Law&Crime Sidebar - Model Claims Both P. Diddy and Harvey Weinstein Attacked Her

Episode Date: June 3, 2025

Crystal McKinney, who’s already on record with a lawsuit against disgraced music mogul Sean “Diddy” Combs, has been revealed as the plaintiff behind a lawsuit against Harvey Weinstein as well. McKinney, who won an MTV modeling competition in the late 90s, says both men sexually assaulted her in 2003. Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber compares the two filings with the help of civil attorney David Ring.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: If your child, under 21, has been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes or fatty liver disease, visit https://forthepeople.com/food to start a claim now! HOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:AYouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger, Christina O'Shea & Jay CruzScript Writing & Producing - Savannah Williamson & Juliana BattagliaGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondry Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify. In a strange case of worlds colliding in the New York judicial system, we now know that a model, an aspiring actress who claims Sean Diddy Combe sexually assaulted her in the early 2000s, also now says that Harvey Weinstein also sexually assaulted her in the early 2000s. And right now, both of those men are dealing with criminal trials based on similar but separate allegations. We are taking a closer look at two lawsuits from Crystal McKinney. Welcome to Sidebar.

Presented by Law and Crime, I'm Jesse Weber. Hey, everybody, this is another law and crime legal alert. Did you know that children are being diagnosed right now with serious conditions like type 2 diabetes and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease? and the research is potentially linking ultra-processed foods to all this. Yeah, well, Morgan and Morgan, they are stepping in to fight to hold these food companies accountable. With decades of experience fighting large corporations, they are ready to stand up for the families who deserve justice. So if your child, under 21, has been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes or fatty liver disease, then visit www.4thepeople.com slash food or scan the QR code on screen to learn more.

You may remember Crystal McKinney as one of the women who came forward to accuse music mogul and entertainment titan Sean Diddy Combs of drugging and attacking her. We've covered details about her lawsuit against him right here on Sidebar. It was filed in May of 2024, accused Combs of violating the New York City Victims of Gender Motivated Violence Protection Act. We've talked about that law before. It created a two-year look-back window within New York City to file assault or abuse claims that might have otherwise. been time barred by a statute of limitations. McKinney filed that lawsuit under her own name. But we have now learned that she has filed a separate civil lawsuit against disgraced former movie producer Harvey Weinstein using a pseudonym. So that lawsuit was filed at the end

of February 2025 just before the lookback window closed using the initials AP for the plaintiff. But then what happens? On May 30th, an amended complaint was filed that officially named McKinney as the one accusing Weinstein of abuse. So she was named as the plaintiff. And it seems that at the same time that the amended complaint was being posted to the court docket, her attorneys also filed an update with the judge informing the court that there may now be a resolution in this case. A filing that has been okayed by the judge on June 2nd reads, and corporate defendants have reached an agreement in principle subject to a written agreement on mutually agreeable terms.

So to talk about the details of both of these lawsuits, as well as where the criminal trials for both Combs and Weinstein stand now, I want to bring in civil trial attorney David Ring, who specializes in these kinds of cases. David, so good to see you. Thanks so much for taking the time. You know, we'll get more into specifics in a minute, but just right off the bat, is it unusual? Does it surprise you that you have one person who has filed two? simultaneous lawsuits against what, two of the most high-profile defendants in New York courts right

now? Yeah, Jesse, it's unusual. I mean, especially because, you know, her lawsuits allege that these incidents happen in the same year in 2003. So, you know, I find it unusual. I think any time you see someone suing two incredibly high-profile defendants, and obviously it goes back in time, you know, I think you have to take it a little bit with a grain of salt. Yes. Okay, that's fair. And by the way, when they say they've reached an agreement in principle, but now they have to get it all in writing,

is it more or less likely that a settlement would actually happen? Well, I think if they've reached an agreement, it sounds like they have a deal, so a settlement would happen. But let's remember, you know, we always hear about, hey, there's a settlement. And I don't know. I think most people think, oh, boy, you know, Disney must have paid a tremendous amount of money on that. That's not necessarily true. You might have paid a modest amount just to make the case go away.

We'll probably never know what the amount is that was paid. But, you know, it's easy to jump to conclusion. Oh, Disney, they filed the case. They paid money for it for this whole thing to be done and over with. But but not necessarily the case. Let's talk about it. So right now, by the way, Harvey Weinstein, he's on retrial for sex crimes in state court.

It's nearing its end that trial. Attorneys for Weinstein, they've confirmed that the now 73-year-old would not take the stand in his own defense, despite rumors that he wanted to get up there and tell his side of the story. But a spokesperson told the Hollywood reporter that it just opened him up to way too much risk. So he decided against it. And as we remember, he was convicted of criminal sexual assault in the first degree on the testimony of a former project runway production assistant and rape in the third degree based on the testimony of a one-time aspiring actress. This was five years ago. He was acquitted on three other charges and he ended up being sentenced to 23 years in

prison. However, that conviction was overturned when an appeals court ruled that prior bad acts testimony shouldn't have come in. It resulted in an unfair trial for him. Now the retrial, it's nearing its conclusion. Closing arguments are expected any time. David, real quick, do you surprised he doesn't want to take the stand? You know, I wonder sometimes when they have a second chance, right? They have a second chance, a second bite at the apple. You know, they have an opportunity to look back on what didn't work the first time, what did work the first time. You know, I wonder that did he want to take the stand? He's been in prison this whole time. He might have said, hey, I want to tell my side of the story. Well, Harvey Weinstein may have said that

he wanted to take the stand and tell his side of the story, but I am fairly confident that his defense attorneys told him that would be maybe one of the worst ideas ever. You know, Weinstein, if he took the stand, he would subject himself to some brutal cross-examination by the prosecution. And the prosecution would be ready for him to take the stand. And so I think Weinstein and his lawyers know there's no way he can take the stand because truly he could get cross-examined on all of these prior bad acts that are in this case. And, you know, one slip of the tongue and he says something that leads to something else, and so many bad acts can come in against him,

I think it would be ruinous to his defense. I don't think his defense is going well anyways. You don't think so? You think he's going to be convicted again? I think he'll be convicted again. And look, here's a thing with Harvey Weinstein. On the side, he's been doing these interviews with these various, you know, unusual, let's say, you know,

YouTubers. And so he kind of does these interviews. Oh, I want to testify. want to testify. Well, you had your chance and you did it. So, you know, I think all of these side gigs are, you know, him just trying to play up to the media and to the public. It's interesting. I was in that courtroom for the first trial and I remember there was this moment where we thought he might take the stand. I even recall, I seem to recall it correctly. He might have motioned something to the gallery like when they were like, hey, are you going to take the stand? He was like,

we'll see, you know. And then when he was convicted, before he was officially sentenced, he gave this, like, long colloquy where he basically, like, explained his charity work and things like that. So it made me wonder if he always wanted to take the stand and tell his side. But anyway, despite his conviction in New York being tossed out, he has also been convicted of rape out in Los Angeles. So he was staying behind bars either way. But now I want to take a look at McKinney's lawsuit. Okay, so her lawsuit against Weinstein. Now, McKinney, who lives in Georgia now. She filed the suit not only just against Weinstein, but also Miramax Holding Corporation, the Walt Disney Company, as you mentioned, Disney Enterprises Inc. and Doe Corporations 1 through 10,

meaning, you know, other as of yet unidentified, alleged co-conspirators that could be named in future complaints. Miramax was founded by Weinstein and his brother Bob in 1979, eventually sold to Disney in 1993. Disney apparently held onto it until 2010 when it was sold to an investor group. Now, first of all, David, not unusual for plaintiffs to name a corporation like Miramax or Disney. That's where the money is, right? Those corporations have the deep pockets. Exactly. I mean, you know, at this point in his career, it's very tough to get money out of Harvey Weinstein. But Disney and Merrimax are obviously large corporations, or at least Merrimax was. And so that's where the money is if it's anywhere. But I'm sure we'll

into it but those are very very difficult claims for the plaintiff to prevail upon in this case so okay and let's talk about it because according to mckinney quote defendant weinstein coerced plaintiff to engage in sexual contact and or sexual intercourse in new york city despite the fact that she was rendered incapable of consenting due to the use of physical force and or intoxication so mckinney alleges that in the summer of 2003 she was a successful model who was trying to expand into the acting business. She says she spoke with Bookers in New York City about film and TV opportunities. And the lawsuit reads, quote, one afternoon, she received a call from a modeling company executive who asked her to meet him at his office to discuss a potential

business opportunity. At the office, the executive told plaintiff that he arranged a meeting between Harvey Weinstein and herself that evening at PM Lounge, a West Village Lounge. The executive boasted that meeting Weinstein would allow her to make it big and would accelerate her transition into film and television roles. The executive then told plaintiff, quote, don't bleep him until he puts you into a movie before cackling. Plaintiff did not know about Weinstein's predatory casting practices, nor had she heard any rumors about such behavior. Although plaintiff was bothered by the executive's crass comment, she chalked his comment up to misogyny and was thrilled by the possibility of working with the biggest producer in Hollywood.

Later, plaintiff realized that the executive had arranged her meeting with Weinstein to facilitate his sexual assault of her. David, two questions here. Doesn't this read what we've heard of allegations before, like just the classic kind of, you know, cast and couch situation? And also, how would she prove all this? This is from 2003. Look, her allegations do read like a lot of other complaints against Weinstein, no doubt about it where they go out to a public spot, a hotel, a restaurant, they start drinking and talking. And the next thing you know, Weinstein's saying, you know, come up to my hotel suite, we'll talk business some more, and then something, sexual misconduct takes place there.

So her lawsuit is consistent with a lot of other claims made by other victims, for sure. But we don't know who this executive is. This person is not named in the lawsuit. There's really no affiliation given to the person. My reading of the lawsuit, I don't see them being affiliated with Disney or Merrimax. It doesn't say that. And if they were, it certainly would have said that. So it's an unknown.

How is she going to prove this? She's going to have to, you know, take a lot of what we call depositions of testimony, of people to corroborate what her account is. And this executive, whoever this person is, that's. going to be a really important deposition to see if this person either admits to it or that their story falls apart. Well, she may have an interesting witness on her side. Why? Because according to McKinney, she was living with another model in New York City at the time. And that roommate is identified only as Jane Doe in the filing. But McKinney says she invited Jane Doe

to go to the lounge with her so she can meet Weinstein to and perhaps land her own opportunity. So they all meet up, but Weinstein allegedly told McKinney and Jane that the lounge was too noisy, so would they like to go back to his place to discuss potential future acting roles? The women apparently agreed. They went with Weinstein to his room at the swanky Ritz Carlton and Battery Park. And the lawsuit reads, quote, at the hotel room, Weinstein plied the women with alcohol, ordering them bottles of Belvedere and Dom Perry-owned, several gimlets for plaintiff and vodka cocktails for Jane. As plaintiff sat on the couch, Weinstein grabbed playwrights.

plaintiff's breasts and tore at her tank top. In plaintiff's efforts to avoid being groped, drinks were sloshed onto her shirt. Plaintiff fled to the bathroom and Jane followed suit. Weinstein barged into the bathroom and continued to leer plaintiff's visible breasts through her soaked tank top. Weinstein demanded that the women strip and take a bath with him. Without waiting for an answer, Weinstein exposed himself to the women before entering the tub. Weinstein again commanded the women to join him in the tub. Plaintiff and Jane complied with his request as they felt back into a corner and feared that he would retaliate against them if they refused his sexual advances. And according to McKinney Weinstein insisted that the women perform sex acts on each other

while he watched. She says she consumed more alcoholic beverages, described feeling like she was in a daze having an out-of-body experience. And McKinney claims that Weinstein then forced the women into the bedroom where he allegedly raped both of them. And once he was apparently finish. She says he abruptly left the hotel room. So, David, do you think a jury could hear that testimony from her and arguably Jane Doe and say, that's enough? That's enough. We believe this totally happened. Or do you think a jury, even in 2025, could say, I don't know, you still put yourself in that situation? You could have left. There was a part of you being willing participants. We're not buying it. What do you think?

It's, again, this is the ultimate he said, she said, right? I mean, if we just look at the facts alleged in the lawsuit, a jury could go either way on this. A jury, you know, the victim's testimony oftentimes is plenty to carry the day in a courtroom. You know, the victim gets up there and they're emotional and credible. And the jury's like, I believe every word they say. And I believe this was against their will and they were taking advantage of. and they hear from the defendant, or maybe they don't hear from the defendant. He doesn't testify, but they end up siding with the victim.

On the other hand, there's plenty of juries out there that scrutinize the victim very closely, and they look at it and they say, we don't think there's enough proof there that this was violent or against your will, and that we're going to think this was consensual, and they fine for the defendant. That's the difficulty in these cases. And particularly this is a civil case, so the burden of proof is lower than in a criminal case. But by the way, in a civil case, given these allegations, could the plaintiff demand that the defendant testify? I mean, we saw something similar in other cases. Is it a little different?

This is a civil case, and it does have a lower burden of proof. So it gets very technical as to whether or not the plaintiff, the victim, can force the defendant to testify. The defendant doesn't necessarily give up their Fifth Amendment privilege to not testify. And usually that holds. If they want to say, I'm asserting the fifth on this and I'm not going to testify, then they have the right to do that because they could potentially, you know, testify themselves into a criminal charge. The problem with that in a civil case is that the jury says, well, why didn't Weinstein take the stand or why didn't the defendant testify and they absolutely hold that against the defendant. And it becomes a one-sided story.

And they can in a civil case. They can use it against him to not take the stand. They can't do it in a criminal case. They can do it in a civil case. Look, they're technically not supposed to hold it against the defendant for asserting the fifth, but they do every time. Okay, that's the reality of the situation. Okay, so here's what happened next, according to the lawsuit. It doesn't just then there. So McKinney claims after this the phone rings. The lawsuit reads, the caller identified herself as Weinstein's assistant and asked plaintiff what she was doing in Weinstein's hotel room. Plaintiff felt disoriented and angry as she explained how Weinstein had lured the women into his hotel room and assaulted them. Plaintiff's heart raced and she felt as if her life was falling

apart in front of her. The assistant sounded unsurprised by plaintiff's complaints and was more annoyed with plaintiff for inconveniencing her. Instead of addressing plaintiff's serious complaints of sexual assault and battery, the assistant had a combative tone and demanded that the women leave the hotel room immediately. Plaintiff told the assistant they could not leave the hotel room as their clothes have been soaked as they had been deposited on the wet floor when Weinstein forced them into the tub. The assistant sent up two pink juicy couture track suits for the women to wear and the women went back to their apartment. So David, that allegation is really because it almost makes it sound like, what, that this assistant was used to facilitate

this action, to facilitate this type of behavior, to get them out of there, did whatever she had to do to get the women to go away? That's what it kind of sounds like. That's exactly what it sounds like. Now, look, I'm sure the assistant's story is, hey, you know, Weinstein had women up in his suite all the time, and how would I have known that they were there against their will or some sexual misconduct happened? My job was just to get them out of there. I didn't know. And I think in the lawsuit self, it says that the victims didn't make any complaint to her at that time. So again, the difficulty with these cases, it could go either way. You could look at this assistant as being complicit and being part of this scheme to allow

Weinstein to engage in sexual misconduct. Or you could look at it and say, how did the assistant know anything improper was going on is this was business as usual for Weinstein yeah and let me tell you about whenever you have a lawsuit right you always look at what the harm is right what resulted so mckinney claims that she has suffered from depression anxiety suicidal ideation difficulty sleeping loss of appetite loss of trust and people of authority and there's the guilt she says she feels for inviting her roommate jane to come along quote plaintiff repeatedly tried to discuss the assault with Jane. However, each time she shut down plaintiff telling her it was too painful to discuss. Plaintiff blamed herself for putting herself and Jane in harm's way.

McKinney says she went away to Germany to try to escape the triggers of New York City but still struggled to cope. She says she even attempted self-harm in 2004. Quote, Weinstein's assault has altered the trajectory of plaintiff's career, denying her a successful and lucrative career in the modeling and film industries. So again, she's suing under the victims of Gender Motivated Violence Protection Act. David, as far as you know, do you know how any of these have been resolved lawsuits under this specific provision? Many have.

I mean, it's a legitimate provision, and New York's one of the states that has enacted laws like this that allow adult victims to go back in time and bring lawsuits. California, I'm in California. California is a very similar statute that allows adult victims to go back. you know, beyond what the typical statute of limitations would be for a civil lawsuit and bring these claims. And again, they have this window where they say, you know, you have a year or two to actually bring the claims and then the window closes again. So, so it's a, it's a legitimate statute and there's been plenty of cases brought under it. And I'm sure plenty of

cases have been resolved through, through this statute. And the complaint also provides details for how the named corporations allegedly violated this law. Quote, Prior to Weinstein sexually assaulting plaintiff, defendants, Disney, Miramax, and Doe 1 through 10, knew or should have known that Weinstein was not fit to be in a position of authority. Defendants and through their agents, servants, and or employees became aware or should have become aware of Weinstein's propensity to commit sexual assault and of the risk to plaintiff's safety. At the very least, defendants knew or should have known that they did not have sufficient information about whether or not it was safe to employ Weinstein in a position of power.

David, a little confused about this one. Wouldn't it have to be that he committed these assaults during the scope of his employment or that he used the resources of the business in order to do this, right? I mean, like, if he was on vacation and he sexually assaulted somebody, you can't go after the company, right, necessarily. Don't there have to be some sort of connection or nexus here between the alleged attacks and the company? You're exactly right, Jesse. And you do have to have a direct connection between what the perpetrator is doing, you know, the crime that's allegedly being committed and the company's facilitation of that crime. And it has, it can't just be some vague notion of, hey, they knew he was a bad guy and this was bound to happen. It's got to be pretty concrete link. And so, you know, my reading of this lawsuit, I would characterize the allegations. against Disney and Merrimax as being pretty bare bones here. There is not much in this lawsuit that sets forth really any facts

that Disney or Merrimack somehow knew that this meeting in New York was taking place or that they somehow were involved in it or, you know, the hotel room or anything like that. And so that's why, you know, in my opinion, I think it's a real tough case for this particular victim to bring against Disney and Merrimax. Doesn't mean it's not worth the attempt to bring him into the case. You never know what you're going to find out when you engage in civil discovery and you get documents and things like that. But just from reading the lawsuit, very, very tough case against these corporate entities.

That's interesting. And look, she's seeking compensatory punitive damages plus damages for breach of contract by the defendant's attorney's fees. And Weinstein's legal team, they have dismissed the claim, saying in a statement, to Fox News, Harvey Weinstein categorically denies the outlandish and fantastical claims made against him by Crystal McKinney in her complaint, made late in time and suspiciously on the heels of her complaint against Sean Diddy Combs. Mr. Weinstein is ready to refute and defend against the salacious claims that are believed

to have been made with an opportunistic motive. However, based on the latest filing, it appears there's some sort of resolution in the work. So we're going to have to see what happens. David, they make that statement, but then there's going to be a settlement. How does that, you know, how does that work together? Well, look, the original lawsuit was filed months ago, and so it's very possible that the victim's lawyers had a conversation with the lawyers for Disney and Merrimack's and reached some sort of resolution, and now they're going to try to finalize it and put that to bed. That happens a lot. The problem is we, the general public, are probably never going to know. what that settlement was or how it came about because all we're really going to see in the court

filings is that very vanilla document saying, gee, the case is settled. But here's the thing, right? So that statement infers that this lawsuit is suspiciously similar to the lawsuit that McKinney filed again, Sean Combs, Bad Boy Entertainment, Sean John Clothing, Universal Music Group last year. UMG actually was dropped from the complaint. So let's talk about it. If you've been following sidebar at all these last few weeks, you know that. that we have been all in on Combs' federal criminal trial.

It's going on right now in the Manhattan Federal Courthouse. And while recording equipment, not allowed inside the courtroom, we have a correspondent there every day, brings us the very latest to Elizabeth Milner. If you've been following us, you know who she is. And by the way, Combs is facing charges of racketeering conspiracy, sex trafficking, transportation to engage in prostitution. Prosecutors allege that Combs used his staff and resources

to do all these kinds of things for him, to facilitate his sexual fantasies. I mean, doing things like setting up hotel rooms for free, offs, procuring sex workers and drugs, allegedly forcing women like his ex-Kasandra Ventura to participate in these sexual performances. He's entered a not guilty plea. He's always adamantly maintained his innocence. We're in week four of this trial right now. You know, week three of testimony, the prosecution's still working its way down a long list of witnesses. Real quick, before we get into the McKinney lawsuit, how do you think the trial is going so far,

David, from what you've been following? It is not going well for Sean Combs. I mean, every day it seems like there's another compelling witness who supports the prosecution's theories and claims in this case. And, you know, he looks like a monster. His conduct is terrible. But more importantly, is the prosecution is proving the case of RICO, of a racketeering charge against Sean Combs and his organization. And it does not look good for Sean Combs at all. I was asked at the beginning of this trial, like, what do I think?

And I was like, look, I think transportation to engage in prostitution, transporting people, you know, alleged victims and sex workers with the intent they engage in sex work, prostitution, that would be relatively easy to prove. I wasn't entirely sure about sex trafficking, racketeering. Having said it now, weeks in, I see where the case they're building. I don't know if the jury's believe in it, but I definitely see it. I see the building blocks. I know exactly how they're setting it up, you know, trying to prove all of these underlying crimes for racketeering, a pattern of criminal activity, forced labor, kidnapping, sex trafficking, drug offenses. You know, I see it. I get it. And sex trafficking, of course, I think there's two key components, at least two instances with Cassandra Ventura, the 2016 alleged attack and this plain incident where she was shown or allegedly shown tapes of the freakoffs.

I think those can fit the elements of sex trafficking, but I've talked about the before. Now on McKinney. So what is McKinney allege that Combs did to her? Okay. So she begins her complaint by giving some background, saying that she won MTV's inaugural model mission. This competition when she was 17 and 1998 got her a remodeling contract. She worked commercially for several years before being invited by an unnamed designer to attend a men's fashion week event in, like you said, David, 2003. So the same time we're talking about with Weinstein. Now the lawsuit it reads, the designer told plaintiff that he would be introducing her to Combs, which could advance her modeling career. McKinney says that she went to dinner with the designer,

Combs, and other guests. For others to hear, Combs bestowed compliments on plaintiff by stating, for example, that she was beautiful and that her eyes were gorgeous. Later, in a more intimate volume, Combs told plaintiff that she was going to make it big one day as a model. Combs went on to tell plaintiff that he had power in the industry and was going to help her advance her career. Combs provided plaintiff with his phone number as a gesture of good faith and his promises to help her. Now, later that night, Combs allegedly contacted McKinney and requested she come to see his studio where he was hanging out with some friends. Her lawsuit states, after plaintiff sat down, one of Combs' associates asked her,

do you smoke weed? To which she responded affirmatively. Combs associate replied, you've never had weed like this before. Plaintiff later came to understand that Combs had laced the joint with a narcotic or other intoxicating substance. Combs passed her, the joint, plaintiff took a hit, which felt very powerful. Although plaintiff insisted that she had enough after that, Combs pressured her to imbib more alcohol and marijuana by telling her that she was acting too uptight.

So McKinney claims that Combs pushed her into a bathroom and forced her to perform oral sex on him. And after this violent alleged assault, she claimed she lost consciousness that she woke up later in a taxi, apparently on the way back to the... designer's home. And you may remember, by the way, McKinney is the woman who says that she actually saved her unwashed clothing from the night of the alleged assault in some sort of plastic bag or plastic wrap. And in this lawsuit, she also alleges violation of the New York City victims of Gender Motivated Violence Protection Act, seeks the same type of damages. And interestingly, she claims that the consequences that she suffered because of the alleged assault are the exact

same ones that she suffered because of the alleged Weinstein assault. So, David, that part's interesting, right? If we're talking about what was the harm that you suffered, particularly for the purposes of damages, and she's claiming two separate assaults, does that complicate both cases? Jesse, it complicates it to the point where it becomes a really big problem for the victim's lawyer to figure out where to go with each of these cases. And that's the thing. Remember, we're talking about civil lawsuits here. Two civil lawsuits. So in either one of those cases, the other case is admissible. So in the Sean Combs case, Sean Combs' lawyers get to bring up the fact that she sued Harvey Weinstein and that she's claiming all these damages from Weinstein. In the Harvey Weinstein case, his lawyers get to bring up the fact she's suing Sean Combs and is claiming all these damages from the Sean Combs case. And it's all in the same year, 2003.

It's a huge problem from the perspective of being the victim's lawyers when you have that situation. I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I'm not saying you can't get through it. I'm saying it poses a massive hurdle to getting to where you want to go and winning one of those cases. If one of those cases is dismissed by the judge, like an emotion to dismiss, can the surviving lawsuit? If it goes to trial, can they bring it up? Like, for example, if it's at the Diddy case, civil Diddy trial, can they say, hey, your claims against Harvey Weinstein that you made very similar, those were dismissed, or if it goes to trial

beforehand, hey, a jury found you found Harvey Weinstein not liable. Can that be brought up in that trial in the Diddy trial? Well, that's going to be up to the judge, but what they definitely can bring up in either case, they can bring up the fact that she sued one of the other high-profile defendants here claiming the exact same type of emotional harm and damage. So even if one of the cases was dismissed, in the other case, they still can bring up the fact that, hey, you sued Weinstein for all these damages. And maybe the case was dismissed or wasn't dismissed or you settled it, but you still made this public filing that you are harmed by him. And again, it's very difficult to overcome that hurdle. And look, it could very well be true that this happened to her,

that she was abused by two very high-profile people that would have had access to her. So it's very possible. I mean, we've heard it before, you know, young actresses, models, they have been abused by high-profile people. Having said that, they're both, you know, they are both innocent until proven guilty. I mean, it's not a criminal case with respect to McKinney, but they're both, they haven't been found liable. And so they'll have an opportunity to present their defenses and question the credibility of this account. question the timing by which she filed these suits, the timing with which she says both of these incidents happened in the same year. So just really interesting that we have one person who is

suing both of them for very similar claims. David Ring, thank you so much for taking the time. Good seeing you. All right. Thank you. And that's all we have for you right now here on Sidebar, everybody. Thank you so much for joining us. And as always, please subscribe on YouTube, Apple Podcast, Spotify, wherever you should get your podcasts. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak to you next time. You can binge all episodes of this long crime series ad free right now on Wondery Plus. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.