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

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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. [/quote] 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. [/quote]

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[/quote] Even if you believe this, none of this means Diddy did not commit crimes. [/quote]

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 [/quote] 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.[/quote]

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

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

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.[/quote]

Did they say why? Was it an empathy thing, race, the particular crime?[/quote]

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.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics