Law&Crime Sidebar - P. Diddy's 'Right Hand Woman' is Speaking Out...

Episode Date: March 20, 2025

Kristina Khorram has been described in civil litigation as the Ghislaine Maxwell for Sean “Diddy” Combs. Maxwell, the infamous madam for convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, is currently serving prison time for sex trafficking. Now Khorram is speaking out for the first time about the allegations against her in civil court. Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber discusses all the details with celebrity criminal defense attorney Bradford Cohen.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: Download the FREE Upside App at https://upside.app.link/sidebar to get an extra 25 cents back for every gallon on your first tank of gas.HOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube 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. Agent Nate Russo returns in Oracle 3, Murder at the Grandview, the latest installment of the gripping Audible Original series. When a reunion at an abandoned island hotel turns deadly, Russo must untangle accident from murder. But beware, something sinister lurks in the grand. views shadows. Joshua Jackson delivers a bone-chilling performance in this supernatural thriller that will

keep you on the edge of your seat. Don't let your fears take hold of you as you dive into this addictive series. Love thrillers with a paranormal twist? The entire Oracle trilogy is available on Audible. Listen now on Audible. The woman who has been described as the Galane Maxwell to Sean Combs, Jeffrey Epstein, has just broken her silence regarding these allegations surrounding her and her former boss. What does this statement mean for Christina Corum? Why make it now? And does this give us a clue about what role she may play in Sean Combs' upcoming criminal trial? We're going to bring on a claimed criminal defense attorney to the stars, Bradford Cohen. Welcome to Sidebar. Presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber.

A lot of people have been spoken out about Sean Diddy Combs since his legal troubles first began in 2023. However, there is one name, one name in particular, one person allegedly connected to him who has really not said anything until now. And this could be significant. We are talking about Christina Quorum. Now, for those of you following the Combs saga, particularly our coverage of it here on Sidebar, you might be saying, why does that name sound so familiar? Christina Corum has been described in lawsuits against Combs as the rapper's right-hand person.

More accurately, his chief of staff, actually, as reported by the Hollywood reporter, Combs seemingly highlighted quorum in 2021 in a Facebook post writing, KK, keeps everything in my life and my business running. She's been my right hand for the last eight years and has consistently proven to execute and get S done. Don't know how I'd function without her. It's a very interesting connection to have a relationship that he describes, considering he's facing now criminal charges of racketeering conspiracy. sex trafficking, transportation, to engage in prostitution.

And the thing is, she has been named as a defendant, not in the criminal case. She's not been charged with anything, to be very clear, but she has been named as a defendant and mentioned in various lawsuits. And in light of that, she is now speaking out for the first time. In a statement that was published by USA Today and first reported by Rolling Stone, she said the following, quote, for months, horrific accusations have been made about me in various lawsuits regarding my former boss. These false allegations of my involvement are causing irreparable and incalculable damage to my reputation and the emotional well-being of myself and

my family. I have never condoned or aided and abetted the sexual assault of anyone, nor have I ever drugged anyone. The idea that I could be accused of playing a role in or even being a bystander to the rape of anyone is beyond upsetting, disturbing, and unthinkable. That is not who I am, and my heart goes out to all victims of sexual assault, I am confident that the allegations against me will be proven to be untrue. So, what is she seemingly referring to? Well, how about the fact that she is listed as a defendant

in an amended complaint filed this month by Ashley Parham, who claims that she was violently gang raped? And when I say violently gang raped, I mean the allegation that she was gang raped by comedian Drewski, NFL star Odell Beckham Jr., and violently assaulted with a remote by Sean Combs. But here is where Christina Coram, or KK, comes in. Parham claims at one point, Combs held a knife to her

and threatened to give her a Glasgow smile. But, quote, defendant KK told defendant Ditty that she did not think giving plaintiff a Glasgow smile would be advantageous to their potential clients who they could sell plaintiff for sex to. Defending KK then made a threat to plaintiff that they could ship her off anywhere in the world and that she would never see her family or anyone she knew ever again.

So as we do multiple sidebars a day, particularly on the Combs case, I am so busy. I'm always running around, but I will tell you what. Our amazing sponsor, Upside, makes at least buying my essentials as I go about my day an actual treat. You see, Upside is a free app that gets a cash back when you buy these things. So I pump my gas, I can use Upside. I go out to lunch at Chipotle, I can use Upside. Maybe get something at 7-Eleven, I can use Upside. a cash back when I do all these things, right? And yes, this is actual real cashback. It's money

that appears in your upside app that you transfer right into your bank account. So once you have the free upside app, you claim an offer for whatever you're buying an upside, you pay as usual using a debit or credit card, you follow the steps on the app, you get paid. So to find out how much you could earn, you click the link in the description to download upside or you scan the QR code on screen. But make sure to use our promo code sidebar because you'll get an extra 25 cents back on every gallon on your first tank of gas. There was also an accusation. I'm sorry if I had to get graphic here. There's an accusation that Combs had forced Christina Corum to use a syringe to insert an IUD into Parham. And apparently she and Combs argued over it, not over

actually doing it, but that it wasn't going to work. And then there's this. When defendant Drusky finished raping plaintiff, defendant KK., Christina Corum, entered the room to examine the condition of plaintiff who was barely able to move or control her bodily functions. Defendant KK. plaintiff to see if she needed assistance and was about to give plaintiff an IV fluid. Plaintiff cannot be certain if she did or did not receive such intravenous intervention. Defendant KK. Then opened a different bag, different than the one defendant Diddy remove the oil from, where plaintiff observed several medicine bottles, IV fluid bags, and other unidentifiable powder-like drugs. Defendant KK then removed a pill from one of the medicine

bottles and gave it to defendant Diddy. And there were further allegations. in the complaint that she needed to keep the plaintiffs in the case sufficiently drugged, that she carried around and gave out drugs, that she provided plaintiff with an IV, like I mentioned, which, by the way, is important because we know that one of the allegations in Combs' criminal case is that IV fluids would be used after prolonged, allegedly illegal sexual episodes, and that she tried to force one of the plaintiffs and unidentified woman to sign documents as well. By the way, in this case, she's being sued for racketeering violations, battery, assault, negligence, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, unjust enrichment,

aiding and abetting, sex trafficking, false imprisonment. But that is not the only lawsuit that Christina Corum was named as a defendant in. She was named in another suit by plaintiffs Latasha Forbes, Billy Cummings, Ian Fearen, Ahmad Jenkins, Fallon Matthews, Lequay Applewhite, and Jane Doe, who claimed that, quote, she aided Combs in his abuse of men and women and basically covered up sexual assaults. She was also reportedly mentioned in other lawsuits, like one filed by a former employee, Phil Pines, who claims that Christina Corum would order him to clean up hotel rooms after Combs' wild sex parties. Again, another allegation in the criminal indictment against Combs.

But remember, Christina Corum is not named as a defendant. Neither is anybody else. But this is very interesting to hear that allegation. And maybe most famously, and the first time I personally had heard of the name, Christina Corum, was when she was named as a defendant in the lawsuit brought by Combs' former producer Rodney Little Rod Jones, who claims sexual assault, harassment, violation of the racketeering statute. He claims Corum manages the day-to-day of Combs alleged criminal and sex trafficking enterprises.

For instance, he alleges the following, quote, Mr. Combs' chief of staff, Christina Corum, KK, instructs her staff to retrieve drugs so she can provide them to Mr. Combs for his consumption. And by the way, that included allegedly directing bottles of champagne to be spiked with ecstasy. Actually, I want you to listen to this description because there is a whole section of that complaint dedicated to Christina Corum, where Rodney Jones basically makes the allegation that Christina Corum is the Galane Maxwell to Sean Combs, Jeffrey Epstein. That's what it says. And of course, we know that she has been the associate of deceased financier Jeffrey Epstein,

who ended up getting convicted of sex trafficking charges sentenced to 20 years in prison. But quote, according to Mr. Jones, during the 13 months he lived and traveled with Mr. Combs, he witnessed defendant Quorum openly order her assistance to keep Mr. Combs high off gummies and pills. Defending Quorum required all employees from the butler to the chef to the housekeepers to walk around with a black Prada pouch or fanny pack filled with cocaine. G.HB, ecstasy, marijuana gummies, and Tucci. According to Mr. Jones, defending Corum wanted Mr. Combs' drug of choice immediately ready when he asked for it. According to Mr. Jones, defending Corum ordered sex workers for Mr. Combs.

On one occasion, she sent Mr. Jones a text message requesting that he call a particular sex worker. We have the message. According to Mr. Jones, defendant quorum ordered and distributed ecstasy, cocaine, GHB, ketamine, marijuana, and mushrooms to Mr. Combs and his celebrity guest. who were present on his rented yacht and in his homes in L.A. and Miami. According to Mr. Jones on multiple occasions, Defending Corum forced him to carry Mr. Combs' drug pouch against his will. The pouches were always black,

and several of Mr. Combs' staff carried black Prada pouches. According to Mr. Jones, Defending Corum also sent Mr. Jones to solicit sex workers for Mr. Combs. When the sex workers arrived at Mr. Combs' residence, Defending Corum would negotiate their price and would take them aside and pay them. By the way, he apparently claimed that when he spoke up to Coram about Combs allegedly groping him at one point, she allegedly told him, you know, Sean will be Sean. So now she makes this statement.

And here's the thing. Again, she is not named as a criminal defendant in Combs' criminal case where he faces these charges that I mentioned before. But what role could she play? What does this statement say overall with respect to the lawsuits? but what does it also say about a potential role in the upcoming criminal trial? I am made of questions when it comes to this. So for that, I sat down with a claim criminal defense attorney Bradford Cohen, who has represented stars like Drake and Kodak Black to get his take.

All right, Bradford, good to see you again. Thanks so much for coming here on Sidebar. All right, what do you make of that statement from Christina Corum? And why make that statement now? Well, I think it's heating up. And I think she has to make that statement at this point because, A lot of people are making accusations. I'm sure there's an issue in terms of the federal investigation and what's going on with the federal investigation and if they're going to be interviewing her or using her as a witness.

So my belief is all those things are coming to a head. And I think that now was the time that she had to come out with something to say, hey, listen, I have no idea what's going on. I have no idea what happened. I have no idea that this was even in the realm of reality, which I find hard to believe that she knew nothing about anything. I don't find it hard to believe about this sex trafficking thing because I think, you know, and I've said this from the very beginning, is the proclivity towards hiring prostitutes and paying them $10,000 a night for whatever, I think is something that the government is associating with the sex trafficking. and making that their, you know, their crown jewel in the, in the, in the, in the, in the case, I find that to be, you know, very difficult to wrestle with because in normal sex trafficking cases, you think of something a lot different than, than those accusations.

And I do believe that she didn't know the details of everything that was going on. I don't really find it plausible to believe that she didn't know anything was going on. Here's the question I have, and I'm not surprised this statement came out now after she was more specifically mentioned in this amended complaint that I talked about earlier with Ashley Parham. You know, she's really specific episodes where Christina Corum has allegedly partook in this, you know, behavior. And these are allegations. But why not just remain silent or just have her lawyer say, we intend to fight this out in the court and not the court of public opinion? and we deny all the accusations. Why make a statement?

Is there a legal advantage? Because that statement is not going to come into a courtroom. It's not going to be used as evidence per se. Does it help her in these civil cases? Is there a legal significance to make a public statement like this? What do you think? Legal significance, I don't believe so. I think that it's more goes towards, you know, a jury that would be reading,

possibly reading a newspaper, knowing about the case, reading something, seeing something. It's just like when anything happens, you know, it's good to hear from the lawyer. It's better to hear from the individual. If they're saying me, a culprit, I didn't know what was going on. I had no idea. Things of that nature. And I'm sure, like I said, now that she's more formally named, now that it's getting very close to trial time, I think it was a smart idea to come out with some kind of statement. I don't see this statement hurting or helping her. You know, it's one of those innocuous statements that's essentially like, let's wait and see how things turn out. I'm going to be vindicated. You know, that's kind of the standard when it comes to

these statements that are made and the individual that are stating it. It's just, like I said, I think the heat is starting to be turned up on a lot of these different cases, criminal and civil. And I think now is the right time for her to come out and say, hey, listen, I don't know anything that's going on. I'm sure she's employed someplace else. I'm sure she has some other business that's going on. And my belief is it's probably hurting those relationships she has being associated with Sean Combs. I want to go back to the criminal case. Do you believe a statement like this and given the allegations against her, does this give you a clue about her potential role in this criminal case? In other words, do you think she could be called as a witness by either

the prosecution or the defense? Yeah, I can I couldn't imagine any universe where she's not called as a witness by either the defense or the prosecution. If someone is an individual's quote-unquote right-hand man or right-hand woman and they know the intricacies of what is going on day-to-day, their schedule, what they do, you know, not so much an M.O. A modus operandi of like, you know, a crime, but maybe an M.O. of what they do day-to-day, right? And I always say this, like, an M.O. Day-to-day would be, hey, I go have breakfast at this certain. place lunch at this other certain place. This is where I go in the afternoon. These are the calls that I make during the day. She knows kind of his day-to-day schedule and how he operates the

individuals that he knows, the individuals that came to see him at his office or his home, and she was there during that time period. I believe that she would either be useful for the defense or useful for the prosecution. Now, my guess is she would probably be a prosecution witness, because when you become a defense witness in these type of cases, the prosecution starts looking at you very hard to see if there's a charge that they can file against you. And I don't see a lot of these people surrounding Sean Combs becoming defense witnesses as opposed to when an FBI agent knocks on your door and says like,

hey, you know, you're a subject, but you're not a, you know, you're not a target yet. We want to talk to you about these things. And you could become a target depending on, you know, how we feel. feel you fall into this whole thing. And then all of a sudden, you know, people come to the table with a lot different versions of different things that happened during their time with the individual who they're prosecuting. See, here's my question. Here's my question, right? Yeah, I agree with you. I think there's a strong possibility. She could be a witness at this case because you think about it. Think about what he's charged with, right? This racketeering conspiracy,

this sex trafficking operation, this criminal enterprise. If I'm sitting on that jury, and by the way, We've had this conversation since this case began. No one else has been criminally charged in this case. And it makes me wonder if she is called as a witness and is, you know, again, that's what makes the statement so interesting, right? She didn't come forward to be like, I am ready to testify about all that I saw, all that I heard. I was forced to do things that I didn't want to do. She's basically suggesting that I didn't know any about this. You know, it's abhorrent behavior.

If she takes the stand as a prosecution witness and gives them the, and taking these allegations is true, gives them everything that they need. Yeah, I organized this. I cleaned up this. I did that. If I'm sitting on the jury, I'm wondering, why is she not sitting with Sean Combs as a criminal defendant? Can she be asked about that?

Can she be asked? Did you work out a deal? How come you're not criminally charged? I think that's a big question because that of everybody we've talked about, based on the allegations in the lawsuits, and it's a question of how much that actually is connected to the criminal case, she's like the central figure. If you're talking about a criminal enterprise, how she not wrapped up into it, unless these charges are not stronger, unless these allegations aren't real, unless she really had no part about it. See, that's where I'm struggling with her

role in this. I think she's a very important player, but I don't know what she would testify to or what she'd be asked. I will tell you, and just from experience, you know, You have individuals that take the stand very often to testify against your client because they make deals. And a jury isn't stupid. You know, you can bring that out. What kind of deal did you make? You actually get the letter of agreement that they have with the individual who's testifying if they are avoiding some sort of criminal liability or if they're going to get some kind of reward at the end. And everyone always says, oh, you know, yeah, I talk to them.

Maybe I'm hopeful that I can get a discount at the end. You know, I'm sentenced to 90 months, and I'm hopeful I might get some time off, but there was no promises, no coercion, all these different things. And that's how these go a lot. But, I mean, I've had witnesses take the stand, and I can't even tell you. Like, you know, they're testifying that they, you know, they used to move a thousand pounds of weed a week, and the prosecutor's not going to prosecute them for that. And, you know, juries aren't stupid.

They see that. They understand like the motivation behind it. Now, does that mean they're not going to believe anything that individuals tells them? Probably not. They're still going to believe some things that they say. But it does go to their bias and it goes to, you know, their credibility of whether or not they are expanding on their knowledge, whether or not they're, you know, throwing some extra things in to make sure the prosecution is happy with their testimony and they can get a significant amount of time off. And I always used the Sammy the Bull Gravano as an example, right? Here's a guy they could have charged him with, I don't know, 20 murders or something crazy, you know, that took place during, you know, John Gotti days.

And he ended up getting, you know, a couple years in jail and then followed by a bunch of probation. But did that mean that the jury didn't believe him? No, the jury still believe them. And, you know, it's the way that it's sold. So like when Sammy the Bull took the stand, you know, and he's got a podcast right now. I watch it every now and then. He's like, you know, a relatable guy. He says, like, listen, I was in the mob.

I did these things. This is what they asked me to do, blah, blah, blah. And even though he was getting a deal, you know, juries believed what he was saying because of the way that he sold it. And, you know, that depends on the witness. It depends on the preparation of the witness. And it depends on a lot of things. I mean, I've had witnesses that I thought were complete garbage that jury believed. and then I've had witnesses that were complete garbage

that, you know, juries didn't believe and I end up winning the case. It's one of those things. So I think she's a central figure. I do think she's a central figure. And if you're looking at it like a hierarchy, which the government always does, you know, even you see this new case out of California

with, you know, they're blaming the rolling 60s, you know, all these gang members. They have a hierarchy, right? And they show the chart of where everyone falls. I mean, this is allegedly right under Sean Combs is this young lady. So in other words, you are saying that the prosecution needs her. They need her to prove the different elements of these crimes. Because the other way of looking at it is if you're a prosecutor, right, in the interest of justice,

if Sean Combs did all these things and everybody who helped him did all these things, you should be prosecuting everybody who was a part of it. or the other way of looking at it is they won't be able to prove their case against him with digital evidence alone or the victim's testimony. They need people who were a part of this. Am I understanding that right, that she is such a necessary component of their case? Because this is the way I look at it. Again, one of two reasons she wasn't charged. Either A, the allegations aren't true. You know, three things. The allegations aren't true.

B, there's not enough evidence against her. or see she is such a pivotal witness they absolutely need her for this case because again it came out during the glane maxwell case came out here how can you be part of a criminal conspiracy if you're the only one a part of it so in other words you believe and i don't want to put words in your mouth you believe she is essential to the prosecution's case i think so if i'm a if i'm a prosecutor and i have an individual who is allegedly the right hand of the defendant that I'm charging, I can't imagine a universe where she's not a central figure because just for background, let's just say for background, right, to know what his day-to-day is,

to know, I mean, who orders, who orders a thousand bottles of lube? Like who does these things, right? So like, you know, if that is the person that he goes to, that's his general. And that general then gives orders to all the captains and colonels and everyone below her, how is she not a central figure, I find that hard to believe that they are not going to rely very heavily on some testimony from her, at least for background of all these different things. Then going back to the statement, right? How does she testify in a way to say, yeah, I ordered all this, I did all this, but it's still true to her statement that I didn't do anything wrong. I didn't know anything that was going on. How does she do? Again, because again, she made a statement

on purpose. I have to imagine she spoke to her legal counsel about this before making the statement. But if you're going to be testifying in May or June, you know, and it's going to contradict the statement you just made, allegedly, I don't know, that's the part I'm struggling with. Yeah, I mean, listen, is it possible that he compartmentalized all these different roles for every single person that's going, that's doing, hey, I need you to order this. I need you to do this. I just don't see him being that individual that would be on that macro, you know, that type of detail. My guess is he would go to his right hand person and say, hey, we're having a party on Saturday.

This is what we need, X, Y, and Z, make sure it happens, get it all done, et cetera, et cetera. That's what I would imagine someone of his type would do, as opposed to. to micromanaging those individual in people and say, hey, you're in charge of the cake. You're in charge of ordering all the baby oil. You're in charge, you know, like I just don't see that happening. So my guess is, is that although she's saying she didn't know, my feeling is she saying she didn't know the extent

is what she's probably going to say if she takes the stand. She's going to say, hey, I knew we had parties. I knew he liked prostitutes. I knew he might have wanted marijuana there or whatever. And did I tell Bob Smith or did I tell Jane Smith to go do this or do that? Sure. But I didn't know how it all came together. I think that is more along the line of what she's saying, that I had no idea about the scope of it as opposed to saying,

oh, I didn't know he threw parties. I didn't know that, you know, there was sex going on in room four. you know, I think that her statement more along the lines of goes to, hey, I just thought these were consenting adults, you know, who am I to say, hey, you know, Sean Combs is having sex in room four. I'm going to tell him not to. Like, that's not my job. You know, I have no idea if he's paying that person, not paying that person. All I know is him, her, and her and him go into a room. Those are consenting adults. No one's ever complained to me that this was going on. no one said anything to me, I think that falls more in line with her statement than that

she absolutely didn't know anything about anything. I don't think that's what she's saying. I think she's saying she didn't know the extent. She didn't know that things were going on that were allegedly illegal, that, you know, whatever the prostitution that was going on wasn't just consenting adults, that it was some sort of drugging and things of that. I think she's saying she had no idea about that. And just to be clear, right, a lot of everything we're saying right now, we're speculating.

We don't know for sure. And to be clear, right, Trong Combs hasn't been found guilty of any crime and connection with this case. His trial starts in May. He hasn't been found liable in any of these lawsuits. She hasn't been found liable in any of these lawsuits. She hasn't been criminally charged. The other possibility is she doesn't, she's not called as a witness at the criminal trial. She has no connection to the criminal case whatsoever.

But so much of the heat, as you mentioned, in these civil cases, has been coming forward. particularly with Ashley Parham, she had to release a statement with respect to the civil case and that, you know, she's basically, I actually wondered when I see, you know, about irreparable injuries and the reparable harm that she's suffering, that it might be hurting her livelihood, it might be hurting her career, that at this point she has to release a statement, it has nothing to do with the criminal case against Sean Combs or former boss, but it just has to do with her own self. And maybe, I mean, I don't think she can file a defamation claim because These are claims in a lawsuit, and you can't automatically file a defamation claim for being accused of something in a lawsuit.

But I also thought it might have been a personal reason, a reputational reason, a business reason for her to make a statement like this. There's a lot of reasons why people make these statements. I mean, it's not simply, and like I said, it doesn't move the ball, really, in the civil case or the criminal case. It's not a statement that she's making where, oh my God, she made that statement, let's throw the case out. you know let's not use it as a witness like that's not the key to these statements and the key usually is is all of a sudden you start getting notices from all these fancy clubs that you're a member of that say hey sorry we're not renewing your membership you know you once you those letters start rolling in and and you know the next deals and nike says hey listen you know it was nice doing

business with you we don't want to keep doing business with you those type of things that happen obviously you have to address you know the elephant in the room so i i do think that that was the major factor here is that she was addressing the elephant in the room and saying like, listen, I really don't know what was going on. I had no idea. You know, all these accusations are flying around. It's ruining my, you know, my life. It's ruining my family's life. You know, she's got kids. I mean, this is a horrible, you know, it's like whenever a defendant gets charged, it isn't just a defendant. And I say this, you know, to everyone. It's the family members. It's the associates, it's the business partners. Everyone gets affected by any kind of criminal case

that's going on against a defendant. It is a widespreading net. It's like throwing a rock in a pond and there's ripples that affect you. You have no idea how badly this affects the kids, the families, the families, obviously of the victims, the alleged victims. I mean, it's like it's such a massive amount of people that I feel bad for everyone. in this, obviously there's allegations here. No one's been convicted. So I at this point where everyone is still in the eyes of the law innocent, I feel bad for everyone that's involved in this case because there's just so many things that are going on. These alleged prostitutes that are getting dragged back in, they may have moved on. You know, they may have jobs as baristas.

And now all of a sudden they're, they're being thrown into the press that they were, you know, five years ago, they were a prostitute. So there's a lot of people. get harmed with these cases and that's really the balancing that's a tough balancing act when it comes to either the defense or the government where you're putting witnesses on the stand obviously you want to do the best you can for your your client but it's so tough because you have witnesses that have moved on you know that it's three four or five years ago that you're calling back and you want them to take the stand to say this didn't happen or this did happen and in a few months when we see who the actual witnesses are testifying in the criminal case these are names that will

be splattered across the world because there's going to be so much coverage of the Sean Combs case. The final point, though, you know, I read it before, I'll say, I read it before, but like the accusations that she's facing Bradford in these cases, these civil lawsuits are just so disturbing. I mean, there's very specific, very, very specific details about what she allegedly did. And yes, these are allegations, but a lot of these suits are from people who have identified themselves or had to identify themselves, and they're being. public about accusations, not just against Sean Combs, but against other high-profile people and now heard directly. That specificity in these lawsuits, what does that tell you?

So specificity in lawsuits is always something that makes them stronger, right? If I know the time, the date, I have phone calls or whatever, and I put that into my complaint, that's why I always try to make my complaints. A lot of attorneys always feel like, ah, just do like a plain Jane complaint throw it in there so they won't know you know what the the allegations are that i don't do that i make mine as specific as possible i give you times and dates and areas and photographs if i have photographs of certain things i'll attach everything to a complaint because i have nothing when i file a complaint i have nothing to hide so when i see specificity in a complaint it does speak towards its allegations being, you know, verifiable. Let me put it that way. You know, when I say,

hey, I was in New York on April 14th at 246 p.m. And it's that specific. You know that they obviously have something that said, well, how did they know they were in New York at 246 p.m.? Well, it was a phone call. There's an email. I went to the front desk of a hotel. I pulled money out of an ATM that was on the corner, you know, all these different things that would verify where I was and when it was, those type of things to me, when you're defending those cases, those are things you had need to think about because it's like, okay, why are they saying that so specifically? They must have something to back that up and what is that? And that's when you start tailor, you know, tailoring your request to produce and things

of that nature to see what evidence they actually have to show that specificity. But yeah, I think it speaks a lot to the case. And that's a different kind of case to argue against or for because, I mean, I'll just say real quickly before we wrap up, you know, the Justin Baldoni, Blake lively case so specific. I mean, you have text messages, times, dates, email. So it becomes a question not that did something not happen or not? It's, you know, explaining away why something happened. And I'm providing different context or explanation. That was one of the most specific back and forth lawsuits that we've seen. But that's a case for a different time. Bradford Cohen. Yeah. Thanks so much for taking the time. Great seeing you. Really appreciate you breaking down this very interesting development in the Sean Combs story. Thank you so much, ma'am. Thanks, man. 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 get your podcasts. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak to you next time. You can binge all episodes of this law and crime series ad free right now on Wondery Plus. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.