Should I Delete That? - Fame, power and the women seeking justice: inside the trials of Diddy, Brand, Depp vs Heard and Lively vs Baldoni…. with The Crime Analyst

Episode Date: June 15, 2025

If you’ve felt overwhelmed, confused or angry about the high-profile court cases going on at the moment… this is the episode for you. Today, we’re joined by criminal behavioural analyst and creator of The Crime Analyst podcast - Laura Richards. She came in to help us unpack and understand the media and public conversation around the high profile cases of Sean Diddy Combs, Blake Likely vs Justin Baldoni, Johnny Depp vs Amber Heard and Russell Brand. Laura trained at New Scotland Yard and the FBI Behavioural Analysis Units and is an international expert on domestic violence, stalking, sexual violence, homicide and risk assessment.Laura breaks down what’s happening inside these high profile courtrooms and with her expertise in coercive control, power dynamics and the criminal justice system, she helps us understand how these cases reflect misogyny, victim-blaming and institutional failure. We also explore how these stories are framed, how narratives are manipulated, and how society often protects the powerful at the expense of the vulnerable. Follow @crimeanalyst on InstagramFollow @laurarichards999 on InstagramIf you are curious about the ‘who dunnit’ and the ‘why dunnit’ and how and why victims become footnotes in their own murders, Laura’s podcast Crime Analyst is for you. You can listen here or on your favourite podcast platform. Find out more about Crime Analyst Squad here!For more resources visit: thelaurarichards.com and https://www.dashriskchecklist.com/JOIN US FOR OUR BIGGEST EVER LIVE SHOW - we'll be taking over Edinburgh's iconic Usher Hall for one night only on 3rd September 2025 for an evening of unfiltered chat, big laughs, and meaningful connection, live on stage. You can buy tickets at SIDTlive.com!If you'd like to get in touch, you can email us on [e-mail] Follow us on Instagram:@shouldideletethat@em_clarkson@alexlight_ldnShould I Delete That is produced by Faye LawrenceStudio Manager: Dex RoyVideo Editor: Celia GomezSocial Media Manager: Sarah EnglishMusic: Alex Andrew Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Look, Amber Heard wasn't her best advocate, and I'm just going to make this very clear. When you've been traumatised, you're not your best self. Hello, and welcome back to Should I Delete That? This week, we are joined by Criminal Behavioral Analyst and creator of the Crime Analyst podcast, Laura Richards. We have been desperate to get Laura into the studio, so we were so excited that she came in to help us unpack and understand some of the high-profile cases that are dominating. the media and public conversation at the moment. We've got Sean Diddy Combs, Blake Lively versus Justin Baldoni, Johnny Depp versus Amber Heard, and Russell Brand. Laura trained at New Scotland Yard and the FBI behavioral analysis units and is an international expert on domestic

violence, stalking, sexual violence, homicide and risk assessment. In this chat, Laura breaks down what's happening inside these high-profile courtrooms and with her expertise in coercive control, power dynamics and the criminal justice system. She helps us understand how these cases reflect misogyny, victim blaming and institutional failure. We also explore how these stories are framed, how narratives are manipulated and how society often protects the powerful at the expense of the vulnerable. We hope you love this episode as much as we did. Here's Laura. Hi, Laura. Thank you so much for coming in. I've already done this. this off air, but I am so excited. I actually don't remember the last time I was this excited.

And I think as distance makes the heart grow fonder, we've been trying to get you in for so long. Thank you for being here. Thank you for being here from L.A. Pretty glam. I know, very glam all the way from L.A. Now, I have a list as long as my arm of things I want to talk to you about. You are one of my favorite people to follow online because you talk about the things that we're passionate about in such an intellectual way, in a way that we could never. In an expert way, yeah. Yes.

And I think we've definitely noticed a pattern. It's like we've talked about on the podcast. We've gone around the house as a little bit about the kind of way that we're publicly looking at court cases, the way that we're victim blaming as a society, the way we're treating women, the normalized misogyny within the media. But particularly in the context of really high profile cases. And just to throw names at you before we start, obviously we're looking at Russell Brown's got a case against it, many cases charges against him. We've got the public trial of P. Diddy. We've had Amber Heard and Johnny Depp.

We've had Blake Lively, obviously be dragged through the mud. And we want to talk to you about all of it. God knows where we start. We're going to start. Well, I'm very happy to be here. So thank you very much. It has taken some time to put this together. So it's really my pleasure and my honour to speak to you both.

And yes, the misogyny and it being mainstreamed, I think, is what's different now, right? This stuff isn't new. It's these high profile cases, but it's also the fact that it's just so systemic. And I do think misogyny has been mainstreamed as a business model as well. So it's so deeply ingrained and it's so frustrating. And even words like, and I'm just going to say a couple of my pet peeves because it tracks across all cases when people say things like abusive relationship or toxic relationship. And right now, that's what Sean Diddy Combs' relationship with Jane is being

described as as a toxic relationship. And when we say that, what we're effectively saying is it's half a dozen of one, half a dozen of the other, and it's not. And so that language is patriarchal language to mask the abuser. They leave the conversation. So it's really important that we do spotlight who the abuser is, because it is about a power imbalance. It is about the fact that with coercive control, one holds the power and is the victim is not free. They don't. They don't have agency, they don't have autonomy. And, you know, the other pet peeve that goes with that with Cassie Ventura is, well, why didn't she leave? And people still say that, having seen that hotel video of Sean Diddy Combs physically assorting her, we all saw it, right? And that's what

happened when she tried to leave. So I think it's really important that we spotlight these things and we unravel it. We've still got really big commentators even in America, Bill Maher, who did a monologue, just the other Friday saying, well, come on, ladies, we've had the Me Too movement. I mean, now it's on you. You have to leave. And when you leave, you don't go back and have sex with someone. And this is on you now. And he was framing it with Cassie Ventura and Sean Diddy Combs. And the fact was that when Sean Combs beat Cassie Ventura, that was pre-Me2. And that was when she left. So the context is so important when we talk about these cases and when we track them and we challenge the language that that must happen it's so true i mean there's the fear aspect of of not being able to

leave a relationship but there was a video i saw that you uh you brought a podcast i think and you talked about how abusers often are charming and that the abusive side of them doesn't always it's not always present that kind of coexist with the charming side of them and it's not i think it's probably less likely to draw empathy from other people that you know as opposed to the fear aspect but it's so important as well to talk about that. Can you just discuss that quickly? Yeah, I mean, you know, abusers are not abusive all of the time. Otherwise, she wouldn't stay with him and she wouldn't have got into a relationship with him in the first place, right? So I think if we locate it like that, often the setup, even with, you know, a coercive controller, Sean Diddy Combs, a setup

happens from day one. So they groom you from day one. And who they present is quite different to who they are when they don't get their own way. So in the lovey-dovey part of relationship, everyone's presenting their best self. But when he doesn't get his way, you see a different side to him. And a victim, I mean, like Cassie, she's already in awe of him because of who he was in the music business. And we know that Sean Diddy Combs can be charming. I mean, lots of people talk about that side to him. But when he didn't get his way, then he would coerce, blackmail, beat, you know, this other side to him came out. And often victims would say to me, it's the hope. It's the hope that when he says, I'm sorry, and I won't do it again, if he does say

that, or he lavishes her with incredible gifts, you know, going to Miami on a boat, which is what Sean Diddy Combs did to Cassie, buying her lots of bracelets to apologise for the behaviour. And she hopes that it won't happen again, and that's the end of it. And it's the hope that will keep her in. And people don't understand that. Relationships are 3D. It's not abusive. That person is not abusive all of the time. And so often, we meet that person, right? Us in terms of the public side of the relationship, you or I will meet that very charming person. And that also keeps her quiet because then she thinks, well, who's going to believe me, particularly if that person's magnetic. And, you know, I always say

charm disarms in so many ways. It's a tool that we all gravitate to because we like to be with the magnetic, fun, you know, charismatic person in the room. But she sees that too that we gravitate to that person and that might keep her quiet and within shame and being humiliated and not able to speak out. I really want to talk to you about this sort of public face of because it is common and it's horribly common that so many of these men and that we're revering are turning out to have this other side to them. And I think it is really important to talk as you just have touched on there about this public face and about our public love and about how difficult that makes it for these men's victims. But I want to ask a really big question, I guess, which is

probably hard to answer. With someone who is an abuser, when you say that they've been grooming someone from the beginning and that that's very often how they operate, do you think, what do you think makes an abuser abusive? And I know that's a really difficult question, but do you think it is always a case, and I know you probably can't answer always, always, but do you think it's a case of identifying what they are going to do to a woman and playing it as a long game? Or do you think, where do you think it comes from? From entitlement. It's actually quite a simple answer. And that entitlement happens very early on in life. And it's how we socialise, educate boys and girls, which is why it's

so important to talk about healthy relationships age appropriately with little boys and also little girls. And it's really about getting your own way, right? So even when we see Sean Diddy Cames on that video in the hotel in L.A., what he's basically doing is having a mantrum, similar to a tantrum of a child. I know how that. I call them mantrums because they're acting out, right? But the problem is that a three and a half year old little boy acting out versus a growing man acting out using their physical power. And that's what men will do, which is why, I don't know if you've heard of the power and control will from Duluth, Minnesota, where they have every type of behavior and tactic used to control someone on the inside of the

wheel. So things like coercion and intimidation, also charm, economic abuse, male privilege, all these other ways, threats to control someone. But on the outside, it's physical and sexual violence. And those tools are used to reinforce the power that that person has. So Sean Diddy Combs is acting out to send a message to Cassie. And it's his entitlement and his absolute desire to have power and control over her to regain that power and control when we see the violent acts. So male entitlement, I always talk about it. Every murder that we see of a woman, when you see it in their third or fourth decade of life, i.e. the perpetrator, I may not know lots of details about that particular case, but I know he felt entitled enough to kill her. That if I

can't have you, no one can. And it's very rare to see women behave in that way. Because often, when we're groomed through society, we don't hold power. We don't feel that we can just do whatever we want to anybody. If we don't get our way, we stick our chests out, right? So we give this physical cue. And you see men and boys doing this all the time, the posturing to let us know, put us on notice. And it is very much a, you know, sex-based thing. So where does the entitlement come from? I mean, much earlier on, I always say the man who killed her, he felt entitled to do so. And it didn't just begin that entitlement in his third or fourth decade of life. So then I'll do the psychological autopsy and look back. And I always want to look back to childhood and

track that person. And you see across all his relationships, this problem of when he doesn't get his way, this is who he is. So that's why it's very important when you start a relationship with someone. It's not just about seeing this person when everything's going well. It's about who they are when things don't go well. How do they behave? How do they act when things are not going well for them in life? That's the true person, right? Everything else is image management. I know, mind-blown. I've never actually realized that it was entitlement, but that sums it up perfectly.

Everything just clicked into place for me as you said it. I was like, oh my God. It's entitlement, yeah. I know you can only speak generally, but do you believe that these abusers, do you believe that they are being truthful when they say, I'll never do it again and I'm so sorry?

Do they want that? Do they want to not do it again? Do they want to sort of, quote-unquote, get better? for lack of a better term. Some might. Some might. And just to go back to entitlement, there's also two other pieces of that. It's ownership and possession.

And again, it's very rare to have a woman who feels that she owns a man and possesses him. And this is where we go back to women being property, my right to kill her. Right. So the ownership, possession and entitlement, those three things together in patriarchy, that's what we're up against. in terms of someone wanting to change, I do believe there are some people who do, right? If there's a fear of consequence, a genuine fear of consequence, and that could be their biggest fear is going to prison.

So that might be enough for them to change their behavior. But it's like smoking or drinking, right? Any kind of addiction, you have to work really hard at it because it's part of your patterning in your behavior. So you're looking to break that pattern, which isn't easy. But there are some who do want to do it. it, but the vast majority, I mean, if it keeps getting you what you want, you know, the toddler that gets nine nose, and I say toddlers, because I have a toddler myself, so I see all of this

in action. But if he gets nine nose and eventually a yes, he's now worked out the pattern, keep going, keep pushing, keep pushing. And this tracks back to movies and things we all consume, right, the Disney movies, the girls are taught that we will be swept off our feet by the guy, the knight, you know, in shining armor. And he may get a no, but tenacity pays off. You keep going, you keep going, you keep going. And so these are the messages that we have to break. And it's bigger than what's going on in that relationship. So there are some who may want to, but I think it takes a lot of work. And often people aren't prepared, and I'm going to talk specifically about men, men aren't prepared to put in that work unless there is a genuine fear of consequence of something

bad happening to them if they don't do this behavioural change. So looking to the men in the public eye, is it a case do you think that they are surrounded by so many yes men that they are turned into this? Like it feels like that it's so prevalent. Is it a case that there are that many abusive men out there? Or is it a case that these men are more likely to be a little. abusers because they are enabled by everybody around them and protected by everybody around them and everybody around them keeps quiet and gives them this entitlement because they're the

golden goose. I mean, it's an interesting question because I think that yes, there are some. For me, that pattern is already there. And like with Sean Diddy Cames, before he was big, he was doing this stuff on campuses to women that he was having relationships with or women he was dating and he wasn't famous then and that's about who he is then you get this perfect storm because the bigger he gets and the more yes people around and then he takes on you know almost godlike status he becomes untouchable and that's really what he's been so it's both of those things but it's also patriarchy you know and I'll give you an example even with my partner he's six foot five he walks into a room people notice him right

And when the pandemic hit, we were both working in our various offices, six foot five, he would appear in my doorway and just start talking irrespective of what I was doing. And that's entitlement, right, that he just thinks I'm available, accessible. No shade on him. This is just the way he's been used to being treated. Not a famous person, by the way, feminist mother. So it's not even about that, but it's about the thousand cuts of patriarchy that make him feel important, entitled to my time. I go to his office and I'm stood at the doorframe and I'm

kind of peeking round, have you got time for two minutes to, you know, and that's the way I've been groomed to be polite and not take up space, even as I am. And so when you have that combination, you know, patriarchy and already we pay attention, we value boys and men more because we do. Every day, that's the messaging they get. And then, you, you know, you know, you add the yes person mentality of the more successful they become everyone yes yes yes you've got the perfect storm again and i think it is much a bit it's a bigger problem just about how girls and women are groomed in society and boys and men are and it goes back to a lot of what laura bates talks about you know and caroline creedo perise invisible women and here's all the

magazines over here for men, of the economist, and over here for the girls, it's all the gossipy. That's a thousand cuts on both sides telling you who's important, who we value, right? Caroline Creato Perez, who I know, who wrote the brilliant book Invisible Women. I'm obsessed with her in that book. Which, those thousand cuts that women feel, even when we go to a hotel, which I'm traveling a lot at the moment, so I'm in a hotel, and it's a small thing. But where's the plug socket next to the mirror so I can dry my head? and look in the mirror at the same time.

I know that hotel has been designed by a man because he's not thinking about women's needs. And we work around, don't we? Girls and women work around these things. You know, even when we go into a meeting, and I used to get this in the met all the time, you're with a male that you're presenting with, he gets introduced you don't.

What's the message to you? And if you say, oh, I'm Laura Richards, then you sound as if you're pushing yourself forward and you're difficult. But he doesn't have to have that cognitive load of all of that stuff, whereas we do as women and girls, we're always navigating trying to figure out, you know, and not let it get us down. And the irony and the twist on that is that men will kill and we find every reason to excuse it. Oh, it's because he was rejected. It's because he was jealous. She was having an affair. We look at the media reports the way they frame it. Every excuse for why he did it, right? But it's not girls and women killing men because of our thousand cuts. We just suck it up and get on with it and find a way around it. And I always think that's very interesting because it does come back to how we're groomed

in society of just our every day. So you add in the power of celebrity. You add in this person's got real talent. You know, it's a great person to be around when they're on. But what's going on behind closed doors, which we don't always hear about, you know, the Hollywood gossip or what they were like on set, the true person. but yet everyone's enabling them and it's not a problem

but then that becomes a very fertile breeding ground the way that they behave towards women and most of these men, you know, it's no real surprise to a lot of people who've worked with them because they see the misogyny, they see the way that they behave, right? And sometimes it can be subtle and nuanced. So it can be the perfect storm

but we have to remember with Sean Diddy Combs in particular he was doing this stuff before his height of fame. That's who he is. What do you make around about the media reporting around his case? I mean, it's very problematic, isn't it? I think for many reasons, because of the victim blaming that just happens. I mean, Bill Maher, who many people tune into his show, does this monologue, effectively just victim blaming. Come on, women, you've had your moment at Me Too.

We don't want to infantilize you, he said. But this is on you. This is on you. And does he know that 76% of women are murdered? by the abuser at the point of separation because that's also why women stay. We risk manage. So I think the media reporting has been problematic.

Some outlets have actually done quite a good job, but I think it's multi-layered because a lot of people don't understand the charges against him. And so if you don't understand the charges because Albany's decided not to bring in the coercive control law that myself and a group of survivors took to Albany, and talked to legislators, and we had it on the books, by the way, and they decided not to legislate. Had they have legislated, it would be clear this case is about coercive control,

right? It's about a power imbalance. It's about coercion at the heart of it. So they've got charges of RICO, which is racketeering and conspiracy, which is a charge you would use for mob bosses, right, where your organization is used, your lieutenants, normally for financial gain. But with cult leaders like Keith Reneery and Sean Combs, it's for personal gain, right? So you've got the conspiracy re-co charge. You've got the sex trafficking charge, two of them, which is force, coercion and fraud, motivated and being able to do it by, and there's two charges. And then you've got the transportation to engage in prostitution, two charges. And people don't understand why those charges.

And it's because there's no coercive control law. Am I right in thinking I was listening to the BBC's podcast about the Diddy Trial, which I've enjoyed. I think it's good. I don't know. But you might think differently. But I've enjoyed it. It's been like basically bite size.

They've done like sort of 15 minutes of every day of the trial. Am I right in thinking that it's kind of been accepted within the trial, within the defense, within all of it, that if it was a domestic abuse trial, he would be guilty. But he isn't. Like it isn't. So they're not even focusing on. that? Yes. The statute of limitations had run for the domestic violence charges. So that was a challenge too. And you have to remember there's, you know, obstruction of justice. He bought back

the video, $100,000. He bought that video. So that video didn't exist, right? Until it was found out there were copies that were made and where did that video come from? We don't know. But there was FBI raids on his properties. Did it come from that? And then it got leaked. We don't know. but that statute of limitations had run. So people keep saying, well, it's not a domestic violence case. It's not, that's not why he's on trial. And therefore, they can't make the leap as to the coercion within the other offences. Even with RICO, you just need two predicate offences of arson, obstruction of justice, sex trafficking.

And I would have liked to coerce a control charge and and and to still have these charges. R. Kelly was charged with the same, found guilty. Keith Reneery, cult leader of nexium, found guilty, sentenced to 120 years. And, you know, so you've got a problem with the media reporting on it because most don't understand the legalities of the case. And then they're reporting on it of what the defence might say, which is this is an overreach. They've charged him for things that just don't exist. And even the last, you know, night or so, I was at dinner with some colleagues who we

were talking about the case. And they said, you know, this is a total overreach. I had to explain the case to them, and some of them are law enforcement. So you have to understand the legalities of the case, but also historically the other cases where those charges have been laid and a successful prosecution has occurred. And in particular, with Keith Renei, Moira Poenza, did a fantastic job of laying out the behaviours, the crimes, the charges.

And Keith Reneery was found guilty, as was R. Kelly. And we don't know how these things are landing in court. But the public perception side, You've got obviously the issue as well, not just with media, but a lot of people loved his music. So they don't want to believe this, just like Johnny Depp. They love him as an actor, so they find it very hard to make that leap. But the victim blame, the misogyny, the fact that Cassie did these sex tapes, et cetera,

through the fact that she said it was consensual initially because she was trying to please him. That's the other part of people saying, oh, well, she said it was consensual and now she's saying it's not well you can say yes four times and then you can say no and that no should be enough so again there's an issue of consent going on and people think that she gave consent and that's fair dues rather than the fact that he used those sex tapes to coerce her to continue to do more and then threatened to release those tapes not just online but to send them to her mother and father's workplaces and that's her biggest fear so then she's in this cycle she's got to continue

you doing these tapes? We are delighted to announce our biggest live show ever. For one night only, we are taking over the iconic Edinburgh, shire Hall on the 3rd of September to bring you an unforgettable night of completely unfiltered chat, big laughs, and meaningful connection and conversation. Our favourite part of the live shows is always that you get to meet each other and we are so proud of the community that we've fostered here. And this night isn't just about coming to see us.

It is about meeting each other and forging new friendships. Whether you're in Scotland already or you fancy a trip to beautiful Edinburgh, this is our biggest live show ever and we would love to see you there. Check the link in the show notes or in our bios to buy tickets and secure your place in the pre-show meetup, meaning you can come alone and meet other like-minded should I delete that fans. Brought to you by Simprove, the UK's number one gut supplement. Looking at the media surrounding these cases,

I think something people perhaps don't understand the weight of is the involvement of publicists in trials like this and the attempts from all parties to try and control the narrative. And I think people are becoming slightly more aware, maybe with the Justin Beldoni and Johnny Depp connection, that they use the same PR firm to support, them during both these cases. Can we talk a little bit about the significance of that? Because you point out that we didn't really understand the legalities of the Diddy trial,

which is definitely the case I still don't even after you've explained it so well. I still feel completely confused by it, which I think is something that a lot of the publicists or the perpetrators sort of rely on is this area of confusion. Because Johnny Depp, as far as I understand it, was found guilty in a UK court. But then, was found not guilty in an American court. I think the confusion around that is so fascinating because it shouldn't be as confusing as it is. But there's something at play that has made it very hard for us to understand or very hard for us to accept. And that has got to be the role of the publicists, surely. Can you explain that and the role of them and how that's happened?

Yeah, I mean, this is publicists and lawyers. So if we take it back to the bare bones. It's men with deep pockets who can afford to pay people. Like with the, you know, Amber Heard and Johnny Depp, yes, in the UK, the Royal Courts of Justice because of the fact that Johnny Depp was called a wife beater and he sued the newspaper outlet that had that headline. So the son called him a wife beater. The son called him a wife beater and he then challenged that. But the court found in favour of the son, right? So the that based on all the evidence and all the allegations that they found, a number of the allegations of abuse stood.

And so that was concrete over here that, yes, he did abuse Amber Heard. He then looks for every way to bring this case into America. I think he went through, it was something like eight states trying to get his case heard. So he tried and tried through different states and eventually found one state that would hear his case. People didn't hear about all of that. And the irony was even with that lawsuit, which I did follow, look, Amber Heard wasn't her best advocate. And I'm just going to make this very clear. When you've been traumatized, you're not your best self. So you don't represent yourself particularly well, which is why you need advocates. She didn't have the best lawyers.

And he had a team, a whole team around him with his deep pockets. And then you had the astroturfing. then you had the bots online, which I saw for myself, by the way, of, you know, every time I went online, whether it's TikTok or Instagram, videos that were very negative about her were just appearing on my feed. So the point I was like, wow, this is really a lot, that if I knew nothing about this case, I would have a very negative view of her and the lawsuit. What was interesting with that particular case when it was heard in America was that the jury only had to find on one count because again it was to do with the piece that an opinion piece that she wrote right which the editor chose the headline and a lot of it was about the headline which wasn't her choice

but the jury only had to find on one point one count that he had abused her for to find in favour of amber heard and they accepted that there were one or two counts where he was abusive but they still didn't find in her favour which baffled me and look I followed the the the the to the letter of the law and what instruction went to the jury. Did they truly understand the case and the instruction? Because of the outcome of it, which made it sound like, you know, 100% she lied and he was telling the truth. And that wasn't the case at all. So the legacy of that, you know, even the fact that obviously there's been a podcast subsequently about all the astroturfing, the bots, that he paid people. There was a company, one woman,

that he paid to create that astroturfing, artificial, really algorithms, intelligence with content that's being manipulated to influence us, the public, in the court of public opinion, which is why so many are pro him, but they're anti-her. And the same thing has happened with Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni. It's exactly the same template. It's the same law firm. Sorry, same publicity firm. It is.

It's the same woman. People really need to understand that. The podcast that you referenced, I think, is the witch trials of Amber Heard. Is that the one? Yes. Which I'd really recommend anybody listening, go and find. That was a tortoise one, right? Yes, yes.

I think it's really important that we understand why we think what we think. And we are being so manipulated by tech and by these men with their deep pockets. And algorithms, what we're getting served up, which is why I always say the critical thinking piece is so important. that even for me, I'm thinking, why am I getting all of this stuff served up? I don't even follow these people. And then when you look at even when I was posting, who's responding, I could see a lot of them were bots. And zero, zero was their account. They follow 380. But zero posts, that's a bot, right? So seeing how many of those, when I was talking about Amber Heard and Johnny Depp, but also with Blake Lively and Justin Baudoni.

And look, when the New York Times piece hit, my partner and I were in bed. And, you know, he's a reporter. And he's like, are you seeing this in the New York Times? My goodness, this case, Blake Lively's case, and we went through it. And I was like, wow. And he said, there's no coming back for him. And I said, you just wait and see because he will.

And then Brian Friedman, who's an entertainment lawyer, who, you know, has the ability to turn things around. comes out and speaks and everything's turned on its head and then the algorithm starts serving up again in exactly the same way as Amber heard all these anti-Blate-Lively pieces and even on my posts again I'm seeing the same zero followers zero posts something like you know 385 people that they're following and the bots are very clear but there are real people within that too who just don't like Blake Lively, who just think she's a mean girl because misogyny, because we don't like women, and we certainly don't like successful women. And they look for every

way, everything she ever did, everything she ever said that's negative. Successful and beautiful. Yeah. We got more shit for that, for sticking up for her than we've ever had. And I have to say, since then, I have completely checked out of everything. I skip past every video. I actually have no idea what's going on with the trial. I saw. And I'm ashamed of myself, but I just thought, I can't, like, We got so much abuse from it and from real people too, you know, like crazy amounts. And it was probably the most anxious I've ever been having posted a podcast episode. And it's made me just completely go, oh, maybe she is, you know, maybe she is horrible then. Maybe we're missing something.

Yeah, maybe we're the idiots. And that's the point of it because it shuts you up. Yeah. Right? Yeah. Same for me. And it did. It shut us out.

Yeah. And that's the whole aim. to shut you up, to shut me up, but I won't be shut up. Good for you. And I do, look, I hold empathy for you because it's hard and it feels awful. And I've had people, you know, people who are long-term followers tell me, I'm this, I'm that, you know, really lay into me online. I've lost the plot. I've so disappointed with you, Laura. I've really loved your work until now. But this is because you're so pro-women, you can't see the truth. And look, the truth, if it's there to discover, I will find it. I went through those lawsuits. That was my first three months of this year,

just locked reading these lawsuits that were then updated. And if I saw anything that made me feel that I have to revise my beliefs around it, then I would share that. But I haven't seen those things. You know, and even the montage video of them dancing, right, I thought, this could be a moment where I have to revise what I'm thinking, because you had the audio leaked of a voice note that he had left, and he had also leaked the montage video of them dancing, which appears in her lawsuit. And I watched that video. And as all I could see was a woman putting up scaffolding, saying, we're meant to be talking here. Let's just talk. There's no kissing, there's no nuzzling. Let's just do the talking. And I'm looking back at the script, and I'm seeing that that's

what's described. And he keeps going in to kiss around her neck and nuzzle her face, and she still keeps pushing back, right? I call that scaffolding when women do that. There's not a woman on the planet who hasn't been in that situation where a man's moved into our personal space and we're politely asking them to move out of it, but we're not being pseudo, we're not being totally direct because we don't want to be rude or impolite. And that's what she was doing. But other people see that clip and they say, oh, she's trying to be the director. She's trying to take over. Look at her flexing her power. But that wasn't what she was doing. She was just trying to gently move him out of her space to go back to the script.

The problem is he's the director, the producer and the actor. So she has no power or agency in those moments. And it costs a lot of money when you're filming and it's very intense. And on the ninth time, when he's not moving out her space, she says you've got a very big nose or something like that, quite passive aggressive. But that's what women do all the time because we try and be polite. So, you know, again, it's understanding women's experiences, isn't it? and being aware of what she's doing and he's doing,

that it wasn't her flexing her power. In those moments, she actually had no power. And yes, she could have walked off set, right? There was an option for her to say, I need to stop this and regroup. But she knows time is money and she knows she'll be seen as the difficult woman. And most people wouldn't get the thousand cuts

of what were going on in that moment. And it's those sorts of things that I look for. But I always have the open mind that maybe there's something that is different here and I need to read the timeline now that you remember Brian Friedman created a website, put the timeline, supposed timeline on it with some pieces of information and text messages

and also the lawsuit. And, you know, that's 280 pages plus another 175 that I have to then go through line by line. And I did the homework on it, and I'm still not seeing it. I'm still seeing that her case legally is strong, legally. his case and his lawsuit was all she did this and she's a mean girl but that doesn't hit a legal threshold even if she did those things it's still not a legal threshold and the defamation part to it while her right to bring the lawsuit is protected so he had no grounds for that defamation

lawsuit which is why judge lyman dismissed it yesterday and we've been waiting for that but again most people don't understand the legalities of the case so when you listen to lawyers discuss it. Lawyers who really know what they're talking about understand that her lawsuit, what she's saying is actually strong and robust in a court of law. And his is all about the court of public opinion. It's all about perception. And Hollywood runs on perception. And society runs on perception. So he's winning in the court of public opinion. But legally, she's winning currently. this case feels very complicated and convoluted and is that part of the method is that is that

intentional too confuses yeah is it a tactic of course yeah because I'm lost I'm completely lost I am not equipped to read you know these lawsuits and I don't understand what's going on basically and it seems like way too convoluted for me to even try and summarize. So I end up just seeing like the headlines and the TikTok videos that are served to me, which are always anti-Blake lively. Yeah. And look, that's the job of the defence, right, to muddy the waters, to throw enough spaghetti at the wall. Think about what happened with Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman and what Johnny Cochran did with his team of 12 lawyers, some of the best lawyers of the land. They threw enough spaghetti at the wall so the

jury were utterly confused. They didn't even think it was a domestic violence murder by the end of it. And that's what you're seeing. Brian Friedman's a master of it. So the lawyers that they choose, and Brian Friedman, by the way, does his have his own sexual assault and rape allegations where he paid a settlement for it to go away. So there's history there too. But always doing these press conferences, always being available to go on podcasts and so forth. I mean, over here this wouldn't happen, right, because of subjudice. The case is going to court. It's subjudice. You can't talk about it. So that's another weapon using the media where it's her right. It's protected for her to be able to, once she's filed a suit, for it to be reported on and talked about.

And you've got to remember with sexual harassment or any form of sexual violence, domestic violence, you may have multiple victims. So it's important to preserve that so that other women can say, well, that happened to me too. But for his side, he has to respond to it and people say, well, it's his right to respond. It's his livelihood. But really, this should all be happening in a court of law. The response and the back and four should all be in court, in my opinion, because yes, 80% of people will rely on the headlines. They will rely on the short, because they don't want to lose three months of their lives reading these lawsuits. So who are the people that are reporting on it? They become even more

important. And I am absolutely in the minority with my view. Thinking about the difference between the UK and the US, a UK trial that's currently going on is Russell Brand. You put something on Instagram about him the other day. And you said at the end, paraphrasing a little bit, but you said, finding God at the point of accountability is a pattern I see often, along with claims of substance and sex addiction, it's often used as an abuse, get out of jail, free card. Don't be fooled. It's just a continuation of their manipulation, which I thought was so good, because this has confused me again, and I think that's probably deliberate. How are there still so many people in this man's corner? And this is a two-prong question. The difference with the UK and the US, we can't know

about his trial is that I don't understand basically the difference. But he's currently being investigated or he's in court. He's in court with charges, multiple charges of rape and sexual abuse and sexual harassment, I'm not sure, abuse. But he is online still, like God's chosen one, life's great, I'm innocent. How does that work? How does the media work with a case like this in the UK? And what is he allowed to do in terms of speaking on it, I suppose? Well, he can talk, I'll take the last bit first. He can talk about, you know, generalities, but not specifics. So everything that he's doing with his own channel and being on X, I call it grooming. And he started this a very long time ago, right, knowing this day could well come. So this has been a very long-term

strategic plan. And I will say Russell Brown is incredibly intelligent. And he knew that this day would come because there were lots of rumours swirling around even before the Channel 4 times piece, right, where lots of women spoke out. So he can't talk about the specifics. but he can groom people into thinking he's a changed man, he's found God. And yes, he was an addict. And we applaud people when they're an addict and they turn their lives around, right? When they understand that their addiction was problematic. But I have a big issue with people blaming addiction on their raping and abuse of women

and saying, well, that was the drugs, that was who I was then. because there are lots of addicts that don't do that and would never harm a woman. And so it gives addicts a bad name too or people with mental health issues. There are many people who would never assault a woman, never push boundaries and rape a woman. So we have to separate out the behavior he chose to do those things.

And the finding God piece, there's a lot of people who are religious, so he's appealing to them. And there are a lot of people in prison who find God at the point of accountability. And I do believe that this is all part of his pathway forward to insulate him, insulate himself. So yes, the Crown Prosecution Service has taken a very long time to bring these charges. And they've interviewed him multiple times. And historical cases are pretty tough, right, when you've got time and distance.

So it's going to be a tough case to bring, but it's an important one. And everything around the Me Too movement and, you know, what we've seen, there's been such a pushback that he's also got, you know, a fan base, if you will, of people already in his corner because people feel me too went too far. And this is another case of it going too far and overreaching with him. But if you talk to people who worked with him, there's no surprise. I've had people even on my Instagram say, yeah, I went for an interview and I met him. And it was with a, you know, a room full of people. And I sat down. He came straight over and sat on my lap. And my husband was sat there. This is one woman in particular. And she said he sat in my lap. And I just

thought there's no way I could work with you. And I replied to her. I said, yeah, that was boundary testing, grooming, compliance to see whether you're malleable. And that's what they do right from the start to test not you, not you, not you, but you, because you are malleable. So everything I've seen with his behaviour is even these little things point me in a certain direction of his behavior was problematic. They have to prove it in a court of law, of course. And that's going to be a challenge. If it were in America, you could talk about everything to do with the specifics of it, which I'm not going to do now because it is subjudice. But he does have a very big platform. And then you've got the whole on X, him aligning with the Tate's with Donald Trump

because he's now moved to America, right? He lives in Florida. And so he's now aligned with certain men who also reinforce and it's become this echo chamber and that has become a very big part for me of the grooming and the manipulation online that people who follow him and they hear him talk about religion and him finding God and anti-government things that this is about an overreach by the government while what we know about rape stats is only 1% of rapists get convicted. And the problem is not arresting, prosecuting and convicting rapists, not the government's overreach. You can blame lots of things, right, on the government. This isn't a political case. This is about doing the right thing of multiple women who have made allegations, take away

his celebrity, that it being followed through. But yes, he had a documentary. Yes, there was a Channel 4, showing a Sunday Times investigative piece, but it's not all of those women where charges have been laid. Do you think it will matter if he's found guilty or not in terms of the court of public opinion? I feel like he's laid such a foundation. It's like he's already said, yeah, I did it. That's what it feels like to me. It's content. It's like, yeah, I did it, but I was a different man. And now, like, it feels like it doesn't even matter. Like, if he's found guilty, he can just say, well, that's because what did he say he cited the other day, the Southport killer, and he went, are you really going to focus on this, you know,

do you really respect the British justice system if they can't do that? You know, he's, he's building such a strong foundation to undermine the justice system and to free himself of any accountability because he's found God now. It kind of feels like his followers are going to say, well, yeah, but he's changed in the government's corrupt, so it doesn't matter. Like, it just feels like it doesn't even matter. It's very clever, isn't that? It is.

The manipulation. And that's why I just implore people to use critical thinking skills. Yeah. Because it does matter. Yeah. I mean, it matters to me. I know it matters to you. It matters to our children.

The law is there for a reason. And if he caused harm to women, he deserves to be held to account. But it's a very clever strategy. And I've charted it. I've watched him do it and could see exactly what he was doing. And that groundswell of anti-government, you know, people being disenfranchised franchised. And, you know, the way that he has layered that is the perfect storm. So does it matter? It does to me and probably hundreds of thousands, if not millions of women. But bearing

in mind, you know, he's insulated again because he's married, he's got children, he talks about his daughters. And, you know, there's lots of levers that he's pulling on, aren't there, in terms of I'm the changed man. But just because you are who you are today, does that mean we should never hold anyone to account. Because that's really what that question, if we unravel it, that's what it tracks back to. And I believe in accountability and responsibility taking. And look, if he was off his head, there's also the argument, how would he know what he actually did? Yeah. How could he genuinely say he didn't do it if he was so off his head in drink drugs and everything else? This is probably a really stupid question, but how is he allowed to go to leave the UK and

and go and live in Florida if there are charges against him over here? Yeah, I mean, the timeline again, you know, before charges are laid, I think he went off before that happened. It did take quite a long time for the charges to come. I believe he was interviewed multiple times by the police, so there was nothing there in terms of, you know, not allowing him. And really, it's once you're convicted, that's when it's a problem to go to America or to other countries.

And right now, you're innocent until proven guilty. Right? That's our standard. And as he says, I'm looking forward to prove my innocence in a court of law. So he has been coming back to the UK and appearing in court. If he's convicted, that would be a different matter. You would hope. But there again, look at the Tates. You know, in Romania, there was a criminal and legal process that was ongoing and then interference was run with that process and they travelled to America. I don't know if you were just Joe Normal whether that would be allowed, particularly how, you know, with America becoming even tougher now on immigration and people going over there, but there seemed to be a different allowance for the Tate's. I'm going to call it a double standard. So we'll see what happens. You know, I'm going to be very interested to see what happens at that trial. with what you can see from the all of the evidence and the charges against him do you think that they are strong enough from the point of view of a court of law to convict him do you believe that they are it's really tough to make a judgment in terms of not necessarily knowing all the evidence that has been adduced across this time but I do know to really really reach a determination of charges with a historical case like this, they have to have something

that is relatively significant and not just it being multiple women. So we see, you know, no cases watertight. There's no such thing as a slam dunk case, but these cases are particularly challenging. You know, and it's like Sean Didy Combs, the team that have brought the charges, the southern districts of New York, they have a 95% conviction. rate. They're very good at what they do. Can I say the same about the team in the Crown Prosecution Service? I mean, A, I don't know who they are. And B, we have seen quite a lot of cases crumble at court because the eyes weren't dotted and the T's weren't crossed. And I just hope that's not the case here. It feels like the only accountability will only find you here

when you die. It feels like we can look at Jimmy Saville and go, oh yeah, what a monster, dead now. We can look at Rolf Harris and we can do the same thing. When these men are dead, we allow ourselves to accept that they were as bad as what everybody thought. But for some reason, we have this complete cognitive, like, well, we just have this complete unwillingness

to accept that there are more than one, that it could possibly be happening again, that there are any bad men out there. And I wonder if you can help me understand that and critically help us challenge that because it does feel so depressing. It feels like we know, we know Johnny Depp did those things. We've seen those text messages that he sent to Paul Bettany. We saw what Sean Diddy Combs did to Cassie.

We've seen the video. And still, we allow this seed of doubt. we still allow defence, we still allow devil's advocate, in a way that we never would with these historic cases of these dead men, we still want to believe that these living men might be innocent. How can we challenge that? How does it change? Well, we have to appreciate the value of women. And I think that it's really simple. And we have to challenge the misogyny. But every case you've just talked about, they were serial perpetrator. and they were reported, and someone made a decision not to follow up on that investigation and

that intelligence, and they were reported in multiple police forces. So it's the value of women telling their stories, but it's also police and a leadership problem when they're not taking these reports as seriously as they should, and they're not joining up the intelligence and the information. And why aren't they doing that? It goes back to the value of women. It goes back to Sarah Everard. It goes back to, you know, every case. There's no such thing as a one-time rapist. I've never seen it yet. So we should be prioritizing and investigating, you know, when it comes to the police, because women are coming forward. We say, oh, come forward. You know, every campaign is don't suffer in silence, talk to the police, and women do, and nothing happens. So the

first hurdle is someone coming forward. The second hurdle is police. The third hurdle is the Crown prosecution service and there's so many points of failure because it goes back to value of women. Is she credible? Do we believe her rather than how do we stop him? And that was always my mentality in the police. I believe her until there's very serious evidence that I should not be believing her. But they approach it of we won't believe her. That's what we have to change. It has to be, you know, anyone makes an allegation of crime. You believe them. We don't disbelieve a burglary victim who says their home was burgled. But we call them accusers now when someone reports a sex crime. And the media calls them accusers. And so the language has changed because

you use the word accuser. What does that denote? That denotes doubt. They're accusing someone. Well, we don't say when someone makes a burglary complaint that they're an accuser. We call them a victim. So the subtle shifts of language and we go back to media of how it's framed, all of those things have an impact. But if you believe somebody of sharing their story and you know that there's no such thing as a one-time rapist, then you have to be proactive in what you're doing. And we have to value women and children. But we're in the sea of misogyny right now. This is a very difficult time that we're in where misogyny online has become a business model. The Tate's earned millions, if not billions from what they did online. So we have

to challenge it, speaking out about it. When we podcast, that's important because that's part of the narrative and it gives people an alternative way of thinking. They might get a light bulb moment, right? And someone's, you know, people say to me, oh, it's just because you're rah, I believe all women. And I said, but why would I not? Until I see evidence that she's lying, why would I approach it that she's lying? Oh, it's because all women are schemers, manipulators. And that's what we're up against, isn't it? Well, why do we think like that? Well, if you go back in time, Adam and Eve, you know, she was the one that bit the apple and Pandora opened the box and Helena Troy, she started the war. Well, who writes these stories about women? I mean,

who does write these stories about women? Men. Men. And so it's so threaded and ingrained in all of us. And look, I challenge myself every day of that little voice in my head. Hang on, what's that little voice? No, I've got to re-center and challenge myself. And I would call myself someone who's enlightened. but it's so deeply ingrained in us. So valuing and believing what someone's telling you, particularly women, rather than disbelieving them from the jump. And, you know, Rolf Harris actually was convicted. But how many people are harmed before?

I always look at, you know, the thousand cuts of how many people suffered before that happened. And in policing, I've just been with a couple of brilliant police officers over the weekend who have had incredible results with the cases that they work. If we could clone them and put them out, there, that would be half the battle. But valuing, believing girls and women, and it starts very young. It starts very, very young. And the same with boys. And we go back into healthy education and relationships, appropriate behaviours and valuing and validating women and their experiences. I wish we had way more time with you. Please come back. I would love to. I would love to.

I appreciate these discussions. You know, they're really important discussions because I think lots of people are confused with various cases and where that sits in the kind of sea of misogyny that we're in, it feels quite hopeless. But I don't feel hopeless and I don't feel helpless about it. I think we have to be the torchbearers at times and show people the way, as painful as that can be.

And it has been for me. But a lot of people say you're like the leading light that I trust your opinion. I won't listen to all the other stuff. I want to hear what you have to say. And we've got lots of those women. You know, your podcast is another... No, don't trust us.

We haven't got a clue. But when you talk about cases or even spotlighting, you know, the headlines of the misogyny in the headlines or the value of a woman when she's just called the wife when she's killed, you know, or there's something that, you know, she was successful when he was in her shadow and that's why he killed her. Emma and Letty Patterson. the man who killed them, you know, the Daily Mail headline that said that he was in her shadow

as if it, her career and her doing well was the reason that drove him to kill them. We have to challenge this stuff and we have to regenerate and talk to other people and educate other people and it's like the ripple on the pond, isn't it? I love following you. I hope everybody listening will do too. And we're going to leave the link for your podcast in the... Show notes. And you've got your Patreon as well. I have. Yeah. And in fact, crime analysts, why I'm also here is I've just won the Listeners Choice Award at the True Crime Awards, which was

just fantastic because it's people who listen. Thank you. And that matters more to me than anything else that it's the people that listen to me. And yes, so crime analysts can be followed in all platforms, but I have the Crime Analyst Squad, which is my tribe, my building team of activists and advocates who don't just listen, they actually want to be part of change. And so they are very active when there's a campaign, they will write to the Justice Secretary or whoever it might be to create change. And that's on patreon.com forward slash crime analyst. And there's lots of victim survivors, but also professionals in there. Because I've talked a lot about police, but the one thing I'll say is that they often don't get expert-led training. And I have police and probation

and magistrates, judges, people from social services, health, housing, who say that when they come to my master classes, because I still run training, and when they listen to crime analysts, it's the best training they've ever had, which is a huge badge of honor for me, but it just shows the deficit for them that a lot of them are trying to do the best job they can, but they don't always get given the best tools or the best training and the best knowledge to do the best job that they can. So I'm very happy that I'm filling a, you know, a gap there. And it's a great community. You know, there's a lot of people there who really care. They look out for each other and uplift each other. And I think right now women need that. So come into the

crime analyst squad. It's a great place. We're sold. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. It's been a real pleasure chatting to you both. Should I delete that is part of the ACAS creator network. Thank you.