[00:00:00] Speaker 1: When there's an injustice against you, or someone you love, or someone you believe in, stand up. Don't sit down on them. They need you.

[00:00:10] Speaker 2: Welcome to Popcorn Planet's Diddygate coverage. Day 5 of the Diddy Trial has just wrapped up, and we have an amazing panel for you today. It's Kim is back. Sorry, Kim. I'm more excited for the two above you. Look at this power we got on the panel. Oh my god, two of my favorite attorneys, Ron Zambrano is back and Christopher Melcher, our man. How are you both doing? Ron, we'll start with you. How are you doing, Ron? I'm doing good. Happy Friday. Happy Friday to both of you. I don't know how you guys look a little bit. There we go. I got a little bit. Sorry. I cropped this badly. Chris, good to see you.

[00:00:47] Speaker 3: How are you doing, sir? Well, I am really happy to be here. And I know I haven't been participating as much and for a lot of reasons, but this is my home. the community that I really love being part in. And I just always read the comments and just love being part of the show.

[00:01:04] Speaker 2: Yeah, no, you're the OG. Anytime, you know you're always invited here. So glad to have you back. Ron's been helping a bit too. You guys have both been stepping up and the fans love you both. So I'm so glad you guys get to meet and be together. It'll be interesting to see how you guys agree or not on this panel today. What I want to know is who's winning. That's really the goal. From our perspective, it feels one way, but there's a lot of chatter online of, Oh, they're not doing a good enough job at this. Is this really racketeering? All that sort of stuff is what's coming out there. And there's just a lot of toxicity out there as well. She asked for it. See, they're proving it. I wanna get both your thoughts as we move forward throughout these updates as to what your thoughts are. I guess before we get to the tops, Kim, actually, I'm gonna start with you, Kim. Overall day five, just quickly, what was your takeaway?

[00:01:50] Speaker 4: I felt like at points they were definitely trying to have gotcha moments with Cassie and then they kind of fell flat on a number of occasions. There was a bit more of that kind of rapid fire, confusing text messages that we saw yesterday. I believe the Washington Post, it's in the notes, said something like there was a very little amount of coherent testimony was the way that they put it because it was so bizarre at points. So I do feel like in some ways the defense really did not do well today. Um, and Cassie is free now. It's over. It's done. And, uh, so happy for her that she is, she is now off of that stand and can go and, you know, get ready for her baby. Yeah.

[00:02:36] Speaker 2: Eight months pregnant is important to remember. Yeah. Eight months pregnant. We're going to go through the statements. Both Cassie and Alex made some statements, but let's go through the recap first, uh, and then we'll get through it. I guess I'll start with you, Chris. I want to ask you a question even before we start, just, this is obviously the star witness of the case, right? What is the role of the defense's job here to get Cassie to do? Like what do you think, what did they need to do, rather, to be winning, in your mind?

[00:03:03] Speaker 3: Well, exactly what they did was to establish instances where she appeared to be a willing participant in the freak-offs, where she was calling for them to happen, saying that she enjoyed it, helping arrange this. So this is definitely going to call into question, was she a willing participant or was she coerced into doing it? The prosecution did a good job getting ahead of this in its opening statement. The prosecutor said, you're going to hear evidence of this coercion and threats and that Cassie knew that if she did not comply, she would suffer the consequences. So they're already planting that seed that there's going to be evidence like we heard of her putting on a good face and saying like, hey, I really like this somehow happening to me. But that was all, you know, in their theory of the prosecution, evidence that you're consistent with that she's being coerced and she was just pretending to like it. So that was really what they needed to establish. What I think is hard about the case, and we're going to talk about more, is like, is this Is this really an enterprise that we would normally see like with a mob or a cartel? Or is this really an enterprise of one person? I don't know that they really got there with this one particular witness.

[00:04:30] Speaker 2: Yeah, Ron, I want to go to you because obviously you're an employment lawyer out there, entertainment, you've gone against celebrities, etc. like this. The racketeering charges is kind of a harder one for some to understand. But then as others have told us, Tanya was on the other day, I mean, Cassie was kind of an employee in a way. He was on his record label, had 10 albums. He wasn't releasing any of them. Can that, even though it was his girlfriend, is there a way to sort of use that as well? No, he's using the power of his employment against her as well. And that's what falls into the racketeering, et cetera, et cetera.

[00:05:04] Speaker 1: Yeah, I think what the prosecution should be doing a little bit better job of explaining is his power, right? His power and the power dynamic of not only from the domestics point, but also this professional point. And there was this line that was not solid, like what is the professional and what is the domestic? And I think it leads in a very good way for the prosecution because they could say, listen, there should have been no blurred lines. There was a lot of blurred lines. And we can see that there's, one, she was like 21 when she first started the relationship something really young. You have someone who's very young, very impressionistic, someone who's an established global superstar, he's making the rules, he's determining everything. And I think they really have to lean into that. They did a little bit on redirect today, but really lean into like whoever's next, like, especially with Cassie. Yeah, she's sending these texts, but look at this disparity in power. Like if she doesn't say this, she's gonna lose her, not only her domestic life, but also her professional life. So what else is she supposed to say here without risk losing everything?

[00:06:12] Speaker 2: Yeah, it's for sure. There's a lot of pressure. There's a lot going on. All right, let's get into some of this recap as I'm getting used to my Zoom controls here. So before the jury began, prosecutors accused the defense of unnecessarily prolonging Cassie's cross-examination to induce a mistrial. InterCity Press warned about fake tweets, impersonating his account, et cetera.

[00:06:31] Speaker 1: During the morning, the courthouse was put in a short.

[00:06:34] Speaker 2: Oh yeah, I was just gonna get rapid. There was also a lockdown. Marshals were involved. The trial continued unaffected. But Kim, yeah, sorry, you were saying, I wanted to get to that sort of initial part. It kind of I guess is irrelevant now because they did finish in time But yeah, I mean there was a lot of talk prior to this about you got to get done at a certain point, right?

[00:06:52] Speaker 4: There was yes, and it does seem like they they listened they wrapped it up the the defense They got to recross and the redirect so it's fine on that front I did have that note there about inner city press because what he did want to let people know because a lot of us are following his coverage because he's live tweeting basically from within the courtroom and we get a lot of updates from him and there are people that are impersonating him now and they are manipulating images to make it look like he is tweeting out information from the courtroom that is not accurate and not true so he just wants everybody to know if you are seeing stuff make sure it's from him because misinformation is a big problem and we are likely going to see more of this throughout the trial so indeed so you know we're doing our best to make sure we're not giving you guys wrong information but that stuff is happening. So just be aware.

[00:07:40] Speaker 2: So Chris and Ronnie, whoever wants to jump in, but it's Chris, we can start with you. There was, is that, is that a tactic to sort of like, well, let's try to make sure the judge is forcing us to hurry up. So that way later, if things go awry, we can cry appeal because we didn't get enough time. It seemed like that was what was happening, but then they did finish on time. Do you think there was maybe a thinking that that was something that we're going to try? And then ultimately the judge cracked the whip enough to make it clear that this wasn't going to work?

[00:08:06] Speaker 3: Well, sure. The defense made a record about saying how important this witness was, Cassie, to their defense and that they needed a fair opportunity to cross-examine her and that they resisted the court's pressuring to finish by today. So they definitely made that objection, but it's not like they got five minutes. They got significant time to cross-examine. I'm sure on appeal if they lose, they'll raise this issue, but I don't see that it rises to the level of where he did not get a fair trial because ultimately cross-examination should be crisp, concise, hard-hitting. If you're going on for days of cross, you're probably not doing it effectively, at least in my book. So they got their opportunity. The idea that they're going to keep her on the stand until she gives birth is pretty ridiculous. eight months pregnant, not nine months. So I don't think they were ever going to keep her on the stand that that long. And so I don't I don't buy into that.

[00:09:08] Speaker 2: Okay, let's get into it. Ron, we'll come to you next. Cassie Cross continued. Cassie acknowledged that Diddy was intoxicated during the hotel incident, the video that we saw through CNN, but distinguished her previous statement about him being blacked out, noting that everybody's definition of blackout is different. She then read a text message she sent to Combs after attacked her saying you always want me to show you always want to show me that you have the power and you knock me around i'm not a rag doll i'm someone's child i mean this is damning because there was a whole point where diddy was well they she was doing it too and she wants it uh ron this doesn't help in setting the narrative that she's a willing participant when we now get text messages of her acknowledging these issues and that she's not into it correct this text is has so much

[00:09:57] Speaker 1: subtext right it goes to the dynamic of power it goes to her saying you're beating me up it's saying you're using me like an item like you in closing this is something that i would want you know put up and just and just talk about it in order to really drive home he is the one dictating everything she does not have really any sense of yes she has agency but she doesn't have much power with with that agency i think it's a wonderful thing to highlight it's a great text for for the

[00:10:24] Speaker 2: prosecution. Chris, you agree this is this is bad news for Diddy's side, no?

[00:10:30] Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean it's I mean we've seen a lot of this stuff and it's a longer relationship and a lot of things going going on here so I you know like I say what we got to keep in mind though it's not a domestic violence case it's not you know these other type of cases where we've seen where there's a prosecution and again you've got to be careful with the language but you know for for the R kind of case. You know, so to me, some of this stuff would be more relevant if they were directly trying to prosecute him for the underlying conduct. The reason why this is being brought in is to try and show that he's running this criminal enterprise, and that's, I know we're gonna get into that later, but that's where it gets a little attenuated or difficult for me to put that string through to it.

[00:11:17] Speaker 2: Right, I mean, clearly the tape's bad, this is all bad, but you're right, in that that's not what he's being tried for. but clearly they're using that as much as they can to set the tone of who this man is, which I assume is gonna be extremely effective. Let's keep moving. After the incident, Diddy and Cassie texted. Diddy wanted to hook up, which she thought was a little strange and suggested they needed a different vibe, ultimately signing off with love you texts. An incident in 2016, again, I guess, again, trying to show even after these incidents, she's still saying she loves him, but we all know Stockholm syndrome is real. That seems to be a proven at this point Cassie recounted an incident in 2016 where Diddy forcibly took her phone, believing she was dating someone else, while they were on a break, leading to her mother's call to the police while Cassie denied accusations of dancing with Chris Brown. The defense then also played audio from 2014 in which Cassie threatens a man who she believes has an explicit video of her. The audio shows Cassie saying, it's my effing life and I will unalive you, I will unalive you, I will cut you up, I will hide you. She has heard saying, I have never unalived anyone in my life, but I will to you. And it's not going to be my hands. There's not going to be blood on my hands. It's going to be someone else. So any of this, is this any of this helpful enough? You think for the defense? We'll go back to you, Ron, to make a case that, well, look, she's, she's part of this too.

[00:12:40] Speaker 1: Well, it depends what you just went over. I think the audio is something that may cut both ways because unless you knew what she she was gonna say, or what the argument is, she could be saying, listen, I'm talking as an agent of this larger enterprise that there are rules and you're not supposed to be doing these videos. And that's part of the rules of engaging in this thing that Diddy has. And that's why I'm saying I'm threatening you because she also testified she was told to do that by Diddy. So again, I agree with Chris that a lot of this stuff would be great if this was a domestic violence case and that there's like this whole criminal thing, But the prosecution is going to take the next five to six weeks to try to build this brick wall, let's say, of their case of like, look, here we have a piece of Cassie showing that she's under control. Here's another piece where she's being told by someone else how to enforce the rules of the enterprise. And I think it didn't work as much as the defense worked from my perspective.

[00:13:41] Speaker 2: Chris, any thoughts from you?

[00:13:43] Speaker 3: Yeah, you know, there's another part of this where I think at the end Cassie told Diddy. Hey, there's this guy that's claiming to have a tape

[00:13:55] Speaker 2: Jonathan, ah, yeah, you're jumping had took a face of video the Ffo that was circulating. She did not trust him. Did he said he would take care of it This is also I weirdly enough the person who was jailed for the Trump Hotel incident where he pew-pewed He said he was Diddy's ex-slave now. It looks like there's some credence to that potentially, but yes, go ahead Chris I was gonna get there

[00:14:16] Speaker 3: I didn't see that next note. So what was described was that Diddy told Cassie, do not let this guy out of your sight. And, you know, so I guess my implication is, is that he, you know, he was going to come over there and confront this guy and figure out where the tape came from. And in that moment, you know, the defense, I think, was trying to portray that, you know, Diddy was trying to keep these tapes secret. And the theory of the prosecution is, is that Diddy was the one threatening to release these tapes to keep her under his control, but here there's an example of him trying to keep the tapes from being released. Now both can be true, where maybe he's threatening her to release the tapes himself, but he certainly doesn't want anyone else having that evidence. So like I say, both of that thing can be true, but I would imagine we'll hear in closing argument that from this little piece of evidence, this is Diddy wanting to maintain the privacy of these tapes and not to see her exploited.

[00:15:20] Speaker 2: She did appear visibly affected, Kim, you can chime in too if you want, but I saw this report in a few. I mean, I know you weren't there, but I heard a couple of people who were there confirming that this moment where she was cross-examined about her mental health and drug treatment, particularly when asked about her meds and her 2023 rehab experiences related to trauma therapy. She attended a 45-day inpatient rehab treatment. The defense asked if she had been treated for sex and love addiction, Cassie said she had not. She had EMDR therapy as well as neurofeedback therapy. She also testified that in a text message she wanted to tell Combs that she did not want to participate in the freak-offs, but was afraid that it would upset him. Full text message conversation as reported by CNN. The defense brought up the other messages to do with Cassie asking about the freak-offs with a girl. I'll open this up at Kim. Anything you want to add to that before I go back to the lawyers?

[00:16:11] Speaker 4: I mean, I think any type of trauma therapy is always very difficult. It's asking you to face the thing that your brain has decided is too much and has tried to bury, disassociate, remove itself from, and you are now walking into that essentially and you're trying to unlock it and deal with it. It's an incredibly difficult thing to do. It sounds like she had some really good help during that time, but it would have been incredibly painful and very, very difficult for her. So I'm not surprised that when they started talking about that, that she became emotional about it, that that would make a lot of sense.

[00:16:49] Speaker 2: Both you guys, Chris, right? Here's the exchange. I want to talk about something tomorrow going to sleep. Love you. Is it going to stress me out? What is it about? Freak off. It can wait. It's not a big deal. Now you don't want to do it anymore. Oh, I already know you're so predictable. Really? Okay. Since that's definitely what it was. We'll leave it at that then, since I'm so predictable, have a good night, whatever, baby, I'm not going to play no games with you and you ain't going to keep shutting me down. I'm not shutting you down. I never do. If anything, it's always the other way around. I wasn't going to say I didn't want to do it anymore. So again, I can see both sides of this one, right, that stuff, but I'll go to you first, Ron. Does this help or hurt Cassie's case more or helped anymore?

[00:17:32] Speaker 1: the extent we're focusing on how Cassie's coming off to a jury, I think it helps her more because here is an attempt from her to say, I'm trying to get a space to tell you I don't want to do this. And he does not, he gives her the space, but manipulates it, right? Like, oh, you're the problem. You're, you know, you don't want to do this anymore. Oh, you're trying to shut me down. And he flips the script. And I also think in the earlier thing that you showed us about the questions to her regarding the treatment. Like, I got all this treatment and they're like, well, did you get treatment for, you know, sex addiction? Which I think would have really, and if I'm going to do a closing argument, it's such a, it's so, it's so blaming her. Like, you're the one addicted to sex. You're the one shutting down Diddy. You're the problem. You're the victim and you're the problem. Which again, as far as her coming off, I think really, I think I think the jury will want to protect her, going like, why are you attacking her? We saw these videos, everybody saw these videos. We see these text messages, we see her crying. And now you want to like try to make her the problem instead of him taking responsibility, which is always, is such an easy argument for the prosecution, right? He's not taking responsibility. You're the jury part to do that. Like this is just, you know, trial 101. And I think it's really, really dangerous that they're not getting, that the defense is not getting ahead of that They kind of stepped into it in my opinion for purposes of how Cassie came. That's just the way I read

[00:19:02] Speaker 2: Yeah, Chris, I'm curious cuz exactly this is this is the defense right bringing out their ammo and I'm with him Yes, there's a little bit at the end there where it's like well, you know, I don't want to I did I didn't say I don't want to do it anymore. Do you think that was strong enough to bring in the whole? I don't want to do it anymore

[00:19:18] Speaker 3: Well that that's the only piece of that thing. That's helpful Everything else is really bad for them, but they only need one piece. They only need one juror or they need reasonable doubt to at least hang this thing, which could happen. And so this is what's confounding about it, and I guess it's gonna really rely on the backgrounds of these jurors. Can they understand how someone, like Ron's saying, is very young and impressionable, seeing this powerful guy could, through time, find herself in a freak-off? I would imagine if he would have mentioned that in the first, you know, date or whatever time they met that, you know, she'd be like, no way I'm doing that. But all of a sudden, you know, she's doing these things. And can a juror understand that? Or, you know, are there jurors on there that, you know, may be into some pretty kinky stuff themselves. And they're just saying like, yeah, you know, there there can be a lot of rough and even violent things that would happen during these activities between two people. That, you know, to me, it took me a hard time to understand how that could be consensual. But then you see people doing these things that are apparently consensual. So like I say, this is very nuanced. It's not like I started in criminal defense and I was representing, you know, these folks accused of doing the most horrific things. And the easy ones to understand is somebody breaks down your door and standing over your bed at two in the morning like, OK, we get that. You know, non-consensual, but here when this is starting with a relationship and then being morphed through this guy's coercion and control over her, again, I don't know what each juror is going to have, how they're going to process this.

[00:21:09] Speaker 2: Yeah, well said. As we keep moving forward, because there's a lot to go through, we'll get back to both you chiming in. So they talked about then, in the words of the Washington Post, there's been little coherent testimony. She was asked about a series of dates, text meetings with prosecutors that seemed confusing even to her. The defense bounced between the alleged 2018 incident and her account of it to the feds in 2023. After she filed her S.A. lawsuit against Combs, the defense also asked her to recall meetings with prosecutors in 2025. She speculated the R was linked to Diddy's bipolar disorder. He had been acting strangely. When asked if Cassie hated Diddy, she responded, I don't hate him. The defense asked, do you still have love for him? She responded, I have love for the past and what it was. The defense probed the events of September 27th, when Cassie had exed with Diddy, weeks after he allegedly arred her. She missed a video call Ventura during the event from Alex Fine, her then boyfriend and current husband. Ventura testified that Fine punched a wall upon learning that she had exed with Combs that night. The defense suggested that Cassie told Alex that this encounter was actually when Ventura Ventura said Combs ard her. That wasn't the evening when I was ard, Ventura said on the stand. Before we get to the Kim Porter stuff, I mean, there's a lot there. Ron, anything that surprises you, anything that jumps out as, well, that's not good?

[00:22:31] Speaker 1: No, it is not good, but she's also, I think that's coming from the, what was written down, the statement that was written down. That's what that's from, right? It's not from, yeah. So it could be helpful, but it's also something that wasn't verified by her or at least confirmed by her. And what they should be doing is getting whoever wrote that down to come in and say, that's what she told me. So I think that's just from an evidence standpoint. But I think this is probably the more flat stuff, right? Because once you're engaging the jury with text messages, like these are her own words, like, wait, now we have to shift to what someone else put down when they spoke to her. an odd timing. I think you don't want to end with that. You want to start with that, the boring stuff, and go forward. This is from a presentation standpoint.

[00:23:21] Speaker 3: Chris, what do you think of this so far? I mean, you know, her husband, fine, has been, you know, going to court. And I believe he was in the courtroom today and would have heard about this and, you know, I imagine knew about this already. But, you know, that's the really difficult thing is, is that here, you know, she's involved now with Fine, the new guy, and he's trying to FaceTime her and thinking like, hey, you're just going to, you know, kind of chat her up or whatever. And she does, she declines the call because she's with Diddy at that moment. And that's got to hurt. And I got to wonder, like, and it's great that he's there supporting her through all this, but I'm just kind of wondering what impact this is all going to have all this public stuff, very humiliating and horrible things that we're hearing about is going to impact that relationship.

[00:24:14] Speaker 2: Well, it's a good we're going to get to Alex's statement in a minute, but and I heard this through BJ as well. I was watching. Hello. That's Prize Witness. Everyone go subscribe. She's been doing such a great job. As she was saying, I heard this, too, that Diddy's like, if I'm going down, you're going down with me. And it's almost as if like they're trying he's trying everything he can to ruin the current marriage. Do you get that vibe too, Kim?

[00:24:36] Speaker 4: Yeah, the thing is, I think he can try, but I don't think it's going to work. One of the things that, I mean, I don't know if we'll get to it in the recap, but Alex did make a statement today and made it very clear that he is standing beside his wife, that he loves her, he supports her, he is so proud of her for the work that she's done. And I can only imagine this journey that he has been on with her. She testified yesterday that at one point, she wanted to run out the front door and run into traffic and told him that it would be better, you know, for him to raise the children without her. He has seen it all at this point and I hope today has been, this week has been a moment for them that it's, this is over, we're putting it behind us, we're moving on and he has to be aware at this time of how complicated this relationship with Diddy was for her and the years of essentially psychological torture that she went through that have got her to this point. It's not a normal relationship. It's not a normal situation. And if he was not someone who could handle that, I think he probably would have left by this point.

[00:25:42] Speaker 1: I think it's worth mentioning that there was probably this type of discussion between the two leading up to the filing of the civil case through Doug Wigdall, who was an amazing attorney. I met him. But I'm assuming there was, because everyone is speculating, there was settlement talks that were going on and then he, you know, Diddy wasn't playing and then the day after it files, like, okay, I'll pay you all the money. But I'm fairly sure somebody at Doug's, let's call it, the echelons that he's at, he probably told him, like, listen, if we file this, this is the fallout, you're going to have to, you really have to have serious conversations with your husband, because all this is going to come out. And I'm pretty sure they were already went through this. But but again, they're reliving this. They're reliving this after a year. It must be terrifying. That's that off to a.

[00:26:36] Speaker 2: Yeah, it is unreal. So so then keeping up with that, we talked about Kim Porter's memorial service in 2018. It was the last time she saw Combs Ventura said a few days later. She texted him that social media post of his calling. Porter, his soulmate, was hurtful. what was the 11 years all about, she wrote to him. From there, he let you go, right? The defense lawyer asked, I don't know about letting me go, she replied. But again, trying to show, oh, look how much she still loved him. But I don't know, all this, the manipulation, I feel like is very justified in seeing why this was so complicated for Cassie in this kind of toxic, horrible relationship that he was forcing her through. So none of this is speaking to me. Hold on, there we go. None of this is, nothing I've seen so far has been like, oh, damn, Cassie, she's in trouble. She returned after a break for Cross for the redirect. After the breakup with Diddy, he continued to reach out with affectionate messages over the years, including congratulating her on her. The defense shifted to questioning Cassie.

[00:27:37] Speaker 4: Sorry, you're supposed to say pregnancy when she was first pregnant. Okay, I was gonna say on her.

[00:27:40] Speaker 2: I apologize. I thought like, oh, she's, good job on yourself. On her, okay, got it. The defense shifted to questioning Cassie about her lawsuit, insinuating that financial issues a major motivator. They cited her family moving, which she denied, saying they wanted to move to the East Coast and moved in with her family. The defense then questioned her about a tour she canceled after the lawsuit, insinuating she didn't need the money anymore. Cassie denied this as well. In a 2019 email exchange, Sean congratulated Cassie on her pregnancy, praised her as the greatest woman in the world, clearly getting nervous. Cassie thanked Diddy and said she missed him and hoped he was taking care of himself and that she didn't hate him. Uh, uh, he hoped he, uh, and that she, sorry, wait, Cassie thanked Diddy and said she missed him and hoped he was taking care of himself and she didn't hate him?

[00:28:29] Speaker 4: Yeah. Or that he- He reached out to her and was like- She did, okay, that's where I'm confused. Yeah. So he reached out to her and said, you're the greatest woman in the world, praising her, blah, blah, blah.

[00:28:39] Speaker 2: And he said, I hope you don't hate me.

[00:28:41] Speaker 4: And she just said, thank you, you know, miss you, like the good times, I hope you're taking care of yourself, and I don't hate you.

[00:28:48] Speaker 2: Oh, and that she does got sorry, I just couldn't read it right. I'm tired.

[00:28:52] Speaker 4: I guess that's what it was.

[00:28:53] Speaker 2: Okay, that I don't hate you. Got it. Okay. Interesting. So they're trying to use that against her as well. She then posted a high Diddy's lawyer highlighted a post Cassie made on her Instagram in March of 2024. After the hotel video leaked, she said in the post, DV is the issue. In a failed gotcha moment, the defense read a message exchange where Diddy asked if she She wanted to do a freak-off for one last time. She responded, I don't want to freak off for the last time. I want it to be the first time for the rest of our lives. The defense entered their questioning and redirect began. Prosecution asked Cassie to read more of the exchange, where Cassie wrote, I want to see you, but I'm emotional right now, and I don't want to do one last time. I'd rather not do it at all. So that's not a good get. Why would you set that up and then not read the full context? Chris, I'll go to you. Is this-

[00:29:42] Speaker 4: Because that's how the defense tried to end it. It was pathetic.

[00:29:44] Speaker 2: Oh, we're done. We're going to pretend this clearly didn't work out. Did any of that worry you as or would you give any of those points to Diddy's side as you got her there?

[00:29:54] Speaker 3: Yeah, that's just dumb. You know, obviously, there's more to the message. And it's like, come on, the other.

[00:30:00] Speaker 2: It's like the whole Blake Lively of it all, right? You don't pick and choose knowing the rest of it's going to out you, right? Yeah. I mean, that was just stupid.

[00:30:10] Speaker 4: I also believe this this exchange was from 2012. And again, they keep pulling out all these texts from, like, like, the more closer to the beginning of the relationship or midway through, not, like, towards the end where it was, like, getting really bad. And it's just it makes me laugh that it's like you got you really thought you did something with that. And then the prosecution just walks up for the the redirect and goes, Do you want to finish reading this conversation?

[00:30:35] Speaker 2: Yeah. What? What? You can't read. And then it's also you can't read. He wrote. I don't want to freak out for the last time. I want to be the first time for the rest of our lives. Yeah, I want to see you, but I'm emotional right now. I don't want to do one last time. I'd rather not do it at all. So, yeah, the context definitely changes it all. And I think you said it well, Christopher. That's stupid. Anything in there you saw, Ron, that you felt was stupid? Do you agree?

[00:30:58] Speaker 1: I agree. Chris used a perfect legal term of art that we all use when it's that obvious. It's wonderfully stupid.

[00:31:06] Speaker 2: That's all it is. There were instances, Diddy claimed he couldn't remember hurting her. but she identified times where he appeared to, sorry, he appeared to be aware of his actions. His changing moods impacted her self-perception. She acknowledged he had moments where he was kind and loving, but they were short-lived, and his mood of fluctuations affected her entire life. At one point, she said that her music career was hindered by Diddy and that she was basically an ex-worker. The judge struck the ex-worker comment. That's interesting. Why? Why do you Why do you think they did that, Ron?

[00:31:42] Speaker 1: Because it's a, it's a legal conclusion, uh, that's supposed to be left for the, uh, the fact that the fact finder. So, uh, even if she felt that way, well, yes, even if she felt that way, this is probably something that was ruled on before, uh, that the witnesses who are not experts cannot use certain terms that are legal conclusions, uh, or can, can be possibly, uh, substituted in as a legal conclusion. And apparently that's on a list that you can't use these words.

[00:32:12] Speaker 2: Like the preemptive list, because they clearly knew that word is dangerous.

[00:32:15] Speaker 1: Yeah. It's very common. Like going into a sexual harassment or sexual assault trial, the defense was like, you know, no one can use the word for the plaintiff's side, the words grooming, stuff like that. All these buzzwords that may trigger a jury to help you. And there's a fight over that before anybody's sworn in. And I'm assuming that's what happened.

[00:32:40] Speaker 2: The cast. So then they asked if she would be willing if she would give back the 20 million lawsuit money if it meant not having to go through the freak offs. Cassie broke down saying she would. And if I never had to have freak offs, I would had had agency and autonomy. And I wouldn't have had to work so hard to get it back. That's a good question by the prosecution. No. Chris, what do you think? Is that a good shot back?

[00:33:03] Speaker 3: Yeah. Yeah. That's a pretty typical response when people get a settlement, and they're like, hey, there's no amount of money that could have compensated me for this. I would have much rather not done it. And then the defense, I think, was pointing out, well, she had canceled this tour. I think she has to go to Australia or something. And she got the $20 million or was told she was going to get the $20 million and canceled it. And I wish she would have just owned that more. I mean, it was just like, oh, I was overwhelmed. I mean, look, honestly, if somebody gives me $20 million, I'm not going to work tomorrow. You know, I'm going to take a couple of times, some time off that she could have just said like, yeah, I got 20 million.

[00:33:41] Speaker 2: Yeah. Even just exactly the stress of going to work with still the trauma. There's a lot of ways to justify that. I agree. Yeah. They continue to continue to redirect where Cassie admitted that there was career benefits to being with Diddy, including attending the Met Gala, meeting and working with celebs like Kid Cudi, Nicki Minaj, Lil Wayne, Rick Ross. OK, so she met celebrities. Great. So what it was revealed that didn't get her any more albums released. It was revealed that Cassie's legal team is negotiating a settlement with the Intercontinental. A deal has not been struck yet, she said, but an eight-digit payout is expected, likely $10 million. Ventura was excused. There was a part there at the end, right, Kim, where I've seen some people are trying to sort of catch her again. There was a moment where some reports are saying, she said, there were no other settlements. And then they sort of said, well, what about, isn't there a $10 million from the Intercontinental? And she said, yes. But then others say, yes, maybe, as in it hasn't been received yet. Ron, is that a red flag to you? Do you think that matters? Should she have been more upfront about that, or is that sort of a clear distinction?

[00:34:42] Speaker 1: It should not matter, and I'm very surprised that the prosecution didn't get ahead of this to be like, we shouldn't be talking about anything except for the facts. We can talk about what everybody knows in public. It's a weird one, because again, like Chris pointed out, this is a criminal case. You just need one juror to not agree and just be turned off by any one of the prosecution's witness. And that might be something like, oh, this is just part of a money grab that turns off one juror and then diddies off.

[00:35:12] Speaker 2: Do you agree, Chris?

[00:35:13] Speaker 3: Yeah, that's it. You don't know what's going to land. And Ron's absolutely right. And the one juror that's going to hold out from a guilty verdict is going to result in a hung jury. And then you've got to retry it. If they do, you know, so this is the thing, is when you start putting together not only the statements about, hey, I want to do this, or I'm arranging it, or I liked it, which we've seen, and then with a $20 million payment, a $10 million payment, you know, there's certainly incentives for her to tell a story, but her story does ring true. There's so much there to support it. I don't think that there's, I really would be surprised if anyone on this jury would disbelieve what she is saying. The question though that I have in mind is that, does that amount to a RICO case? I really struggle with that one. But if it were other things that he was being prosecuted for maybe we get there. And there are, there's a transportation to engage in certain conduct charge and there's a trafficking charge by force and coercion. So he may get convicted on those based on what we've heard so far. But the RICO is difficult.

[00:36:33] Speaker 2: Well, I want to go back to that. We're going to come to you, Ron. I want to get your thoughts. And I want to push that a little bit. But just let's wrap up the day quickly, because there was one little last part where Special Agent Yasmin Binda came on the scene and then said, for those wondering what's Costco lawyer mean, Mark Agnifilo is his name, I guess, tried to justify why did he had cases of baby oil. And his response was, well, he shops at Costco. At which point, Costco replied, we don't sell baby oil. It was just a self-owned, just one of the most stupidest things you could do from a legal standpoint of how do you not, you know, idiot. So we call him Costco lawyer because I can't forget that self-owned. So that's why he's called Costco lawyer because I saw a couple of chats like, what does Costco lawyer mean? But so Costco lawyer was on the stand asking this objected to Don Richard, a former member of Danity Kane, literally moments before she came on, which was bizarre, because they knew it was coming, the judge was annoyed again. And so they did go to Special Agent Yassen, who admitted that she found, she's the one who arrested him. The Department of Homeland Security Trafficking Group, she handled the logistics of his arrest. He was arrested at the Park Hyatt in September last year, and was assigned to take photos of the room. Found one bottle of medication found in a Louis Vuitton bag on a nightstand containing a prescription bottle in the name of Frank Black. The label of the bottle said the med was a clonazepam.

[00:37:57] Speaker 4: Clonazepam. And then it's a benzo, otherwise known as clonapin, if you've heard of that. It's no joke. It's, yeah.

[00:38:05] Speaker 2: And then another, two bags inside, the bags had pink powder tested for, you can see the initials there, and K, and a small bag with 9K. You didn't mention it, but as I was watching that, there was also more baby oil in this hotel room, which is just so weird. You're raided, you're... And then Dawn then stepped up, but nothing really substantial happened. We'll cover that on Monday. But now I want to go back to you guys, because I'll start there. The special agent came in and showed odd substances, but he still had baby oil after the raids. He knows the feds are on them. He's staying in a hotel, per his lawyer's advice. Like, how dumb is this guy? He's bringing substances and baby oil, like bags of baby oil to him in his hotel room. Ron, I see you sort of smiling. That's weird, is it not? Like, does that just sort of go how delusional this guy maybe was, that he just really didn't think the walls were about to close in on him, even after the raid?

[00:39:04] Speaker 1: Yes, and the reason I'm smiling, other than it's just so weird, is that this really helps the prosecution show that Diddy, with all his power, had a sickness that he was working, that he was working, using his power to really feed, right? And he just, he was either, you can call it addiction or psychosis or whatever it is, but he had, and then he couldn't stop. Like despite everything being at stake at this moment, he still couldn't stop. And I'm assuming they're gonna bring an expert to explain the Stockholm syndrome, Cassie, but also how this guy couldn't help himself from a clinical standpoint and look at this, look at, you know, he just couldn't stop.

[00:39:45] Speaker 2: Chris, do you agree? Like, it's just weird that we didn't stop the baby oil, no?

[00:39:50] Speaker 3: No, and I think that that is, there is something there and this is why I question the criminal enterprise allegation, you know, who is his, like, so if you look at how we normally see a RICO case, so you have, you know, the mafia or the mob or a cartel, They're a collection of individuals who have a profit motive, and they have gotten together to commit various crimes. And sure, there's leadership and hierarchy and rules and violence and all this stuff that goes with it, but they're there to commit crimes to make money. This guy was, there's no evidence that he's ever profited a penny from any of this activity. You could say, well, he makes money off of the record production, but the freak offs didn't make any money on the record production. It's the other way around. The record production gave him the money and the power so that he could buy baby oil and do all this other stuff. So I discredit that link. He was the customer. He was the one paying the men from Craigslist to come to the hotel. So this is the problem with it. And the reason why they're prosecuting it this way is it's too late to prosecute the underlying crimes. These things happened some of them 10 years ago. So some people might say, well, why don't they just charge it as domestic violence or are all this other stuff kidnapping? Well, it's too long ago. And because there's deadlines, there's statutes of limitations to file criminal charges. But here with this RICO criminal conspiracy, They're saying, well, he's still actively engaging in this, and now we can look back at crimes that he's occurred, uncharged crimes, ones that are too late to charge under state law, as long as they're a predicate offense, and there's a list that they have to go, like kidnapping is one of them, or arson. So they have to go get a crime that he committed maybe long, long time ago, and put that list together and say, aha, that shows proof of the enterprise. but he's an enterprise of one person. He didn't make any money off of this. He was the one actually financing it for his own depraved gratification. So I, like I say, maybe, and again, you can't judge the case on one witness. It has to be the whole case where the juror looks at it, but I don't know how they're gonna make that link. And oh, and final point, the enterprise, they're saying, oh, it's all these other people. Well, none of them are charged. He's the sole defendant in the case. And in the opening statement, the prosecutor said he was abusing some of his own employees. He kidnapped one of his own employees. He threatened other employees and attacked them at times. So these are his co-conspirators that are doing this enterprise with him? No, they're all working for him.

[00:42:56] Speaker 2: Well, Natanya is dying to get in, and Natanya, I'm gonna try, but I wanna go to Ron first. I wanna hear the lawyers and then we'll get to you. But Ron, do you agree? because Natanya is always in there telling us, no, power was his profit. This is bigger than that. She was an employee. Do you agree with Chris? Is there enough here for this racketeering? Or could there be more from the employee standpoint? What is your perspective?

[00:43:18] Speaker 1: I will defer to Chris as far as what the criminal aspects of it. My understanding of Rico, because my colleague Nima Rovani goes on a lot of TV, is that he doesn't actually have to profit from it, But he just, he just has to be engaged in this activity that crosses state lines that is unlawful. And it's funny because the statute actually allows it starts with any individual. And then it goes forward to like more people. But Chris is right in that no one really has this, at least as far as I can see there's no famous case that this is more like something that was created for purposes of prosecuting the mafia, you know there's this network of criminal activity where people are like, are in cahoots and acting in concert with each other to do this thing that puts money in their pockets. So I do agree with Chris, like, as far as like, what the jury itself is like, well, what do you want us to do with this stuff as far as a criminal enterprise? Because that's not what we, you know, we've all grew up watching the Godfather and Goodfellas and Narcos, like, that's what we think as a jury, like, we don't what do you want us to do with this? And I agree with Chris, it's gonna be really tough to, to kind of unpack that for that particular point. Yeah.

[00:44:32] Speaker 2: I mean, his, he doesn't need money, he doesn't need to make money out of it. His profit was sexual gratification, says Caroline. Chris, is there any point in that? Can that be what he's, what the power is? What his payments are?

[00:44:43] Speaker 3: Well, yeah. And I think Ron, Ron's absolutely right to be, you know, looking at the language of the statute. And that's what, what's going to happen at the end of the case is that the judge will give jury instructions and these are broken down by elements. So this RICO offense, every part of it will be broken down and then hopefully explained by the prosecutor in a way that the jury can understand it and questions, okay, can it be, you know, an individual or individuals and is there a profit need to be done? So they're going to deal with all that stuff. It's just that, you know, like I say, it's got to make common sense. If you have a case that doesn't make common sense, it's very difficult to settle, to resolve it with the jury. And I think that's the thing that I'm going against in when I'm putting on cases. It's like I want the judge or the juror to understand this from their own experience saying, aha, I've seen that before, I get that, I believe this, this makes sense to me. And then they're not worrying about little words here in a statute or little gaps in the evidence. They're not bothered by it because they've accepted it. And here it's just like, this is a very bizarre story and it's gonna be hard for anyone to relate to it. And then to try and put it in a box that's designed, you know, for the mafia and stuff. I think they're gonna struggle with that.

[00:46:12] Speaker 2: Yeah, no, and Tonya, I'm sorry, I'm not trying to deny you. I'll get you in in a minute, but I just, it's a different perspective. And I think Chris is making a strong point that, you know, even though there may be a perspective to get it there, the juror's got to understand it. And I guess that's where I do hear you. It's a lot to explain. And then when they go back and actually have to read the charges, they're reading about this mafia thing where who else is involved? What is the criminal enterprise? And is all that gonna be explained in the court? What do you think, Ron? Is this dangerous?

[00:46:44] Speaker 1: I agree with Chris as far as what a jury, at the end of the day, You never want to complicate a case where you're explaining a lot to a jury because they're just going to be confused. And it's five to six weeks of listening to stuff. And because they're going to be exhausted. They're just annoyed. They want to get out. They're kind of like, yes, we have our duty, but we need to get out of there fast. So they're going to fall back to the things that they're comfortable with and know. And it's really going to ride a lot on closing argument to kind of just make the stuff really simple for them to be like, yes, this is not your normal story, but you should still like, let me help you why you don't need the normal story. But you're explaining and explaining, you never want to be the side that kind of has to like, explain things to the jury that you're hoping they can move past these like set ideas. And I 100% agree with Chris, as far as like, this is a great story and it's fun to talk about, this is nuts, but like, what are they gonna do with jury instructions and deliberations when they're being asked like, Was this guy part of an enterprise? At the end of the day, that's what they have to worry about. And I agree with Chris, it's gonna be weird. It's gonna be very important and weird when they stop and like, I don't know, was this an enterprise?

[00:47:57] Speaker 2: Right, because they're clearly succeeding because I'm asking who's winning. I feel like the prosecution's winning and proving that Diddy is a creep and an abuser and all these things, but we need to, as a jury member, what we're hearing isn't, you know, even a Tanya with respect, it's not what you're saying. And so, like, we have to base on what's currently being said in court, and they're not going anywhere near that sort of area. Now, it's an eight-week trial, right? That's the other part of this. There's a lot of time. Christopher, do you think there's a pivot in a way they are going to try their best to get there?

[00:48:30] Speaker 3: Oh, absolutely. And, again, I'm not trying to say the case is over or anything like that. We've heard basically one witness, and the prosecution knows all this stuff. They're very smart. absolutely know what they have to prove and how they're gonna prove it and how they're gonna explain it and how they're gonna simplify it. We haven't heard that yet, but I'm sure it'll happen. The opening statement was very good by the prosecutor, but again, we can't judge the case right now, so I'm in no way doing that. I'm just saying is there is some explaining to do and it is going to be difficult, and if they're able to make that clear to the jurors, then great, they'll get a conviction. But jurors, they're not lawyers, they're not judges, they don't have this legal education, but when they take the oath and they invest so much time of their lives in the case, they rise to the occasion and they take their job very seriously. And so some of them will say, I think this person is horrible and should rot in hell for everything that this guy's done, but I can't convict the person based on the elements of this crime that I'm being instructed by the judge. It just doesn't fit. And that's how we see acquittals or we see hung juries. And so, hey, we can all hope for whatever outcome we want, but, you know, stand by.

[00:49:51] Speaker 2: So based on what we've seen so far, and granted, I know it's the prosecution's attempts first, who's winning so far? Who's doing a better job, in your opinion?

[00:50:02] Speaker 3: In my opinion, the prosecutor is doing a great job because, you know, they're the only one putting on a case right now. You know, the defense doesn't have a burden, and they put on a very powerful witness who I thought was credible from reading the testimony and made this guy look horrific. And they've established parts of what they need to do. So I would say, so far with this one witness, they're succeeding.

[00:50:32] Speaker 2: Ron, what about you? Who's winning so far?

[00:50:34] Speaker 1: I'm gonna have an unpopular opinion here. I expected Cassie, who's there for so long, to give us more of a view of him being more organized in a corporation sense about how these things happened. Like, I don't know, like the use of, I just expected more, because it really sounds like a domestic violence issue that happened to have orgies, versus there was this like network of people that wanted to participate in orgies and that Diddy was coordinating them through his power. I am not getting that sense through someone that was with him for so long. And again, I come with a lawyer's mind. I'm like, okay, you know, I kind of know what happened through the lawsuit from way back when. What's gonna be different? I don't see anything different. Just for me, I really expected like, Oh, no, let me tell you about, you know, he had like Epstein level stuff. Like, I don't see the Epstein levels. And maybe that's unfair.

[00:51:40] Speaker 2: Even just mentioning Christina Correia, all these people that were involved in the enterprise, I feel like she didn't even really throw any of them out. Did she, Kim?

[00:51:48] Speaker 4: I mean, she did talk about them. I think there were a number, something I've noticed with reporting on this that I am finding very frustrating, is there seems to be, people are repeating what I'm going to call selective facts of information, because as you're saying, Ron, you're hearing these things, but there was literally a moment in Cassie's testimony where she confirmed that if one of the people that they wanted for an FO was out of the area, they had a travel agent on standby that they used to come and help them cross state lines. We had multiple people that would make sure that things were, that they had all the stock that they needed for these FOs. We know about arms, you know, unbranded arms, things like that. We know there was a tremendous amount of substances being brought in and brought out. I have to start asking, is that where we're going? Is Cassie just a storyline to illustrate a picture of what it was like inside of this insanity? And then as we go through, we're gonna have people, some that may have flipped on him for all we know, right? That this is what was going on. We hope. And so I'm just saying, like, I think we are, I think part of the reason why we have seen Cassie this early is because she is extremely pregnant. And if they waited, they were taking a huge risk of not having her perspective in this trial. So the trial starts.

[00:53:20] Speaker 2: And it sets the tone of what a monster he is.

[00:53:22] Speaker 4: Yeah, get her in, get her in as fast as you can, get through this as quickly as we can because she is so pregnant, and now we're gonna go into everything else. Now we're gonna go deep. But that original story of what she went through and what she experienced over a decade of being with this man, I have the feeling it's gonna be weaved through a lot of other things. And we've got a lot more to come.

[00:53:44] Speaker 2: And the sawed off arms, which is another bad thing, Chris. Now in parts of that sort of, you'd think more mafia trait where they're, what is it called? Removing the serial numbers on these weapons and stuff. There's definitely a lot of illegal enterprises that are happening, no? Could all that still come out, I guess? Obviously, the answer is yes. That's what needs to come out, I guess, is the question, right?

[00:54:04] Speaker 3: Well, yeah, yeah. Definitely, there was, I mean, this guy put a lot of thought and energy into these freak-offs. So, I mean, that's there. And then, like I say, there's the two other charges. So he's got, as a three-count indictment, the count two is trafficking by fraud or coercion for commercial purposes. kind of seems like she established that. And then transportation to engage in P, the letter P, you know, across state lines and stuff. He did a lot of P, Chris.

[00:54:39] Speaker 4: Well, the other thing I would want to comment, we don't know 100% who is all on the witness list. We know that that is coming. We're going to know soon who all is going to be taking that stand. I have heard rumors of a certain Aubrey O'Day. Now I bring this up because Aubrey admitted that part of the reason why she was dismissed from Danity Kane, this band that also Dawn Richard is a part of and she's now on the stand, was that she was asked to do things that were not in her job description. Now, when we think about the context of everything that we're hearing right now, and Aubrey was constantly being told, like the way that she looked was constantly criticized, She had to look a certain way. Diddy would be very vocal if he was not happy with her. And she really didn't care. She did her own thing. And that's very much Aubrey O'Day's personality. And that's, I think, part of why we've heard so much from her over the years to do with Diddy. How do we know that maybe there's other employees here that were being forced into doing things they didn't want to do? Why? With whom? For what purpose? I think we've got a long way to go. That's all I'm saying.

[00:55:50] Speaker 2: Indeed, I know you guys got a hard episode. Before I get your final thought, I do want to share, here were the final statements. Cassie's statement, this week has been extremely challenging, but also remarkably empowering, healing for me. I hope that my testimony gives strength to the voice of other survivors and can help others who have suffered to speak up and also heal from abuse and fear. For me, the more I heal, the more I remember, and the more I can remember, the more I will never forget. I want to thank my family advocates for their unwavering support. I'm grateful for all the kindness, encouragement that I've received. I am glad to put this chapter of my life to rest As I turn to focus on the conclusion of my pregnancy, I ask for privacy for me and my growing family." Now, here's Alex Fine's statement, which got me emotional. I'm ending the chat. We're going to read one more time. But man, this is a statement. Over the past five days, the world has gotten to witness the strength and bravery of my wife freeing herself of her past. There has been speculation online surrounding how it must feel for me to sit there and listen to my wife's testimony. I have felt so many things sitting there. I have felt tremendous pride and overwhelming love for Cass. I have felt profound anger that she had been subjected to sitting in front of a person tried to break her. So to him and all of those who helped him along the way, please know this, you did not. You did not break her spirit nor her smile that lights up every room. You did not break the souls of a mother who gives the best hugs and plays the silliest games with our little girls. You did not break the woman who made me a better man. I did not save Cassie, as some have said. To say that is an insult of the years of painful work my wife has done to save herself. Cassie Cassie saved Cassie. She alone broke free from abuse, coercion, violence, and threats. She did the work of fighting the demons that only a demon himself could have done to her. All I have done is love her as she loved me. Her life is now surrounded by love, laughter, and our family. This horrific chapter is forever put behind us, and we will not be making additional statements. We appreciate all the love and support we have received, and we ask that you respect our privacy as we welcome our son into a world that is now safer because of his mom. That's a freaking statement. I want to go to you, Ron. I know you got to go. Final thoughts. I mean, that's how you do it.

[00:57:48] Speaker 1: No, that's a husband. That is one. That's such a great husband, empowering his wife, empowering the mother. It is. I, you know, I don't really have much words. It's amazing. There's so much there between putting the blame on him, putting, putting points, you know, for her, putting points against Diddy. It's an amazing statement. I'm very impressed and they look to be a very healthy couple who are present of the pain that they're in, but know how to move forward. And that is this beautiful thing to see.

[00:58:22] Speaker 2: Please support Ron over at West Coast Trial Lords. Anything else to say as you dip out? I know you got a piece out for a meeting. Anything, final words?

[00:58:28] Speaker 1: No, no. Thank you so much for bringing me on. And I always enjoy talking to you and Kim and Chris. It's so nice to meet you. And I look forward to doing this one more time or at least a few more times.

[00:58:39] Speaker 2: I would love that. Thank you, sir. I know you've got to go. I'll get Chris's thoughts as you go. Thank you, Ron. Have a great weekend, guys. Everybody, thank Ron in the chat. Very awesome to have you. Chris, I want to let you go. I know you've got to go as well, but what do you think of that statement? What are your final thoughts here?

[00:58:51] Speaker 3: Yeah. I mean, the thing about these trials is that it forces the victim to relive what happened to them. And, you know, in some instances that might be freeing of them to, you know, in our U.S. system you have to confront, you know, or the accuser, you know, because that's part of their constitutional right is to be able to see the people who are testifying against them as a criminal defendant. So they have to come into that courtroom. They have to see the person who did all these things. They have to relive this. They have to be cross-examined. And with a judge telling them what they can say and what they can't say, you know, as we saw striking out that worker comment. And that is like, I would hate to have to relive that. I would hate to have to go through that. And then it's not just them. It's their friends, their family. It's their kids who are going to maybe read this 20 years from now. I mean, this is this is horrible. This is why people don't come forward. This is how people get away with taking advantage of other people, because they figure no one is going to want to subject themselves to this. It's humiliating. And then this case went to trial fast, only because he's in custody. Many of these cases, you're talking years of continuances. And if there's a retrial, if there's a hung jury, they're going to have to do it again. So she is brave. I think it's amazing. But also for Alex, I think I felt, you know, pain for him or felt bad for him, just thinking in the early stages of that relationship, he's reaching out to her, you know, trying to FaceTime her and just enjoy her company. And to realize that he, she dismisses the call because she's with Diddy at that moment, that's gotta hurt, okay? No matter what he's saying in there, that's gotta hurt the guy.

[01:00:57] Speaker 2: But he had to know before all this went there. It's not like he found that out on the trial day, right? Well, now the whole world's talking about it, so. Yeah, they're calling him a simp in the comments. I don't know. I think his statement did a pretty good job to beat that.

[01:01:10] Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm just saying, they can put on the brave face and all that, but all this hurts, okay? Yeah, no doubt. And it's just horrible. These are things none of us should know about, none of us should be hearing about. This is so private and personal to her in particular and then to him also, because he's impacted by it. But that's the nature of the system that we have to hear about this stuff, because it's a public trial. So yeah, highly sympathetic for her and him and their family and I hope there is justice, because look at the price that they're paying to get this guy convicted.

[01:01:53] Speaker 2: Truly, it's true And then lock Nessie my gosh. Thanks for the generous tip at the end been a silent watcher for a while Thank you for the great coverage of this difficult case topic and your emphasis on respect for the victims. Thank you That's what we try to do and thank Kim If you want to thank somebody go thank Kim who watched all day for me to help prep that the way you can thank us All is going subscribe go give go tip her a coffee over there. There's her link. I put in the chat as well Go support. It's Kim. Let's get her to 40,000 subscribers by in this trial. Come on And also make sure you go follow Christopher Melcher over on X CA underscore divorce He's already passed 50k. Let's get a 50 55 over this trial Always wonderful to have you. Thank you to Ron who stepped out? Natalia will get you next time. You know, I love you. Thank you all for watching It is Friday. So I'm trying to get the heck out of here to go spend my weekend I hope you guys do as well. We'll be back Monday with more updates. So stay tuned Make sure you hit that subscribe if you haven't already on YouTube over at popcorn planet hit the bell for alerts and smash that like Button guys, we're now on all the podcasts. It happened. It officially happened before I go there It is the pod bean link here. I guess it shows you Spotify Apple podcasts Amazon music I art radio we have they will update usually by the next day You will have the full audio version of the podcast on those and some people have already discovered us. That's so cool So thanks to everybody who's checked out if you're listening to us and one of those or you want to Please do and drop us a rating if you will a good rating. Hopefully, we'll see over or you'll hear us over there as well Thanks again for watching everybody. Stay tuned. We'll be back Monday. Have a wonderful weekend