresting the drug addict instead of the drug dealer/trafficker. The escorts were not sent by Diddy. They were sent by their employer. If escorting is trafficking, then the agency owners are the traffickers. He is just the rich pervert client

You mean arresting someone for buying and possessing drugs? You mean arresting someone for buying and possessing kiddie p@rn? The consumer who bought it, ordered it, is the john. The pimp is not the only one guilty of a crime.

Go back to reddit with your nonsense. This trial is focused on Diddy. A lot of people are guilty in this trial, but the defendant in this particular case is Diddy.

[Anonymous]

What do you all think of the texts where she’s saying she loves freak offs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What do you all think of the texts where she’s saying she loves freak offs?

I think she is very clearly all over the place as someone would be when they are in a co-dependent relationship based on trauma. She is trying to appease him to get back in his good graces because that is the dynamic he has created. I am confused by the defense strategy where they are highlighting texts where she is asking him to stop abusing her and clearly does not want to be doing any of this. They keep highlighting he was on drugs. So what. He's not accountable because he was on drugs or drunk?

Some of you have clearly never had a front row seat to one of these types of relationships or been in one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What do you all think of the texts where she’s saying she loves freak offs?

I don't really care. I am not sure what part of the charges the prosecutor is trying to prove with her testimony. Her texts saying she loves them would probably be used by defense that she consented to them. But this trial isn't about her consent so IMO these texts are irrelevant and are just noise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What do you all think of the texts where she’s saying she loves freak offs?

She testified that she participated in the freak offs to make him happy, and that it was like a secret he shared with her and that she didn’t want him to find someone else to replace her. Also, he would threaten her with exposing videos if she didn’t do what he said. So it makes sense, that she would say those things to appease him.

The defense is now making their argument, they are claiming that it was just a sick twisted relationship, but nothing criminal. Maybe they will mention those texts specifically again for this argument , but so far they have not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you all think of the texts where she’s saying she loves freak offs?

She testified that she participated in the freak offs to make him happy, and that it was like a secret he shared with her and that she didn’t want him to find someone else to replace her. Also, he would threaten her with exposing videos if she didn’t do what he said. So it makes sense, that she would say those things to appease him.

The defense is now making their argument, they are claiming that it was just a sick twisted relationship, but nothing criminal. Maybe they will mention those texts specifically again for this argument , but so far they have not.

They are, not very effectively, trying to to cast doubt on whether Combs was in charge of this ring. They are trying to lay facts so they can say Cassie was in charge - she wanted to do freak offs and remember she is the one who called the prostitutes and arranged the meetings etc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you all think of the texts where she’s saying she loves freak offs?

I think she is very clearly all over the place as someone would be when they are in a co-dependent relationship based on trauma. She is trying to appease him to get back in his good graces because that is the dynamic he has created. I am confused by the defense strategy where they are highlighting texts where she is asking him to stop abusing her and clearly does not want to be doing any of this. They keep highlighting he was on drugs. So what. He's not accountable because he was on drugs or drunk?

Some of you have clearly never had a front row seat to one of these types of relationships or been in one.

Calm down. It’s a fair question. And certainly one that will be in the minds of the jurors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you all think of the texts where she’s saying she loves freak offs?

She testified that she participated in the freak offs to make him happy, and that it was like a secret he shared with her and that she didn’t want him to find someone else to replace her. Also, he would threaten her with exposing videos if she didn’t do what he said. So it makes sense, that she would say those things to appease him.

The defense is now making their argument, they are claiming that it was just a sick twisted relationship, but nothing criminal. Maybe they will mention those texts specifically again for this argument , but so far they have not.

Isn’t this meant to be a unanimous jury decision? So all it will take is one juror thinking it was a sick abusive relationship, but ultimately consensual

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What do you all think of the texts where she’s saying she loves freak offs?

She was a young woman in love with a famous rap mogul. Even women in more "normal" circumstances say things to please their boyfriends, keep them around, etc. Do I think she really loved UTIs, sores in her mouth and being urinated on???? Hell no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you all think of the texts where she’s saying she loves freak offs?

I don't really care. I am not sure what part of the charges the prosecutor is trying to prove with her testimony. Her texts saying she loves them would probably be used by defense that she consented to them. But this trial isn't about her consent so IMO these texts are irrelevant and are just noise.

She's naming people involved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you all think of the texts where she’s saying she loves freak offs?

She testified that she participated in the freak offs to make him happy, and that it was like a secret he shared with her and that she didn’t want him to find someone else to replace her. Also, he would threaten her with exposing videos if she didn’t do what he said. So it makes sense, that she would say those things to appease him.

The defense is now making their argument, they are claiming that it was just a sick twisted relationship, but nothing criminal. Maybe they will mention those texts specifically again for this argument , but so far they have not.

Isn’t this meant to be a unanimous jury decision? So all it will take is one juror thinking it was a sick abusive relationship, but ultimately consensual

This is not a case about DV. This is a case about whether Combs ran an illegal sex ring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you all think of the texts where she’s saying she loves freak offs?

She testified that she participated in the freak offs to make him happy, and that it was like a secret he shared with her and that she didn’t want him to find someone else to replace her. Also, he would threaten her with exposing videos if she didn’t do what he said. So it makes sense, that she would say those things to appease him.

The defense is now making their argument, they are claiming that it was just a sick twisted relationship, but nothing criminal. Maybe they will mention those texts specifically again for this argument , but so far they have not.

Isn’t this meant to be a unanimous jury decision? So all it will take is one juror thinking it was a sick abusive relationship, but ultimately consensual

Yes, all it would take is one person. But also, remember there is more than one charge. So he could be found guilty on some and not others. Also, from my experience when I was on a trial, I remember everyone was for guilty except one person. We continued to deliberate, and we sometimes had questions for the judge and would get clarification on definitions, etc. That last person ended up agreeing to vote for guilty. It was a long time ago, so I'm not sure if he did it for the sake of not having a hung jury or if, after further discussion, his mind was changed.