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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Between him and R. Kelly and Marilyn Manson, I'm enraged I spent my teen years listening to and enjoying the music of literal Evil.

Same. Big Marilyn Manson fan in my teens, defended him to my parents, used his music to cope with life because I was a weird emo girl with not too many friends, and I ended up feeling completely betrayed when I learned the truth about him. Here I was, a vulnerable girl relying on his music for my mental health, and all the while that very singer would've probably beaten me, gaslit me, and raped me if he had actually gotten his hands on me.

What a shock that a guy named “Marilyn Manson” who dressed the way he did would turn out to be more than a little…quirky. I mean who saw THAT coming?

[Anonymous]

Link for today: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/live-blog/sean-diddy-combs-trial-live-updates-summary-witness-testify-juror-dism-rcna212953

The judge dismissed juror #6 today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Link for today: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/live-blog/sean-diddy-combs-trial-live-updates-summary-witness-testify-juror-dism-rcna212953

The judge dismissed juror #6 today.

Of course they did.

[Anonymous]

Judge wants to question another juror today. Wonder if it's the other black male.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Judge wants to question another juror today. Wonder if it's the other black male.

I don't think so. From the information that I'm seeing so far, this is someone that the defense thinks the judge should consider removing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This. He is absolutely a criminal…I mean, assault is a crime and a punch to the face in a barroom brawl can be prosecuted if the victim decides to press charges. The question is why the prosecution went with a racketeering charge. I get that it worked with R Kelley but that was a really different situation for several reasons. It just seems like a heavy lift in this case. But please…anyone who thinks the man is innocent of criminal acts is really not paying attention. The violence described is horrific and the defense doesn’t deny any of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This. He is absolutely a criminal…I mean, assault is a crime and a punch to the face in a barroom brawl can be prosecuted if the victim decides to press charges. The question is why the prosecution went with a racketeering charge. I get that it worked with R Kelley but that was a really different situation for several reasons. It just seems like a heavy lift in this case. But please…anyone who thinks the man is innocent of criminal acts is really not paying attention. The violence described is horrific and the defense doesn’t deny any of it.

I think of all the charges, this might be the weakest one for the prosecution so far. Don't get me wrong, i've looked at all the elements and read all the testimony and they have IMO proved the elements required to find him guilty of the RICO charge. But we can't know what the jurors are thinking, and we don't know if any of the jurors will struggle with following the instructions by the judge on what they are allowed to consider and what they are not allowed to. Also, we have yet to see the defense's angle. Maybe they bring in a witnesses that drops some huge bomb.

Ultimately, I think there could be some counts where we see a hung jury, maybe the Rico case. So I wouldn't be surprised with a mixture of guilty and hung jury. But I don't see him getting off completely. There is no way that every single juror will find him not guilty for every single count he is charged with. No way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

DP. I have been the holdout on a jury because I believed the defendant was unjustly overcharged and the prosecution was shady in many ways. The jury acquitted on the most serious charges but I was not willing to let any of the charges stick because I thought the whole thing was an abuse of discretion.

[Anonymous]

This trial seems like a charade. You’re telling me he didn’t have any dirt on anyone up the ladder? Riiiiiiight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This trial seems like a charade. You’re telling me he didn’t have any dirt on anyone up the ladder? Riiiiiiight.

That sounds like a conspiracy theory. This trial is about serious accusations and real evidence, including witness testimony. Whether or not he has "dirt" on other people doesn’t change what he's being accused of or what the court is looking at.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This. He is absolutely a criminal…I mean, assault is a crime and a punch to the face in a barroom brawl can be prosecuted if the victim decides to press charges. The question is why the prosecution went with a racketeering charge. I get that it worked with R Kelley but that was a really different situation for several reasons. It just seems like a heavy lift in this case. But please…anyone who thinks the man is innocent of criminal acts is really not paying attention. The violence described is horrific and the defense doesn’t deny any of it.

I think of all the charges, this might be the weakest one for the prosecution so far. Don't get me wrong, i've looked at all the elements and read all the testimony and they have IMO proved the elements required to find him guilty of the RICO charge. But we can't know what the jurors are thinking, and we don't know if any of the jurors will struggle with following the instructions by the judge on what they are allowed to consider and what they are not allowed to. Also, we have yet to see the defense's angle. Maybe they bring in a witnesses that drops some huge bomb.

Ultimately, I think there could be some counts where we see a hung jury, maybe the Rico case. So I wouldn't be surprised with a mixture of guilty and hung jury. But I don't see him getting off completely. There is no way that every single juror will find him not guilty for every single count he is charged with. No way.

They might if they are afraid they will be retaliated against, even if he is behind bars.

[Anonymous]

Not sure if this is the same juror but a podcast I listen to said that for one of the jurors it was unclear if they still lived in ny as the mentioned moving in with a gf in nj

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Link for today: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/live-blog/sean-diddy-combs-trial-live-updates-summary-witness-testify-juror-dism-rcna212953

The judge dismissed juror #6 today.

Of course they did.

He misrepresented where he lived.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not sure if this is the same juror but a podcast I listen to said that for one of the jurors it was unclear if they still lived in ny as the mentioned moving in with a gf in nj

That's the juror that was dismissed today. There's another juror in question now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

PP again and it was a combination of all three. They didn’t think it was a crime to send someone to jail, and race played a part.