Law&Crime Sidebar - P. Diddy Jurors Appear to Be Taking Rapper’s Side, Court Expert Says

Episode Date: June 6, 2025

As week four of trial wraps up in Sean “Diddy” Combs’ federal racketeering and sex trafficking case, another of the music mogul’s ex-girlfriends testified against him. But despite disturbing and sometimes graphic testimony, some in the courtroom say many jury members might be siding with the disgraced rapper. Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber spoke with reporter Matthew Russell Lee about what he’s noticed in the courtroom.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 Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify. Week 4 of Sean Diddy Combs' racketeering and sex trafficking trial is wrapping up. There has been disturbing testimony for more than a dozen witnesses. Jurors have seen graphic images and videos, sex tapes, alleged injuries. There have been controversial text messages that have come into play. But with no cameras in the corporate, no audio equipment in the courtroom, what exactly is the vibe?

What's the mood like? How have the witnesses been reacting on the stand? And by the way, are the jurors' reactions and facial expressions signaling they may be siding with the defense? We're getting the inside scoop. 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 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're 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. Disgraced music mogul Sean Combs is one of the most famous people in the world right now, possibly even more famous than when he was producing records and throwing his infamous

parties. He's definitely a lot more in the conversation in the past two years than maybe he's been in the last five years. And all eyes, all lives have been on the federal courthouse out in Manhattan. But really, just the outside of it. Because as we know, as much as we would like to be a fly on the wall of Judge Rune Sub-Ramanians courtroom, cameras, audio equipment, recording devices, they aren't allowed in federal court.

So the best that we can see about what's happening is live reporting, sketches, and our great reporting from Elizabeth Milner. But it is down to these reporters in the gallery to bring us these latest updates, okay? Now, before I bring in one of the reporters who's not only in the courtroom, but has the ability to post in real time, it's an amazing asset for us, I've got to quickly get you caught to speed on what has been happening over the last couple of days in court. So yesterday, Thursday, we heard from two important witnesses. We heard the continued testimony of Brianna Bengolan, the woman who claims that Combs

dangled her off a balcony in a violent episode, and a woman identified only as Jane. Now, according to prosecutors, Jane is another alleged sex trafficking victim. She is victim two in the indictment. Apparently found herself in a very similar situation to Combs' ex-girlfriend Cassie, who was the state star witness. Cassia testified that she'd been in a relationship with Combs, agreed to participate in freak-offs, these elaborate sexual performances.

She said she would have to do with sex workers, with Combs often directing them and what he wanted to do while he pleasureed himself. Sorry, that's what we're dealing with here. And aside from whether prostitution was legal, wherever this freak-off was apparently taking place, none of that is necessarily illegal. Okay?

It's whether force, fraud, or coercion. version was used. Again, putting aside whether illegal sex work, you know, prostitution was a part of it. And Jane, who was described during the prosecution's opening statement as a single mom who fell in love with combs but was then forced to perform in similar episodes, you wonder, based on her testimony right now, does it support the transportation to engage in prostitution charges, right? Was she flown to different areas to perform sex acts with sex workers? There's an argument that it supports that. But does her testimony as of right now, and there's a lot more she's going to get into, does it support sex trafficking? Maybe, maybe not. Right now, you

haven't heard the force element or the fraud element. You have heard a little bit of financial control, which may go to coercion, but not maybe what you need to get a conviction here. Let me talk about this for a second. So according to her testimony, Jane met Combs briefly around a decade ago at an event was accompanied by a friend who was dating Combs on a trip down to Miami in 2020. Now, Jane says that she was flirty with Combs, but he was actually dating her friends, so she kind of, you know, kept her distance. But soon, her friend started seeing somebody else, so Jane felt more comfortable texting him and planning trips.

Now, the prosecutor asked Jane about their early relationship, which began in 2021, and it seemed much like any other relationship. The two sent messages, they called each other, they even had nicknames for each other. Jane was asked what she called Combs, Sean, Baby, Ernie, Snookums. Why did you call him Ernie? Because that was our nickname for one another. So who were you? Bert.

And who was he? Ernie. Like from Sesame Street? Yes. Jane told the court that she knew Combs was dating other women as well and that they had to keep their relationship a secret, but says she didn't mind. She was head over heels for Combs. And in a shocking twist, we learned that while they had taken several breaks during the

relationship, she was still seeing him. all the way up until last fall when the NYPD took him into custody, which could be a problem for her credibility now saying that she's a victim of sex trafficking. The court transcript reads, how long did your dating relationship with Sean last until his arrest? Do you know when he was arrested? I think it was August of 2024. Are you estimating? Yes. But did your relationship last through 2024? Yes. Now, Jane testified that Combs was always in charge. It was Combs who decided when they would see each other, where they would see each other, Combs who decided what drugs to take and when, Combs who sent her large sums of money and gifts. And she basically said

she felt pampered and very in love. And Jane said there was one night when she and Combs, they had apparently taken drugs together, they were watching pornography, and Combs was asking her about her fantasies and whether she would be willing to try other things like having sex with other men while Combs watched. And when she seemed kind of on board with that, Combs allegedly told her that he can make it happen that very night. The transcript reads, quote, and when you got to the hotel room a couple hours after Sean had been on his phone, what did you see in the hotel room? I saw the assistants setting up this room. There was beverages, the lights were already read, there was just kind of like a bustle of getting this room ready. Do you remember what assistants

were setting up the room? I don't. After the assistant set up the room, who was left in the room? It was me and Sean in the bedroom talking. And what did Sean say to you in the bedroom? He just told me that there's somebody coming and just to relax and that this would be something fun and he knows the guy and he's a really nice guy and I was just super nervous and just listening to him. When Sean said that he knows the guy, what guy did you understand Sean was referring to? I figured he was referring to this fantasy guy that was coming. So what did you understand Sean was telling you was about to happen, that sexual things were going to start happening?

Between who? Myself and this guy. Had you met this guy before? No. Did you even know his name at this point? No. what are you and did Sean tell you where he knew this guy from? No, but did he tell you who you already knew the guy? Yes, an escort named Don from the escort service Cowboys and Angels came to the hotel room. While Jane says she was nervous about the whole thing at first, she eventually started to relent and maybe enjoyed herself. She says Combs directed her and Don the whole time. And then when Don had finished, he left. Jane and Combs had sex. She says he seemed really happy, which made her happy. But little did she know, according to her, this wasn't a one-time thing.

She told the court, quote, I just took that as a night that was just, I just took that as a night that we just did something so crazy, taboo and fun and sexy. What did you think about whether you would do that again? I didn't think we would be doing that again like that. What do you mean? I mean that after that night, I figured it was just something that we did that one time and maybe on a random other night, maybe we would do it again, just something taboo. How, if at all, did your relationship with Sean change after that?

After that night, I truly felt that night just opened like a Pandora's box in our relationship. It just completely set the tone for our relationship moving forward. Now, direct examination of Jane continues Friday, and between that and cross-examination by the defense, Jane could very well be on the stand for quite some time into next week. So to talk some more about the latest testimony and what we can't see in that courtroom, because there are no cameras, there's no audio recording devices, but we got the next best thing, because anybody who's been following this case knows Matthew Russell Lee, the man behind inner city press, this ex-account,

who has special permission to basically post live from inside the courtroom. Matthew has been doing an incredible service for everybody who wants to follow up-to-date, real-time updates in that courtroom. Matthew, thank you so much for taking the time to come here right before court. I always appreciate it. Totally. I'm glad to be here, and I do want to say, especially given some turmoil in Washington, that we're on blue sky as well. Well, what is there a fight happening? I don't know about that.

No, it might be over about this afternoon. Yeah, well, we'll say. Okay. I have to ask you about Jane's testimony. So this is alleged victim number two. This was arguably the second most important witness in this case behind Cassandra Ventura, alleged victim number one. How is she doing on the stand? What are we not seeing? Because I have to tell you, and I was mentioning this to Elizabeth Milner, our reporter yesterday, there were parts of her testimony that seemed to support the transportation to engage in prostitution charge, namely that she would be transported to different areas by Combs and his staff for purposes of sex work. I'm not getting sex trafficking. There's a little bit of maybe financial control,

but I'm very curious how she's doing on the stand. Like, is she getting emotional? Are the jurors responding to her? Does she seem credible? What are we not seeing? I have to say, I too, am wondering whether it's going to be too, more days or at least of one more full day and a partial day of testimony. So maybe they're holding back. But I agree it's different. She's also the third victim. There was Mia, who was a victim of violent, you know, she alleged at least several incidents of violent assault. So I'm reminding myself that that's in the mix as well. I can't really, I can't tell you that much about the jury's faces, except to say that I think the prosecution and the judge are

concerned that some jurors are going pro-diddy and are he's not only nodding at the jurors but the jurors may be nodding at him no one can prove it but yesterday as you may have seen there was a big admonition to ditty to stop nodding at the jurors that to me that was the biggest jury story yesterday because it was it was on the record it's not speculation it's not like reading people's faces let's talk about that right so the judge basically said i'm trying to stay away from jane because we can't say he is and that's no i understand you're limited what you can say about jane so maybe i'll move away from that let me ask you this you know let me ask you this so the judge basically admonished combs and is and told mark agnifalo his defense

attorney he's nodding at the jury it's not allowed either i will give an instruction to this jury that you will not like or i will kick him out of the courtroom and really the big concern is anybody who tries to influence a jury's it's problematic but for him he's been accused of intimidating people for the last four weeks. That's the crux of the case. So it's particularly problematic. Did you see him doing this? I've seen people say that this is about juror intimidation. I don't think that's what it is. I think it's a kind of like high five. It's a kind of a visual high five. Like when the witness, as we haven't talked about this other kind of shaky witness, Bongelon, Bana Bongalon, who testified over the last two days.

And the cross-examination by Nicole Westmoreland was devastating, I thought, beyond just this sort of gotcha moment that he may not have been in town in Los Angeles when he allegedly dangled her off the balcony. Instead, he was at the Trump International Hotel, having a $280 breakfast. It was during this testimony right after that that the judge made his admonition. And my understanding of it is, and I'll say this having seen it, there were jurors who, if you were willing to take a leap and, and describe, somebody's mind by the expression you see on their face were highly dubious or even there were there were some laugh of there were some laugh not laugh out loud because that would be inappropriate but there were some there were some real gotcha moments that that westmoreland was able to draw out of she said she kept saying things like she said are you she said are you lying and she said can you repeat the question or i can't embrace that entire sentence she was so evasive and it is true questions are tricky and Nicole westmoreland is i i would i'm going to give her the awards so far, other than Alexander Shapiro as the best lawyer in the case. Because every time she stepped up to the plate, every time she stepped up to the plate,

the witness has been like, like, oh God, make it stop. Which I think is what you're supposed to do. I don't think this is not a, it's not a popularity contest, as somebody said. It's a, it's a, and I think that it was so, so I want to go, I'll go back to the question about the admonition. It really was more in the nature of, it combs is there, you know, staring at the jury, you know, out of the side eyeing. I mean, he's trying to figure out whether he's going to be in jail for life

or back on the beat, so to speak. And if you see jurors kind of being like, what? Then you're like, yeah, you said I mean? And so the idea is that it's creating this kind of like court within a court in which all he needs is one. And he may have one. I don't want to get into, we're also constrained if it's an anonymous jury. So they said to us, be very careful. Don't describe.

I sort of don't know. I mean, the CNN's and New York Times of the world can, you know. Let me ask you this. Let me ask you this. What, without getting into specific jurors, a couple of parts here. Number one, yes, it was devastating testimony, devastating cross-examination because, you know, there's everything from that she was confronted with a text message that she wanted to buy Diddy a sweatshirt two weeks after he allegedly dangled her off a balcony. The metadata of the photos of her injuries would suggest the photos were taken, you know, before this alleged event happened. You talk about the travel receipts. You're saying that there were jurors who were, had at least, faceially, they seem skeptical of her testimony or they might have been agreeing with the defense? I think so. I think they were. But of course, you know, you can't prove that. But I think my interpretation of the admonition is that Ditty himself interprets it interprets their reactions in

that way and is trying to is trying to zero in on them with a sort of like, yeah. I mean, you could imagine if you allowed it. And I don't know, I don't know if the remedy is to bar somebody from the courtroom. It's extreme. There is a federal rule of criminal procedure that allows it. You know, this goes back to, like, the Chicago 7. Can you, like, tie somebody up with duct tape and make a mockery of the proceeding that they can't speak? I mean, if a defendant was openly high-fiving with jurors, it would be a problem. It becomes more, the judge doesn't think this is subtle. The judge says, I've observed it, and it has to stop.

And Magnifalo said it's going to stop. And I could imagine, if there's a juror that's already showing by facial expression that, like, what? I've covered the Weinstein trial. It's the same thing. You read, people are always in the Trump trial, they were like, we think that's a, that's a MAGA juror because the guy's face would light up when, you know, Stormy Daniels was made to look bad. And so the difference between that trial and this, Trump really doesn't really look at the jurors or, you know, he's just in his own world, like a dinosaur at the defense table. Diddy is in the entertainment business, right? He knows how an audience reacts and you're looking at the audience and you're seeing people nodding it sometimes and not at others or paying more attention at sometimes and not at others.

And you're also factoring in, sad to say, the racial composition, the sort of your assumption of whether somebody can relate to you, testimony has gone in that, for example, from the CFO guy, I mean, I'm sure this is probably days ago for you. It's days weeks ago for me. That feels like Roger, Derek Ferguson, the CFO, the defense managed to draw out that he went to work for Diddy's Empire because it was good for African Americans. He grew up in the Bronx. This was a company that was hiring our people. in high positions. And so you, if you're a, if you're a juror that believes in civil rights and the movement and the community, this testimony is speaking to you. And did he nodding at you during the testimony is definitely working for you. Whether that goes to the elements of RICO, I don't know. But I think this is what he's trying to stop. And it's difficult to do. And look, we say this at the end of the day, I've covered trials for years. It's almost impossible to know at times what the jury might be thinking or how to, the side will add that caveat i will ask you this there were people who said there were rumors

you mentioned alexander shapira and you mentioned um uh Nicole westmoreland yes i've been seeing uh reports that the jurors are responding quite well to brian steel who's done cross examination any truth to that that's oh absolutely i think it is true i think he took a different he's very i'm sure you've seen his style in in in uh young thug he's he's he's very formal he's very like he won't say swear words he's like f he's always like this honorable court he has a lot of i'm not saying quirks it's a whole style but he i he's able to turn it on and off against the against the initial security guard witness of the hotel he was he was extremely harsh he was like why did you do this why did you do that so i thought he was going to be harsh throughout the

trial but he did kid cuddy he was the one who did the the cross of kid cuddy and he was extremely deferential in the way which i thought it's a strategic decision i mean he was he was i don't know if it's because he's thought of as being like a lawyer in hip-hop cases. I know he has other cases. He was in the New Yorker. He's got a whole trajectory of his own. The reason I'm giving the award to Nicole, Nicole Westmoreland, is that she's been aggressive in every cross-examination. When you wheel her out, and the jurors notice that. I think a lawyer, some of this also relies on people, people believing in the kind of credibility and consistency of the lawyer. I mean, I don't want to make it. You and I might say, like, every cross has a different strategy. And so it

wouldn't be strange to see a guy being friendly to one witness and incredibly harsh to another. But I think, you know, when you see a person, suddenly you say either you say they're bipolar or you say there's something, or they fly off in rages, because you want to see a kind of consistent and with Westmoreland, she's in character all the time. It's basically like, this is a gun. If you pull her out of the holster, she's going to be going for the gusto. I actually think, and it's too late for them to change. I think that she should be the one, if I wore Diddy, which I'm happy not to be. She should be the one to cross-examine Jane, Jane Doe.

And I don't think she's going to be. And I think it's a big, you know, who knows? And again, I'm not putting down, I've actually seen, not so much Garagos, but the various team that's practiced in SD&Y, see them all the time. They're excellent lawyers. So it's no disrespect to them. Just to say they have a sort of more genteel. I've been thinking a lot about it.

It may be that in SDNY you just don't have that kind of showmanship, southern style gotcha in the face cross. But it works for me. It works for me as, it works for news, but it also, I could imagine it working for, for, because I think I may have said it last time we were wrong together. If you're charged and if you're charged with it with a crime of the serious, you have to accuse the witnesses of lying. I mean, if they're not lying, you should plead not guilty. There's no reason to kind of beat around the bush. The other way I'm looking at it is, the other way I look at it is I wonder if the jury's going to like everyone's lying, everyone's lying. No, absolutely.

That's why you have a team of, that's why if you have the money, you have a legal team. of 10 so you have the friendly cross-examiner and you and you try to match you know right you try there's also the the strange role of Xavier Donaldson but I won't get into that he seems to be focusing on like he's he's done two of the escorts and let's not forget the escorts I don't know if you have to even say that that witness that that Jane Doe was trafficked people were trafficked right if you're paying jewels or the punisher or in this case a guy called Don if you're if they're crossing if you're paying them to cross state lines I mean they're not the That's the transportation. That's the transportation to engage in prostitants.

That one's a slammed up. That seems like easy. The sex trafficking, look, I've said it before. I'll say again, I won't get into the weeds because I think I'm my audience has heard but I'm on my audience. I've said when it comes to Cassie, I think there are two concrete examples of sex trafficking. I think the 2016 episode because she claims that she was leaving a freakoff. She's literally being dragged in the direction back to the room. There's a violence component. She claims that these freakoffs happen in different locations. So she's being transported, sex worker. And I think.

think the plane, right? So she's on the plane. He allegedly shows her freak-offs. There's a travel component. She feels trapped, intimidated. They land. He demands a freak-off. He gets a freak-off. I think those are two concrete examples, and I wouldn't be surprised if the jury ultimately can make some of sex trafficking based on those two. But putting that to the side, you would mention to me about Mia, okay? I'm reading the testimony. Again, she faced very tough cross-examination for a witness who said that she was sexually assaulted multiple times and then has these glowing texts and messages and posts about Diddy, you could see how they're trying to strike her credibility. However, I wasn't in that courtroom.

I don't know how she came off. What are we not getting from Mia's testimony? I mean, I think it's similar in a way that you used, you not, you said that the, the sweatshirt in the case of Bangalon, the sweatshirt two weeks after being dangled undermines this testimony. With Mia, there's so much of that. There's not only the overall fact that she stayed working for. the company but these they fought long and hard and there was a lot of controversy around this to get in a birthday video a video in which she recorded praising ditty and and never put online so the the prosecution tried to say it was never put online so it's not it's a private thing they put it on

and they actually showed as an exhibit in court her face this was gave rise to a whole series of them saying they made a mistake i just want to emphasize this this was shown it was they there had been a lot of behind the scenes fighting about that video and when it was shown it was shown it was shown with her face, apparently this was a mistake that they had agreed that it was admissible but only with a blurred face and they showed it with the face. But once you show an exhibit, you've shown an exhibit. That said, I think a lot, it's, it wasn't like Bangalon. It wasn't like a total flame out on the stand and sort of I can't answer whether I'm lying or not. But it's hard, I think it will be hard. They're going to need to bring in Don, Don Hughes again to explain how it can be that soon after

a violent physical assault, you can record a gushing. You're my hero. I love you, Puff. You're a legend. You know what I mean? It becomes difficult. And their explanation is that was her job and you can't. And I understand it becomes there's a real kind of not culture war. There's a feminism and a me too element to all of this. Basically the idea is that that the prosecution is saying if you don't believe this case, you don't understand. You don't understand what it is to be a woman today or in 2016. You don't understand what the type of subtle pressure. It's not as easy as you think to just quit your job

or stop having Diddy pay for your apartment in the case of Jane Doe. But I think a lot of this, it goes, it's like Johnny Depp, Amber Hurd, it's like the defense case that was recently argued in summation in Weinstein. This defense is subtly going to be trying to tell the jury, like, come on here.

Like, she could have left. like is it is it a coercion if if you're paying the rent because somebody does what you want and you won't pay the rent if they don't do what you what you want like he even said level they need to not to the level they need to convict and and and again I think it's a problem for the prosecution's case this was a bombshell that jane had been dating him up until his arrest which makes me feel that was she the woman who was maybe in his hotel room when he was arrested what were all those bottles of loo they showed the pictures in his hotel room the day of the arrest when he knew he had supposedly come to New York to turn himself in or because

he knew he might be arrested. What is he doing in a hotel suite with hundreds of models of lube? It's too much and drugs, et cetera. There's one actually I want to, because I think this, I don't want to come off as like, one, I want to go back to the beginning. Civil cases, it's a real coin flip. You don't have, as I'm sure you know, right, like, how's the jury going to do it? Criminal cases, I think much less so. This is a 95% conviction rate for this STNY. And I have to say, if you were going to bet on it, it would be foolish to bet against them winning because that's their track record. They bat 95, they bet 950. That's just a fact. And whatever happens in a trial, whatever seems to be problematic, they think long and hard and they do a good job.

That said, there was another devastating bit of testimony, which was this guy, Derek Ferguson, the CFO. It all seemed very scattershot and why did you work there and was your role. And then he said, here is the record where $20,000 came in to Cones his Alpine home account and $20,000 went out. And that's where he apparently shook down the parents of Cassie Ventura just to sort of drive it home. I'm going to release sex tapes if you don't pay me $20,000. And then he paid it back. But that's it doesn't matter. It's extortion.

Just because you pay extortion money back doesn't mean you didn't extort it. Yeah. That's a federal crime. That's not even, that goes to Rico. But it's, I think that's a very. So they're getting their wins on the sun. You and I can say this or that witness is, you know, is being attacked. And I think that they should have prepared Bongaughan better or not here on the stand.

But they've got extortion. They've got bribery, Eddie Garcia, bribery. Totally, exactly. I was saying, you know, in our off the record portion, so now put on the record. The, that that was totally devastating. And the idea that he had a money counter, did he had a money counter and gave him $100,000 in a bag of cash for a USB. The only thing they can say, I think, is at summation, is this was just reputation management. Okay, it looks kind of gangster like.

It has all the sort of patina of the mafia with a brown bag and a money counter, but all stars want to keep their reputation clean, but clearly this could have been a crime. So I don't know, I think there's going to be a lot of legal argumentation. Then it all comes down to the jurors, right? If one juror says it's not extortion, he's a big man, he's a big man about town. People are always trying to bring him down. Of course he has people, Christina Coram around flashing cash. I mean, it's the details that are the best about this.

The fact that they reached out to Eddie Gardner, to Eddie and said, and said, let me put somebody on the phone. He's like, do you know who I am? And the guy's like, oh, yeah, you're Sean Cones. He's like, you're Eddie, my angel. I know you can take care of this. And he did. The worst character in all of this is the guy called Medrano.

As soon as he was asked, are you willing to sell the video? He was like, 50. 50. Yeah. And remember that, yeah. 50. But you know, it's illog. Yeah, he's not going to be.

it's not a jury is is Sean comes guilty of being a bad guy or being sleazy or looking like you know it's that it very very specific charges I you know it was interesting I fled I flow back and forth when the case first started I said I don't know if I really see racketeering I don't know if I see sex trafficking after three weeks I said now I see where they're going with sex trafficking now I see where they're going with racketeering I see them checking the boxes I can see a conviction even if they didn't believe that Cassie was sex traffic there's a lot there, kidnapping, forced labor, arson.

I see that building blocks, drug distribution. Okay, now when you're having this intense cross-examination of these key witnesses, including the alleged victims, it sways. So it's interesting. And one thing I didn't get, again, we have no cameras. We don't know what the vibe is. What's the atmosphere like in the courtroom? Is it tense?

I mean, there was somebody the other day who had to be kicked out of the courtroom because you had an outburst. And that was during, but see, let me, I want to say, this, I'm going to take the sides of the influencers. Nobody does, but I want to. Because when that happened, Judge Subramanian was saying the prosecutor said, we heard an influencer that's here in the courtroom daily or some days. We heard them saying the name of Mia out in Foley Square, which is not even in front of the courthouse, by the way. Foley Square is like around the corner. It's a big square. I think that, and they, and on that basis, they said, we want you to ban this person from coming into the courthouse. The judge was like, okay. And it's like, I'm sorry. We're doing a whole six-week trial

because of due process. Like, I understand that being kicked out of the courthouse is not the same as going to jail forever. But it didn't have the feeling of due process to me because it's not enough to say, I may have overheard you doing one thing. Like, there was no, like, they didn't serve the influencer. So it was right after that decision that a woman stood up and said, like, Diddy, they're screwing you. And so it's, yes, that was, it was surprising. But there's, basically, you have this like there are a lot of they're more biddy supporters than you might think and everyone wants to say they're being paid $20 an hour and I'm sure there are but there's a I'm a kind of a they're always every and you've done it too I covered a drill rap trial where the guy

obviously shot somebody on film and he still had people his was a smaller case but supporters from his neighborhood were like hey you know that guy was coming for him so there are it's it changes daily and I think that by by by by really targeting only the seeming ditty supporters it's a mistake you going to end up I'm not there's a lot of media and the media is not really obviously on one side or another they just want you know they just want one one one stories but I'm I'm knowing many of the being part of the media I think that there is some the bungalong thing did not go well at all and there's a lot of skepticism about Jane and I'm I'm I've seen worrying Comey I've seen her on other cases I sort of feel bad for her because everything she does these people say like

James Comey you know she has this like yeah not albatross it just it happens and it happens in life I know that they believe in their case and they're working hard, but Bangalong didn't go well. And I think they may feel that Jane's going well, but I don't know if in the sort of jury of the jury that I'm around, there's a lot of, there's a lot of questions. So a couple things, right? So, yeah, there's a lot banking on Maureen Comey here. I mean, this is the biggest case of her career, obviously. It's a lot here. I will say, I think it was just the timing of Jane's testimony. Like, if she started at 9 a.m. finished at five we would get the complete story or almost the complete story the way her testimony was structured it was like she starts off talking about the great parts of the relationship and how it was intoxicating and great and you know oh you know he started paying me and he didn't

want me to do only fans and i was like oh okay you know but you're not getting to the violence and i went back i went back to the opening statement they're about to get into incredibly alleged violent episodes that may change the whole course of Jane's testimony. I think you're absolutely right. I think, no, you're absolutely right. Because it's true that the way, this initial part, and it's not just that it was good. It's that it made people, I think, be probably judgmental of Jane in the sense that she met him. He was, quote, going out with her friend when she went, and by the end of that trip, no longer with the friend. And then she suddenly, you know, again, it's not to get into kind of moral judgments, but she was, let's put it

this way. She was swept off her feet. The next thing you know was a 15-day trip to the Turks and take cacos and a $10,000 payment at the end of it. Like, I've heard people harsh, misogynist hip hop media online really, really laying into that in ways you can only imagine. Yeah. So it's, but you're right. I think, I think once it's all of that, that none of that justifies what's about to be said today.

And on that note, let me get there. I know you have to get there. Really appreciate it. Matthew Russell Lee, check him out, inner city press. Terrific reporting. Thank you so much. Okay. Thank you.

heading back in. 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 Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you should get your podcasts. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak to you next time. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.