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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's not forget, "Jane" is still being supported by Diddy. Her story, while unfortunate, is specious.

Diddy is paying millions to try to get off on reasonable doubt and his lawyers will try every strategy.

What Kanye showing up has to do with it... Who the heck knows.

At one point during her cross-examination, the defense asked her about testifying, and her response was "I'm testifying against him?"

Also, people in the courtroom have reported that when Jane finished her testimony, she hugged Mark Geragos (Diddys' lawyer) and then went to hug Teny Geragos (also Diddys' lawyer), but she just kind of sat there (didn't stand up) and remained stiff. Remember, she was being intervwed by the defense team before the prosecution started interviewing her.

She was an interesting witness. I think she both helped and hurt the prosecution, but mostly helped the case against Diddy. I think she was very believable, but I also can see how some jurors might question her motives. It's obvious she liked and wanted the lifestyle, but that doesn't mean crimes weren't committed against her. She testified to some horrific things that happened, but also testified that she was in love with Diddy, she wanted to be with him, she wanted him to claim her publicly (which he never did), and she wanted him to be more than just someone he had freak-offs with. At times, she was very snappy with the defense under cross-examination. She cried a lot during her testimony. She said she was vocal with Diddy about not wanting to do freak-offs, but she also wanted to be with him, and she wanted to please him. She craved to be one-on-one with Diddy, but he always wanted her to do freak-offs. When asked why Diddy was currently paying her rent and lawyer, she said it's complicated and she was still trying to understand.

If Diddy got off today and wanted to be with her, I believe she would go back.

Diddys going to win this. These women are dingbats. They can’t answer basic questions and get confused when they’re asked why they kept returning to Diddy. These bimbos never lived with him. He paid for their own apartments away from his kids. I’ve said this from the beginning. He’s going to be found not guilty. The trial is a circus and a joke

Even if you believe this, none of this means Diddy did not commit crimes.

What crimes?

These women were not snatched from the streets and raped against their will. They were given scheduled dates for freakoffs and told to prepare their bodies for it. They were willing prostitutes. They were not coerced. The males were hired from escort agencies. Everyone consented

I'm curious, have you have you been following the case through reputable sources, or are you just looking at social media gossip sites? If you have been watching this case you will have noticed that his legal team has mostly focused on discrediting witnesses or challenging legal procedures, rather than denying the actual behaviors described by the witnesses. That suggests a strategy that’s not based on claiming innocence, but on raising technical or credibility issues.

So while he hasn’t been criminally convicted yet, the weight of consistent allegations, some with evidence and corroboration, is significant, and the defense isn’t really refuting the core behaviors.

There are eight men on this jury and they just heard one of the final witnesses admit Diddy is still paying her rent.

I’m looking at this from a juror perspective. It looks like many of these women were not tortured.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's not forget, "Jane" is still being supported by Diddy. Her story, while unfortunate, is specious.

Diddy is paying millions to try to get off on reasonable doubt and his lawyers will try every strategy.

What Kanye showing up has to do with it... Who the heck knows.

At one point during her cross-examination, the defense asked her about testifying, and her response was "I'm testifying against him?"

Also, people in the courtroom have reported that when Jane finished her testimony, she hugged Mark Geragos (Diddys' lawyer) and then went to hug Teny Geragos (also Diddys' lawyer), but she just kind of sat there (didn't stand up) and remained stiff. Remember, she was being intervwed by the defense team before the prosecution started interviewing her.

She was an interesting witness. I think she both helped and hurt the prosecution, but mostly helped the case against Diddy. I think she was very believable, but I also can see how some jurors might question her motives. It's obvious she liked and wanted the lifestyle, but that doesn't mean crimes weren't committed against her. She testified to some horrific things that happened, but also testified that she was in love with Diddy, she wanted to be with him, she wanted him to claim her publicly (which he never did), and she wanted him to be more than just someone he had freak-offs with. At times, she was very snappy with the defense under cross-examination. She cried a lot during her testimony. She said she was vocal with Diddy about not wanting to do freak-offs, but she also wanted to be with him, and she wanted to please him. She craved to be one-on-one with Diddy, but he always wanted her to do freak-offs. When asked why Diddy was currently paying her rent and lawyer, she said it's complicated and she was still trying to understand.

If Diddy got off today and wanted to be with her, I believe she would go back.

Diddys going to win this. These women are dingbats. They can’t answer basic questions and get confused when they’re asked why they kept returning to Diddy. These bimbos never lived with him. He paid for their own apartments away from his kids. I’ve said this from the beginning. He’s going to be found not guilty. The trial is a circus and a joke

Even if you believe this, none of this means Diddy did not commit crimes.

What crimes?

These women were not snatched from the streets and raped against their will. They were given scheduled dates for freakoffs and told to prepare their bodies for it. They were willing prostitutes. They were not coerced. The males were hired from escort agencies. Everyone consented

I'm curious, have you have you been following the case through reputable sources, or are you just looking at social media gossip sites? If you have been watching this case you will have noticed that his legal team has mostly focused on discrediting witnesses or challenging legal procedures, rather than denying the actual behaviors described by the witnesses. That suggests a strategy that’s not based on claiming innocence, but on raising technical or credibility issues.

So while he hasn’t been criminally convicted yet, the weight of consistent allegations, some with evidence and corroboration, is significant, and the defense isn’t really refuting the core behaviors.

There are eight men on this jury and they just heard one of the final witnesses admit Diddy is still paying her rent.

I’m looking at this from a juror perspective. It looks like many of these women were not tortured.

Yeah, I hear you, that part about Diddy still paying her rent is definitely something the jury will notice. But the thing is, the judge is going to give them really clear instructions about what the actual charges are and how the law works. Jurors aren’t supposed to just go off their personal opinions, they have to focus on the evidence and follow the legal definitions they’re given. The judge will make this very clear.

Also, jurors can ask the judge questions if something doesn’t make sense during deliberations, so they’re not totally left to figure it out on their own.

And remember, a verdict has to be unanimous. So even if just one juror doesn’t buy the defense’s arguments or feels the prosecution met the burden of proof, that’s enough to cause a mistrial.

From my own time serving on a jury, I’ve seen how much things can shift once people stop reacting emotionally and start breaking down the evidence against the actual legal standards. I remember at the end of the first day we did an anonymous vote among ourselves, to see where we were, and there was one juror who voted "not guilty". Another clear instruction from the judge is that the judge encouraged us to take as much time as we needed to come back with a unanimous decision, so we continued to deliberate. We looked at the judge's instructions, we re-evaluated the legal definitions, and "burden of proof" and "reasonable doubt"; we sent more questions to the judge. Eventually, that clarity and the extra discussion led the one dissenter to change his mind to guilty. I remember that juror told us it just took more time to process and work out the details in his mind.

This case is definitely a fascinating and important legal study, especially in terms of how power, consent, and credibility are examined in court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's not forget, "Jane" is still being supported by Diddy. Her story, while unfortunate, is specious.

Diddy is paying millions to try to get off on reasonable doubt and his lawyers will try every strategy.

What Kanye showing up has to do with it... Who the heck knows.

At one point during her cross-examination, the defense asked her about testifying, and her response was "I'm testifying against him?"

Also, people in the courtroom have reported that when Jane finished her testimony, she hugged Mark Geragos (Diddys' lawyer) and then went to hug Teny Geragos (also Diddys' lawyer), but she just kind of sat there (didn't stand up) and remained stiff. Remember, she was being intervwed by the defense team before the prosecution started interviewing her.

She was an interesting witness. I think she both helped and hurt the prosecution, but mostly helped the case against Diddy. I think she was very believable, but I also can see how some jurors might question her motives. It's obvious she liked and wanted the lifestyle, but that doesn't mean crimes weren't committed against her. She testified to some horrific things that happened, but also testified that she was in love with Diddy, she wanted to be with him, she wanted him to claim her publicly (which he never did), and she wanted him to be more than just someone he had freak-offs with. At times, she was very snappy with the defense under cross-examination. She cried a lot during her testimony. She said she was vocal with Diddy about not wanting to do freak-offs, but she also wanted to be with him, and she wanted to please him. She craved to be one-on-one with Diddy, but he always wanted her to do freak-offs. When asked why Diddy was currently paying her rent and lawyer, she said it's complicated and she was still trying to understand.

If Diddy got off today and wanted to be with her, I believe she would go back.

Diddys going to win this. These women are dingbats. They can’t answer basic questions and get confused when they’re asked why they kept returning to Diddy. These bimbos never lived with him. He paid for their own apartments away from his kids. I’ve said this from the beginning. He’s going to be found not guilty. The trial is a circus and a joke

Even if you believe this, none of this means Diddy did not commit crimes.

What crimes?

These women were not snatched from the streets and raped against their will. They were given scheduled dates for freakoffs and told to prepare their bodies for it. They were willing prostitutes. They were not coerced. The males were hired from escort agencies. Everyone consented

I'm curious, have you have you been following the case through reputable sources, or are you just looking at social media gossip sites? If you have been watching this case you will have noticed that his legal team has mostly focused on discrediting witnesses or challenging legal procedures, rather than denying the actual behaviors described by the witnesses. That suggests a strategy that’s not based on claiming innocence, but on raising technical or credibility issues.

So while he hasn’t been criminally convicted yet, the weight of consistent allegations, some with evidence and corroboration, is significant, and the defense isn’t really refuting the core behaviors.

There are eight men on this jury and they just heard one of the final witnesses admit Diddy is still paying her rent.

I’m looking at this from a juror perspective. It looks like many of these women were not tortured.

I disagree. He was paying for their silence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's not forget, "Jane" is still being supported by Diddy. Her story, while unfortunate, is specious.

Diddy is paying millions to try to get off on reasonable doubt and his lawyers will try every strategy.

What Kanye showing up has to do with it... Who the heck knows.

At one point during her cross-examination, the defense asked her about testifying, and her response was "I'm testifying against him?"

Also, people in the courtroom have reported that when Jane finished her testimony, she hugged Mark Geragos (Diddys' lawyer) and then went to hug Teny Geragos (also Diddys' lawyer), but she just kind of sat there (didn't stand up) and remained stiff. Remember, she was being intervwed by the defense team before the prosecution started interviewing her.

She was an interesting witness. I think she both helped and hurt the prosecution, but mostly helped the case against Diddy. I think she was very believable, but I also can see how some jurors might question her motives. It's obvious she liked and wanted the lifestyle, but that doesn't mean crimes weren't committed against her. She testified to some horrific things that happened, but also testified that she was in love with Diddy, she wanted to be with him, she wanted him to claim her publicly (which he never did), and she wanted him to be more than just someone he had freak-offs with. At times, she was very snappy with the defense under cross-examination. She cried a lot during her testimony. She said she was vocal with Diddy about not wanting to do freak-offs, but she also wanted to be with him, and she wanted to please him. She craved to be one-on-one with Diddy, but he always wanted her to do freak-offs. When asked why Diddy was currently paying her rent and lawyer, she said it's complicated and she was still trying to understand.

If Diddy got off today and wanted to be with her, I believe she would go back.

Diddys going to win this. These women are dingbats. They can’t answer basic questions and get confused when they’re asked why they kept returning to Diddy. These bimbos never lived with him. He paid for their own apartments away from his kids. I’ve said this from the beginning. He’s going to be found not guilty. The trial is a circus and a joke

Even if you believe this, none of this means Diddy did not commit crimes.

What crimes?

These women were not snatched from the streets and raped against their will. They were given scheduled dates for freakoffs and told to prepare their bodies for it. They were willing prostitutes. They were not coerced. The males were hired from escort agencies. Everyone consented

I'm curious, have you have you been following the case through reputable sources, or are you just looking at social media gossip sites? If you have been watching this case you will have noticed that his legal team has mostly focused on discrediting witnesses or challenging legal procedures, rather than denying the actual behaviors described by the witnesses. That suggests a strategy that’s not based on claiming innocence, but on raising technical or credibility issues.

So while he hasn’t been criminally convicted yet, the weight of consistent allegations, some with evidence and corroboration, is significant, and the defense isn’t really refuting the core behaviors.

Case in point, the defense just filed a motion today for a mistrial based on the prosecution’s motion to remove Juror 6. The prosecutors say that juror 6, misreported his residency. The desrepancy is between living in the Bronx, or in NJ with his girlfriend. He’s made inconsistent statements about which is his primary residence. Which, according to the prosecutors, this juror has made conflicting statements to ensure he would be be able to get on the jury. As a NJ resident he would not be eligible as a juror in this trial. The defense is arguing that because juror #6 is Black, that’s the reason the prosecution wants him/her removed. The motion is several pages long, so there are many other details involved, but that’s the basis. I think this is their 3rd time filing a motion for a mistrial.

It’s worth noting that juror #6 is one of two black males on the jury.

As of last week, the judge has gone back and forth and said he would make a final decision on Monday (tomorrow). And now this motion today. Included in the defenses motion, they have called out the judge for going back and forth in a decision about this.

[Anonymous]

It was a 14 page motion from the defense. Last week the judge pulled that juror out and questioned him separately and there were more conflicting answers. The judge originally agreed with the prosecutors that the juror seems to be answering to ensure his spot on the jury. But then the defense tag teamed the judge and he said he would reconsider over the weekend. And now this motion by the defense today. It will be interesting to see what happens tomorrow. I think the judge will stick to his original decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's not forget, "Jane" is still being supported by Diddy. Her story, while unfortunate, is specious.

Diddy is paying millions to try to get off on reasonable doubt and his lawyers will try every strategy.

What Kanye showing up has to do with it... Who the heck knows.

At one point during her cross-examination, the defense asked her about testifying, and her response was "I'm testifying against him?"

Also, people in the courtroom have reported that when Jane finished her testimony, she hugged Mark Geragos (Diddys' lawyer) and then went to hug Teny Geragos (also Diddys' lawyer), but she just kind of sat there (didn't stand up) and remained stiff. Remember, she was being intervwed by the defense team before the prosecution started interviewing her.

She was an interesting witness. I think she both helped and hurt the prosecution, but mostly helped the case against Diddy. I think she was very believable, but I also can see how some jurors might question her motives. It's obvious she liked and wanted the lifestyle, but that doesn't mean crimes weren't committed against her. She testified to some horrific things that happened, but also testified that she was in love with Diddy, she wanted to be with him, she wanted him to claim her publicly (which he never did), and she wanted him to be more than just someone he had freak-offs with. At times, she was very snappy with the defense under cross-examination. She cried a lot during her testimony. She said she was vocal with Diddy about not wanting to do freak-offs, but she also wanted to be with him, and she wanted to please him. She craved to be one-on-one with Diddy, but he always wanted her to do freak-offs. When asked why Diddy was currently paying her rent and lawyer, she said it's complicated and she was still trying to understand.

If Diddy got off today and wanted to be with her, I believe she would go back.

Diddys going to win this. These women are dingbats. They can’t answer basic questions and get confused when they’re asked why they kept returning to Diddy. These bimbos never lived with him. He paid for their own apartments away from his kids. I’ve said this from the beginning. He’s going to be found not guilty. The trial is a circus and a joke

Even if you believe this, none of this means Diddy did not commit crimes.

What crimes?

These women were not snatched from the streets and raped against their will. They were given scheduled dates for freakoffs and told to prepare their bodies for it. They were willing prostitutes. They were not coerced. The males were hired from escort agencies. Everyone consented

I'm curious, have you have you been following the case through reputable sources, or are you just looking at social media gossip sites? If you have been watching this case you will have noticed that his legal team has mostly focused on discrediting witnesses or challenging legal procedures, rather than denying the actual behaviors described by the witnesses. That suggests a strategy that’s not based on claiming innocence, but on raising technical or credibility issues.

So while he hasn’t been criminally convicted yet, the weight of consistent allegations, some with evidence and corroboration, is significant, and the defense isn’t really refuting the core behaviors.

There are eight men on this jury and they just heard one of the final witnesses admit Diddy is still paying her rent.

I’m looking at this from a juror perspective. It looks like many of these women were not tortured.

Yeah, I hear you, that part about Diddy still paying her rent is definitely something the jury will notice. But the thing is, the judge is going to give them really clear instructions about what the actual charges are and how the law works. Jurors aren’t supposed to just go off their personal opinions, they have to focus on the evidence and follow the legal definitions they’re given. The judge will make this very clear.

Also, jurors can ask the judge questions if something doesn’t make sense during deliberations, so they’re not totally left to figure it out on their own.

And remember, a verdict has to be unanimous. So even if just one juror doesn’t buy the defense’s arguments or feels the prosecution met the burden of proof, that’s enough to cause a mistrial.

From my own time serving on a jury, I’ve seen how much things can shift once people stop reacting emotionally and start breaking down the evidence against the actual legal standards. I remember at the end of the first day we did an anonymous vote among ourselves, to see where we were, and there was one juror who voted "not guilty". Another clear instruction from the judge is that the judge encouraged us to take as much time as we needed to come back with a unanimous decision, so we continued to deliberate. We looked at the judge's instructions, we re-evaluated the legal definitions, and "burden of proof" and "reasonable doubt"; we sent more questions to the judge. Eventually, that clarity and the extra discussion led the one dissenter to change his mind to guilty. I remember that juror told us it just took more time to process and work out the details in his mind.

This case is definitely a fascinating and important legal study, especially in terms of how power, consent, and credibility are examined in court.

NP and I have a counter example from time served on a jury. It was clear the defendant was guilty by all measures and one juror would not budge. They did not want to send the guy to jail. So some people will use emotions instead of legal definitions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's not forget, "Jane" is still being supported by Diddy. Her story, while unfortunate, is specious.

Diddy is paying millions to try to get off on reasonable doubt and his lawyers will try every strategy.

What Kanye showing up has to do with it... Who the heck knows.

At one point during her cross-examination, the defense asked her about testifying, and her response was "I'm testifying against him?"

Also, people in the courtroom have reported that when Jane finished her testimony, she hugged Mark Geragos (Diddys' lawyer) and then went to hug Teny Geragos (also Diddys' lawyer), but she just kind of sat there (didn't stand up) and remained stiff. Remember, she was being intervwed by the defense team before the prosecution started interviewing her.

She was an interesting witness. I think she both helped and hurt the prosecution, but mostly helped the case against Diddy. I think she was very believable, but I also can see how some jurors might question her motives. It's obvious she liked and wanted the lifestyle, but that doesn't mean crimes weren't committed against her. She testified to some horrific things that happened, but also testified that she was in love with Diddy, she wanted to be with him, she wanted him to claim her publicly (which he never did), and she wanted him to be more than just someone he had freak-offs with. At times, she was very snappy with the defense under cross-examination. She cried a lot during her testimony. She said she was vocal with Diddy about not wanting to do freak-offs, but she also wanted to be with him, and she wanted to please him. She craved to be one-on-one with Diddy, but he always wanted her to do freak-offs. When asked why Diddy was currently paying her rent and lawyer, she said it's complicated and she was still trying to understand.

If Diddy got off today and wanted to be with her, I believe she would go back.

Diddys going to win this. These women are dingbats. They can’t answer basic questions and get confused when they’re asked why they kept returning to Diddy. These bimbos never lived with him. He paid for their own apartments away from his kids. I’ve said this from the beginning. He’s going to be found not guilty. The trial is a circus and a joke

Even if you believe this, none of this means Diddy did not commit crimes.

What crimes?

These women were not snatched from the streets and raped against their will. They were given scheduled dates for freakoffs and told to prepare their bodies for it. They were willing prostitutes. They were not coerced. The males were hired from escort agencies. Everyone consented

I'm curious, have you have you been following the case through reputable sources, or are you just looking at social media gossip sites? If you have been watching this case you will have noticed that his legal team has mostly focused on discrediting witnesses or challenging legal procedures, rather than denying the actual behaviors described by the witnesses. That suggests a strategy that’s not based on claiming innocence, but on raising technical or credibility issues.

So while he hasn’t been criminally convicted yet, the weight of consistent allegations, some with evidence and corroboration, is significant, and the defense isn’t really refuting the core behaviors.

There are eight men on this jury and they just heard one of the final witnesses admit Diddy is still paying her rent.

I’m looking at this from a juror perspective. It looks like many of these women were not tortured.

Yeah, I hear you, that part about Diddy still paying her rent is definitely something the jury will notice. But the thing is, the judge is going to give them really clear instructions about what the actual charges are and how the law works. Jurors aren’t supposed to just go off their personal opinions, they have to focus on the evidence and follow the legal definitions they’re given. The judge will make this very clear.

Also, jurors can ask the judge questions if something doesn’t make sense during deliberations, so they’re not totally left to figure it out on their own.

And remember, a verdict has to be unanimous. So even if just one juror doesn’t buy the defense’s arguments or feels the prosecution met the burden of proof, that’s enough to cause a mistrial.

From my own time serving on a jury, I’ve seen how much things can shift once people stop reacting emotionally and start breaking down the evidence against the actual legal standards. I remember at the end of the first day we did an anonymous vote among ourselves, to see where we were, and there was one juror who voted "not guilty". Another clear instruction from the judge is that the judge encouraged us to take as much time as we needed to come back with a unanimous decision, so we continued to deliberate. We looked at the judge's instructions, we re-evaluated the legal definitions, and "burden of proof" and "reasonable doubt"; we sent more questions to the judge. Eventually, that clarity and the extra discussion led the one dissenter to change his mind to guilty. I remember that juror told us it just took more time to process and work out the details in his mind.

This case is definitely a fascinating and important legal study, especially in terms of how power, consent, and credibility are examined in court.

NP and I have a counter example from time served on a jury. It was clear the defendant was guilty by all measures and one juror would not budge. They did not want to send the guy to jail. So some people will use emotions instead of legal definitions.

Did they say why? Was it an empathy thing, race, the particular crime?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's not forget, "Jane" is still being supported by Diddy. Her story, while unfortunate, is specious.

Diddy is paying millions to try to get off on reasonable doubt and his lawyers will try every strategy.

What Kanye showing up has to do with it... Who the heck knows.

At one point during her cross-examination, the defense asked her about testifying, and her response was "I'm testifying against him?"

Also, people in the courtroom have reported that when Jane finished her testimony, she hugged Mark Geragos (Diddys' lawyer) and then went to hug Teny Geragos (also Diddys' lawyer), but she just kind of sat there (didn't stand up) and remained stiff. Remember, she was being intervwed by the defense team before the prosecution started interviewing her.

She was an interesting witness. I think she both helped and hurt the prosecution, but mostly helped the case against Diddy. I think she was very believable, but I also can see how some jurors might question her motives. It's obvious she liked and wanted the lifestyle, but that doesn't mean crimes weren't committed against her. She testified to some horrific things that happened, but also testified that she was in love with Diddy, she wanted to be with him, she wanted him to claim her publicly (which he never did), and she wanted him to be more than just someone he had freak-offs with. At times, she was very snappy with the defense under cross-examination. She cried a lot during her testimony. She said she was vocal with Diddy about not wanting to do freak-offs, but she also wanted to be with him, and she wanted to please him. She craved to be one-on-one with Diddy, but he always wanted her to do freak-offs. When asked why Diddy was currently paying her rent and lawyer, she said it's complicated and she was still trying to understand.

If Diddy got off today and wanted to be with her, I believe she would go back.

Diddys going to win this. These women are dingbats. They can’t answer basic questions and get confused when they’re asked why they kept returning to Diddy. These bimbos never lived with him. He paid for their own apartments away from his kids. I’ve said this from the beginning. He’s going to be found not guilty. The trial is a circus and a joke

Even if you believe this, none of this means Diddy did not commit crimes.

What crimes?

These women were not snatched from the streets and raped against their will. They were given scheduled dates for freakoffs and told to prepare their bodies for it. They were willing prostitutes. They were not coerced. The males were hired from escort agencies. Everyone consented

I'm curious, have you have you been following the case through reputable sources, or are you just looking at social media gossip sites? If you have been watching this case you will have noticed that his legal team has mostly focused on discrediting witnesses or challenging legal procedures, rather than denying the actual behaviors described by the witnesses. That suggests a strategy that’s not based on claiming innocence, but on raising technical or credibility issues.

So while he hasn’t been criminally convicted yet, the weight of consistent allegations, some with evidence and corroboration, is significant, and the defense isn’t really refuting the core behaviors.

Case in point, the defense just filed a motion today for a mistrial based on the prosecution’s motion to remove Juror 6. The prosecutors say that juror 6, misreported his residency. The desrepancy is between living in the Bronx, or in NJ with his girlfriend. He’s made inconsistent statements about which is his primary residence. Which, according to the prosecutors, this juror has made conflicting statements to ensure he would be be able to get on the jury. As a NJ resident he would not be eligible as a juror in this trial. The defense is arguing that because juror #6 is Black, that’s the reason the prosecution wants him/her removed. The motion is several pages long, so there are many other details involved, but that’s the basis. I think this is their 3rd time filing a motion for a mistrial.

It’s worth noting that juror #6 is one of two black males on the jury.

As of last week, the judge has gone back and forth and said he would make a final decision on Monday (tomorrow). And now this motion today. Included in the defenses motion, they have called out the judge for going back and forth in a decision about this.

I served on a jury as well and I can tell you most people have short attention spans and they really only grab one detail from the trial that really sticks with them. I suspect with a jury of average working folks in expensive NYC ,a woman (“victim”) smiling and proudly admitting Diddy still pays her rent is a detail that is definitely going to stick.

The prosecution’s witnesses are awful.

The jury consists of eight males.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's not forget, "Jane" is still being supported by Diddy. Her story, while unfortunate, is specious.

Diddy is paying millions to try to get off on reasonable doubt and his lawyers will try every strategy.

What Kanye showing up has to do with it... Who the heck knows.

At one point during her cross-examination, the defense asked her about testifying, and her response was "I'm testifying against him?"

Also, people in the courtroom have reported that when Jane finished her testimony, she hugged Mark Geragos (Diddys' lawyer) and then went to hug Teny Geragos (also Diddys' lawyer), but she just kind of sat there (didn't stand up) and remained stiff. Remember, she was being intervwed by the defense team before the prosecution started interviewing her.

She was an interesting witness. I think she both helped and hurt the prosecution, but mostly helped the case against Diddy. I think she was very believable, but I also can see how some jurors might question her motives. It's obvious she liked and wanted the lifestyle, but that doesn't mean crimes weren't committed against her. She testified to some horrific things that happened, but also testified that she was in love with Diddy, she wanted to be with him, she wanted him to claim her publicly (which he never did), and she wanted him to be more than just someone he had freak-offs with. At times, she was very snappy with the defense under cross-examination. She cried a lot during her testimony. She said she was vocal with Diddy about not wanting to do freak-offs, but she also wanted to be with him, and she wanted to please him. She craved to be one-on-one with Diddy, but he always wanted her to do freak-offs. When asked why Diddy was currently paying her rent and lawyer, she said it's complicated and she was still trying to understand.

If Diddy got off today and wanted to be with her, I believe she would go back.

Diddys going to win this. These women are dingbats. They can’t answer basic questions and get confused when they’re asked why they kept returning to Diddy. These bimbos never lived with him. He paid for their own apartments away from his kids. I’ve said this from the beginning. He’s going to be found not guilty. The trial is a circus and a joke

Even if you believe this, none of this means Diddy did not commit crimes.

What crimes?

These women were not snatched from the streets and raped against their will. They were given scheduled dates for freakoffs and told to prepare their bodies for it. They were willing prostitutes. They were not coerced. The males were hired from escort agencies. Everyone consented

I'm curious, have you have you been following the case through reputable sources, or are you just looking at social media gossip sites? If you have been watching this case you will have noticed that his legal team has mostly focused on discrediting witnesses or challenging legal procedures, rather than denying the actual behaviors described by the witnesses. That suggests a strategy that’s not based on claiming innocence, but on raising technical or credibility issues.

So while he hasn’t been criminally convicted yet, the weight of consistent allegations, some with evidence and corroboration, is significant, and the defense isn’t really refuting the core behaviors.

There are eight men on this jury and they just heard one of the final witnesses admit Diddy is still paying her rent.

I’m looking at this from a juror perspective. It looks like many of these women were not tortured.

Yeah, I hear you, that part about Diddy still paying her rent is definitely something the jury will notice. But the thing is, the judge is going to give them really clear instructions about what the actual charges are and how the law works. Jurors aren’t supposed to just go off their personal opinions, they have to focus on the evidence and follow the legal definitions they’re given. The judge will make this very clear.

Also, jurors can ask the judge questions if something doesn’t make sense during deliberations, so they’re not totally left to figure it out on their own.

And remember, a verdict has to be unanimous. So even if just one juror doesn’t buy the defense’s arguments or feels the prosecution met the burden of proof, that’s enough to cause a mistrial.

From my own time serving on a jury, I’ve seen how much things can shift once people stop reacting emotionally and start breaking down the evidence against the actual legal standards. I remember at the end of the first day we did an anonymous vote among ourselves, to see where we were, and there was one juror who voted "not guilty". Another clear instruction from the judge is that the judge encouraged us to take as much time as we needed to come back with a unanimous decision, so we continued to deliberate. We looked at the judge's instructions, we re-evaluated the legal definitions, and "burden of proof" and "reasonable doubt"; we sent more questions to the judge. Eventually, that clarity and the extra discussion led the one dissenter to change his mind to guilty. I remember that juror told us it just took more time to process and work out the details in his mind.

This case is definitely a fascinating and important legal study, especially in terms of how power, consent, and credibility are examined in court.

NP and I have a counter example from time served on a jury. It was clear the defendant was guilty by all measures and one juror would not budge. They did not want to send the guy to jail. So some people will use emotions instead of legal definitions.

Was the juror middle aged and black?

The reason I ask is because there is a Cultural mistrust of police investigations with older black people (history of evidence planting on black defendants with some corrupt departments like the LAPD) that can lead to some having a healthy mistrust of the prosecution which is actually how the system should work

Dave Chappelle had a funny skit about it once “the lone skeptic juror”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's not forget, "Jane" is still being supported by Diddy. Her story, while unfortunate, is specious.

Diddy is paying millions to try to get off on reasonable doubt and his lawyers will try every strategy.

What Kanye showing up has to do with it... Who the heck knows.

At one point during her cross-examination, the defense asked her about testifying, and her response was "I'm testifying against him?"

Also, people in the courtroom have reported that when Jane finished her testimony, she hugged Mark Geragos (Diddys' lawyer) and then went to hug Teny Geragos (also Diddys' lawyer), but she just kind of sat there (didn't stand up) and remained stiff. Remember, she was being intervwed by the defense team before the prosecution started interviewing her.

She was an interesting witness. I think she both helped and hurt the prosecution, but mostly helped the case against Diddy. I think she was very believable, but I also can see how some jurors might question her motives. It's obvious she liked and wanted the lifestyle, but that doesn't mean crimes weren't committed against her. She testified to some horrific things that happened, but also testified that she was in love with Diddy, she wanted to be with him, she wanted him to claim her publicly (which he never did), and she wanted him to be more than just someone he had freak-offs with. At times, she was very snappy with the defense under cross-examination. She cried a lot during her testimony. She said she was vocal with Diddy about not wanting to do freak-offs, but she also wanted to be with him, and she wanted to please him. She craved to be one-on-one with Diddy, but he always wanted her to do freak-offs. When asked why Diddy was currently paying her rent and lawyer, she said it's complicated and she was still trying to understand.

If Diddy got off today and wanted to be with her, I believe she would go back.

Diddys going to win this. These women are dingbats. They can’t answer basic questions and get confused when they’re asked why they kept returning to Diddy. These bimbos never lived with him. He paid for their own apartments away from his kids. I’ve said this from the beginning. He’s going to be found not guilty. The trial is a circus and a joke

Even if you believe this, none of this means Diddy did not commit crimes.

What crimes?

These women were not snatched from the streets and raped against their will. They were given scheduled dates for freakoffs and told to prepare their bodies for it. They were willing prostitutes. They were not coerced. The males were hired from escort agencies. Everyone consented

I'm curious, have you have you been following the case through reputable sources, or are you just looking at social media gossip sites? If you have been watching this case you will have noticed that his legal team has mostly focused on discrediting witnesses or challenging legal procedures, rather than denying the actual behaviors described by the witnesses. That suggests a strategy that’s not based on claiming innocence, but on raising technical or credibility issues.

So while he hasn’t been criminally convicted yet, the weight of consistent allegations, some with evidence and corroboration, is significant, and the defense isn’t really refuting the core behaviors.

There are eight men on this jury and they just heard one of the final witnesses admit Diddy is still paying her rent.

I’m looking at this from a juror perspective. It looks like many of these women were not tortured.

I disagree. He was paying for their silence.

He was paying their rent. These bimbos didn’t even live with him yet they were “trafficked”.

Why should this man leave his 5 children for a lifetime in jail when actual criminals don’t get as much time?

[Anonymous]

The defense needs to make a case for rehab for Diddy. He needs treatment for his obvious sexual depravity and cuckold /sex parties. These are normal behaviors

[Anonymous]

In Hollywood

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's not forget, "Jane" is still being supported by Diddy. Her story, while unfortunate, is specious.

Diddy is paying millions to try to get off on reasonable doubt and his lawyers will try every strategy.

What Kanye showing up has to do with it... Who the heck knows.

At one point during her cross-examination, the defense asked her about testifying, and her response was "I'm testifying against him?"

Also, people in the courtroom have reported that when Jane finished her testimony, she hugged Mark Geragos (Diddys' lawyer) and then went to hug Teny Geragos (also Diddys' lawyer), but she just kind of sat there (didn't stand up) and remained stiff. Remember, she was being intervwed by the defense team before the prosecution started interviewing her.

She was an interesting witness. I think she both helped and hurt the prosecution, but mostly helped the case against Diddy. I think she was very believable, but I also can see how some jurors might question her motives. It's obvious she liked and wanted the lifestyle, but that doesn't mean crimes weren't committed against her. She testified to some horrific things that happened, but also testified that she was in love with Diddy, she wanted to be with him, she wanted him to claim her publicly (which he never did), and she wanted him to be more than just someone he had freak-offs with. At times, she was very snappy with the defense under cross-examination. She cried a lot during her testimony. She said she was vocal with Diddy about not wanting to do freak-offs, but she also wanted to be with him, and she wanted to please him. She craved to be one-on-one with Diddy, but he always wanted her to do freak-offs. When asked why Diddy was currently paying her rent and lawyer, she said it's complicated and she was still trying to understand.

If Diddy got off today and wanted to be with her, I believe she would go back.

Diddys going to win this. These women are dingbats. They can’t answer basic questions and get confused when they’re asked why they kept returning to Diddy. These bimbos never lived with him. He paid for their own apartments away from his kids. I’ve said this from the beginning. He’s going to be found not guilty. The trial is a circus and a joke

Even if you believe this, none of this means Diddy did not commit crimes.

What crimes?

These women were not snatched from the streets and raped against their will. They were given scheduled dates for freakoffs and told to prepare their bodies for it. They were willing prostitutes. They were not coerced. The males were hired from escort agencies. Everyone consented

I'm curious, have you have you been following the case through reputable sources, or are you just looking at social media gossip sites? If you have been watching this case you will have noticed that his legal team has mostly focused on discrediting witnesses or challenging legal procedures, rather than denying the actual behaviors described by the witnesses. That suggests a strategy that’s not based on claiming innocence, but on raising technical or credibility issues.

So while he hasn’t been criminally convicted yet, the weight of consistent allegations, some with evidence and corroboration, is significant, and the defense isn’t really refuting the core behaviors.

There are eight men on this jury and they just heard one of the final witnesses admit Diddy is still paying her rent.

I’m looking at this from a juror perspective. It looks like many of these women were not tortured.

I disagree. He was paying for their silence.

He was paying their rent. These bimbos didn’t even live with him yet they were “trafficked”.

Why should this man leave his 5 children for a lifetime in jail when actual criminals don’t get as much time?

He's a criminal (rape and assault). He just isn’t running a human trafficking criminal enterprise. His rap career and clothing lines are real businesses and he's also incredibly abusive to his many girlfriends, which I'm sure is the case for virtually every rapper.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The defense needs to make a case for rehab for Diddy. He needs treatment for his obvious sexual depravity and cuckold /sex parties. These are normal behaviors

Rehab can’t be used as a defense, but if found guilty the defense can ask the judge to consider a rehab component to the sentencing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's not forget, "Jane" is still being supported by Diddy. Her story, while unfortunate, is specious.

Diddy is paying millions to try to get off on reasonable doubt and his lawyers will try every strategy.

What Kanye showing up has to do with it... Who the heck knows.

At one point during her cross-examination, the defense asked her about testifying, and her response was "I'm testifying against him?"

Also, people in the courtroom have reported that when Jane finished her testimony, she hugged Mark Geragos (Diddys' lawyer) and then went to hug Teny Geragos (also Diddys' lawyer), but she just kind of sat there (didn't stand up) and remained stiff. Remember, she was being intervwed by the defense team before the prosecution started interviewing her.

She was an interesting witness. I think she both helped and hurt the prosecution, but mostly helped the case against Diddy. I think she was very believable, but I also can see how some jurors might question her motives. It's obvious she liked and wanted the lifestyle, but that doesn't mean crimes weren't committed against her. She testified to some horrific things that happened, but also testified that she was in love with Diddy, she wanted to be with him, she wanted him to claim her publicly (which he never did), and she wanted him to be more than just someone he had freak-offs with. At times, she was very snappy with the defense under cross-examination. She cried a lot during her testimony. She said she was vocal with Diddy about not wanting to do freak-offs, but she also wanted to be with him, and she wanted to please him. She craved to be one-on-one with Diddy, but he always wanted her to do freak-offs. When asked why Diddy was currently paying her rent and lawyer, she said it's complicated and she was still trying to understand.

If Diddy got off today and wanted to be with her, I believe she would go back.

Diddys going to win this. These women are dingbats. They can’t answer basic questions and get confused when they’re asked why they kept returning to Diddy. These bimbos never lived with him. He paid for their own apartments away from his kids. I’ve said this from the beginning. He’s going to be found not guilty. The trial is a circus and a joke

Even if you believe this, none of this means Diddy did not commit crimes.

What crimes?

These women were not snatched from the streets and raped against their will. They were given scheduled dates for freakoffs and told to prepare their bodies for it. They were willing prostitutes. They were not coerced. The males were hired from escort agencies. Everyone consented

I'm curious, have you have you been following the case through reputable sources, or are you just looking at social media gossip sites? If you have been watching this case you will have noticed that his legal team has mostly focused on discrediting witnesses or challenging legal procedures, rather than denying the actual behaviors described by the witnesses. That suggests a strategy that’s not based on claiming innocence, but on raising technical or credibility issues.

So while he hasn’t been criminally convicted yet, the weight of consistent allegations, some with evidence and corroboration, is significant, and the defense isn’t really refuting the core behaviors.

There are eight men on this jury and they just heard one of the final witnesses admit Diddy is still paying her rent.

I’m looking at this from a juror perspective. It looks like many of these women were not tortured.

I disagree. He was paying for their silence.

He was paying their rent. These bimbos didn’t even live with him yet they were “trafficked”.

Why should this man leave his 5 children for a lifetime in jail when actual criminals don’t get as much time?

Paying someone’s rent doesn’t negate the possibility of trafficking or abuse. In fact, financial support or gifts are often tools used by abusers to exert control and keep victims dependent. Federal trafficking laws don’t require that someone be physically locked up or living with their trafficker; coercion, manipulation, or exploitation can happen in many forms.

As for sentencing, no one is saying Diddy should get life in prison automatically. That’s what trials are for. To determine guilt and assign a sentence based on evidence and the law. But if the accusations are true involving rape, violence, trafficking, and witness intimidation, those are serious crimes, and people have gone to prison for far less.

“Actual criminals” include people who exploit others while hiding behind money and fame. Being a father doesn’t make someone above the law.